Commissioner's Decision

Didn’t Stem from her Complaints to TEA
ISD’s Nonrenewal of Teacher was Justified
Ruling: An ISD’s decision to nonrenew a teacher’s contract was based on legitimate reasons and substantial evidence, and wasn’t an act of illegal retaliation due to the teacher having filed complaints with the TEA. Phuong Lan Carter v. Copperas Cove ISD, No. 043-R1-07-2020. Signed Aug. 24 by Education Commissioner Mike Morath.

Background
CCISD’s board, in lieu of this case being assigned to an independent hearing examiner, held a hearing that resulted in the board voting to nonrenew Carter’s School Year 2019-20 term contract.

Examples of some of the specific reasons cited for nonrenewing her contract were that Carter — during the 2019-20 school year — had: 1) disregarded directives to not violate federal student privacy laws and related local policies; 2) acted unprofessionally toward staff, students and parents; 3) was insubordinate to her supervisors and 4) disregarded directives to pursue her complaints via the proper channels.

Carter appealed to the commissioner by asserting that: 1) her nonrenewal resulted from illegal retaliation for her filing complaints (the nature of which were not disclosed in this decision) with TEA, 2) the district didn’t give her a chance to “remediate” (correct) the cited deficiencies against her before moving to nonrenew her contract and 3) the district had improperly introduced, as evidence against her at the board hearing, reprimands she received in prior years, for conduct that differed from what she was accused of doing.

Findings
The commissioner upheld the nonrenewal on findings that:
  • Carter’s First Amendment rights (under the U.S. Constitution) to petition government for redress — a right included in Carter’s contract — were not abridged in that she was able to file her complaints with TEA.

  • Carter’s contract was nonrenewed because of her “failings,” and not because she had reported complaints to the TEA.
  • While CCISD did give Carter “some opportunity for remediation,” the district was not required to give her an opportunity to remediate before nonrenewing her contract.

  • The decision to nonrenew Carter’s contract was based on substantial evidence.

  • It was okay for CCISD to introduce into evidence reprimands Carter had received in prior contract years because the reprimands reflected that she had been “put on notice” that she must address her complaints through the proper channels, which was one of the reasons cited in nonrenewing her contract.

For these (and other reasons) Carter’s appeal is denied and her contract nonrenewal is upheld, Morath ruled.