Opinion ID: 900699
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts and prior decision

Text: [¶ 2.] This case is before this Court for the second time. For a detailed statement of the facts and procedure relevant to the first appeal see Hughes v. Stanley County School Bd., 1999 SD 65, 594 N.W.2d 346 ( Hughes I ). A factual summary is provided here to facilitate discussion in this appeal. [¶ 3.] Mary Hughes (Hughes) was employed as an elementary school guidance counselor for the Stanley County School District (School Board) between 1990 and 1997. In the fall of 1994 and in the spring of 1995, M.B., a third grade student, approached Hughes on four separate occasions, telling Hughes on one occasion that her father walked around the house after his showers without a towel. Hughes was later told by M.B. that her father had touched her in the area of her (undeveloped) breasts during a playful wrestling match. In a third conversation, M.B. said she had walked in on her father while he was masturbating. In the last conversation, M.B. reported that her father had asked her to touch his penis. [¶ 4.] Hughes doubted M.B.'s claims because, in her experience counseling M.B., she had learned that M.B. had a tendency to fabricate or exaggerate the facts. Thus, on each occasion that M.B. reported her father's conduct, Hughes gave the same advice: she told M.B. to speak with her mother to ask her father to cover up and to get her father to be more discreet. After the last conversation with M.B., Hughes conferred with the high school counselor about M.B.'s claims and both agreed that she was fabricating the touching incident. Both also agreed that Hughes should speak with the parents to discuss the allegations their daughter had made. When Hughes spoke to the parents, they both admitted the first three allegations and stated that M.B.'s father had taken steps to remedy his behavior. However, both parents stated that the allegation that the father had asked M.B. to touch his penis was untrue. Hughes continued to monitor the situation by checking with M.B. on a daily basis. No further incidents were mentioned by M.B. and she told Hughes that her father was now wearing a robe. [¶ 5.] During this entire period of time, both state law (SDCL 26-8A-3) and school district policy [1] required teachers to report suspected child abuse. Furthermore, school district policy forbade teachers from contacting the parents to determine the cause of the suspected abuse. [¶ 6.] In July 1996, as a result of investigation by the Stanley County Sheriff's Office of alleged sexual assault by M.B.'s father against a neighbor child, Hughes was questioned about the foregoing conversations with M.B. Hughes submitted a written report to her superiors regarding M.B.'s allegations. She explained that she did not believe M.B.'s allegations, but admitted that she did, in fact, contact M.B.'s parents concerning those allegations. M.B.'s father later entered a plea of guilty to sexually assaulting the neighbor child. [¶ 7.] Hughes was criminally charged with failure to report child abuse or neglect under SDCL 26-8A-3. Her criminal case resulted in a mistrial and the charges against her were dismissed. [¶ 8.] On September 27, 1996, Hughes was served with a notice of intent to terminate employment relationship. The notice, signed by the superintendent of schools, alleged that Hughes had violated the written policy of Stanley County School District No. 57-1 as set forth at page 5 in the teacher handbook given to [her] for the 1994-95 school year under the heading `Child Abuse/Neglect.' The notice further alleged that she had violated state law concerning the reporting of suspected child abuse, including but not limited to, SDCL 26-8A-3 and SDCL 26-8A-2(8) in the fall of 1994, which failure to report [had] been recently discovered by the administration and the State of South Dakota. [¶ 9.] Hughes was initially suspended with pay until a hearing could be held on the matter. By the time the criminal trial was held, however, the School Board had suspended Hughes without pay pending the administrative hearing. [¶ 10.] On February 13, 1997, the School Board held a hearing on the notice to terminate. After the hearing, the School Board voted to issue its Notice of Termination of Employment Relationship, concluding Hughes had breached her contract of employment. She appealed that decision to the circuit court where the decision of the School Board was affirmed. The appeal in Hughes I followed.