Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; June 26, 1984; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
In the case of Prince Lewis v. East Feliciana Parish School Board, the Court of Appeal of Louisiana upheld the trial court's judgment favoring the school board, which had dismissed Lewis from his position as a tenured teacher. The appeal followed a prior ruling where the court denied Lewis a trial de novo but permitted him to present additional evidence. The court clarified that this additional evidence could not duplicate prior testimony and instructed the trial judge to evaluate the evidence based on the standard of review established in Howell v. Winn Parish School Board, focusing on whether the school board's decision had a rational basis supported by substantial evidence.
Upon remand, the trial court considered new evidence, including polygraph results and testimonies from psychologists, but ultimately determined that the school board's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was neither arbitrary nor an abuse of discretion. The court reaffirmed that the school board's actions complied with the Louisiana Teachers Tenure Act and that Lewis received due process during his hearing. The appellate court then addressed whether the trial court erred in its conclusion regarding the substantial evidence supporting the school board's decision, finding no error in the trial court's ruling.
Prince Lewis, a fifth-grade teacher at Clinton Lower Elementary School, faced allegations of misconduct stemming from an incident on February 20, 1976, where he allegedly inappropriately touched an 11-year-old student during a make-up test. The student reported the incident to school officials, visibly upset. An investigation revealed multiple complaints from parents of other female students in his class, alleging similar inappropriate behavior. During the subsequent tenure hearing, each affected student provided specific testimony about the incidents, while their mothers corroborated that their daughters disclosed the misconduct shortly after it occurred. Superintendent James Soileau confirmed the investigation and the complaints. Expert testimony from Wendell H. Hall indicated that such behavior, if proven true, would represent willful neglect of duty and undermine a teacher's competency. Lewis denied the charges and presented character witnesses, but his request to introduce testimony from a child psychologist was denied, and a motion for a continuance to secure this testimony was also refused. Ultimately, the school board found Lewis guilty and dismissed him from his tenured position, leading to judicial review. During this review, additional evidence was presented, including testimony regarding due process, psychological evaluations from Fred Tuton and Dr. Tom Stigall, and results from a polygraph examination conducted by Max Glasgow, all occurring several years after the alleged incidents.
The court has determined that the issue of due process has already been adjudicated, rendering the testimony of former counsel irrelevant. There is no indication that the attorney's testimony constitutes new evidence that the plaintiff could not present during prior hearings. Mr. Tuton conducted a clinical evaluation of Mr. Lewis six years post-incident, administering various psychological tests, including WAIS (indicating average intelligence), Bender Motor Gestalt, Draw-a-Person, Rorschach, and MMPI tests, all of which returned normal results. Tuton concluded that Mr. Lewis showed no signs of mental disorder, although this assessment lacked a social history or context from independent sources. He acknowledged that past incidents might not be evident in later evaluations, leaving open the possibility that Mr. Lewis could have committed the alleged acts.
Dr. Stigall provided an expert report four years after the incidents, reviewing the tenure hearing transcript, polygraph results, and various social influences. He proposed three possible conclusions: (1) no misconduct occurred and a conspiracy existed against Mr. Lewis; (2) Mr. Lewis's innocent touches were misinterpreted; or (3) he committed the alleged acts. Stigall leaned toward the second conclusion, assuming the polygraph was accurate, but acknowledged the possibility of the girls' truthfulness if the polygraph results were inaccurate. He based his opinions solely on the record, not on direct examinations of the involved parties. The trial court did not accept Stigall's conclusions as definitive, agreeing with the school board's assessment, which was informed by direct observations during the tenure hearing.
The school board was considered more capable than the courts in evaluating the interactions between the teacher and students, assessing witness credibility, and understanding influences such as social and parental pressures. The court noted that neither the psychologists nor the trial judge had observed the witnesses during their testimonies in the tenure hearing. Max Glasgow, a polygraph expert, testified for the plaintiff regarding a polygraph test administered to Mr. Lewis four years after the relevant incidents. The defendant objected to this polygraph evidence, but the objection was waived during the trial. The defendant presented its own polygraph expert, who critiqued Glasgow's assessment without conducting a test. The trial judge deemed the polygraph results inconclusive, a conclusion supported upon review of the evidence. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, agreeing that the school board's decision to dismiss the plaintiff was based on substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious. As a reviewing court, it upheld the school board's discretion and affirmed the dismissal of the tenured teacher, with costs assigned to the appellant.
