ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

were allowed access to specific reasons or to introduce evidence or witnesses. The board,
following the meeting, promptly voted to non-renew their administrative contracts, but did
maintain their offer of teaching positions.
Garrett and Payette sought injunctive relief by filing for a writ of certiorari with Desoto
County Chancery Court. During the process, the board did acquiesce that its hearing was not in
compliance with the School Employment Procedures Law, but argued the point moot because
Garrett and Payette were not demoted or terminated but rather reassigned. Upon review, the
chancery court ordered Garrett and Payette reinstated with back pay until the board conducted
hearings in accordance with the School Employment Procedures Law. The board appealed.
Issues: (1) Because Garrett and Payette accepted new positions within the district and
were reassigned, was the School Employment Procedures Law applicable? (2) Did the Chancery
Court err in awarding Garrett and Payette with back pay?
Holding: The court held that Garrett and Payette were fully entitled to all provisions
outlined in the School Employment Procedures Law and that until such provisions had been
fulfilled should be reinstated with back pay.
Reasoning: The court’s review of the School Employment Procedures Law and more
specifically § 37-9-111 explicitly outlined the ability of the employee to present and cross
examine witnesses after having been provided specific reasons for the decision to non-renew a
contract. The board’s argument that this was not a non-renewal because the appellees were
accepting new contracts is a dispute of language interpretation and inherently fallacious. As the
court explained, it was a nonrenewal where all tenets of § 37-9-111 had to be followed. Clearly,
they were not.
109