IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2022 WY 23

OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2021

 February 9, 2022

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF LINCOLN 

COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER 

TWO,

Appellant

(Respondent),

v.

WYATT EARLING,

Appellee

(Petitioner).

S-21-0121

Appeal from the District Court of Lincoln County

The Honorable Joseph B. Bluemel, Judge

Representing Appellant:

Blaine F. Burgess and Hannah West of Williams, Porter, Day & Neville P.C., 

Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Burgess.

Representing Appellee:

Gregory P. Hacker of Hacker, Hacker & Kendall, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Before FOX, C.J., and DAVIS*, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.

*

Justice Davis retired from judicial office effective January 16, 2022, and, pursuant to Article 5, § 5 of 

the Wyoming Constitution and Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 5-1-106(f) (LexisNexis 2021), he was reassigned to 

act on this matter on January 18, 2022.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. 

Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before 

final publication in the permanent volume.
1

BOOMGAARDEN, Justice.

[¶1] The Board of Trustees of Lincoln County School District Number Two dismissed 

Wyatt Earling from his teaching position pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-7-110(a)(ix) 

after Superintendent Matt Erickson discovered inappropriate photos and images on an 

Apple iPad the District issued to Mr. Earling several years prior. The photos and images

had “synced” from Mr. Earling’s personal Apple iPhone to the iPad, which he kept at his 

home as a backup during the 2018-2019 school year.

1

 The district court reversed the 

Board’s decision and the Board appeals. We affirm the district court’s decision.

ISSUES

[¶2] The dispositive issues

2

are:

I. Did the Board furnish Mr. Earling a clear standard of 

conduct?

II. Is the Board’s finding that the facts bear a reasonable 

relationship to Mr. Earling’s fitness or capacity to perform his 

duties as a teacher contrary to the overwhelming weight of the 

evidence?

FACTS

[¶3] Mr. Earling had been teaching second grade in Lincoln County, Wyoming, for 15 

years. When he was hired in 2004, the District issued him an Apple laptop. He created an 

Apple ID using his District email address and then continued using that same Apple ID—

on both personal and District-issued Apple devices—for the next 15 years.3

[¶4] By the 2018-2019 school year, Mr. Earling had numerous District-issued Apple 

products, including a classroom set of iPads for his students, a laptop he used to teach in 

the classroom, and two outdated iPads at his home.

4

 The screen on one of the iPads was 

broken so he did not use it. He periodically used the other iPad for work email. He also 

1 Syncing is a process where two or more Apple devices signed into the same Apple ID share content, 

including photos, images, applications, e-mails, and search histories. Syncing could be activated or 

deactivated manually, it could turn on automatically through a system update, and acceptance of terms or 

conditions could alter sync settings. 

2 Because we affirm, we do not address whether the Board’s decision violated Mr. Earling’s due process 

rights. 

3 Mr. Earling described an Apple ID as a log-in to use Apple devices and applications. The District did not 

issue him an Apple ID in 2004 so he created one using his District email address. The District recently 

started issuing teachers Apple IDs. 

4 The District periodically provided teachers new iPads and laptops. It expected teachers to timely trade in 

their outdated device for a new one, but they sometimes delayed doing so and kept the old device instead. 
2

allowed his daughters to download apps, play games, and watch videos on the iPad when 

they were at his home.

5

 

[¶5] In May 2018, Mr. Earling purchased his first Apple iPhone for personal use and 

activated it using his Apple ID.6 At some point after that, unbeknownst to Mr. Earling,

personal photos and images from his iPhone began syncing to the iPad. 

[¶6] In March 2019, Superintendent Erickson received a phone call from Jody Gardner 

of the Wyoming Department of Family Services. Mr. Gardner informed the superintendent

that he had received a report from Mr. Earling’s ex-wife that there may be inappropriate, 

pornographic, and sexually explicit images stored on a District iPad issued to Mr. Earling. 

She further reported that her and Mr. Earling’s children may have seen the images. 

[¶7] On receiving this information, the superintendent drove to the school where Mr. 

Earling taught and told the principal, Lori Schieffer, about the phone call. She removed 

Mr. Earling from his classroom and brought him to the front office where Superintendent 

Erickson asked Mr. Earling where the iPad was and he said it was at his home. All three 

of them then drove to Mr. Earling’s home so he could retrieve the iPad. When they returned 

to the school, the superintendent retained possession of the iPad and began an investigation. 

