IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2016-CC-01093-COA PATRICIA EKANEM APPELLANT

v. GREENVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/28/2016 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. MARIE W ILSON COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: W A SHINGTON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: BRYANT DONLEVY GUY ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: DORIAN E. TURNER NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - OTHER DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 10/10/2017 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: EN BANC. IRVING, P.J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. The superintendent of t he G reenville Public School District (District) recom m ended the nonrenewal of the e m p loy me n t c ontract f

or the 2014-2015 school y ear of W eddington Math, Science, a nd Technology Academ y teacher, Patricia E kanem

. T he Greenville Public School District Board of Trustees (Board) conducted a hearing and u p h e l d the superintendent’s r ecom m endation, ef f ectively term inating Ekanem ’s em ploy m ent. Ekanem f iled a petition with the W ashing t o n County Chancery C ourt f o r judicial review of the Board’s decision. The c o u r t a f f irm e d t he Board’s decision, and E kanem a p pealed. W e af f irm

.FACTS

¶2. Ekanem o b tained her teaching certif icate in 1997. She taught a t v arious elem entary schools in the D i s t

r i c t , i n c l u d i n g A k in Elem entary School, W ebb Elem entary S chool, Darling Achievem ent Center, and W eddington. Over t he course of her em ploy m ent at these schools, Ekanem was placed on f

our dif f erent im provem ent plans 1 under three dif f erent principals. ¶3. Ekanem taught f

irst g r ade at W eddington d u ring t he 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 school y ears. During that tim e period, she was placed on two im provem ent plans,

w h i c h t a r g e t e d m u l t i ple areas f

o r im provem ent. However, the W eddington principal testif ied bef ore the Board that Ekanem did not s how sig n i f i c a n t im provem ent as a r esult of having been pl a ced on these plans. F urther, the overall perf orm ance of the students in her class during the 2013-2014 school y ear did not m eet the District’s benchm arks. DISCUSSION ¶4. This Court’s review of a decision by a chancery o r circuit court concerning an agency action invokes the sam e standard of review that trial courts are b ound to f o llow. Giles v. Shaw Sch. Dist. , 203 So. 3d 1165, 1169 (¶1 2 ) ( M i s s . Ct. App. 2016). Mississippi Code Annotated section 37-9-113(3) (Rev. 2013) provides the f ollowing standard of review f or a school board’s decision not to renew an em ploy ee’s contract:

1 Wed d i n g to n ’s p rin cip al testif ied d u r in g th e h earin g b ef o re th e B o ard th at an “im p r o v em en t p la n ” i s essen t ially a s et o f p ro ced u res assig n ed to a teach er w h o se ev alu atio n s sh o w th at h e o r sh e n eed s im p r o v e men t in certain a r eas; th e p l an i n clu d es a tim elin e b y

w h ich th e p ro c ed u res are su p p o sed to h av e b een im p lem en ted

. 2The s cope of r eview of the chancery c ourt in such cases shall be lim ited to a

review of the r ecord m ade b e f o r e t h e school board or hearing of f icer to determ ine if the action of t he school board is unlawf ul f or the r eason that it was: (a) Not supported by any substantial evidence; (b) Arbitrary

or capricious; or (c) In violation of som e statutory or constitution a l r i g h t of the em ploy ee. ¶5. Ekanem argues that the chancery court e rred i n upholding t he Board’s decision because that decision was not supported by s ubstantial evidence and was a r b i trary or capricious. “Substantial e vidence m eans m ore than a scintilla o r a suspicion.” G iles , 203 So. 3d at 1169 (¶13) (citation o m itted). “The t erm s ‘arbitrary ’ and ‘ capricious’ im ply a lack of understanding of or a disregard f or the surrounding f

acts and settled controlling principles.” Id

. (citation om itted). “W e d eem an act arbitrary when it occurs not a ccording to reason or judgm ent, but occurs based on the will alone.” Id

. ( c i t a t i o n o m itted). “If t he r easons f or non[ ]renewal are a sham , or are a retaliation f or the em ploy ee’s c onstitutionally p r o t e c t ed activity , the Board acts arbitrarily and capriciously .” I

d . (citation om itted). ¶6. Here, t he record contains evidence of m ultiple are a s w here Ekanem perf orm ed def iciently

. Ekanem wa s t wice placed on im provem ent plans while at W eddington. The record ref lects that the W eddington principal sent Ekanem m ultiple letters pointing out her f ailure t o f ollow the plans and instructing her that f urther a c tion would b e r equired if she did

not im prove h er instructional skills. W eddington’s p rincipal also tes t i f i e d a t the hearing

3bef

ore the Board t hat Ekanem did not successf

ully com p lete the plans. Further, the record contains several l et t ers reprim anding Ekanem f or behavior, such as using corporal punishm ent to discipline a student a n d n o t beginning h er class’s school day on tim e. She accrued alm ost thirty absences and was r eproached f or f requent tardiness. Additionally , the record c ontains several n o tes f rom students who attest to having overheard E kanem use curse words when ref

erring t o another teacher. Finally , Ekanem ’s students perf orm ed below the District’s expectations in several areas. ¶7. In h er brief

, Ekanem asserts that she had received f avorable reviews and evaluations in t he past, but t hat t h ey had been rem oved f rom her f ile. E kanem also m aintains that her
p e rf orm ance s cores were the “ third highest” am ong the f ive f i rst-grade teachers. Ekane m argues that her absences were due to a back i njury she h ad suf f ered while teaching at W ebb Elem entary , which had becom e re-inf lam ed u pon her transf

er to W eddington. A dditionally , E k a n e m c ontends that she was singled out and picked on by W eddington’s p rincipal. Ekanem also argues that she was given the other teachers’ worst students, and that while the principal o f

ten videotaped her class, he did not use the tapes in an instructional m anner to assist her with im

p rovem ent. ¶8. The r ecord contains su b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t

h a t E k a n e m was underperf

orm ing and f

ailed

to c om p ly with p lans d esigned t o im prove her instructional skills. T heref o r e , t h e B o ard’s actions were not arbitrary or capricious, and there is no evidence to s uggest that i ts decision

was in v iolation of any

statutory or constitutional r ight of Ekanem

. As such, we af f irm the

4chancellor’s judgm ent.

¶9. AFFIRMED.
L E E , C . J . , G R I F F I S , P . J . , B A R N E S , C A R

L T O N , F A I R , W I LSON, GREENLEE AND WESTBROOKS, JJ., CONCUR.

5