IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2015-CC-00831-COA SHARITA GILES APPELLANT

v. SHAW SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/20/2015 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JON M. BARNW ELL COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: BOLIVAR COUNTY CHANCERY COURT, SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: JOHN M. MOONEY JR. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: W I LLIE GRIFFIN NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - CONTRACT TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED NONRENEW AL OF APPELLANT’S EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 11/15/2016 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE LEE, C.J., JAMES AND GREENLEE, JJ. LEE, C.J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. In this appeal, w e m ust d e term ine whether the chancellor erred in af f irm ing the Shaw School District’s (SSD) decision not to renew Sharita Giles’s em p loy m ent contract. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2. Giles was hired in 2008 by the SSD to serve as principal of McE v a n s E l e me n tary School located in Bolivar County , Mississippi. Her contract was renewed on a y early basis

u n t i l F ebruary 1 4, 2013, w hen the SSD Board of Trustees ( the B oard) voted n ot to rene w Giles’s contract f

or the 2013-14 school y ear. Dr. Cederick Ellis, t he superintendent of SSD,notif

ied Giles by letter dated February 20, 2013, that her c ontract was not renewed due to the consistent poor p e rf

orm ance of the school. G i les r equested a hearing, which o ccurred over three day s in April and May 2013. On July 26, 2013, t he Board again voted not to renew Giles’s contract. Giles appealed to the Bolivar C o unty Chancery Court , S e c ond Judicial District. 1 ¶3. The chancellor concluded that the B o a r d h a d a v a l i d r e ason—the low academ ic perf orm ance o f McEvans—not to renew Giles’s em ploy m ent contract. Giles now appeals, asserting several sim i lar issues that we have consolidated as f o llows: (1) the Board’s decision

was not supported by substantial evidence and was arbitrary and capricious; (2) t he Board’s d e c i sion not to f

ollow Dr. Ellis’s recom m endation to renew her em p loy m e nt contrac t w a s arbitrary and capricious; and (3) she did not r eceive a f air and im

partial hearing bef

ore the Board. FACTS ¶4. Under the Mississippi Statewide Accountability Sy stem (SAS) as im plem ented by the Mississippi Departm e nt of Education (MDE), schools a re assigned a grade t hat m easures its perf orm ance f

or t h e p revious school y ear. At the tim e Giles began her em p loy m ent as principal of McEvans i n July 2008, schools were assessed a num b er based on a rating sy stem known as the Quality of Distribution Index (QDI). The num ber, r anging f

rom zero to three

1 G iles also f

i led su i t in f

e d eral co u rt ag ain st S S D an d sev eral B o ard m em b ers raisin g issu es related to h er n o n r e n ew al, in clu d in g g en d er d i scrim in atio n an d retaliatio n u n d er T itle V I I o f t h e C iv i l R ig h t s A ct an d claim s u n d er 4 2 U .S .C

. § 1 9 8 3 (2 0 1 2 ). T h e U n ited S tates C o u rt o f A p p eals f

o r th e F if th C ircu it r ecen t ly af

f irm ed th e d i strict co u r

t’s g ran t o f su m m ary j u d g m en t in f

a v o r o f S S D

. G iles v. S

h a w S ch

. D i st. , N o . 1 5 -6 0 7 0 9 , 2 0 1 6 WL 3 9 7 4 1 0 1 , at * 4 (5 th C i r. Ju ly

2 2 , 2 0 1 6 ). 2hundred, represented the overall m easure of student perf orm ance on statewide assessm ents. A school’s Growth Com

posite Value (GCV) was also calculated based upon the degree to which a s chool m et i ts expected p e r f orm ance during t he p revious school y ear. The breakdown of

potential scores and the corresponding academ ic status was as f ollows:

• QDI below 100 = “f ailing” if GCV not m et; “low perf orm ing” if

GCV m et

• QDI between 100-132 = “at risk of f ailing” if GCV not m et; “academ ic watch” if GCV m e t

• QDI between 133-165 = “ academ ic watch” i f GCV not m et; “ s u ccessf ul” if GCV m et

• QDI b etween 166-199 = “successf ul” if GCV no t met; “high perf orm ing/successf

ul” if GCV m e t

• QDI between 20 0

- 3 0 0 = “high perf orm ing” if GCV not m et; “high perf orm ing/star school district” if GCV m et During Giles’s tenure at McEvans, the school’s scores were as f ollows:

• 2008-09 school y ear: QDI 94, GCV not m et, ranked “f ailing school”