[¶8] With help from the District’s Director of Technology Kyle Weber and IT employee

Tanner Crook, the superintendent reviewed the photos and images stored on the iPad. He

found approximately 1,000 images, the vast majority of which were personal, but not 

inappropriate. There were, however, 50 photos and images that the superintendent

considered graphic, pornographic, sexually explicit, obscene, and inappropriate for a 

District device.7 

[¶9] Unaware of what on the iPad might be objectionable, Mr. Earling asked his children 

whether they saw anything inappropriate on it and learned that one of his children saw a 

photo of him and his then-girlfriend, now wife, on vacation in Mexico. As Mr. Earling 

took his iPhone on the trip to Mexico he began to suspect that photos somehow transferred 

from it to the iPad. 

[¶10] At the end of March, Superintendent Erickson met with Mr. Earling. At the 

beginning of the meeting, the superintendent provided Mr. Earling a letter outlining his

5 Mr. Earling divorced in 2017. He and his ex-wife shared custody of their two elementary-aged children, 

who were students in the District. 

6 The Board’s order states that Mr. Earling bought the iPhone in Spring 2019, but he testified that he bought 

it in May 2018. 

7 After his divorce, Mr. Earling began a romantic relationship with a woman he married in 2019. The 50 

photos and images at issue included nude photos of them; screen shots of their text messages that contained 

sexually suggestive content; and “memes” that contained profanity and sexually explicit jokes. The photos, 

text messages, and images were created, downloaded, and shared in the context of their consensual, private

relationship. 
3

initial findings, including that there was “pornographic/obscene material” on the iPad. The 

superintendent then allowed Mr. Earling to provide his side of the story. Mr. Earling

explained that the iPad had been at his home as a backup for the 2018-2019 school year; 

he believed the photos and images had synced from his personal iPhone to the iPad because 

he signed into both with the same Apple ID; he did not know this was occurring; he had 

not used the iPad to teach; and he did not intentionally store the photos and images on the 

iPad. Mr. Earling was remorseful, emotional, and embarrassed. The superintendent placed 

Mr. Earling on administrative leave pending completion of a full investigation. 

[¶11] In early April, after completing his investigation, Superintendent Erickson initiated 

these proceedings by giving Mr. Earling a Notice of Termination. As set forth there, the 

superintendent concluded:

• Mr. Earling violated the District’s “Employee Acceptable Use 

of Technology” procedure (EHAA-R);

• Mr. Earling violated the District’s “Authorized Use of Districtowned Materials and Equipment” procedure (EDC-R);

• “Mr. Earling caused or allowed graphic pornographic material 

to be placed or stored on a [District] device, violating other 

policies and potentially placing students and staff at risk by 

coming in contact with the harmful material”;

• “Mr. Earling’s actions constituted immorality, placed students 

and staff at risk, and was harmful to the educational process”; 

and

• Mr. Earling’s actions were grounds for suspension or dismissal

under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-7-110.

The superintendent intended to recommend the Board terminate Mr. Earling’s

employment. 

[¶12] On Mr. Earling’s request, the Office of Administrative Hearings held a contested 

case hearing where the issue was whether Superintendent Erickson proved that the basis 

for Mr. Earling’s termination was for the reasons stated in the Notice of Termination—

namely, “immorality” under § 21-7-110(a)(iii) and “[a]ny other good or just cause relating

to the educational process” under § 21-7-110(a)(ix). See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-7-110(e). 

Six witnesses testified: Superintendent Erickson, District Secretary Amanda Welch, 

Principal Schieffer, Mr. Weber, Mr. Crook, and Mr. Earling. The parties submitted 

numerous exhibits, including copies of the policies and procedures at issue. We highlight 

some of that testimony and the two pertinent policies and procedures—the EHAA and 
4

EHAA-R

8—to place the Board’s ruling in better context, reserving further discussion of 

the evidence as relevant to our discussion.

[¶13] Mr. Weber and Mr. Crook testified that there were several ways the photos and 

images could have ended up on the iPad. First, the photos and images could have been 

created on the iPad. That is, the photos could have been captured with the iPad’s camera 

and the images could have been created on the iPad. Second, the photos could have been 

downloaded to the iPad through a wired connection to another device, such as a camera. 

Third, the photos and images could have synced between two or more devices. Mr. Weber 

and Mr. Crook confirmed that the pertinent sync setting was activated on the iPad when 

the superintendent received it from Mr. Earling. 

[¶14] In Mr. Weber’s opinion, the images ended up on the device either through syncing 

or they were taken with the device. Mr. Crook had no basis to believe the images got on 

the iPad any way besides syncing. And Superintendent Erickson had no evidence the 

images were taken on the device. He “believe[d] that somehow through the internet, they 

were synced, transferred, published, accessed on [the iPad].” 

