Dear v. Cares Ctr. Inc.

328 So.3d 733

Chase DEAR, Appellant

v.CARES CENTER INC., Appellee

NO. 2020-CA-00341-COA

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

June 15, 2021

Rehearing Denied September 14, 2021

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: DANIEL MYERS WAIDE, Starkville

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: JASON SCOTT GILBERT, HUGH RUSTON COMLEY, Jackson

BEFORE WILSON, P.J., McCARTY AND SMITH, JJ.

SMITH, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Chase Dear filed a complaint against his former employer, Cares Center Inc. (Cares), and asserted that Cares wrongfully terminated his employment after he reported a coworker's criminal conduct. The Lamar County Circuit Court granted Cares a directed verdict under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) after finding that (1) Dear failed to show the reported conduct was criminal, and (2) the evidence failed to demonstrate that Cares terminated Dear's employment because he reported the alleged criminal conduct. On appeal, Dear asserts the circuit court should have submitted the case to the jury rather than granting Cares's directed verdict motion. Specifically, Dear asserts the following: (1) a reasonable juror could have found that he reported criminal conduct to Cares; (2) the circuit court erroneously concluded that Cares intended to terminate his employment regardless of his report; and (3) the circuit court erroneously determined the cause of the termination.

¶2. Upon review, we conclude that Dear failed to present sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to find that a criminal act occurred. Because we affirm the circuit court's judgment on the first ground, we need not address Dear's remaining assignments of error pertaining to the second basis for the circuit court's decision. See Estate of Turner v. Town Pharmacy & Gifts LLC , 310 So. 3d 1229, 1236 (¶25) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021).

FACTS

¶3. In November 2018, Canopy Children's Solutions (Canopy) hired Dear to work at Cares, its school for children with emotional and behavioral disabilities. Each Cares classroom was assigned one teacher and one behavioral education interventionalist (BEI). The BEI assisted whenever a behavioral issue arose with a student so that the teacher could maintain the role of educator. Although Dear originally applied to work at Cares as a BEI, Canopy offered him a teaching position. The offer letter Dear received from Jynger Morris, Canopy's human-resources director, specified that Dear's employment would be at-will and that he or Canopy could terminate the employment at any time with or without notice and either with or without cause. In addition, because Dear had not yet obtained his special-education teaching license, Canopy hired Dear as a substitute teacher and classified him as a pro re nata (PRN) employee to work on an as-needed basis.

¶4. Despite Dear's designation as a PRN employee, Dr. Anne Russum, the principal at Cares, testified that Dear was hired with the expectation that he would soon obtain his teaching license and become eligible to fill a full-time teaching vacancy. As a result, Canopy placed Dear as a substitute teacher in a classroom with about seven to ten children who had severe behavioral issues. Canopy and Cares hoped that Dear would prove to be a good fit for the classroom and could become the classroom's full-time teacher once he obtained his teaching license.

¶5. On Monday, December 10, 2018—the ninth day that Dear had worked at Cares—Dear witnessed Arthur McLaughlin, a BEI assigned to his classroom, perform a management-of-assaultive-behavior (MAB) hold on a disruptive student named N.T.¹ Later that same morning, Dear met with Russum and Robin Davis, the individual-education-plan (IEP) coordinator and teacher-supervisor at Cares, to discuss Dear's eligibility for healthcare benefits. At the beginning of the meeting, Dear reported that McLaughlin had performed an improper MAB hold because he had "body slammed" N.T. to the ground. After Dear informed her of the incident, Russum assured him that an investigation would follow. Both Russum and Davis testified that Dear then immediately began questioning them about his eligibility for healthcare benefits.

¶6. When Dear walked outside to take a smoke break, another employee informed Russum and Davis that Dear possibly had the flu. Upon Dear's return, Russum inquired about his health, and Dear indicated that he did had a fever and might have the flu. Russum sent Dear home for the day and suggested that he see a physician.

¶7. The next morning, on Tuesday, December 11, 2018, Dear informed Davis that he had pneumonia. That same morning, Davis texted Dear the following message: "After our conversation yesterday, since you expressed you did not want to work every day, I'll call you when a substitute is needed." Dear responded that afternoon and stated that he did want to work every day at Cares but also "need[ed] benefits for full-time hours." Dear stated that he hoped to obtain his special-education teaching license soon and to move into a full-time position at Cares. After forty-five minutes passed without Davis responding to his message, Dear called the child-abuse hotline for the Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services (CPS) and reported the incident from the previous day.