• 2009-10 school y ear: QDI 88, GCV not m et, ranked “f ailing school”

• 2010-11 s chool y ear: QDI 105, GCV not m e t, r anked “low perf o rm i ng school”

• 2011-12 school y ear: QDI 115, GCV m et, ranked “academ ic watch” 2 ¶5. Since McEvans had been considered a f ailing school f

or two consecutive y ears (2008- 09 a nd 2 009-10), the MDE sent a team of individual evaluators to a s s e s s t h e s chool and develop a plan to increase the s chool’s ranking to successf ul. An “At-Risk Action Plan” (the

2 S t a r t i n g w ith th e 2 0 1 1 -1 2 sch o o l y ear, s ch o o ls w ere also g iv en letter g r ad es, an d M cE v an s receiv ed a “D ” f o r th at sch o o l y ear. U ltim ately , th e u se o f Q D I sco res in assessin g sch o o l p e rf

o rm an c e w as d isco n tin u ed

. 3Plan) 3 was developed, and Giles presented it at the Decem b e r 2010 B o ard m eeting f or approval. According to the Plan, McEvans’s QDI f or t he 2 011-12 school y ear should be over 100, and the school’s QDI should increase by twenty points until r eaching successf ul status. The Plan also included a ssessm ent goals at f our a nd one-half weeks and nine w eeks, with the QDI t o be greater t han 100 at each assessm ent and increasin g between each assessm ent period. The records, including testim ony f rom Dr. Ellis at the hearing, indicated that McEvans f

ailed to reach these established benchm arks under the Plan. ¶6. Although Dr. Ellis recom m ended renewing Giles’s contrac t , the Board voted, three
to two, not to renew her em ploy m ent contract. The B oard m em bers who vo t e d against renewal w ere Evereth Stanton, Evely n Henry , and Georgia Ballard. Easter Sharp and Cora Jackson voted to renew Giles’s contract. ¶7. Dr. Ellis, Jackson, Ballard, Henry , and G i l e s testif ied at the hearing. Although Dr. Ellis recom m ended that the Board renew Giles’s contract, he adm itted that McEvans had never been a successf

ul school under Giles’s leadership. ¶8. Jackson testif

ied that she h ad been on the Board a p p roxim ately three y ears and had previously voted in 2011 and 2012 in f avor of renewing Giles’s contract. Jackson f elt that
McEvans had im

proved during Giles’s leadership, b ut adm itted that s e v e r a l o f the Board

m em bers were not pleased with McEvans’s lack of progress. ¶9. Ballard began her term on the Board in January 2013. She stated that she reviewed the reports f

rom the prior y ears in determ ining whether to renew Giles’s contract. Ballard

3 T h e P lan is also ref

erred to as th e “Im

p ro v em en t P lan ” th r o u g h o u t th e reco rd

. 4testif

i ed she was also aware of the Plan, a nd the school’s f ailure to r e a c h t h e required benchm arks. ¶10. Henry testif

i ed that she had concerns a b out the school’s lack of progress. She stated she based her vote on the d a ta s he received prior t o the Board m eeting. H enry had previously voted in 2011 and 2012 a gainst renewing Giles’s contract du e t o t h e school’s low QDI

num bers. ¶11. Giles testif

ied that Ballard and H e n r y exhibited bias or prejudice against h er in the past. Prior to Ballard’s term on the Board, Giles had heard Ballard say t hat “they n eed to get

a new principal a t McEvans.” And that Henry had voted not t o renew Giles’s contract twice and did not support giving Giles a raise in 2012. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶12. W h en this C o u r t r e v i e w s a decision by a chancery or circuit court concerning an
agency a ction, we a

pply the s am e standard o f r eview that the lower courts a r e b o u nd to f ollow. M iss. Sierra Club Inc. v. Miss. Dep’t of E nvtl. Quality , 819 S o. 2d 51 5 , 5 19 (¶15) (Miss. 2002). The s tandard of review of the chancery court in cases involving a school board’s decision not t o renew an em ploy m ent contract is set out by Mississippi C o d e Annotated section 37-9-113(3) (Rev. 2013): The 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 bef ore the school bo a r d o r h e aring of f icer to determ ine if the action of t he school board is unlawf ul f or the reason that it was: (a) Not supported by any substantial evidence; (b) Arbitrary

or capricious; or

5(c) I n v i o lation of som e statutory or constitutional right of the em ploy ee. DISCUSSION I. The Board’s Decision ¶13. Giles argues that the Board’s decision was not supported b y s ubstantial e vidence and