[¶15] Superintendent Erickson testified why he believed Mr. Earling violated the Board’s 

policies and procedures. Pertinent to this appeal, the “EHAA” was an “Acceptable Use 

Policy” that Mr. Earling acknowledged in September 2018. It applied to all District 

employees, District devices, and devices connected to the District’s internal network. It

stated that District devices “are primarily to be used for work related purposes except as 

otherwise provided”; employees should not expect privacy on District devices or devices 

connected to the District’s internal network; access rights may be revoked; and the District 

would implement measures to secure “devices used to access sensitive information.” 

[¶16] The “EHAA-R” was a corresponding procedure on “Employee Acceptable Use of 

Technology” that Mr. Earling acknowledged in September 2018. It included eight sections, 

which contained subsections.

• Section 1.0, entitled “Purpose,” stated that District employees 

were permitted and encouraged to use computers and network 

resources in support of the District’s goals and objectives. 

Personal use of District devices was permitted if it conformed

to District policies, including those on computer use and 

student data security. “The purpose of Board Policy EHA, 

8 The EDC-R addressed authorized use of District materials and equipment. It explained that “District 

equipment [was] to be used primarily for educational purposes.” But, with a supervisor’s prior written 

approval, employees could take District equipment off campus for professional or personal use to acquire

new skills and keep up with changing technology. It further addressed liability for damage to equipment

used off campus and informed employees that the administration would monitor private and personal use 

of District equipment. There was no allegation that Mr. Earling inappropriately used the iPad for personal 

use or inappropriately kept the iPad at his home. 
5

EHAA, GBCD, EDC and their accompanying procedure [was]

to protect student data privacy and also to protect [District 

staff].” 

• Section 2.0, entitled “Access to Technology Equipment and 

Services,” explained that technology access was provided to 

facilitate instruction and administrative tasks, an employee’s 

access level depended on their job functions, District 

employees had no expectation of privacy on District devices or 

devices connected to the District’s system, and the Technology 

Department must keep information about students and 

employees confidential. 

• Section 3.0 addressed “acceptable use” of technology, stating 

that online communication must be “responsible, efficient, 

ethical, and legal[.]” It also warned employees about dangers 

they may encounter when using electronic resources and the 

internet. Finally, it required an employee who encountered

obscene or pornographic material, or observed inappropriate 

conduct, to immediately notify a supervisor or site

administrator. 

• Section 4.0 provided guidelines on how to properly use and 

care for devices. 

• Section 5.0 discussed each user’s personal responsibility when 

using District property. Section 5.2 stated that “[e]mployees

shall not access, post, submit, publish, or display harmful or 

inappropriate matter that is threatening, obscene, disruptive, 

sexually explicit, or that could be construed as harassment or 

disparagement of others.” The remainder of Section 5.0

prohibited employees from using the District system to 

“promote unethical practices or any activity prohibited by law, 

Board policy, or administrative regulations”; prohibited

employees from using the system to engage in for-profit 

activities; and addressed general matters related to internet use. 

• Section 6.0 addressed use of unique User ID’s and passwords 

to maintain security. 

• Section 7.0 informed employees that violation of the 

acceptable use policy may result in lost privileges and 

disciplinary action. 
6

• Section 8.0 informed employees that they must annually 

acknowledge they received, read, and accepted the Employee 

Use Agreement. 

[¶17] Following the hearing, the Hearing Examiner issued his “Recommended Findings 

of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order” to the Board. He recommended the Board reject 

the superintendent’s recommendation to terminate Mr. Earling’s employment. More 

specifically, as to “other good or just cause,” the Hearing Examiner recommended the 

Board find the superintendent failed to prove Mr. Earling violated any Board policy 

because the policies at issue did not cover the “means by which the images were transferred 

onto the iPad (inadvertent syncing)[.]” He also recommended the Board find the 

superintendent failed to meet his burden to prove there was any actual harm or risk of harm 

to students, staff, or the educational process. Finally, he recommended the Board find the 

superintendent failed to prove the allegations against Mr. Earling had a sufficient 

relationship to his fitness or capacity to serve as a teacher. 

[¶18] The Board declined to accept the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation and ordered 

Mr. Earling dismissed from his employment for “[a]ny other good or just cause relating to 

the educational process” under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-7-110(a)(ix).9 It did not address 

whether Mr. Earling was subject to dismissal for “immorality” under § 21-7-110(a)(iii). 

