Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-1507 (2026)

Case Notes

In General.

The Teacher Fair Dismissal Act of 1979 gave rise to a minimal, but sufficient, expectation in continued employment, absent some rational, justifiable cause for termination; therefore, a teacher had a substantive property right of which he could not be deprived except pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures. Rogers v. Masem, 788 F.2d 1288 (8th Cir. 1985) (decision under prior law).

Adequacy of Notice.

Notice of termination held adequate, timely and proper. Garner v. Highland School Dist., 243 Ark. 750, 421 S.W.2d 895 (1967).

Prior to termination, the school board was obligated, at a minimum, to provide the assistant principal notice of the charges against him, an explanation of the employer's evidence, and an opportunity to present his side of the story. Where the assistant principal was not informed of his right to request such a hearing, nor was such a hearing provided until more than four months after his employment ended, due process was denied and the assistant principal was entitled to recover in his claim. Rogers v. Masem, 788 F.2d 1288 (8th Cir. 1985) (decision under prior law).

In an action under the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act of 1983, §§ 6-17-1501 to 6-17-1510, the superintendent complied with the notice requirements of this section by setting forth the basis for each of the four grounds for the teacher's termination in such clear detail that any reasonable teacher would have had no trouble preparing a defense. Timpani v. Lakeside Sch. Dist., 2011 Ark. App. 668, 386 S.W.3d 588 (2011).

Arbitrary or Capricious Nonrenewal.

School board's nonrenewal of teacher's contract held to be arbitrary and capricious. Allen v. Texarkana Pub. Sch., 303 Ark. 59, 794 S.W.2d 138 (1990) (decision under prior law).

Termination by School Board of teacher's contract which relied exclusively on conduct from a prior school year, without a ground for termination in the current school year, was arbitrary and capricious. Hannon v. Armorel Sch. Dist. # 9, 329 Ark. 267, 946 S.W.2d 950 (1997) (decision under prior law).

Noncompliance.

Teacher terminated without written notice and denied hearing was entitled to reinstatement for the contract year and back pay less mitigating outside earnings. Wagner v. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 373 F. Supp. 876 (E.D. Ark. 1973) (decision under prior law).

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).

Because the notice of termination recommendation did not include all the incidents later considered by the board, the district failed to comply with subsection (c); the violation of this provision, together with the district's violation of § 6-17-1510(c), rendered the district's decision to terminate the teachers's contract void. Nettleton Sch. Dist. v. Owens, 329 Ark. 367, 948 S.W.2d 94 (1997) (decision under prior law).

Circuit court properly found that a teacher did not receive a fair and impartial hearing, that his termination was void, and that his employment contract should be reinstated because the school board considered evidence that went beyond the notice of termination provided to a teacher and did not comply with the statutory procedures. Warren Sch. Dist. v. Avery, 2013 Ark. App. 414 (2013).

Resignation.

A high school principal's resignation was not equivalent to a firing, notwithstanding that the resignation was requested by the superintendent where the principal voluntarily chose to resign rather than be fired and was fully aware of his alternatives. 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).

Termination and Nonrenewal.

Termination under this section 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).

The district failed to strictly comply with this subchapter in both giving the required notice and in conducting a separate vote on each of the reasons for termination. Jackson v. El Dorado Sch. Dist., 74 Ark. App. 433, 48 S.W.3d 558 (2001) (decision under prior law).

Dismissal of a teacher was proper based on a 2011-12 contract where insubordination occurred during that contract period; dismissal based on a contract for 2012-13 was proper based on the fact that the teacher let his license expire. Hollis v. Fayetteville Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2015 Ark. App. 544, 473 S.W.3d 45 (2015).

Circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of a school district because it complied with The Teacher Fair Dismissal Act of 1983, § 6-17-1501 et seq., when it terminated a school principal for just and reasonable cause; the school board heard uncontested evidence that the principal did not call the child-abuse hotline as required by § 12-18-402 when she became aware of the contents of a child's letter detailing that she had been touched by her grandfather and that she had “bad things” in her life. Struble v. Blytheville Sch. Dist., 2017 Ark. App. 99, 516 S.W.3d 269 (2017).

Cited: McClelland v. Paris Pub. Sch., 294 Ark. 292, 742 S.W.2d 907 (1988).