Court Opinion

ID: 9514653
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:50:54.780596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:19.700898
License: Public Domain

KONENKAMP, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
[¶ 56.] I concur with the majority opinion in all matters, except its unnecessary and improper analysis of Hughes’ actions allegedly in violation of state law. The “Notice of Intent to Terminate Employment Relationship” charged Hughes with violating the School Board’s written “Child Abuse/Neglect” policy and violating state law requiring the reporting of suspected child abuse. Her contract required her to comply with state law. Although both the Board and the circuit court concluded that she violated the Board’s policy, neither made any finding on whether she also violated state law. Nonetheless, the majority opinion proceeds to render its own decision on that question. The majority concludes that even after the child told Hughes that her father asked her to touch his penis, Hughes had no “reasonable cause” to report suspected child abuse as required under South Dakota law. The Board should address that allegation, not us. I would remand that question along with the other issue.