[¶19] The Board found Mr. Earling violated Board Policy EHAA and Procedure EHAAR, reasoning as follows:

The objective of Board Policy EHAA and Procedure EHAA-R 

when read together is to protect staff and students by 

prohibiting sexually explicit images on a school-issued device, 

regardless of the manner in which they were placed on the 

device. The Board interprets its policy and concludes that 

Policy EHAA and Procedure EHAA-R prohibit the existence 

of sexually explicit images on a [District]-owned iPad. The 

Board does not interpret EHAA-R Section 5.2 to require an 

intentional or affirmative action by the technology user. 

9 The superintendent recommended the Board “terminate” Mr. Earling’s employment, but the Board 

decided the superintendent’s notice was “more appropriately deemed to be a recommendation for 

‘dismissal.’” The Wyoming Teacher Employment Law defines termination and dismissal differently. 

Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 21-7-102(a)(iii) (LexisNexis 2021) (“In the case of a continuing contract teacher, 

dismissal shall mean cancellation of his contract at any time other than at the end of a school year where 

proper notice has been given[.]”); 21-7-102(a)(viii) (defining “termination” as “[t]he failure of the board of 

trustees of a school district in Wyoming to reemploy a teacher at the end of a school year in any given 

year”). In addition, the notice requirement for termination is slightly different from that for a dismissal in 

that the teacher must be provided notice “on or before April 15[.]” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-7-106(a)

(LexisNexis 2021). It makes no difference to our decision whether Mr. Earling was dismissed or 

terminated.
7

Consequently the failure to include the word “sync” (or any 

other such verb to track the latest trends in technology) in this 

section is not dispositive to the issue of whether Policy 

EHAA/Procedure EHAA-R was violated. The Board does not 

read in a requirement that an individual intentionally place 

such images on a school-issued device. Deference is afforded 

the Board’s interpretation of its own rules. See Powder River 

Basin Resource Council, ¶ 6, 226 P.3d at 813.

. . . .

In sum, the Board agrees with Superintendent Erickson –

pornographic material on any school device violates policy. 

Accordingly, the Board rejects the Hearing Officer’s findings 

and conclusions in paragraph 52 and 53 of the Recommended 

Order and finds that Earling was solely responsible for the 

existence of the sexually explicit images on the [District] iPad 

in violation of Policy EHAA and Procedure EHAA-R.

[¶20] Next, the Board found Mr. Earling’s violation caused harm to the educational 

process, as the mere presence of the images on the iPad was sufficient to cause harm and 

there was a risk of harm to two District students—Mr. Earling’s daughters. The Board

acknowledged there was no evidence to indisputably establish Mr. Earling’s daughters saw

the images, but found, given their proximity to, and extensive use of the iPad, the risk of 

harm “was real and definite, not speculative or hypothetical.” 

[¶21] Finally, the Board found the allegations had a reasonable relationship to Mr. 

Earling’s fitness and capacity to serve as a teacher because his conduct created a risk of 

harm to students and staff.

Earling violated policy and procedure by the existence of the 

sexually explicit images on the [District] iPad for which he was 

responsible. The policy and procedure at issue are specially 

formulated to prevent sexually explicit images on schoolissued devices with the overarching goal to protect students 

and staff from serious harm. The Board would be remiss and 

potentially subject to liability to wait until harm had actually 

occurred to enforce its policies. Thus, the nexus is established 

by violation of policy and the associated risk of harm, as 

evaluated by Superintendent Erickson.

[¶22] The district court reversed the Board, concluding that the Board’s interpretation of 

its policies and procedures was contrary to their plain language; its decision was contrary 

to Mr. Earling’s due process rights because the Notice of Termination did not provide him 
8

adequate notice that he could be dismissed for the mere existence of sexually explicit 

images on the iPad; and substantial evidence did not support the Board’s decision. The 

Board timely appealed, arguing the record supports its decision to dismiss Mr. Earling 

pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-7-110(a)(ix) in all respects. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶23] We review this case as if it came to us directly from the Board, affording no 

deference to the district court’s decision. See Mirich v. State ex rel. Bd. of Trs. of Laramie 

Cty. Sch. Dist. Two, 2021 WY 32, ¶ 15, 481 P.3d 627, 632 (Wyo. 2021). The Wyoming

Administrative Procedure Act governs our review, stating in relevant part:

(c) To the extent necessary to make a decision and when 

presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant 

questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory 

provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the 

terms of an agency action. In making the following 

determinations, the court shall review the whole record or 

those parts of it cited by a party and due account shall be taken 

of the rule of prejudicial error. The reviewing court shall:

. . . .

(ii) Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and 

conclusions found to be:

(A) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise 

not in accordance with law;

. . . .

(E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on 

the record of an agency hearing provided by statute.

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2021).

