Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-1509 (2026)

Research References

Ark. L. Rev.

Watkins, Open Meetings Under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, 38 Ark. L. Rev. 268.

Case Notes

Attorney's Fees.

A claim for violation of this subchapter was not a claim for labor or services, or breach of contract for which attorney's fees might be awarded to the prevailing party under § 16-22-308. Piggee v. Jones, 84 F.3d 303 (8th Cir. 1996).

Actions brought pursuant to this subchapter are actions in contract for labor or services such that attorney's fees may be awarded by the trial court pursuant to § 16-22-308. Love v. Smackover Sch. Dist., 329 Ark. 4, 946 S.W.2d 676 (1997).

An action brought pursuant to this subchapter is both a civil action and a claim for labor or services within the meaning of § 16-22-308, and thus attorney’s fees are recoverable. Hall v. Kingsland Sch. Dist., 56 Ark. App. 110, 938 S.W.2d 571 (1997).

Due Process.

Failure to afford a dismissed teacher a full hearing and provide a complete written record thereof amounts to a denial of due process of law under U.S. Const., Amend. 14. Appler v. Mountain Pine Sch. Dist., 342 F. Supp. 1131 (W.D. Ark. 1972) (decision under prior law).

Evidence sufficient to show that teachers whose contracts were not renewed were not denied due process and equal protection on the theory that the school board made its determination not to renew the contracts prior to the hearings. Cato v. Collins, 394 F. Supp. 629 (E.D. Ark. 1975), aff'd, 539 F.2d 656 (8th Cir. 1976) (decision under prior law).

Plaintiff had no property or liberty rights at stake and thus was not entitled to the procedural due process provided by the United States Constitution or substantive due process rights in his contest to reverse the school board's decision not to renew contract. Williams v. Day, 412 F. Supp. 336 (E.D. Ark. 1976), aff'd, 553 F.2d 1160 (8th Cir. 1977) (decision under prior law).

The federal constitution required that notice and an opportunity for hearing before termination must precede the dismissal of even a nontenured teacher during the contract term. Cochran v. Chidester Sch. Dist., 456 F. Supp. 390 (W.D. Ark. 1978) (decision under prior law).

Where the assistant principal received a notice from the superintendent which stated that termination was being recommended, the letter stated that its purpose was to provide the assistant principal with the reasons for the recommendation of termination in accordance with the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act of 1979, and the act required that a probationary teacher be given a statement of the grounds for termination but not for nonrenewal, the inclusion of the reasons, which were made on the advice of legal counsel indicated that the letter was, in fact, one of termination; therefore since the letter did not state that a hearing was available to the assistant principal, and the assistant principal did not receive the timely hearing on the facial appearance of the letter, the assistant principal did not receive due process. Rogers v. Masem, 788 F.2d 1288 (8th Cir. 1985) (decision under prior law).

A public employee is entitled to the minimal requirements of fair play before being terminated, and those requirements are: (1) clear and actual notice of the reasons for termination in sufficient detail to enable him or her to present evidence relating to them; (2) notice of both the names of those who have made allegations against the teacher and the specific nature and factual basis for the charges; (3) a reasonable time and opportunity to present testimony in his or her own defense; and (4) a hearing before an impartial board or tribunal. Casada v. Booneville School Dist., 686 F. Supp. 730 (W.D. Ark. 1988).

The failure to provide a hearing constituted neither a deprivation of a teacher's due process rights, nor a violation of this section, where the teacher, instead of receiving a hearing following the notification of nonrenewal, was offered a contract for a second school term, in effect mooting the request for a hearing. Hubbard v. Parker, 994 F.2d 529 (8th Cir. 1993).

A superintendent does have authority to place a teacher or a noncertified district employee on suspension; however, those suspended are entitled to a hearing, and only a school board can extend the suspension or deprive the employee of compensation. Springdale Educ. Ass'n v. Springdale Sch. Dist., 133 F.3d 649 (8th Cir. 1998).

Where the school district failed to comply with this section by failing to give teacher a hearing before it voted not to renew her contract, the action of the district was void under § 6-17-1503; although this may have been a “procedural error” and although the district may have substantially complied with the hearing provisions of this section, substantial compliance has not been sufficient since 1989. Spainhour v. Dover Pub. Sch. Dist., 331 Ark. 53, 958 S.W.2d 528 (1998) (decided under former version of § 6-17-503).

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).

Notice Required.

Although § 6-17-1510 describes the administrative hearing process in this section and § 6-17-1510 as the “exclusive remedy” for any nonprobationary teacher aggrieved by a board decision, this procedure presupposes a proper notice of a nonrenewal recommendation by the superintendent to the teacher so that the teacher may request a hearing before board action. Western Grove Sch. Dist. v. Terry, 318 Ark. 316, 885 S.W.2d 300 (1994).

Public Disclosure.

Where the reasons for nonrenewal of teacher's contract became public information only after teacher's request for a public hearing, teacher was not deprived of an interest in liberty by the disclosure. Cato v. Collins, 539 F.2d 656 (8th Cir. 1976) (decision under prior law).

Record.

Furnishing minutes of hearing by school board did not comply with the provisions of former section for a record of the proceedings. Appler v. Mountain Pine Sch. Dist., 342 F. Supp. 1131 (W.D. Ark. 1972) (decision under prior law).

Review.

In order for a reviewing court to make a determination regarding the adequacy of notice given, it must examine not only the notice of nonrenewal, but also any record of the school-board hearing made pursuant to the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, § 6-17-1501 et seq. Thus, in a case where a teacher alleged that she was not given adequate notice of the nonrenewal of her contract the trial court erred by determining the issue without considering what actually occurred at a hearing on the matter before a school board to see if the teacher was able to prepare a defense. Watson Chapel Sch. Dist. v. Russell, 367 Ark. 443, 241 S.W.3d 242 (2006).

Right Generally.

This section contemplates that an opportunity to be heard be accorded before the school board's decision on the superintendent's recommendation not to renew a nonprobationary teacher's contract. Murray v. Altheimer-Sherrill Pub. Sch., 294 Ark. 403, 743 S.W.2d 789 (1988).

This section was amended in 1987 to expand the hearing requirement to probationary and nonprobationary teachers alike. Hubbard v. Parker, 994 F.2d 529 (8th Cir. 1993).

Where teacher requested a hearing within the thirty-day window provided by this section, 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).

Circuit court did not err in granting a teacher injunctive relief and enjoining a school district from denying the teacher a hearing or refusing to renew his contract until his rights were adjudicated in the hearing because the teacher was entitled to the provision of this section, the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, that afforded him a hearing; nothing in the Act indicates that a teacher is not employed unless he or she has a written contract, and the requirement of the Act, § 6-17-1506(a), that a teacher's contract must be renewed in writing refers to an original “contract” but does not specify that it be a written contract. Fayetteville Pub. Schs v. Dial, 2010 Ark. App. 296 (2010).

Timeliness.

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 subdivision (c)(1). Lester v. Mount Vernon-Enola Sch. Dist., 323 Ark. 728, 917 S.W.2d 540 (1996) (decision under prior law).

Cited: Wagner v. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 373 F. Supp. 876 (E.D. Ark. 1973); Struble v. Blytheville Sch. Dist., 2017 Ark. App. 99, 516 S.W.3d 269 (2017).