Court Opinion

ID: 9379264
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-15 14:02:09.947225+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:06.291092
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 164
                    ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                         DIVISION I
                                         No. CV-22-14

ULANDA DIGBY-BRANCH                              Opinion Delivered: March   15, 2023
                                 APPELLANT
                                                 APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD
V.                                               COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
                                                 WESTERN DISTRICT
WESTSIDE CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL                     [NO. 16JCV-20-620]
DISTRICT NO. 5; AND SCOTT J.
GAUNTT, INDIVIDUALLY, AND IN HIS                 HONORABLE MELISSA BRISTOW
CAPACITY AS SUPERINTENDENT OF                    RICHARDSON, JUDGE
THE WESTSIDE CONSOLIDATED
SCHOOL DISTRICT

                                   APPELLEES AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND
                                             REMANDED IN PART.

                                   MIKE MURPHY, Judge
        Appellant Ulanda Digby-Branch appeals from the Craighead County Circuit Court’s

 judgment in favor of appellees Westside Consolidated School District No. 5 (WCSD) and

 Scott Gauntt, in his capacity as superintendent of the district. She also appeals from the

 order dismissing appellee Scott Gauntt in his individual capacity. On appeal, she argues that

 the court erred in finding that WCSD substantially complied with the Arkansas Teacher Fair

 Dismissal Act (ATFDA) and in dismissing her breach-of-contract claim. We affirm in part

 and reverse and remand in part.

        Digby-Branch entered into a contract on May 20, 2015, with WCSD to serve as the

 WCSD high school assistant principal for the 2015–2016 school year. In 2016, Digby-
Branch was moved to serve as an assistant principal in the middle school. She was employed

with the district through the 2020 school year. On March 6, 2020, Gauntt hand delivered a

letter to Digby-Branch notifying her that he was recommending her contract not be renewed

for the following three reasons:

       a. The school district has had static enrollment, is facing an increase of salaries for
          classified staff of over $150,000, is facing an increase of salaries for certified staff
          to meet the state imposed new minimum salary, has increased expenses for debt
          service, and is facing a rising increase in teacher retirement payments.

       b. Your position of assistant principal at the middle school is not required by
          Arkansas standards.

       c. The district cannot afford to keep you in a position that is not required to be
          filled.

       Branch timely requested a public hearing via certified mail in accordance with the

ATFDA. On April 23, a hearing was held in front of the WCSD school board regarding the

recommended nonrenewal. Following the hearing, the school board unanimously voted not

to renew Digby-Branch’s contract. Superintendent Gauntt sent a letter on April 27 on behalf

of WSCD, stating that Digby-Branch’s contract was not renewed, and her employment with

the district would end with the conclusion of the 2019–2020 school year.

       Branch then appealed the decision to the circuit court pursuant to the ATFDA and

also asserted a breach-of-contract claim. The parties filed cross-motions for summary

judgment, and the court heard oral arguments on July 12, 2021. Following the hearing, the

court entered a letter opinion and judgment granting the appellees’ motion for summary

judgment and denying Digby-Branch’s motion for summary judgment. Specifically, the court

                                                2
found that WCSD substantially complied with the ATFDA and did not abuse its discretion

in the nonrenewal of Digby-Branch’s contract. Further, it found that the suit against Gauntt

individually should be dismissed because it is the school board, not the superintendent, who

has the authority to exercise unfavorable employment action under Arkansas law. Digby-

Branch appealed.

       The parties disagree about the appropriate standard of review in the case at bar; under

these circumstances, we use the summary-judgment standard of review. See Foreman Sch. Dist.

No. 25 v. Steele, 347 Ark. 193, 198, 61 S.W.3d 801, 803–04 (2001).

       Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories and admissions on file, together with any affidavits, show that there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law.     Ark. R. Civ. P. 56(c). When cross-motions are filed, each movant is

contending for the purpose of his own motion that there is no material issue of fact in the

case, but there is no reason to say as an inflexible rule that he also admits the nonexistence

of any factual issue with respect to his adversary’s motion. Wood v. Lathrop, 249 Ark. 376,

379, 459 S.W.2d 808, 809–10 (1970); Deltic Timber Corp. v. Newland, 2010 Ark. App. 276,

374 S.W.3d 261. The fact that both parties have moved for summary judgment does not

necessarily establish that there is no issue of fact. Id. A party may concede that there is no

issue if his legal theory is accepted and yet maintain that there is a genuine dispute as to

material facts if his opponent’s theory is adopted. Id. Both motions should be denied if the

court finds that there is actually a genuine issue as to a material fact. Id. Here, it is impossible

                                                 3
to say that either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the parties are

operating under different theories. Digby-Branch asserts the district did not comply with its

personnel policies (specifically, the RIF policy), and the district contends the nonrenewal

generally complied with the ATFDA. As explained below, further factual development is

necessary, and summary judgment was thus premature.

