ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

non-renewal for cause was valid. The board thereby finalized its original decision to non-renew
Housley. Housley then hurdled the Chancery Court and filed instant action with the U.S. District
Court alleging due process violations.
Issues: (1) Although Housley was non-tenured, did Mississippi Code §§ 37-9-15 and 37-
9-101, et seq. provide him with a property interest in maintaining public employment? (2) Was
the hearing that Housley received prior to his non-renewal fair?
Holding: The court held that the defendant failed to show how Mississippi Code §§ 37-9-
15 and 37-9-101, et seq. provided him with a valid property interest.
Reasoning: Housley argued that Hosea’s recommendation conferred upon him pre-
contractual rights and in doing so required the board to show good cause for not following the
recommendation. That is to say that the board should have afforded him due process as if he
were a tenured teacher because he already--at least in his own thinking--had a contract. This
argument was not well-taken by the court. The court in declining to validate Housley’s assertion
noted that neither §§ 37-9-15 nor 37-9-101, et seq. construe a property interest in public
employment. To be specific, if no due process right has been violated, the board’s decision to
non-renew a school employee is “beyond judicial review.”
Housley also argued that he was not provided a fair hearing on the grounds that he and
board member Thomas Durrett had a past history of disagreements. While the court found this all
to be true in regard to the relationship between Durrett and Housley, Housley failed to provide
any evidence that his hearing was unfair. Thus, the court could find no grounds to side with
Housley.
Disposition: The court granted summary judgment to the defendants.
104