Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Montgomery County Board of Education v. Webb
Citations: 53 So. 3d 96; 2008 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 776; 2008 WL 5265042Docket: 2070436
Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; December 18, 2008; Alabama; State Appellate Court
Cedrick Webb, a tenured physical education teacher and head football coach at Bellingrath Junior High School, was placed on administrative leave with pay on May 4, 2006, following an incident involving inappropriate conduct towards a seventh-grade student the day prior. On January 26, 2007, Linda Robinson, the Board’s secretary and interim superintendent, notified Webb of her intention to recommend the cancellation of his teaching contract based on charges of insubordination, neglect of duty, and other just causes as outlined in Ala. Code 1975, § 16-24-8. The first charge, referred to as 'Charge I,' detailed alleged misconduct on May 3, where Webb reportedly used profane and degrading language towards a student and intentionally threw a liquid at the student. 'Charge II' cited 11 previous disciplinary actions against Webb from January 2002 to February 2006, including multiple instances of using inappropriate language towards students, refusing classroom access, and failing to report a student injury. The disciplinary actions included written reprimands, suspensions, and mandated attendance at an anger management workshop. These prior incidents served as additional grounds for the recommendation to terminate Webb's contract. Numerous instances between April 1, 2004, and April 4, 2006, indicate that the individual failed to fulfill various professional responsibilities, including posting attendance records, completing Failure Reports and lesson plans, attending mandatory meetings, signing in, and remaining on campus, as well as submitting a false Failure Report. On February 25, 2002, the individual disobeyed a supervisor's directive to move parked cars from a bus lane, responding disrespectfully and walking away, resulting in a written reprimand. The following day, the individual left students unattended, leading to a fight between them, and again responded disrespectfully to a supervisor's inquiry, receiving another reprimand. On January 25, 2002, the individual was reprimanded for entering the school through an unauthorized door, and on January 23, 2002, received a reprimand for responding disrespectfully to a supervisor’s question. On February 20, 2007, the Board voted to terminate the individual's employment contract. The individual contested this decision, leading to a hearing where a hearing officer determined the Board's use of a May 3, 2006 incident as grounds for termination was legally impermissible due to untimely notification as required by Alabama law. The Board's motion to prevent the individual from relitigating past disciplinary actions was denied, allowing the individual to present evidence and witnesses. In addressing Charge I related to the May 3 incident, testimony revealed that during a physical education class, the individual intervened when two students were throwing rocks at a third. The individual directed one student to be monitored due to a perceived threat but responded to the student’s advances by stating not to invade his personal space. The student responded defiantly to Webb, indicating a lack of fear or respect for him. Webb then drank from a cup, discarded the liquid while expressing disdain for the student, and claimed to have tossed it near the student rather than directly at him. However, Student A alleged that Webb threw the liquid directly at him, soaking his pants. Student A reported the incident to Wright and then to the principal, Dr. Mangum, along with Student B. Their statements varied; Student B suggested that Webb used profanity before throwing the liquid, while Wright confirmed Webb's actions but was uncertain about specific language used. After initially leaving the office, Webb returned later to discuss the incident with Dr. Mangum, who dismissed the conversation. Webb subsequently submitted a written statement about the incident. Testimony indicated conflicting accounts of the extent of the liquid's impact on Student A's clothing. Dr. Mangum conducted interviews with the involved students and collected written statements. Discrepancies arose regarding the use of profanity, with Wright acknowledging he heard it but was unsure who said what. To support the allegations in Charge II, the Board presented testimonies and documents from Webb's former supervisors, but lacked witness corroboration for many disciplinary actions. Webb admitted to some misconduct but denied others, attributing his treatment to personal bias from the principal and claiming similar misconduct by peers went unpunished. On January 15, 2008, a hearing officer overturned the Board's cancellation of Webb’s employment contract and reinstated him to his teaching position. The officer found that while the incident labeled 'Charge I' did not warrant contract cancellation, it justified a 10-day suspension without pay. Regarding 'Charge II', subparagraphs 1-11, the officer upheld charges for which Webb admitted misconduct, specifically Charge II, subparagraph 3, for which no additional penalty was imposed due to a prior suspension. However, for Charge II, subparagraph 11, the officer deemed a 10-day suspension necessary, as it warranted a harsher penalty than a previous reprimand. For the remaining nine disciplinary actions, the officer determined either that Webb was not guilty of the alleged misconduct or had faced disparate treatment compared to other teachers. Consequently, he ordered the expungement of these nine actions from Webb's personnel file. The Board appealed, contesting the hearing officer's ruling on the invalidity of the cancellation notice, the reevaluation of previously adjudicated cases, and the authority to expunge disciplinary records. Webb cross-appealed, arguing against the imposition of a greater penalty for past