Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-1503 (2020)

Case Notes

Applicability.

Party who was employed by the district and required by the terms of her contract to be certified, was covered by this act. Love v. Smackover Sch. Dist., 322 Ark. 1, 907 S.W.2d 136 (1995).

The former strict compliance requirement of this section did not apply to assist a plaintiff high school principal who was not involuntarily terminated, but who instead resigned. Higginbotham v. Junction City Sch. Dist., 332 Ark. 556, 966 S.W.2d 877 (1998), overruled in part, Williams v. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 347 Ark. 637, 66 S.W.3d 590 (2002) (decision under prior law).

Appellate Review.

School district's decision to terminate a principal for not obtaining advance approval before taking personal leave was not arbitrary and capricious under the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. The testimony indicated that the principal was in fact absent, knew there would be no administrator in the building on two of the three days she was absent, had formerly complied with the prior-approval requirement, and knew the policy existed. Proctor v. Cabot Sch. Dist., 2013 Ark. App. 366 (2013).

Continuation of Contracts.

Since a teacher's contract with the school district continues unless nonrenewed for cause, the trial court correctly awarded the teacher backpay for the years between her nonrenewal and her reinstatement. Leola Sch. Dist. v. McMahan, 289 Ark. 496, 712 S.W.2d 903 (1986) (decision under prior law).

Expectation of Reemployment.

Former procedure for terminating or dismissing teachers created no expectation of continued reemployment which would have constituted a constitutionally protected property interest. Cato v. Collins, 539 F.2d 656 (8th Cir. 1976); Sutton v. Marianna Sch. Dist. A, 573 F. Supp. 159 (E.D. Ark. 1983) (preceding decisions under prior law).

Former similar law granted no right to continued employment, but merely conditioned a nonprobationary teacher's reemployment on affirmative action by the school board that was not arbitrary or capricious. Sutton v. Marianna Sch. Dist. A, 573 F. Supp. 159 (E.D. Ark. 1983) (decision under prior law).

Insubordination.

Insubordination was a just and reasonable cause for termination where a teacher engaged in misconduct by his activities that undermined the administration's efforts to implement common core standards; he was not terminated just for disagreeing with policy. Hollis v. Fayetteville Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2015 Ark. App. 544, 473 S.W.3d 45 (2015).

Remedies.

Where teacher requested a hearing within the thirty-day window provided by § 6-17-1509, but school district did not offer teacher a hearing, that violation of this subchapter voided the teacher's termination; the remedy granted was back pay rather than reinstatement. Jackson v. Delta Special Sch. Dist., No. 2, 86 F.3d 1489 (8th Cir. 1996) (decided under former version of § 6-17-503).

Retaliatory Discharge.

Where school district offered overwhelming evidence supporting a teacher's termination, including teacher's own admissions that she spread slanderous, unsubstantiated rumors about the superintendent, the teacher's claim of retaliatory discharge failed. Jackson v. Delta Special Sch. Dist., No. 2, 86 F.3d 1489 (8th Cir. 1996).

Standard Under Former Law.

Mere recitation of the generic categories of inefficiency and noncompliance with written regulations and policies is insufficient for nonrenewal. Hamilton v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 321 Ark. 261, 900 S.W.2d 205 (1995) (decision under prior law).

A district court's termination of a teacher is void unless the district strictly complies with all provisions of this subchapter. Nettleton Sch. Dist. v. Owens, 329 Ark. 367, 948 S.W.2d 94 (1997) (decision under prior law).

Where the school district failed to comply with § 6-17-1509 by failing to give teacher a hearing before it voted not to renew her contract, the action of the district was void under this section; although this may have been a “procedural error” and although the district may have substantially complied with the hearing provisions of § 6-17-1509, substantial compliance has not been sufficient since this section's amendment in 1989. Spainhour v. Dover Pub. Sch. Dist., 331 Ark. 53, 958 S.W.2d 528 (1998) (decision under prior law).

Under this section, as it was in effect in 1994, a school district's failure to provide a principal with a hearing regarding the nonrenewal of his contract within 10 days after his request automatically renewed the contract. Foreman Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Steele, 347 Ark. 193, 61 S.W.3d 801 (2001) (decision under prior law).

In a case where a teacher alleged that a school district breached its contract with the teacher by violating the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act (TFDA) and that such breach entitled him to all the monetary benefits which he had under the 1999-2000 contract, plus interest and attorney's fees, because the district failed to provide written notice of the problems or evaluations as required by § 6-17-1504 of the TFDA, the district failed to strictly comply with the statutory provisions of the TFDA and the teacher's contract was renewed by operation of law; however, the teacher's refusal to mitigate his damages limited his damages to the difference in what he earned under the 1999-2000 contract and what he could have earned had he accepted the offer of the district, but the teacher was entitled to reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to § 16-22-308. Sheets v. Dollarway Sch. Dist., 82 Ark. App. 539, 120 S.W.3d 119 (2003) (decision under prior law).

Termination and Nonrenewal.

Termination under § 6-17-1507 could not be used as a subterfuge to enforce nonrenewal, when the procedure for nonrenewal was void due to noncompliance with the nonrenewal statute. Hannon v. Armorel Sch. Dist. # 9, 329 Ark. 267, 946 S.W.2d 950 (1997) (decided under former version of § 6-17-503).

Pursuant to this section and § 6-17-1506(b)(2)(B), school district's decision not to renew principal's contract did not violate Teacher Fair Dismissal Act because the school district was not required to have a reduction-in-force policy in place and the consideration of future school reorganization was not improper. Olsen v. E. End Sch. Dist., 84 Ark. App. 439, 143 S.W.3d 576 (2004).

Circuit court correctly upheld a school district's decision to not to renew a teacher's contract because the district did not fail to substantially comply with its personnel policies under the subsection (c) of this section of the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act; the district's policies required an evaluation of the needs and goals of the district, and the teacher was not needed to teach in the licensure area of social studies. Kasinger v. East End Sch. Dist., 2011 Ark. App. 595, 385 S.W.3d 885 (2011).

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).

Nonrenewal of a counselor's employment contract violated the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act of 1983, § 6-17-1501 et seq., because it was unreasonable to hold the counselor accountable for errors in a student handbook relating to graduation requirements, and there was no substantial compliance with the Act where the counselor was only evaluated once during his 14-year tenure at a school. Bismarck Sch. Dist. v. Sims, 2012 Ark. App. 239, 406 S.W.3d 805 (2012).

Violation Shown.

Holding a requested hearing fewer than five days after teacher's request for review of superintendent's termination recommendation was submitted constituted failure to comply strictly with § 6-17-1509(c)(1). Lester v. Mount Vernon-Enola Sch. Dist., 323 Ark. 728, 917 S.W.2d 540 (1996) (decision under prior law).

In a case under the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, a superintendent and a school district failed to bring to a principal's attention the problems that were identified as reasons for termination and failed to document the efforts taken to assist the principal to correct the causes for potential termination. The principal was found to be a teacher because her contract required that she hold a teaching license. Jasper Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Cooper, 2014 Ark. 390, 441 S.W.3d 11 (2014).

Cited: Western Grove Sch. Dist. v. Terry, 318 Ark. 316, 885 S.W.2d 300 (1994); Allred v. Ark. Dep't of Corr. Sch. Dist., 322 Ark. 772, 912 S.W.2d 4 (1995); Small v. Cottrell, 332 Ark. 225, 964 S.W.2d 383 (1998).