DISCUSSION

[¶24] “It is axiomatic that the courts should not undertake to administer the school systems 

of Wyoming. We should not substitute our judgment in educational matters for those of 

school boards and administrators.” Mirich, ¶ 17, 481 P.3d at 633 (quoting Powell v. Bd. of 

Trs. of Crook Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 1, Crook Cty., 550 P.2d 1112, 1113 (Wyo. 1976)). “[T]he 

general public—indeed, all of society, has a massive interest in maintaining good schools. 

‘Good schools’ means good teachers—and by ‘good teachers’ we mean ‘good’ in all 
9

important aspects of their professional lives.” Id. (quoting Powell, 550 P.2d at 1113). “If 

the teacher does not measure up, according to reasonable standards of professional 

requirement, the teacher may be removed, but in the process of removal, all the rights and 

interests of all of those concerned must be considered.” Id. (quoting Powell, 550 P.2d at 

1113). The Court, in protecting these rights, must ensure the rules and law are followed. 

Id. (citing Powell, 550 P.2d at 1113).

[¶25] Under the Wyoming Teacher Employment Law, Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 21-7-101 et 

seq. (LexisNexis 2021), a superintendent may initiate proceedings against a teacher by 

providing the teacher written notice of dismissal, suspension, or termination, together with 

written reasons in support. Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 21-7-110(b) (dismissal and suspension), 

21-7-106(a) (termination). Those reasons may include any of the following:

(i) Incompetency;

(ii) Neglect of duty;

(iii) Immorality including, without limitation, engaging in 

conduct with a student which would be a violation of W.S. 6-

2-314 through 6-2-318, 12-6-101(a) or 35-7-1036;

(iv) Insubordination;

(v) Physical incapacity to perform job duties even with 

reasonable accommodation;

(vi) Failure to perform duties in a satisfactory manner;

(vii) Repealed by Laws 2019, ch. 84, § 2[, eff. July 1, 2019].

(viii) Conviction of a felony; and

(ix) Any other good or just cause relating to the educational 

process.

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-7-110(a).

[¶26] When a teacher receives written notice, he may request a hearing before an 

independent hearing examiner provided through the Office of Administrative Hearings. 

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-7-110(c). At the hearing, the superintendent has the burden to prove 

the recommendation is based on the reasons provided in the notice. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-

7-110(e). The hearing examiner must then submit findings of fact and a recommendation 

to the Board. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-7-110(g). The Board, in turn, must review the hearing 

examiner’s findings of fact and recommendation and issue a written order to either 
10

terminate, suspend, dismiss, or retain the teacher. Id. If the Board terminates, suspends, 

or dismisses the teacher’s employment against a hearing examiner’s recommendation to 

retain them, then its written order must include a conclusion together with reasons 

supported by the record. Id.

[¶27] As noted above, the superintendent recommended the Board terminate Mr. Earling’s 

employment for “immorality” under § 21-7-110(a)(iii) and “[a]ny other good or just cause

relating to the educational process” under (a)(ix). The Hearing Examiner recommended 

the Board reject the superintendent’s recommendation on both grounds. Against the 

Hearing Examiner’s recommendation, the Board issued a written order dismissing Mr. 

Earling’s employment for “[a]ny other good or just cause relating to the educational 

process” under (a)(ix), declining to address immorality under (a)(iii). Our task then is to 

determine whether the law and record support the Board’s decision to dismiss Mr. Earling 

under (a)(ix). See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c).

Good or Just Cause Relating to the Educational Process

[¶28] This case implicates two constraints we have placed on a Board’s reliance on the 

“good or just cause” basis for teacher discipline. First, the teacher must have been 

furnished a clear standard of conduct and the Board must rely on the teacher’s violation of 

that clear standard of conduct to justify the discipline. Mirich, ¶ 21, 481 P.3d at 634 (citing 

Ririe v. Bd. of Trs. of Sch. Dist. No. One, Crook Cty., 674 P.2d 214, 227 (Wyo. 1983)). 