misconduct. The Board conceded Webb's cross-appeal. The standard of review indicates that the hearing officer's decision is affirmed unless deemed arbitrary and capricious, with the Court of Civil Appeals having the authority to reverse decisions that fail to comply with applicable law. Webb's motion challenges the Board's cancellation of his teaching contract, which stemmed from an incident on May 3, 2006. He was placed on administrative leave with full pay the following day, and on January 26, 2007, the Board proposed to cancel his contract. At the time of the hearing from July 25-27, 2007, Webb remained on administrative leave. The hearing officer ruled the notice of cancellation invalid, citing Ala.Code 16-24-12, which requires that any teacher must be notified of contract cancellation before the end of the school term. A precedent case, Ex parte Jackson, established that tenured teachers must be notified of contract cancellation before the term ends if the proposal predates the end of the term. However, the Board's proposal for Webb did not predate the end of the 2005-2006 term. The hearing officer's interpretation of Ex parte Jackson was deemed overly broad, as the Supreme Court's ruling specifically applies only when the cancellation proposal is made before the term's end but notified after. The conclusion underscores that Webb's circumstance does not align with the Ex parte Jackson ruling. The incident leading to the Board’s decision to cancel Webb’s contract occurred shortly before the end of the 2005-2006 school term and was still under investigation at that time. Thus, the Board had not reached a decision regarding the contract cancellation by the term's close, distinguishing this case from Ex parte Jackson. Under Alabama law, written notice of non-renewal from the school board is necessary for teachers to seek new employment, emphasizing the importance of timely notification. The Board acknowledged that delaying its decision could hinder Webb's job search, so it placed him on indefinite administrative leave with full pay and benefits to maintain his status while deliberating. Regarding the Board's Motion to Prevent Relitigation of Webb's Disciplinary Actions, the Board argued that the hearing officer overstepped his authority by allowing Webb to relitigate 11 prior disciplinary actions and by making new findings on them. According to Ala.Code 1975, § 16-24-20(c), a hearing officer can consider a teacher’s employment history during hearings. Webb contended that the Board's classification of the previous actions under "Charge II" meant the Board had to substantiate those allegations during the hearing. However, it was determined that the term "Charge II" did not imply that the prior disciplinary actions were subject to fresh scrutiny, but rather that they could be viewed as historical facts relevant to assessing the current penalty without necessitating a new trial on those past incidents. A teacher’s employment history can be a significant factor in determining penalties imposed by the Board, as established in the Alabama Supreme Court case Ex parte Dunn, 962 So.2d 814 (Ala.2007). In this case, a hearing officer found a teacher guilty of serious misconduct but deemed the teacher’s exemplary employment record as a mitigating factor against contract cancellation. The appellate court initially reversed the decision, viewing the hearing officer's findings as inconsistent; however, the Supreme Court reinstated the hearing officer's ruling, stating that the lower court had improperly substituted its judgment. The Supreme Court emphasized that under the Alabama Teacher Tenure Act, the hearing officer is permitted to consider a teacher’s employment history when determining appropriate penalties. The Act provides the hearing officer discretion to consider evidence from a teacher’s past, and the Supreme Court affirmed that the hearing officer had carefully weighed the entire employment record before deciding on the appropriate sanction. Furthermore, the court clarified that the legislature intended for the hearing officer to have discretion in considering evidence related to previous disciplinary actions and responses, typically drawn from the teacher's personnel file. City and county boards of education in Alabama are mandated to maintain personnel files for each employee, allowing employees to respond in writing to any material within their files, which must be attached as appropriate. Written documentation of work performance, disciplinary actions, suspensions, or dismissals must be signed by a competent individual. Additional clarifying information may be appended to existing materials, and documents in these personnel files can be accessed by authorized hearing officers investigating employee competency or performance. Under the 2004 amendments to the Teacher Tenure Act, tenured teachers can contest minor suspensions (up to seven days without pay) through a hearing officer, who reviews written submissions from both parties and issues a decision within 30 days. The statute specifies that a hearing officer's review does not allow for a trial de novo of past disciplinary actions, nor can teachers introduce defenses to actions they did not assert at the time of discipline. The interpretation emphasizes fairness and administrative efficiency, disallowing a teacher from contesting previously resolved disciplinary actions unless they were challenged at the time. Basic fairness principles also support this restriction, preventing challenges to past actions if the grounds for the challenge were not raised during the original disciplinary process. Webb's case reveals a pattern of failing to respond to disciplinary actions imposed by school administrators. The hearing examined past disciplinary actions, starting from 2002 under Principal Sophia Johnson, where Webb received a written reprimand for a disrespectful answer, which led to a ten-day suspension without pay. The hearing officer found that Webb's justification for his response did not mitigate the disrespect shown to the