Sumter County Board of Education v. Alabama State Tenure Commission Court Opinion

    sIES

rd distributed to the teach-

;t denied receiving I copy or
it. During the school year
I prior thereto, there had

r made ttr the Board and the

by parer.+s of children who

: been paridled by Iltr. Puck-

ed some of these claims but
rerity.

I l9?5, the suPerintendent of
ed with Mr. Puckett com-

him. He said he discussed

plicy as to corPoral Punish-

. Puckett and suggested he

rnd edvice of the PrinciPal in
nary action. On APril 22,

nts of a student brought the

e Board and comPlained that
ddled by Mr. Puckett. TheY

hild's bruised buttocks to the

uckett was immediatelY sum'

estioned concerning the child.

ihat he had given the child

h a paddle because he had

in a homework assignment.

his belief that such Punish'
essary to maintain disciPline'

questions of the suPerintend-

ed that the act of Punishing
what he had PreviouslY been

lo.

nt superintendent gtated that
dth Mr. Puckett rumors of his

students. He informed Mr.

he was to turn children in his

the princiPal if theY were 80

he couldn't "handle" them.

lal testified that he had talked

rckett concerning comPlaints

eived about excessive corPoral

He gtated that he informed

that he should not administer

rent but should rtfer such mat-

The princiPal steted that in
ived 20 to 25 comPlaints from

erning the severitY of Punish-

d bv'Mr. Puckett on their chil-

urther stated that it was his

oolici in the school that no

ict 
-corPoral 

Punishment but

dents to him. He had directed

to stop giving such Punishment

SUMTER CTY. BD. OF ED. v. ALABAMA STATE TENURE Ala. llgz
, clre .5' AbOv.ADp., tt2 So2d I lt7

permanently and not to just lay off for two The only disputed testimony is whether
weeks. He did not know of any other these officials told Mr. Puckett of the policy
teacher in his school giving corporal punish- 1 of the Board and that he was not to paddle
ment. anymore. Mr. puckett said he was not

Testimony by witnesses called by Mr. given a copy of the booklet as other teach-
Puckett began with fellow teachers who errl were; that he did not attcnd faculty
stated they were aware of the policy that meetings because he drove a school bus;
students be sent to the principal if corporal that he was never told to permanently
punishment was to be given and that they cease paddling but only to lay off for two or
sent pupils to the principal. three weeks.

A student testified that he had retrieved With this statement of the evidenoe, we
a paddle from the roof of the school build- affirm the court below.
ing for Mr. Puckett in the fall of 1975.

Another student testified that he was pad- AFFIRMED'

dled by Mr' Puckett but not severely' 
BRADLEY and HoLMES, JJ., @ncur.

Mr. Puckett admittcd that he paddled
students and felt it necessary to maintain
discipline. He stated that when he stopped
paddling for two weeks at the request of
the principal, discipline deteriorated badly.
He denied that the principal or superintend-
ent had ever told him to permanently stop
paddling, but only requested that he lay off
for a while, such as two weeks, and not to
be so severe. Because of such requests, he

locked up his paddle for two weeks and
later threw it up on the building for two or
three we'eks. When he asked the superin-
tendent if he had received a particular pa-
rental complaint about his paddling a girl,
the superintendent told him he had not and
was not against paddling if they needed it.

'Mr. Puckett identified his paddle and ac-
knowledged that it was the one he used. It
is described as f/r inches wide, % inch thick
and about 12 inches long.

Succinctly summarized, the undisputed
testimony is that Mr. Puckett regularly ap
plied corporal punishment to his students,
Many of the parents complained to the prin-
cipal and the Board of Edueation. The
Board had a policy that corporal punish-
ment be administered only by a principal.
Such policy was incorporated in a booklet
and given to each teacher. This policy was

discussed at regular faculty meetings in the
school where Mr. Puckett was employed.
His wife was also a teacher in the same
syst€m. The principal, assistant superin-
tendent and superintendent had discussed
with Mr. Puckett complaints by parents
against him.

In re SUMTER COL]NTY BOARD
OF EDUCATION

.v.
AI"ABAMA STATE TENT]RE

COMMISSION.

Ex parte Sumter County Board
of Education.

sc 2801.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 9, 1977.

Board of education filed petition for
writ of mandamus to require State Tenure
Commission to set aside its order rrinstat-
ing teacher whose contract had been can-
celled by board. The Circuit Court, Sumter
County, Claud D. Neilson, J., denied peti-
tion, and board appealed. The Court of
Civil Appeals, Wright, P. J., 352 So.zd
l13il, affirmed, and denied rehearing, and
certiorari was granted. The Supreme
Court, held that evidence in proceeding
beforr Statc Tenure Commission sustained
finding that action of board of education in
dismissing school teacher was arbitrarily
unjust.

Affirmed as modified.

Bloodworth, J., concurred specially and
filed opinion in which Almon, J., joined.