“Good or just cause” cannot be established by proving the teacher violated a standard that 

does not exist. Id. (citing Bd. of Trs. of Weston Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 1, Weston Cty. v. Holso, 

584 P.2d 1009, 1015 (Wyo. 1978)).

[¶29] Second, “the facts ‘must bear reasonable relationship to the teacher’s fitness or 

capacity to perform his duties in that position.’” Id. ¶ 20, 481 P.3d at 634 (quoting Powell, 

550 P.2d at 1119). In other words, the legislature intended that the facts must “bear a 

relationship to the teacher’s ability and fitness to teach and discharge the duties of his or 

her position.” Id. (quoting Powell, 550 P.2d at 1119); see also 78 C.J.S. Schools and School 

Districts § 401, Westlaw (database updated Nov. 2021) (“Thus, good cause means cause

that bears a reasonable relationship to a teacher’s unfitness to discharge the assigned duties, 

or is detrimental to the students.” (footnotes omitted)).10

1. Clear Standard of Conduct

[¶30] The Board does not explain how it satisfied this requirement. It cites Office of State 

Lands & Investments v. Mule Shoe Ranch, Inc., 2011 WY 68, ¶ 11, 252 P.3d 951, 954 

(Wyo. 2011) and other cases stating “that we defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own 

rules and regulations unless that interpretation is clearly erroneous or inconsistent with the 

10 The “clear standard of conduct” and “reasonable relationship” requirements apply equally to dismissals 

and terminations. See Mirich, ¶ 21 n.5, 481 P.3d at 634 n.5; Powell, 550 P.2d at 1113 n.2, 1118–19.
11

plain language of the rules” to insist that we must defer to its broad interpretation of the 

EHAA and EHAA-R to prohibit any existence of inappropriate material on a District 

device. It then argues for the first time on appeal that, based on its interpretation, Mr. 

Earling also violated Section 5.2 by “displaying” the photos and images and Section 3.1 by 

engaging in irresponsible “online communication.” Therefore, according to the Board, Mr. 

Earling was provided a clear standard of conduct. The Board misses the point by relying 

on deference principles.11

[¶31] The relevant question here is not one of deference to the Board’s after-the-fact 

interpretations, it is whether the policies and procedures, on their face, furnished Mr. 

Earling a clear standard of conduct governing the behavior which resulted in his dismissal. 

See Mirich, ¶¶ 22–25, 481 P.3d at 634–35 (concluding Mr. Mirich was provided clear 

standards of conduct on professional ethics and conduct, as well as prohibiting teachers 

from harassing, intimidating, and bullying students; those standards made no exception for 

situations where the student was also the teacher’s child); Holso, 584 P.2d at 1014–15 

(reversing a termination decision that had been based on the teacher’s grading practices—

he “historically gave more D and F grades than would appear on a normal probability 

curve”—because the District had “no formal grading policy, nor was the [teacher] ever told 

to grade ‘on the curve’”); Ririe, 674 P.2d at 227 (concluding the teacher had been furnished 

a clear standard—the position description—on his need to communicate effectively with 

staff members). We answer that question de novo. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-

114(c)(ii)(A); Mirich, ¶¶ 22–25, 481 P.3d at 634–35; Ririe, 674 P.2d at 227.

[¶32] On their face, neither the EHAA nor the EHAA-R, nor both, when read together, 

furnished Mr. Earling a clear standard of conduct that governed the behavior for which he 

was dismissed. Neither prohibited teachers from using the same Apple ID on both personal 

and District devices. And neither informed teachers they could be disciplined if 

inappropriate material synced from a personal device onto a District device. Most 

importantly, the District policies and procedures nowhere alerted teachers they could be 

disciplined for the mere existence of inappropriate material on a District device, regardless 

of how it got there. Invoking deference principles, the Board read standards of conduct 

into the EHAA and EHAA-R that did not exist. As a result, Mr. Earling’s dismissal is

contrary to law. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A); Mirich, ¶ 21, 481 P.3d at 634; 

Ririe, 674 P.2d at 227.

2. Reasonable Relationship

[¶33] Mr. Earling’s dismissal also runs afoul of the reasonable relationship requirement 

in that the Board’s finding that the facts bear a reasonable relationship to Mr. Earling’s 

fitness and capacity to perform his duties as a teacher is contrary to the overwhelming 

weight of the evidence.

11 Even if deference principles applied, we would not defer to the Board’s interpretation of the EHAA and 

EHAA-R because it is contrary to their plain language. See Mule Shoe Ranch, Inc., ¶ 11, 252 P.3d at 954. 
12

[¶34] We apply the substantial evidence standard of review to the Board’s reasonable 

relationship finding. See Mirich, ¶¶ 32–33, 481 P.3d at 637. “Substantial evidence means 

‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion.’” Flauding v. State ex rel. Wyoming Dep’t of Transport., 2021 WY 131, ¶ 19, 

499 P.3d 272, 276 (Wyo. 2021) (quoting Sweetalla v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Workforce 

Servs., Workers’ Comp. Div., 2019 WY 91, ¶ 18, 448 P.3d 825, 830 (Wyo. 2019)). A 

finding of fact is “supported by substantial evidence if, from the evidence preserved in the 

record, we can discern a rational premise for [it].” Id. (quoting Sweetalla, ¶ 18, 448 P.3d 

at 830).