principal, and the board acknowledged an error in increasing Webb's penalty beyond what was previously imposed. In another instance from 2002, Webb denied entering the school through an unauthorized side door and failed to contest the reprimand at the time. During cross-examination, it was established that he did not communicate his defense to Principal Johnson nor follow up in writing, despite being informed that the reprimand would be included in his personnel file. Webb admitted to being unfamiliar with the procedures for contesting the disciplinary actions, despite acknowledging his ability to read and understand the principal's letter outlining his rights. This lack of response and failure to utilize available procedures contributed to the current situation of a lengthy hearing and extensive administrative record. The hearing officer made several errors regarding Webb's defense against disciplinary actions. First, he incorrectly allowed Webb to raise defenses to Charge II, subparagraph 10, which were not presented during an earlier disciplinary proceeding. Additionally, the officer wrongfully ordered the Board to expunge the disciplinary action from Webb’s personnel file. For Charge II, subparagraph 9, Webb admitted he had not responded to a reprimand concerning leaving students unsupervised on February 26, 2002. The hearing officer erred by permitting Webb to defend against this charge and again ordered the expungement of related disciplinary records. In Charge II, subparagraph 8, Webb denied failing to follow a directive regarding moving cars in the bus lane and claimed he was addressed disrespectfully. Although he presented a witness to support his account, he acknowledged receiving a reprimand letter from Johnson without responding to it. The hearing officer erred in allowing Webb to present evidence for this charge and ordering expungement. Regarding Charge II, subparagraph 7, Webb characterized memorandums from Dr. Mangum about failing to post attendance and complete lesson plans as 'reminders' rather than reprimands. He argued that shared computer issues among five physical education teachers led to delays, and none of the other teachers were disciplined. Webb introduced evidence supporting his claims of technological issues and asserted he was the only teacher penalized for late submissions. The Board presented evidence of failing students, which Webb contested by explaining that his grade book reflected no failures at the reporting time, and he had requested an extension for filing the failure report, though he missed the deadline. The remaining misconduct noted in Charge II, subparagraph 7, was addressed in a “Letter of Concern” from Dr. Mangum. Webb was charged with failing to attend a required Friday-night function for teachers, not signing in, and leaving campus without permission. He claimed to have informed Dr. Mangum of his second job and denied failing to sign in or knowing he required permission to leave during his planning period. The hearing officer did not address these specific charges. When considering Webb's defense regarding a reprimand for filing a false report, the hearing officer was permitted to weigh it against Webb’s overall employment history. However, the hearing officer lacked authority to expunge the disciplinary action from Webb's personnel file. Regarding Charge II, subparagraph 6, Webb stated he did not respond to allegations of leaving students unattended on December 3, 2004, as he had not received a reprimand for that incident. Dr. Mangum testified about finding Webb and another teacher, Buckhanna, in an office with the door almost closed, unable to supervise students in the gym. Webb denied leaving students unattended, asserting he was occupied with writing referrals for unruly students, and noted that Buckhanna was monitoring the students. The hearing officer found corroboration for Webb's denial from Buckhanna and noted that Webb received a reprimand while Buckhanna faced no discipline, indicating potential disparate treatment. The students who made allegations against Webb also cursed the coaches and were not disciplined, further supporting Webb's claim of unfair treatment. The hearing officer did not address Webb’s claim of never receiving the reprimand letter but could have considered it in assessing the severity of the disciplinary action. For Charge II, subparagraph 5, Dr. Mangum reported receiving 12 student complaints over two months in fall 2004, alleging that Webb used profane and degrading language toward students, including calling one a “sissy” and using a racial slur against another, as well as demanding one student to leave his class. Webb faced multiple complaints from students regarding his use of profanity and inappropriate remarks, including telling a female student her attire was "too tight" and demeaning her character. Despite receiving a written reprimand from Dr. Mangum, Webb did not respond. During a January 2005 conference with Barker, he denied the allegations and provided explanations. Barker's subsequent letter noted the significant number of complaints (12) raised concerns about Webb's professionalism and warned him against further unprofessional conduct, indicating that failure to comply could lead to serious consequences. Webb defended himself by claiming the student complainants were troublemakers attempting to escape punishment for their own behavior, supported by their disciplinary records. He criticized Dr. Mangum for not interviewing other teachers who could corroborate his version of events. While several adult witnesses supported Webb's claims at the hearing, no students testified. The hearing officer found that Webb denied all student complaints, but since he did not submit a written response to the complaints, the details of his defenses remain unclear. Ultimately, it was determined that the hearing officer exceeded his discretion by allowing extensive witness testimony and documentation three years after the original disciplinary action. The hearing officer incorrectly mandated