1138 AIa. 352 SOUTIIERN REPORTEN" 2d SERIES

l. Schools end School Dietricts c=f41(5)

Stat€ Tenure Commission's conclusions

and judgment will not be reversed on appel-

late'rev-iew as being unjust unless it is

against the preponderance of the evidence

"ia 
tn. overwhelming weight of the evi

dence. Code of Ala., Tit.52, SS 351 et seq"

360.

2. Schoole and School Districts c-f41(5)

Evidence in proceeding before State

Tenurc Commission sustained finding that

".iion 
of board of education in dismissing

..t*t t ..tt"r was arbitrarily unjust' Code

of Ala., Tit. 52, $ 351 et seq'

Perry Hubbard, Tuscaloosa, for petition'

er.

W. Troy Massey, Sp. Asst. Atty' Gen''

MontgomerY, for resPondent.

Truman Hobbs, Montgomery, on behalf

of Alabama Rlucation Association, amicus

curiae.

PER CURIAM.
In its petition for writ of certiorari, the

petitioner has asked us to reverse the Court

of Cirit APPeals, 352 So.fi 1133, which

held controlling State Tenure Commission

v. Mountain Brook Board of klucation,343

So.2d 522 (Ala.19??), and to overrule that

case. This Court declines to either overrule

or modify Mountain Brook, but due to ear-

nest insistence of counsel, the Court has

undertaken in this opinion to explain the

basis of that opinion with particular empha-

sis as to the scope of review of Tenure

Commission decisions by the Court of Civil

Appeals and this Court'

As we pointed out in Mountain Brook,the

Alabama State Tenure Commission was cre'

ated by the legislature as an administrative

u**V with the function, inter alia, of re-

vi-ewing actions of boards of education can-

cellinglnured teachers' contracts' Tit' 52'

S gOO] Coae of Alabama 1940 (S l6-?tL-10

6oae'ot Alabama 19?5)' Under this Sec-

tion, the action of the State Tenure Com-

mission is final and conclusive, if taken in

compliance with the provisions of Chapter

rg oi tit. 52, S 351, et seq., (Chapter 24 of

the Code of 19?5) and unless unjust'

We said in Mountain Brook that review is

by mandamus in the circuit court, and that

its juaiciat rcview is limited to two determi-

nations, first, whether the Tenure Commis-

sion's action was made in compliance with

the prcvisions of the chapter, and second,

wheiher this action was unjust' There was

no quebtion in Mountain Erook but that the

procedural requirements of the chapter

were met. As to the second inquiry, we

stated the issue to be "whether there was

sufficient evidence before the Commission
'to support its conclusion that the decision of

the Iioard of Education should be reversed'

. If there was sufficient evidence

to support such a conclusion, then the deci-

rion of the Commission must be affirmed as

not unjust." Therc, we concluded that the

evidence was sufficient to support the Com-

mission's findings and conclusion'

We shall now Proceed to exPlain the

meaning of the term "sufficient evidence"

to support the conclusions of the Commis'

sion, i.-e., the scope of review by the-Court

of iivit Appeals on review of the Tenure

Commission's ruling.

The petitioner suggests that the rule of

appellaie review as to whether the decision

oi'tt. Tenure Commission is "unjust" or

not is whether there is any sufficient evi-

dence in the record to support the judgment

of the local school board. In other words,

petitioner contends that the local school

Loard can be reversed by the State Tenure

Commission only if there is no sufficient

evidence to support the Board's judgment'

On the other hand, respondent's position

is that the true test as to whether the

decision of the Tenure Commission is "un-

just" or not is whether that decision is

unsupported by any competent evidence in

the record. Thus, the respondent would say

that the decision of the Tenure Commission

can be reversed by the appellate court only

if there is no competent evidence in the

record to support the Tenure Commission's

decision.

We accede to neither view. ln Mountain

Brcok, we stated the rule to be if "there

was sufficient evidence to support" the con-

clusion of the Tenure Commission then its

decision must be affirmer
We did not think it necr
our views as to what woul
cient evidence, because wr
evidence to support the C
ings and conclusions. lVe
Mountain Brook, the opini,
tice Kohn authored for th
Tenurc Commission v.

Board of F,<lueation,82 A
8A (rc68) as "an erudite a

of the role of the State
sion."

ln Madison County M
wrote, "Was the conclusi
Tenure Commission unjus
derance of the evidence anr
ing weight of the evidence
such a conclusion." Thus, :

that in that decision this
the appellate rule of revier
ponderance of the evidenor
whelming weight of the er

tU Therefore, we hold
Tenure Commission's concl
ment will not be reversed
view as being unjust unless
prcponderance of the ev
overwhelming weight of tL

It is self-evident that if
mission's decision is agains,
ance of the evidence and tt
weight of the evidence, th
cient evidence to support

Morrover, to the extent t
case law is at variance witl
is, of course, modified.

tzl We now proceed to t
its of this contr.oversy. W(
the evidence in this case an
d, as we did in Mounta
"there was sufficient evide
the conclusion and decision
Commission and that that d

affirmed as not "unjust.', E

ently, under our rule of rel
the finding of fact fipm thr
tained in the Court of Civil
ion, we cannot say, after a



