Court Opinion

ID: 9847558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:02:15.451111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:20.146849
License: Public Domain

*660Judge Arnold
dissenting.
I vote to dismiss the appeal. Warren filed this suit seeking judicial review pursuant to the provisions of G.S. 115C-325, and G.S. 115C-45, of the Board’s decision to accept his resignation. The threshold question which must be determined is whether Warren is entitled to judicial review of the Board’s action in accepting his resignation.
G.S. 115C-325(n) provides:
Any teacher who has been dismissed or demoted pursuant to G.S. 115C-325(e)(2), or pursuant to subsections (h), (k) or (1) of this section, or who has been suspended without pay pursuant to G.S. 115C-325(a)(4), shall have the right to appeal from the decision of the board to the superior court for the judicial district in which the teacher is employed. This appeal shall be filed within a period of 30 days after notification of the decision of the board. The cost of preparing the transcript shall be borne by the board. A teacher who has been demoted or dismissed and who has not requested a hearing before the board of education pursuant to this section shall not be entitled to judicial review of the board’s action.
Warren was neither dismissed nor demoted. He freely and voluntarily resigned and his resignation was accepted by the Board. The procedure under which the resignation was accepted does not fall within the purview of G.S. 115C-325(e)(2)(h), (k) or (1), thus, I would find that Warren has no right of review under G.S. 115C-325.
Warren also seeks review pursuant to the provision of G.S. 115C-45 which in pertinent part provides:
An appeal shall lie from the decision of a local board of education to the superior court of the State in any action of a local board of education affecting one’s character or right to teach.
The Board's decision does not affect Warren’s character thus the question becomes whether the acceptance of the resignation affects Warren’s right to teach. In Still v. Lance, 279 N.C. 254, 182 S.E. 2d 403 (1971), our Supreme Court held that a decision not to renew a teacher’s contract at the end of the year did not come *661within the purview of G.S. 115-34 (repealed 1 July 1981), the forerunner of this statute, because the decision did not deprive the teacher of the right to teach elsewhere. Based upon this decision I believe that in order to bring an action under this statute the Board’s action must somehow deprive the appealing party of their right not only of the job they held but also any other teaching job. The action of the board in the case sub judice did not deprive Warren of his right to teach within the meaning of the statute. Thus, I would find that he has no right to judicial review pursuant to 115C-45.
Because these statutes afford Warren no right to judicial review of the Board’s acceptance of his resignation, I believe that his appeal should be dismissed.