the expungement of the disciplinary action against Webb from his personnel file. Webb faced a written reprimand and a 5-day suspension without pay due to a complaint from a female student, who alleged that on May 11, 2005, Webb made inappropriate comments regarding her appearance. Dr. Mangum investigated the complaint by interviewing three witnesses who corroborated the student’s account. Webb denied making the statements and claimed that another teacher, Howard Garner, witnessed the incident but was not interviewed by Dr. Mangum. Garner supported Webb's assertion during the hearing, stating that Webb had not acted unprofessionally. Webb expressed reluctance to respond formally to the charges, believing the decision against him was predetermined. During cross-examination, he acknowledged accepting the suspension rather than contesting it. The hearing officer's findings indicated that there were no plaintiff witnesses to support the charge against Webb, and the charge was denied based on hearsay evidence. Despite having the right to contest the disciplinary action, Webb did not submit a written response or request a review by a hearing officer, leading to the conclusion that the hearing officer erred in allowing Webb to present a defense and in ordering the expungement of the disciplinary record. Additionally, Webb admitted to the misconduct underlying the disciplinary action. Webb contacted the mother of a male student to discuss issues he was facing with peers, expressing his desire to avoid any conflict. Following a reported inappropriate comment made during the meeting, Webb received a 10-day suspension without pay and was required to attend an anger management workshop. On November 8, 2005, assistant superintendent Barker issued a reprimand warning Webb that failure to maintain professional conduct could lead to termination. During a subsequent hearing, Webb acknowledged using profanity but pointed out that no witnesses were presented against him aside from Barker, whose testimony was based on notes from the mother’s interview. The hearing officer concluded that since Webb had completed his suspension and attended the workshop, no further penalties were necessary. In another incident, Webb received a reprimand for not allowing tardy students into his classroom without a pass, allegedly violating school policy. Webb defended himself by citing the understanding of three fellow teachers, who testified that the policy was interpreted the same way he did. The hearing officer found that Webb did not breach the policy, concluding that he correctly refused entry to a tardy student based on directives from school administration. The hearing officer’s determination was deemed erroneous, particularly regarding the expungement of Webb’s disciplinary record. Webb also faced a reprimand for failing to report a student’s broken leg immediately, as mandated by school policy. Dr. Mangum testified that Webb did not notify the principal until the following day. Webb countered that he had orally reported the injury and submitted a "Personal Injury Report Notice," which Dr. Mangum claimed she never received, prompting Webb to complete another form the next day. The Bellingrath faculty handbook lacks a specified timeline for reporting student injuries, leading the hearing officer to conclude that Webb did not breach policy. Although the officer could have discounted Webb's disciplinary action when assessing his employment history, he lacked the authority to expunge the action from Webb's file. Regarding Charge I, which involved an incident on May 3, 2006, where Webb allegedly cursed a student and threw water at him, the hearing officer found that the Board failed to provide timely notice for contract cancellation, rendering the initial determination erroneous. While the officer ruled that Charge I could not justify contract cancellation, it could warrant a lesser disciplinary action. The hearing officer confirmed that Webb's act of throwing water was punishable, viewing it as an expression of frustration rather than malice, and assigned a 10-day suspension without pay. However, the court reversed the hearing officer's decision about Charge I, stating it could lead to contract cancellation, and also overturned the expungement of nine previous disciplinary actions from Webb’s record. The court remanded the case for the hearing officer to reassess the appropriate disciplinary measures against Webb, considering all prior actions. The court also acknowledged the Board's appeal on several grounds, including the validity of the notice of cancellation and the hearing officer's authority in handling prior disciplinary matters. The Code of Alabama 1975 mandated the removal of nine instances of misconduct from Webb's personnel history, which included suspensions and written reprimands that had been previously adjudicated. The court agreed to hear Webb's cross-appeal regarding the authority of the hearing officer to impose a 10-day suspension without pay for an incident that occurred five years prior, which had originally resulted in a written reprimand. The Board acknowledged that Webb should prevail on the cross-appeal. The court found the hearing officer’s rulings erroneous regarding both the Board’s appeal and Webb’s cross-appeal, leading to the reversal of the hearing officer's order for Webb's reinstatement. The case was remanded for reconsideration of appropriate action against Webb based on specified legal principles. Additionally, the court noted a discrepancy in the number of complaints against Webb, stating that only 12 were substantiated, contradicting the hearing officer's claim of 13. Under Section 16-24-10(a), the hearing officer is responsible for conducting de novo hearings and making decisions on disciplinary actions, which can include suspension or reprimand. While the court did not address the sufficiency of evidence or burden of proof, it indicated that the hearing officer's conclusions on disputed facts should be respected, provided they meet reasonable satisfaction standards.