       On appeal, Digby-Branch challenges the court’s finding that WCSD substantially

complied with the ATFDA by focusing her argument on WCSD’s failure to follow the

reduction-in-force (RIF) policy adopted by the district. She claims that because the

elimination of a position is a permanent reduction in the district’s workforce, the entire RIF

policy should have been applied. She contends the policy was incorporated into her binding

contract, and the entire policy must be considered. WCSD maintains that the policy does

not apply and that it only used its policy as a guideline to determine seniority between all

the employees serving as assistant principals.

       Under the ATFDA, “[a] nonrenewal . . . by a school district shall be void unless the

school district substantially complies with all provisions of this subchapter and the school

district’s applicable personnel policies.” Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-1503(c) (Repl. 2021). The

board of directors may refuse to renew the contract of any licensed teacher who has been

employed continuously by the school district three or more years “when there is a reduction

in force created by districtwide reduction in licensed personnel, for incompetent

performance, conduct which materially interferes with the continued performance of the

teacher’s duties, repeated or material neglect of duty, or other just and reasonable cause.”

                                                 4
Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-1510(b)(1) (Repl. 2021).1 It is the public policy of the State of

Arkansas that each school district shall have a written policy on reduction in force based

upon objective criteria for a layoff and recall of employees. Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-2407(A)

(Repl. 2021). “Reduction in force” (RIF) is not defined in the ATFDA.

       The RIF policy incorporated by reference in the employment contract between Digby-

Branch and the district states, in part, that

       [i]n the event that reductions in the licensed staff, including administration, becomes
       necessary due to decreased student enrollment, shortage of revenues or circumstances
       outside the control of the school district, the Board of Education shall endeavor to
       accomplish the necessary reductions in an impartial and objective manner. However,
       the continuation of the quality of the district’s educational program shall receive
       highest priority in these considerations. This RIF policy is not a dismissal policy.

       At the school board hearing, made part of the record, Gauntt explained the increasing

costs the district was facing and that the overall operating budget shortfall into the next year

would be $238,000. He stated that an efficiency report conducted by the State determined

that the school district was required to have a principal only at the middle school. With this

information, Gauntt looked at the three assistant principals to determine who was the lowest

on the seniority scale. Once Gauntt knew that Digby-Branch was in the position that could

be eliminated, that she had less seniority than the two other assistant principals, and that

her position would save the district $94,000 (the total of her salary and benefits) then he

decided to make the recommendation that her contract not be renewed.

       1
         The record does not clearly provide which reason the board relied on from the
statute in reaching its decision of nonrenewal.

                                                5
       Concerning the RIF policy, the court stated in an incorporated letter opinion that it

disagreed with Digby-Branch’s argument because “Gauntt’s decision to consider RIF policies

did not convert the rationale underpinning the recommendation to exclusively RIF criteria.

The school board has the obligation to substantially comply with its policies and procedures

and address the budget shortfall in an objective manner.” Essentially, the court found that

by referring to the RIF policy language for guidance, it did not convert this general ATFDA

nonrenewal to a RIF-specific ATFDA nonrenewal.

       It is undisputed that Gauntt considered RIF policy criteria in reaching his

recommendation, but on this record, we cannot determine as a matter of law whether

considering only certain RIF criteria did not convert the recommendation to exclusively a

RIF nonrenewal. The record in its final posture raises more questions than it answers.

       Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 6-17-1503(c), Digby-Branch’s

nonrenewal is void as a matter of law if the district did not substantially comply with the

provisions of the ATFDA and the school district’s applicable personnel policies. Here,

material facts remain regarding whether the district substantially complied with its policies

and procedures. Accordingly, we hold that this claim is not appropriate for summary

judgment. We must reverse and remand this issue for further proceedings.

       Next, Digby-Branch argues that the court erred in finding that Gauntt could not be

sued individually. She claims that, acting as chief executive officer, he engaged in illegal

conduct when he failed to implement the RIF policy and that he subjectively targeted her.

We disagree because the undisputed facts before us indicate that Gauntt was carrying out

                                             6
the requirements of his position. According to the district policies, his duties included,

among other things, implementing the policies of the Board; making recommendations to

the Board concerning personnel employment, discipline, and termination; and

administering the district’s budget and regularly reporting to the board on the financial

condition of the district.

       In accordance with the ATFDA, Gauntt reviewed a budget concern and made a

recommendation to the Westside School Board; the school board listened to his

presentation and the comments of Digby-Branch and her attorney, deliberated, found the

superintendent’s reasons true, and upheld his recommendation not to renew her contract

for the following year. Only the school board had the power to nonrenew a contract; Gauntt

could only make a recommendation. This argument would fail regardless of the outcome of

the first issue on remand.

       Finally, Digby-Branch claims the court erred in barring her breach-of-contract claim.

We disagree. Digby-Branch had been employed with WCSD since 2015, qualifying her as a

nonprobationary teacher. There is no common-law cause of action for breach of contract

when the ATFDA applies because it is the exclusive remedy. Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-

1510(d)(1). Summary judgment was appropriate for this issue.

       Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.

       VIRDEN and HIXSON, JJ., agree.

       Branch Tax Law Firm, by: Felicia L. Branch, for appellant.

       Mixon & Worsham PLC, by: Donn Mixon, for appellees.

                                              7