ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

lack of knowledge in managing the financial aspects of a school. Garnier gave Smith a very
specific plan to employ, which he did, and he had no issues with finances until February 2003.
Following a system-wide audit in early 2003, a report was filed indicating that more than
$25,000 was missing from the school’s account due to teacher receipts and ticket sales from 13
events that had never been deposited. The school bookkeeper confessed to embezzling nearly
$5,000 of the total amount which left roughly $20,000 unaccounted. The board promptly sought
for Smith to repay the missing amount in accordance with a board policy established in 1989 that
made the principal personally responsible for any missing funds from school activities. Smith
refused to repay the funds and was promptly terminated on the grounds of incompetency,
insubordination, lack of cooperation, and neglect of duty. Smith sought relief in the Bullock
County Circuit Court, but he found none. The board’s ruling was affirmed. This appeal followed.
Issues: (1) Did the board have sufficient evidence to support Smith’s termination? (2)
Was Smith required to monitor the financial records of the school in an ongoing manner or
simply establish protocol and employ a bookkeeper capable of following that protocol?
Holding: The Court of appeals held that Smith was rightfully terminated with ample
evidence to show cause for doing so, and that he was required, pursuant to § 16-24B-4, Ala.
Code 1975, to monitor the financial status of the school in an ongoing fashion.
Reasoning: The court ruled that the board’s action to terminate Smith’s employment
contract for cause was done so properly. Despite the fact that $20,000 remained missing, Smith
argued that the evidence, which in truth did not criminally implicate him in any way, was not
sufficient cause for termination. The court disagreed, explaining that Smith brought forward no
evidence to contradict the board’s decision. Having shown no evidence that suggested that the
termination was for any reason other than the missing funds, the court deemed his termination
201