Anderson v. Daggett Sch. Dist.

534 P.3d 769

Clark ANDERSON, Appellant,

v.DAGGETT SCHOOL DISTRICT and State of Utah, Appellees.

No. 20210155-CA

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Filed July 20, 2023

Rehearing Denied August 28, 2023

Julie J. Nelson and Tracey M. Watson, Attorneys for Appellant

Sean D. Reyes and Peggy E. Stone, Attorneys for Appellees

Judge Ryan D. Tenney authored this Opinion, in which Judges Gregory K. Orme and David N. Mortensen concurred.

Opinion

TENNEY, Judge:

¶1 Clark Anderson taught in the Daggett School District (the District) for 24 years. After the series of incidents described below, the District terminated his employment. Anderson believed his termination was unlawful, so he challenged it. At the conclusion of a two-day evidentiary hearing, a designated hearing officer (the Hearing Officer) upheld the termination.

¶2 Anderson then filed a petition asking this court to review the Hearing Officer's decision. After the District asserted that we lacked jurisdiction, we transferred the matter on our own motion to the district court. Once there, however, the District asserted that the district court lacked jurisdiction too. The district court agreed with the District and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

¶3 Anderson now appeals, and the District again asserts that we lack jurisdiction. As set forth below, we first conclude that we have jurisdiction to review the Hearing Officer's decision. We accordingly vacate our prior order transferring the matter to the district court, thus reinstating the initial petition for review that Anderson filed in this court. From there, we next conclude that the Hearing Officer applied the wrong standard when reviewing Anderson's termination. We accordingly set aside the Hearing Officer's decision and instruct the Hearing Officer to reassess Anderson's termination under the correct standard.

BACKGROUND

¶4 The District serves a rural community in northeastern Utah on the Wyoming border.

The District has two elementary schools and one combined junior high/high school that is called Manila High School. Manila High School has an average class size of twelve students.

¶5 Anderson began teaching for the District in 1995 as a career educator.¹ His most recent teaching assignment was at Manila High School, where he taught math, coached golf, and acted as a substitute bus driver.

¶6 Toward the end of the 2018–19 school year, Anderson and the Manila High School principal (Principal) decided on a new math textbook to be purchased for the following school year. Anderson later testified that he was "entirely sure we had ordered [the new textbooks]." In May 2019, on or near the final day of school, Anderson told his students that he did not want to see their current math textbooks back in class and that the students "were welcome to destroy or burn the textbooks." He also said, "[I]f you want, you can set [the current math textbooks] back there on the shelf, but if you bring [them] to me[,] ... I'll just lower your grade." Anderson later claimed that his statement about lowering grades was a joke, but two of his students testified that it was "unclear" if "Anderson was serious or joking" and that they "were not willing to take any chances with their grades." A group of at least four students subsequently burned the math textbooks, an event that was captured on video.

¶7 There was a "general practice" in the District in which students were "required to take a [w]ithdrawal [s]lip to each of their teachers on the final day of school." That withdrawal slip listed each class on the student's schedule and had spaces for the teacher to indicate whether the student was returning a book in damaged condition. If "there was no property to be returned or the property was returned in suitable condition, the teacher would make a dash mark in the space."

¶8 In late May 2019, the District's superintendent (Superintendent) became aware that the current math textbooks from Anderson's classes had not been returned to Manila High School. Superintendent worked with Manila High School's secretary to check the withdrawal slips for any record of the textbooks having been returned. On review, the withdrawal slips for Anderson's classes showed "dash marks" in the spaces and were initialed by Anderson "in every instance," thus indicating that "there was no property to be returned or [that] the property was returned in suitable condition."

¶9 Superintendent asked Principal to investigate the textbook matter further. Principal communicated with Anderson, who admitted that he did not have his students return their math textbooks. When Principal informed Anderson that there was a process to dispose of District textbooks, Anderson responded that "he knew it was hard to get rid of them." Principal then told Anderson they needed to attempt to recover the textbooks. But Anderson later testified that he did not understand this to mean that he, personally, "was supposed to attempt to retrieve any textbooks." The District was eventually able to recover just a few of the textbooks.