[¶35] We defer to the Board’s reasonable relationship finding unless it is “clearly contrary 

to the overwhelming weight of the evidence in the record.” See id. ¶ 20, 499 P.3d at 276 

(citation omitted). Whether we agree with the outcome of the Board’s decision is 

irrelevant—we review its reasonable relationship finding only to determine if it could 

reasonably conclude as it did. See id. (citation omitted).

[¶36] In concluding that Superintendent Erickson proved the facts bear a reasonable

relationship to Mr. Earling’s fitness and capacity to serve as a teacher, the Board focused 

on the risk of harm that his alleged policy violation posed to students and staff. On appeal, 

the Board again emphasizes that Mr. Earling’s irresponsible behavior “created a risk of 

‘real and definite’ harm to students[.]” 

[¶37] Our precedent instructs that the Board should consider all circumstances before 

finding that the facts bear a reasonable relationship to a teacher’s fitness or capacity to 

serve as a teacher. See Mirich, ¶¶ 32–33, 481 P.3d at 637 (upholding the Board’s dismissal 

where the Board made findings about how the teacher treated a student and how his conduct 

affected other students, and the evidence supported those findings); Holso, 584 P.2d at 

1012, 1015 (concluding an incident was “too trivial and detached from the teacher’s ability 

and fitness to perform his duties” where the teacher discussed rumors about his termination 

with students during several class periods); Spurlock v. Bd. of Trs., Carbon Cty. Sch. Dist. 

No. 1, 699 P.2d 270, 272–73, 275–76 (Wyo. 1985) (determining the teacher’s conduct 

pertained to his position as a principal, not as a teacher).

[¶38] We have never had occasion to expand on what factors are relevant to such a 

determination, but recognize that because each case is unique, relevant factors will be 

varied and not exclusive. Moreover, the relationship between a teacher’s conduct and his 

or her fitness to teach may be more obvious in some cases than others. See, e.g., Mirich, 

¶¶ 32–33, 481 P.3d at 637.

[¶39] In Morrison, the California Supreme Court identified factors that may be relevant 

to determine whether a teacher’s alleged immorality, unprofessional conduct, or conduct 

involving moral turpitude meant a teacher was “unfit to teach”:
13

In determining whether the teacher’s conduct thus indicates 

unfitness to teach the board may consider such matters as the 

likelihood that the conduct may have adversely affected 

students or fellow teachers, the degree of such adversity 

anticipated, the proximity or remoteness in time of the conduct, 

the type of teaching certificate held by the party involved, the 

extenuating or aggravating circumstances, if any, surrounding 

the conduct, the praiseworthiness or blameworthiness of the 

motives resulting in the conduct, the likelihood of the 

recurrence of the questioned conduct, and the extent to which 

disciplinary action may inflict an adverse impact or chilling 

effect upon the constitutional rights of the teacher involved or 

other teachers. These factors are relevant to the extent that they 

assist the board in determining a teacher’s fitness to teach, i.e., 

in determining whether the teacher’s future classroom 

performance and overall impact on his students are likely to 

meet the board’s standards.

Morrison v. State Bd. of Educ., 1 Cal. 3d 214, 229–30, 82 Cal.Rptr. 175, 461 P.2d 375

(1969) (footnotes omitted); see also Erb v. Iowa State Bd. of Pub. Instruction, 216 N.W.2d 

339, 344 (Iowa 1974) (concluding “[t]hese factors have relevance in deciding whether a 

teacher is morally fit to teach”), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in

Dunphy v. City Council of City of Creston, 256 N.W.2d 913, 920 (Iowa 1977).

[¶40] The Colorado Supreme Court applied the Morrison factors to cases involving not 

only an immorality allegation, but also other good or just cause. Weissman v. Bd. of Ed. of 

Jefferson Cty. Sch. Dist. No. R-1,190 Colo. 414, 420–21, 547 P.2d 1267, 1272–73 (1976)

(adopting the Morrison factors to determine whether a teacher’s immoral acts indicated 

unfitness to teach); Bd. of Educ. of W. Yuma Sch. Dist. RJ-1 v. Flaming, 938 P.2d 151, 

159–60 (Colo. 1997) (analyzing relevant factors to uphold a teacher’s dismissal under 

Colorado’s other good and just cause statute where the teacher repeatedly used 

“inappropriate physical intervention” when she could not control her frustration with 

primary age students). The Court also aptly noted that the list of factors is necessarily nonexclusive, as “[h]uman conduct is infinitely various, and it would be folly to attempt to 

isolate any limited set of criteria as determinative.” Weissman, 547 P.2d at 1273.

