Crump v. Durham County Board of Education
327 S.E.2d 599, 74 N.C. App. 77, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 3350 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A school board's dismissal of a career teacher for "inadequate performance" is valid if statutory procedures are strictly followed, the term is applied in a context readily understandable to a person of ordinary intelligence, and the decision is supported by substantial evidence under a whole record review.
Facts:
- Petitioner, Faulkner, was employed as a career teacher by the New Bern-Craven County Board of Education.
- School authorities observed Faulkner was not properly controlling her classes, often resulting in unruly, chaotic, noisy, and disruptive classrooms.
- School authorities made thoughtful, patient, and persistent efforts to help Faulkner recognize and correct her classroom control issues.
- Faulkner allegedly failed to maintain good classroom order and discipline on numerous, specific occasions, as observed by three professional educators and Principal Barry during surveillance.
- Faulkner conceded that the duty to maintain control of the classroom was hers, not the principal's.
Procedural Posture:
- The New Bern-Craven County Board of Education initiated proceedings to dismiss Faulkner, a career teacher, on the ground of "inadequate performance."
- Faulkner exercised her right to have the charge independently evaluated by a Professional Review Committee, as required by statute.
- The five-member Professional Review Committee, comprised of teachers, administrators, and laymen, heard testimony from both parties and unanimously agreed that the charge of inadequate job performance was substantiated.
- Faulkner appealed the Board's decision to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a school board's dismissal of a career teacher for "inadequate performance" invalid because it violates due process or equal protection, is based on an unconstitutionally vague statutory ground, or lacks substantial evidence when the board followed statutory procedures and presented extensive proof of the teacher's failure to maintain classroom order?
Opinions:
Majority - Phillips, Judge
No, a school board's dismissal of a career teacher for "inadequate performance" is valid when statutory procedures are followed, the term is clear, and the decision is supported by substantial evidence. First, the court rejected Faulkner's contention that her dismissal was arbitrary, capricious, or for personal reasons, and thus violated her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. The record showed thoughtful, patient, and persistent efforts by school authorities to help her correct her classroom control issues, not arbitrary action. The dismissal followed an exacting statutory procedure designed to protect teacher rights, including a unanimous finding by an impartial Professional Review Committee that the charge of inadequate performance was substantiated. Second, the court found that G.S. 115C-325(d)(l), authorizing dismissal for "inadequate performance," is not unconstitutionally void for vagueness, either on its face or as applied to Faulkner. Citing Nestler v. Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools Board of Education, the court reiterated that "inadequate performance" can be readily understood by any person of ordinary intelligence who knows what the job entails. Faulkner was aware that her job as a schoolteacher entailed maintaining good order and discipline in the classroom, and her alleged failure to do so was the specific basis for dismissal. Third, the court concluded there was substantial evidence in the whole record to support Faulkner's dismissal for inadequate performance. Testimony from three professional educators confirmed her failure to maintain good order and discipline on numerous occasions. While Faulkner presented some evidence to detract (e.g., principal aggravated disorder, student testimony, character witnesses, argument about problem students or comparable discipline to other teachers), the court found this did not diminish the overwhelming direct evidence of her failure. The "whole record" test requires consideration of all evidence, but here, the detracting evidence was either irrelevant, self-contradictory, or insufficient to overcome the substantial direct evidence.
Concurring - Whichard, Judge
Judge Whichard concurred with the majority opinion.
Concurring - Johnson, Judge
Judge Johnson concurred with the majority opinion.
Analysis:
This case clarifies and reinforces the legal standard for dismissing career teachers in North Carolina, particularly regarding the ground of "inadequate performance." It establishes that the term is not unconstitutionally vague and that school boards must demonstrate adherence to statutory dismissal procedures. The ruling underscores the importance of a "whole record" review in administrative appeals, requiring courts to consider all evidence, but ultimately affirming that overwhelming direct evidence of a teacher's performance deficiencies can withstand challenges despite some contradictory or tangential evidence. This case provides guidance for school boards on proper dismissal procedures and for teachers challenging such decisions.
