Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 37-9-59 (2026)

Grounds and procedure for dismissal or suspension of licensed employee; attendance at different school system by child as ground for denying employment or reemployment of superintendent, principal or licensed employee

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

For incompetence, neglect of duty, immoral conduct, intemperance, brutal treatment of a pupil or other good cause the superintendent of schools may dismiss or suspend any licensed employee in any school district. Before being so dismissed or suspended any licensed employee shall be notified of the charges against him and he shall be advised that he is entitled to a public hearing upon said charges. Provided, however, that a school superintendent whose employment has been terminated under this section shall not have the right to request a hearing before the school board or a hearing officer. Provided, however, that a licensed employee in a conservator school district whose employment has been terminated under this section for good cause as determined by a conservator appointed by the State Board of Education shall not have a right to request a hearing before the school board, a hearing officer or the State Board of Education. The conservator has the right to immediately terminate a licensed employee under this section. In the event the continued presence of said employee on school premises poses a potential threat or danger to the health, safety or general welfare of the students, or, in the discretion of the superintendent, may interfere with or cause a disruption of normal school operations, the superintendent may immediately release said employee of all duties pending a hearing if one is requested by the employee. In the event a licensed employee is arrested, indicted or otherwise charged with a felony by a recognized law enforcement official, the continued presence of the licensed employee on school premises shall be deemed to constitute a disruption of normal school operations. The school board, upon a request for a hearing by the person so suspended or removed shall set a date, time and place for such hearing which shall be not sooner than five (5) days nor later than thirty (30) days from the date of the request. The procedure for such hearing shall be as prescribed for hearings before the board or hearing officer in Section 37-9-111. From the decision made at said hearing, any licensed employee shall be allowed an appeal to the chancery court in the same manner as appeals are authorized in Section 37-9-113. Any party aggrieved by action of the chancery court may appeal to the Mississippi Supreme Court as provided by law. In the event that a licensed employee is immediately relieved of duties pending a hearing, as provided in this section, said employee shall be entitled to compensation for a period up to and including the date that the initial hearing is set by the school board, in the event that there is a request for such a hearing by the employee. In the event that an employee does not request a hearing within five (5) calendar days of the date of the notice of discharge or suspension, it shall constitute a waiver of all rights by said employee and such discharge or suspension shall be effective on the date set out in the notice to the employee.

The school board of every school district in this state is hereby prohibited from denying employment or reemployment to any person as a superintendent, principal or licensed employee, as defined in Section 37-19-1, or as a noninstructional personnel, as defined in Section 37-9-1, for the single reason that any eligible child of such person does not attend the school system in which such superintendent, principal, licensed employee or noninstructional personnel is employed.

The provisions of this section shall be fully applicable to any administrator or employee of the Mississippi School of the Arts (MSA).

Codes, 1942, § 6282-26; Laws, 1953, Ex Sess, ch. 20, § 26; Laws, 1974, ch. 459; Laws, 1978, ch. 311, § 1; Laws, 1986, ch. 492, § 82; Laws, 1987, ch. 307, § 14; Laws, 1997, ch. 545, § 21; Laws, 2012, ch. 440, § 3, eff. 7/1/2012.

Amended by Laws, 2019, ch. 432, SB 2625,§ 7, eff. 7/1/2019.

Amended by Laws, 2014, ch. 458, HB 455, 4, eff. 3/31/2014.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 41 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Mrs. Tobie Brantley v. M.F. Surles, Superintendent of Educ., Montgomery Cnty., 718 F.2d 1354 (5th Cir. 1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mrs. Tobie Brantley v. M.F. Surles, Superintendent of Educ., Montgomery Cnty., 718 F.2d 1354 (5th Cir. 1983). · cites it 7× “Brantley brought suit in the Chancery Court of Montgomery County, Mississippi against Surles and the school board, alleging that she had been discharged, contrary to Miss.Code Ann. § 37-9-59 (1974), for the single reason that her son did not attend the public school system.”

Merch. v. Pearl Mun. Sep. Sch. Dist., 492 So. 2d 959 (Miss. 1986). · cites it 5× “Miss. Code Ann. § 37-9-59 (Supp. 1985). Merchant requested such a hearing which in fact was held on July 23, 1984.”

Kristi Dearman v. Stone Cnty. Sch. Dist., 832 F.3d 577 (5th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “” Miss. Code § 37-9-59. A non-renewal, by contrast, merely must not be “arbitrary.”

Byrd v. Greene Cnty. Sch. Dist., 633 So. 2d 1018 (Miss. 1994). · cites it 5× “The District further contends that the chancellor erred in finding that its dire financial situation was not "good cause" pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 37-9-59 (1990) for the rescission of a teacher's contract.”

Bd. of Trust. of Jackson Sch. v. Knox, 688 So. 2d 778 (Miss. 1997). · cites it 8× “Knox under Miss. Code Ann. § 37-9-59 and that the Board did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in suspending Dr.”

Floyd v. Amite Cnty. Sch. Dist., 581 F.3d 244 (5th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “The district court correctly concluded that his breach of contract claim failed because “good cause” existed for Floyd’s termination under Miss.Code Ann. § 37-9-59. The School Board was justified in firing Floyd for “incompetence” and “neglect of duty” in his handling of the…”

Noxubee Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Givens, 481 So. 2d 816 (Miss. 1985). · cites it 3× “To be sure, "insubordination" is a ground or dismissal of a public school teacher in this state, Miss. Code Ann. § 37-9-59 (Supp. 1985), and has been defined in Sims v.”

Wilder v. Hazlehurst City Sch. Dist., 969 So. 2d 83 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007). “The case sub judice is not a nonrenewal action; it is a dismissal action, and, therefore, the preceding section is inapplicable.”

Harris v. Canton Separate Pub. Sch. Bd. of Educ., 655 So. 2d 898 (Miss. 1995). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 37-9-59 (Supp. 1991), a public hearing was held on February 28, 1989, before the Canton School Board.”

Spradlin v. Bd. of Tr. Pascagoula Sch. D., 515 So. 2d 893 (Miss. 1987). · cites it 2× “Spradlin argues that Miss. Code Ann. § 37-9-59 (1972 & Cum.Supp.”

Mississippi Emp. Sec. Comm'n v. Philadelphia Mun. Separate Sch. Dist. of Neshoba Cnty., 437 So. 2d 388 (Miss. 1983). · cites it 3× “If a teacher is under contract, the grounds for which he may be removed and the procedures to be followed are outlined in Miss.Code Ann. § 37-9-59 (Supp.1982), which provides in relevant part: For incompetence, neglect of duty, immoral conduct, intemperence, brutal treatment of…”

Yarbrough v. Camphor, 645 So. 2d 867 (Miss. 1994). “" Miss. Code Ann. § 37-9-59 (1972). Camphor, on the other hand, was a non-instructional employee, which is defined as "all employees of school districts other than superintendents, principals and certificated employees.”

Show all 41 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.