[¶41] The record shows that the Board failed to consider Mr. Earling’s fitness to teach in 

light of all the circumstances and relevant factors, and had it considered all the evidence 

and relevant factors it could not have reasonably concluded as it did. See Flauding, ¶ 20, 

499 P.3d at 276.

[¶42] For example, the record shows that Mr. Earling taught second graders who were 

seven or eight years old. While there was no dispute that it would have been harmful if his 

students had seen the photos and images, there was also no dispute that none of his students 
14

saw them. It was also unclear precisely what his daughters, who were students in the 

District, saw. Superintendent Erickson agreed that he did not know of any harm to students,

the possible harm was hypothetical, and he did not know whether Mr. Earling’s daughters

were harmed because he did not know what they actually saw. Other than the District 

employees who participated in the superintendent’s investigation, no other staff members 

saw the photos and images. 

[¶43] As to the risk that, but for the Department of Family Services’ phone call, students

and staff may have eventually seen the photos and images, the evidence reflected that it 

was lower than the Board acknowledged. Mr. Earling kept the iPad at his home during the 

2018-2019 school year, it was not on the school network, and he did not use it in the 

classroom. Mr. Earling testified that he would not have needed to use the iPad in his 

classroom because he used his laptop to teach and there was plenty of other technology 

available if his laptop stopped working. He insisted that if he had brought the iPad to 

school, it would have been to exchange it for an updated device and he would have restored 

it to factory settings before turning it in. Mr. Crook confirmed that outdated devices were 

returned to factory settings before they were repurposed or recycled, wiping them of all 

apps, photos, and data. 

[¶44] Further minimizing the risk of harm to students, staff, and the educational process, 

the allegations had not been disclosed to District personnel or others. Superintendent 

Erickson testified that the District “ha[d] been extremely careful” not to communicate 

information about the allegations to students, parents, or staff. Principal Schieffer similarly 

testified that she had been very careful not to mention the allegations when she 

communicated with students, parents, and staff about Mr. Earling being on leave. She 

agreed that “students, parents, [and] staff were given very general, neutral information 

about why he was gone.” She was not aware that anyone within her circle of authority had 

communicated anything about the allegations. 

[¶45] As to the likelihood that the conduct would be repeated, Mr. Earling maintained that 

it would never happen again, as he had changed his Apple ID, would never again use a 

personal Apple ID on a District device, and would be vigilant about checking settings on 

his devices. The superintendent reluctantly agreed that the problem could be avoided if 

Mr. Earling used a different Apple ID, turned sync settings off, and periodically doublechecked them. 

[¶46] Though Superintendent Erickson characterized Mr. Earling’s conduct as “reckless,”

the evidence reflected otherwise. As noted above, there was no policy prohibiting a teacher 

from using the same Apple ID on District and personal devices nor was there a clear policy 

on syncing. The District provided various technology training and education over the 

years, and Mr. Earling attended some of those trainings, but the Board recognized that 

“there was no reliable evidence of the specific content of those trainings or which trainings 

[he] attended.” Mr. Earling was adamant throughout the investigation and proceedings that 

the photos and images inadvertently synced from his iPhone to the iPad. He insisted that 
15

he had not used the iPad to take the photos, download the images, or edit any of the photos 

or messages. And he expressed embarrassment and remorse about what happened. 

Superintendent Erickson expressed his belief that Mr. Earling did not want the photos and 

images to end up on the iPad. 

[¶47] Finally, the superintendent presented no evidence to otherwise connect the 

allegations to Mr. Earling’s fitness or ability as a teacher. To the contrary, the record shows 

that Mr. Earling had consistently received good evaluations for his teaching performance 

and been recommended for rehire without conditions each year. He had no prior 

performance or disciplinary issues. Superintendent Erickson, who had known Mr. Earling 

for approximately 13 years, agreed that, but for this issue, Mr. Earling was “the kind of 

person and teacher that [he] would have wanted to continue working in [the] District.” 

[¶48] Though it is axiomatic that we should not administer Wyoming’s school system, we

must ensure the rules and law are followed, and the law does not permit us to uphold a 

factual finding that is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

CONCLUSION

[¶49] The Board failed to furnish Mr. Earling a clear standard of conduct, and its finding 

that the facts bear a reasonable relationship to Mr. Earling’s fitness or capacity to perform 

his duties as a teacher is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. 

Consequently, the Board could not dismiss Mr. Earling for “[a]ny other good or just cause 

relating to the educational process” under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-7-110(a)(ix). We therefore 

affirm the district court’s decision reversing the Board.