ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

and torture” the Harvey’s. This point is debated by both parties as to the accuracy of what was
said.
On May 27, the school board notified Spurlock by letter that the board would be meeting
to determine his future. He was encouraged to attend. At the meeting, Spurlock was terminated
effective immediately. Spurlock appealed to the district court, which remanded the case back to
the school board to determine items of fact in regard to Spurlock’s continuing contract status as a
teacher. The board, in response, ruled that Spurlock held no tenure rights, and, if he did, his
behavior as a principal warranted his termination as a teacher as well. This appeal followed.
Issues: (1) Did Spurlock forfeit his rights to teacher tenure when he accepted a principal
position 9 years earlier? (2) Was the evidence presented by the board of trustees substantial
enough to warrant his termination?
Holding: The court held that there was substantial evidence to warrant Spurlock’s
termination as a principal. However, the court also acknowledged that Spurlock did not forfeit
his right to continuing contract status when he accepted a principalship position nor did he wipe
away his tenure in one incident.
Reasoning: As to the first issue, Wyoming Teacher Employment Law § 21-7-101 et seq.
makes clear that administrators do not garner tenure in their position, but they also do not forfeit
the tenure privileges earned as a teacher when they assume an administrative position. That
being said, the school board was required to provide Spurlock with due process proceedings in
regard to his property interests as a teacher. The board did not do so.
As to the second issue, Spurlock’s termination as an administrator, while not stated, can
only be assumed to be based on “good and just cause” to which there was plenty. The court does
not argue the validity of his termination as an administrator on the grounds of his behavior with
76