¶8. On December 14, 2018, Morris and Russum had a conference call with Dear and informed him of his termination. The two women assured Dear that his termination was in no way related to the report of abuse, and they explained they simply felt Dear was not a good fit for Cares. The following week, on December 21, 2018, Dear filed his civil complaint and asserted that Cares had wrongfully terminated his employment because he reported McLaughlin's alleged criminal conduct. The circuit court held a two-day jury trial in November 2019. During his case-in-chief, Dear testified on his own behalf and called as adverse witnesses the following Canopy/Cares employees: Morris, Russum, Davis, and Sonya Felts, who not only served as the lead BEI at Cares but also witnessed the hold McLaughlin had performed on N.T. ¶9. At trial, Davis testified that she served as Dear's direct supervisor while he worked at Cares. Although Davis did not formally observe Dear during his nine days at Cares, she informally observed him by walking around his classroom multiple times. Davis explained that the teachers at Cares could not simply stand at the front of a classroom and teach a lesson. Instead, because the students were at different academic levels and proficiencies, the teachers had to rotate around the classroom and work individually with students to address the students’ needs. Davis testified that each time she observed Dear, he was always seated at his desk and did not appear to be engaged with the students.

¶10. Based on her observations of Dear, Davis opined that Dear was not interested in teaching the students but was more interested in working as a BEI. Davis stated she had explained to Dear when he first began working at Cares that behavioral intervention was the role of the BEI rather than the teacher. Nevertheless, Davis testified that Dear left his classroom on multiple occasions to intervene when a student was being attended to outside the classroom for behavioral matters.

¶11. After Dear's first week at Cares, Davis asked Tina Allman, another teacher with almost twenty years of teaching experience, to help Dear acclimate to Cares. Davis asked Allman to show Dear how to use the classroom computers, to explain the students’ IEPs to Dear, and to answer any questions Dear might have. After meeting with Dear, Allman reported to Davis that Dear simply "was not interested."

¶12. Just like Davis, Russum opined that Dear did not really desire to be a teacher at Cares. Instead, Russum stated Dear made it very clear from the beginning that he preferred to handle the students’ behavioral issues. Also like Davis, Russum testified that she conducted informal walkthroughs of Dear's classroom to speak to the students and to observe Dear. Russum stated that during Dear's first several days at Cares, she and Davis simply observed and monitored Dear to see whether he would be a good fit for the school. Russum testified that a formal evaluation with feedback usually did not occur until an employee had been at the school for thirty days. Russum stated that Dear had been asked to get to know the students during his first few days and to review their records on his own time. Russum testified, however, that Dear never reviewed the students’ records and that during her walkthroughs, she never observed him speaking to the children or trying to develop a relationship with them.

¶13. Russum and Davis both testified that Dear walked into their meeting on December 10, 2018, and stated he had witnessed an improper hold where McLaughlin had "pushed" or "body slammed" N.T. to the floor. Both administrators testified that Dear never claimed McLaughlin had choked N.T. or had placed his forearm across N.T. and squeezed her throat. Davis testified that the first time she heard such allegations was when she listened to Dear's phone call to the CPS hotline. If Dear had walked into their meeting and made such claims, Russum and Davis both stated that they would have immediately contacted law enforcement because they did not allow that type of conduct to occur at Cares.

¶14. Russum and Davis both described N.T. as a bigger child. Davis stated that N.T. could be "[v]ery violent" and would "[t]hrow things, scratch, bite, hit, pull hair, ... [and] tear things off the wall ...." Davis also stated that N.T. often screamed repeatedly even when no one was touching her. As the BEI in N.T.’s classroom, McLaughlin had an especially good relationship with N.T., and Russum and Davis both testified that N.T. loved and respected McLaughlin. Russum and Davis described McLaughlin as a gentle giant. Neither administrator had ever seen McLaughlin lose his temper or react out of anger, even though students had hit, kicked, spit on, and screamed at him as he tried to calm them. After Dear reported...