¶10 During the textbook investigation, Principal informed Superintendent of another concern regarding Anderson, namely, that Anderson had encouraged his students to "sluff class" on certain occasions. Principal's daughter, who was a student of Anderson's at Manila High School, informed Principal that "Anderson said if two students or less showed up for class, he would not give the class an assignment for the day." Students at Manila High School participated in many extracurricular activities that led to excused absences for involved students. Students who testified at Anderson's hearing said that he "led them to believe that they should skip class if most of the kids were attending school-sponsored events away from the school to avoid the whole class receiving an assignment." Principal testified that "it's kind of up to the teacher" whether to give assignments on days in which many students were absent. Anderson explained that "he told the students the policy so they could decide for themselves" whether to attend class on days when several students would be absent.

¶11 Based on these incidents, Superintendent determined that Anderson "had committed substantial violations" of District policy, and in June 2019 Anderson received a letter, signed by Superintendent, that indicated Superintendent's intent to terminate Anderson's employment.² The letter concluded that the destruction of District property, the unethical use of the grading policy, and the encouragement for students to skip school all "constituted unprofessional behaviors disrupting the ethical and legal operations of the [D]istrict." The letter also concluded that "refusing to act on [Principal's] verbal directive" to retrieve the math textbooks "constituted insubordination."

¶12 An informal conference was held in July 2019 with Anderson, Superintendent, Principal, a Utah Education Association representative, and another District employee. "The conference was not cordial," and Superintendent "raise[d] additional allegations, which were not raised" in the intent-to-terminate letter. Anderson asked to be reinstated, but Superintendent instead sent Anderson another letter in late July rejecting his request and now including additional allegations "that strengthen[ed] the District's position and resolve to terminate." Superintendent memorialized these additional allegations in an August 2019 amended termination notice.³

¶13 Under Utah law, Anderson had a "right to a fair hearing" upon receiving this termination notice. Utah Code § 53G-11-513(5)(e) (2020). And a provision in the Utah Code allowed the District to "delegate its authority to a hearing officer to make decisions relating to the employment of an employee which are binding upon both the employee and the board." Id. § 53G-11-515(1)(c) (2020). Anderson and the District participated in a formal hearing before the Hearing Officer, as authorized by statute, in early 2020. See id. § 53G-11-515(a), (c). The parties submitted exhibits, called witnesses (including Anderson, who testified in his own behalf), and were given opportunities to cross-examine each witness. Counsel also offered opening and closing statements. After closing argument, Anderson's counsel told the Hearing Officer that "the questions about whether, in addition to proving a violation of [District] policy, employees are entitled to consistent application of the law and entitled to review of the proportionate nature of the level of discipline as it relates to what they've been ... accused of doing, I think those are very well-settled principles in Utah law." At the close of the hearing, the Hearing Officer said that he did "not require any post-hearing briefing" and took the matter under advisement.

¶14 On January 31, 2020, the Hearing Officer issued a written and "final decision" to terminate Anderson. The Hearing Officer began by noting that "[c]ases in Utah are relatively scant on employment law specifically involving the termination of educators." But in the Hearing Officer's view, a 2016 federal district court case from the District of Utah— Hays v. Park City School District , 214 F. Supp. 3d 1162 (D. Utah 2016) —"provided a restatement of current law related to due process requirements in the context of terminating an educator." Relying on that case, the Hearing Officer concluded that to overcome the District's decision to terminate him, Anderson was required to "demonstrate a degree of outrageousness and a magnitude of potential or actual harm that is truly conscience shocking." See Hays , 214 F. Supp. 3d at 1182.

¶15 Applying that standard, the Hearing Officer concluded that the "decision to terminate Mr. Anderson [did] not shock the conscience and did not unlawfully deprive [him] of any substantive rights." The Hearing Officer found that Anderson violated policies when he knowingly "circumvent[ed]" the District's book disposal process by instructing students to destroy or burn math textbooks and then ...