SERIES

n Mountain Broo& that review htus.in the.circuit court, and thai
rcview is limitcd to two aeterni.
rt, whether the Tenure Co.mi*
n was made-in compliance wigl
rns of the chapter, 

"na 
,".onI.

s action was unjust. There w-J
in Mountain Brcolr but that tb;
requirements of the ctrap[
As to the 

.se_cond inqui"y,'wl
ssue to be "whether there war
yidence before the Commiasioi
s conclusion that the aecision oif Erlucation should be reveraed.' there was sufficient evidenoe
uch a conclusion, then the dJ-
)ommission must be affirmed L

Ther.e, we concluded that tl1g
s sufficient to support the C,om.
dings and conclusion.

now proceed to explain thc
the term "sufficient evidence,
he conclusions of the Commir.
e Ecope of reyiew by the Coun
reals on review of the Tenurt
l ruling.

rner suggests that the rule of
iew as to whether the decirioa
re Commission is ,,unju8t,' c
er there is any sufficient ev*
record to support the judgment
rchool board. In other wordl
,ntends that the local schol
reversed by the State Tenun

only if there is no sufficieal
upport the Board's judgmenl

rer hand, respondent's positioa
true test as to whether tic
re Tenure Commission is "uD
is whether that decision b

by any eompetent evidene b
lhus, the respondent would rqy
iion of the tenure Commiari<ra

ed by the appellate court oa!
o comptent evidence in lb
port the Tenure Commissioil

0o neither view. ln Mouat&,'-
rted the rule to be if "tlcl
evidence to support" the

decision must-be.affirmed as "not unjust'".

We did not think it necessary to indicate

our views as to what would constitute suffi-

Jent evidence, because we found sufficient

"rid"n"" 
to support the Commission's find-

inqs and conclusions. We did commend, in

i"ounain Brook, the opinion which Mr' Jus-

ti* Kot n authored for this Court in State

Tenurc Commission v. Madison County.

Boad of F.rlucation, %2 A\a.658, 213 So.2d

g6 (1968) 8s "8n erudite and full discussion

of the role of the State Tenure Commis-

tion."

ln Madison CountY Mr. Justice Kohn

rrotc, "Was the conclusion of the State

Tenurc Commission unjust? The prepon-

derance of the evidence and the overwhelm-

ing weight of the evidence did not warrant

,uch a conclusion." Thus, it clearly appears

that in that decision this Court considered

the appellate rule of review to be the "pre-
ponderance of the evidence" and the "over-

whelming weight of the evidence."

tll Therefore, we hold that the State

Tenure Commission's conclusions and judg-

ment will not be reversed on appellate re-

view as being unjust unless it is against tie
peponderance of the evidence and the

overwhelming weight of the evidence.

It is self-evident that if a Tenure Com-

mission's decision is against the preponder-

ance of the evidence and the overwhelming
weight of the evidence, there is not suffi-
cient evidence to support such conclusion.

Moreover, to the extent that any existing
case law is at variance with this opinion, it
b, of course, modified.

I21 We now proceed to address the mer-
its of this controversy. We have reviewed
the evidence in this case and have conclud-
ed, as we did in Mountain Brook, thaL
"there was sufficient evidence to support"
the conclusion and decision of thd Tenure
Commission and that that decision must be

dfirmed as not "unjust." Putting it differ-
ently, under our rule of review and taking
the finding of fact from the record as con-
teined in the Court of Civil Appeals' opin-

PAYNE v. OVERTON
Clte a$ AlLClv.ADp., ts:l SoJd I ll9

Ala, 1139

that the preponderance of the evidence and
the overwhelming weight of the evidence is
contrary to the conclusion of the State Ten-
ure Commission.

We conclude by affirming the Court of
Civil Appeals' decision as modified herein.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX,
FAULKNER, JONES, SHORES, EMBRY
and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

BLOODWORTH and ALMON, JJ., con-
cur specially.

BLOODWORTH, Justice. (concurring

specially.)

Without retreating from anything I wrote
in my dissent in Alabama Statc Tenure
Commission v. Mountain Brook Board of
Hucation, 343 So.2d 5D (41a.1977), I
concur in the. per curiam opinion of the
Court. I stated my views in my dissent as

did Mr. Justice Almon but the majority of
the Court thought otherwise. Now, because

of what I consider to be the need for
unanimity of opinion on this Court as to the
standards and scope of appellate review of
State Tenure Commission cases, I join the
opinion of the Court.

ALMON, J., concurs.

Charles H. PAYNE, Commiesioner of
Insurance, Dept. of Ineurance,

State of Alabama

Y.

Richard D. OVERTON.

Civ. 1253.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 30, 197?.

Commissioner of Insurance revoked
agent's liernse to sell insurance, and agentTenure Commission theo tn, we cannot say, after a review thereof,