Schools & School Boards – Procedural Due Process – Right to Hearing – Statutory Interpretation – Teacher Employment & Dismissal Act

Henry-Davenport v. Fairfield County. (Lawyers Weekly No. 010-010-11, 3 pp.) (John W. Kittredge, J.) On certified question from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (Matthew J. Perry, J.). S.C. S. Ct. Click here for the full text of the opinion.

Holding: S.C. Code Ann. § 59-24-15 does not afford a certified educator employed as an administrator the rights available under the Teacher Employment and Dismissal Act when she is denied a hearing to contest her administrative demotion and salary reduction.

Facts

Plaintiff was the deputy superintendent for human resources and administration for the Fairfield County School District. After she was notified that her salary was being reduced and that she was being assigned to be food service director, she brought suit against the superintendent, the school board, and the school board members in their individual capacities.

The school board removed the case to federal court. The federal court certified a question to the South Carolina Supreme Court regarding whether substantive due process available to teachers under the Teacher Employment and Dismissal Act is available to school administrators.

Snipes

In Snipes v. McAndrew, 280 S.C. 320 (1984), two Richland County principals were notified that they would be demoted, but the school district did not reduce their salaries. Neither principal was afforded a hearing on the demotion. Both challenged their demotions, arguing that they were entitled to a full, adversarial hearing as provided by S.C. Code Ann. § 59-25-460 of the Teacher Act.

This court distinguished a reassignment or demotion from dismissal, finding that “policy decisions concerning where an employee will best serve the school district are better left to school officials, not the courts.” Unless the legislature provided for full adversarial hearings for teachers upon their transfer, reassignment, or demotion to another certificated position, the court would not require one.

Johnson

In Johnson v. Spartanburg County School Dist. No. 7, 314 S.C. 340 (1994), a Spartanburg assistant principal earned extra income from the school district by managing its facility rental. A non-renewal of his contract as a principal and rental coordinator resulted in a $16,000 pay cut.

We distinguished Johnson from Snipes, noting that Snipes concerned a loss of position, whereas Johnson suffered a loss of wages. The loss of wages was an injustice that violated the Teacher Act’s procedural safeguards.

S.C. Code Ann. § 59-24-15

S.C. Code Ann. § 59-24-15 was enacted as part of the S.C. Educational Accountability Act of 1998.

We believe the 1998 enactment — specifically the provision “but no such rights are granted to the position or salary of administrator” — is clear and manifestly reflects legislative intent to expressly exclude such rights to an administrator.  

The legislature enacted S.C. Code Ann. § 59-24-15 after Johnson, and the plain language of the statute directly contradicts Johnson‘s holding. The statute plainly states that an administrator has no rights in her “position or salary,” and the legislature made no exception or distinction concerning the administrator’s status as a certified educator. 

Certified education personnel who are employed as administrators on an annual or multi-year contract will retain their rights as a teacher under the provisions of Article 3 of Chapter 19 and Article 5 of Chapter 25 of the title, but no such rights are granted to the position or salary of administrator. Any administrator who presently is under a contract granting such rights shall retain that status until the expiration of that contract.

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 59-24-15, while a certified educator who is employed as an administrator on an annual or multi-year contract retains her rights as a teacher under the Teacher Act, those rights are not granted to the position or salary of administrator.  We answer the certified question, “no.”

Certified question answered.