was arbitrary and capricious. “Substantial evidence m eans m ore than a s c intilla or a suspicion.” Smith C

ty. Sch. Dist. v. Campbell , 18 So. 3d 3 35, 338 ( ¶17) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (citation o m itted)). “The term s ‘arbitrary ’ and ‘ca p r i c ious’ im ply a lack of understanding of or a disregard f or the surrounding f

acts and settled c ontrolling principles.” Id

. at (¶18) (cit a t i o n o mitted). “W e deem an act arbitrary when it occurs not according to

reason or j udgm ent, but occurs based on the will a lone.” Carter v. Cleveland Sch. Dist. , 118 So. 3d 673, 677 (¶17) (Miss. C t. App. 2013). “If the reasons f o r non-renewal are a sham , or

are a retaliation f

o r t h e em

ploy ee’s constitutionally protected activity , the Board acts arbitrarily and capriciously .” Campbell , 18 So. 3d at 338 (¶18). ¶14. “W here a board declines to rehire a school em ploy e e , it m

ust provide a dem onstrable

reason f o r its decision. Once the board has provided a reason, the e m ploy ee m ust, to prevail, prove that such reason is without f actual basis . . .

. ” Harris v
. C anton Separate Pub. Sch. Bd. of Educ. , 655 So. 2d 8 98, 904 (Miss. 1995) (citation o m i tted). In this instance, the Board produced evidence of McEvans’s consistently low s cores a nd f ailure t o m eet t he benchm arks

as established in t he Plan. At no t im e d uring Giles’s leadership w as McEvans a s uccessf ul school. Both Ballard’s and Henry ’s testim onies indicate t hat they voted not to renew Giles’s
contract d u e to the poor perf

orm ance and lack of progress of McEvans during Giles’s tenure.

6¶15. Giles’s contends that the school d id m ove f rom f a iling to academ ic watch under her leadership. W h ile that m a y be true, the Board had a valid educational reason f or nonrenewal. See Miss. Code Ann. § 37-9-101 (Rev. 2013) (“nonrenewal decisions to be based upon valid educational reasons”). W e f ind the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and neither arbitrary

nor capricious.
II. Dr. Ellis’s Recom m endation ¶16. Giles next a rgues that the Board’s decision not to f ollow Dr. Ellis’s recom m endation
to renew her contract was arbitrary and capricious. A school board m ay reject a superintendent’s recom m endation if “good reason to the contrary exists.” Miss. Code Ann. § 37-9-15 (Rev. 2013). As p reviously stated, the Board had a valid educational reason f or not renewing Giles’s contract. This issue is without m erit.
III. Fair and Im partial Hearing ¶17. Giles claim s that both Ballard and Henry were biased or prejudiced a g ainst her. As previously stated, Giles heard Ballard state t hat McEvans needed a n ew principal. According
to Giles, Ballard m ade this statem ent during a m eeting both had attended in 2 010. Giles stated she also heard Ballard m ake a sim ilar statem ent at another m eeting both had attended in 2 011

. D u ring the hearing, Ballard denied m aking com m e nts about G iles. Ballard also denied advocating against G i l e s ’s renewal. B allard testif ied t hat s he had been aware of McEvan’s low ratings f

or y ears a nd wanted to be on the Board in o r d e r t o h e l p ma ke the school successf

ul. ¶18. In regard to Henry , Giles c l a i ms p r e j udice because Henry voted twice in the past

7against h er r enewal. Giles also stated H enry had other reasons f o r her b ias, but Giles ref

used
to elaborate, stating “only she could share that.” Henry testif ied t hat she had no per s onal anim osity towards Giles—her chief concern was the school’s poor perf orm ance. ¶19. To rebut t he p r esum ption of honesty and integrity in board m e m bers in situations such

as this, Gile s “ mu s t s how that the board m em bers had a personal or f

inancial stake in the decision, or that there was som e personal anim o sity t oward” her. Harris , 655 So. 2d at 903. Other t han her own unsupported testim ony , Giles has not presented any e vidence that Ballard and Henry

had personal anim osity

towards her. This issue is without m e rit. ¶20. THE J U D G M E N T O F T H E B O L I V A R C O U N T Y CHANCERY COURT, SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT, IS AFFIRMED. ALL C OSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT. IRVING AND G RIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, ISHEE, CARLTON, FAIR, JAMES, WILSON AND GREENLEE, JJ., CONCUR.

8