Ark. Code Ann. » Title 6 Chapter 17
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-1501 (2026)

Title

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This subchapter shall be referred to and may be cited as “The Teacher Fair Dismissal Act of 1983”.

History. Acts 1983, No. 936, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 80-1266.

Research References

U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.

Annual Survey of Caselaw, Employment Discrimination and Labor Law, 24 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 975.

Case Notes

Applicability.

The Teacher Fair Dismissal Act was not applicable because the proposed contract constituted a reassignment of the teachers's duties and not a nonrenewal where the teacher's salary did not decrease and his coaching duties were merely reassigned to the junior high school football program. Meadors v. Arkadelphia Pub. Schs., 69 Ark. App. 104, 10 S.W.3d 109 (2000).

School district counselor could not challenge a five-day disciplinary suspension under the provisions of the Teacher Fair Discharge Dismissal Act of 1983, §§ 6-17-1501 through 6-17-1510, because the Act applied only to suspensions imposed in the context of a recommendation that a teacher either be terminated or that the teacher's employment contract not be renewed, and the counselor's suspension was not of that nature; the counselor had exercised his sole remedy by utilizing the school district grievance procedure established pursuant to § 6-17-208 and was not entitled to further relief. McGough v. Pine Bluff Sch. Dist., 79 Ark. App. 235, 85 S.W.3d 920 (2002).

Arbitration.

Trial court correctly ruled that a terminated school principal's suit against a school district was barred by res judicata as the principal had a full and fair opportunity in the arbitration proceeding to litigate the matters raised in the instant suit; a review of the arbitrator's award showed that the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act (TFDA) was applied in some respects, however, the principal requested reconsideration on the basis that the award did not fully comport with the TFDA. Davis v. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 92 Ark. App. 174, 211 S.W.3d 587 (2005).

Just Termination.

Teacher failed to demonstrate that her termination was unlawful and without just and reasonable cause under the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act of 1983, §§ 6-17-1501 to 6-17-1510, where the teacher used book club bonus points for her own personal gain, made disrespectful remarks in the school building during school hours, and was untruthful about the incident. Timpani v. Lakeside Sch. Dist., 2011 Ark. App. 668, 386 S.W.3d 588 (2011).

Teacher.

Grant of summary judgment in favor of the school district in the teacher's action after he was terminated was inappropriate because the unambiguous terms of the teacher's contract governed and the trial court erred in considering parol evidence in construing that contract. Further, the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act of 1983, § 6-17-1501 et seq. , defined “teacher” as any person, exclusive of the superintendent or assistant superintendent, employed in an Arkansas public school district who was required to hold a teaching certificate from the Department of Education as a condition of employment, § 6-17-1502; it was undisputed that the teacher met that definition too. Barnett v. Mt. View Sch. Dist., 2010 Ark. App. 333, 374 S.W.3d 851 (2010).

Cited: Murray v. Altheimer-Sherrill Pub. Sch., 294 Ark. 403, 743 S.W.2d 789 (1988); Cobb v. Stringer, 850 F.2d 356 (8th Cir. 1988); Casada v. Booneville School Dist., 686 F. Supp. 730 (W.D. Ark. 1988).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: Wright v. City of Little Rock, 233 S.W.3d 644 (Ark. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wright v. City of Little Rock, 233 S.W.3d 644 (Ark. 2006). · cites it 4× “41(a) applied to such appeals, this court noted that Rule 81(a) states Applicability in General. These rules shall apply to all civil proceedings cognizable in the circuit, chancery, and probate courts of this State except in those instances where a statute which creates a…”
Sheets v. Dollarway Sch. Dist., 120 S.W.3d 119 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “In its order, the trial court found that: 1) Sheets was not entitled to the protections of the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act (ATFDA), Ark.Code Ann. § 6-17-1501 et. seq. (Repl.”
Sosebee v. Cnty. Line Sch. Dist., 897 S.W.2d 556 (Ark. 1995). · cites it 4× “It allows a circuit court to take "[a]dditional testimony and evidence ... to show facts and circumstances showing that the termination or nonrenewal was lawful or unlawful.”
Foreman Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Steele, 61 S.W.3d 801 (Ark. 2001). · cites it 2× “The TFDA, codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 6-17-1501 — 6-17-1510 (Repl.”
Allen v. Texarkana Pub. Schs., 794 S.W.2d 138 (Ark. 1990). · cites it 4× “This case involves the question as to whether or not the trial court erred in confirming a school board's decision to not renew a teacher's contract under The Teacher Fair Dismissal Act of 1983, codified as Ark.Code Ann. §§ 6-17-1501 to X-XX-XXXX (1987).”
Nettleton Sch. Dist. v. Owens, 948 S.W.2d 94 (Ark. 1997). · cites it 3× “We affirm the trial court's ruling that the termination of Ms.”
Williams v. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 66 S.W.3d 590 (Ark. 2002). · cites it 2× “Williams subsequently filed suit against- the LRSD on January 19, 2000, claiming that the Board’s acceptance of his oral resignation was in violation of the provisions of the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act (“TFDA”), codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-1501 to 1510 (Repl.”
Murray v. Altheimer-Sherrill Pub. Schs., 743 S.W.2d 789 (Ark. 1988). · cites it 2× “Murray argues that the board’s decision to nonrenew failed to comply with the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act of 1983, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 6-17-1501 — 6-17-1510 (1987), and the school district’s reduction in force policy.”
W. Grove Sch. Dist. v. Terry, 885 S.W.2d 300 (Ark. 1994). · cites it 2× “The School District now appeals and asserts two points of error: (1) the circuit court erred in applying the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act ( Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-1501 , et seq. (Repl.”
Watson Chapel Sch. Dist. v. Russell, 241 S.W.3d 242 (Ark. 2006). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to the 2001 amendments, when a school district sends a teacher notice that it will not renew the teacher's contract, the written notice must include "a statement of the reasons for the recommendation, setting forth the reasons in separately numbered paragraphs so that a…”
Love v. Smackover Sch. Dist., 946 S.W.2d 676 (Ark. 1997). · cites it 2× “This is an appeal by Appellant Patricia Love of the order by the Union County Circuit Court denying the award of attorney’s fees in her case against Appellee Smackover School District involving the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act of 1983, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 6-17-1501 to -1510 (Repl.”
Lester v. Mount Vernon-Enola Sch. Dist., 917 S.W.2d 540 (Ark. 1996). · cites it 2× “The Act is found at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 6-17-1501 through 6-17-1510 (Repl.”
Show all 46 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.