{
  "id": 8525847,
  "name": "JAMES H. FAISON, JR. v. THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION",
  "name_abbreviation": "Faison v. New Hanover County Board of Education",
  "decision_date": "1985-06-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 845SC1055",
  "first_page": "334",
  "last_page": "338",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "75 N.C. App. 334"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1988",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "U.S.C.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "306 S.E. 2d 435",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "443-444"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "309 N.C. 195",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4763743
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "210"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/309/0195-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 435,
    "char_count": 9469,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.826,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5229885989492051
    },
    "sha256": "0ecbe2b6d7b2ede582ef7696f54a53aba2c61b64f6823722af43b3ac33654b8d",
    "simhash": "1:c813e1e930618e39",
    "word_count": 1561
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:03:29.490718+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Martin and Parker concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JAMES H. FAISON, JR. v. THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nThe first question presented for review is whether the court properly concluded that the plaintiff had acquired career status as a supervisor in the New Hanover County School System as of the date of his demotion. To answer this question we must construe N.C. Gen. Stat. 115C-325(d)(2) as it existed at the time this controversy arose. N.C. Gen. Stat. 115C-325(d)(2) (1981 Cum. Supp.) provided that:\nA career teacher who has performed the duties of a principal or supervisor in a particular position in the school system for three consecutive years shall not be transferred from that position to a lower-paying administrative position or to a lower-paying nonadministrative position without his consent except for the reasons given in G.S. 115C-325(e) and in accordance with the procedure for the dismissal of a career teacher set out in this section.\nThe appellant argues that to be protected under this statute a person must obtain the status of a career teacher and perform the duties of a principal or supervisor for three consecutive years following his designation as a career teacher. In response, the ap-pellee contends that to be protected one need only be designated as a career teacher and have served as a principal or supervisor for three consecutive years. He argues, however, that this three-year period need not be served after one becomes a career teacher but may be served at any time after employment by the school system.\n\u201cThe cardinal principle of statutory construction is that the intent of the legislature is controlling. In ascertaining the legislative intent courts should consider the language of the statute, and what it seeks to accomplish. (Citations omitted.)\u201d State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Public Staff, 309 N.C. 195, 210, 306 S.E. 2d 435, 443-444 (1983). The language of the statute is ambiguous, therefore, we must look further to determine the intent of the legislature. Some evidence of the legislative intent is found in Chapter 770 of the 1983 Session Laws. In that bill the General Assembly enacted a bill entitled \u201cAn Act to Clarify the Provisions of the Fair Employment and Dismissal Act\u201d which amended G.S. 115C-325(d)(2) to read as follows:\nWhether or not he has previously attained career status as a teacher, a person who has performed the duties of a principal in the school system for three consecutive years or has performed the duties of a supervisor in the school system for three consecutive years shall not be transferred from that position to a lower paying administrative position or to a lower paying nonadministrative position without his consent except for the reasons given in G.S. 115C-325(e)(l) and in accordance with the provisions for the dismissal of a career teacher set out in this section. Transfer of a principal or a supervisor is not a transfer to a lower paying position if the principal\u2019s or supervisor\u2019s salary is maintained at the previous salary amount.\nWhen a teacher has performed the duties of supervisor or principal for three consecutive years, the board, near the end of the third year, shall vote upon his employment for the next school year. The board shall give him written notice of that decision by June 1 of his third year of employment as a supervisor or principal. If a majority of the board votes to reemploy the teacher as a principal or supervisor, and it has notified him of that decision, it may not rescind that action but must proceed under the provisions of this section. If a majority of the board votes not to reemploy the teacher as a principal or supervisor, he shall retain career status as a teacher if that status was attained prior to assuming the duties of supervisor or principal. A supervisor or principal who has not held that position for three years and whose contract will not be renewed for the next school year shall be notified by June 1 and shall retain career status as a teacher if that status was attained prior to assuming the duties of supervisor or principal.\nWe believe that this amendment shows that the legislature intended by this section of the statute to protect persons who have served as principals and supervisors for at least three consecutive years regardless of whether this time was served prior to obtaining career teacher status. Believing this to be the intent of the legislature, we hold that the trial court properly concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the issue of whether he was entitled to the procedural safeguards of the Teacher Tenure Act before being demoted from his supervisory position. The court order allowing partial summary judgment is affirmed.\nDefendant also contends that even if the court properly granted summary judgment it was error to order that the plaintiff be reinstated to his prior position and awarded the salary and benefits of that position. However, in its argument defendant admits that the court had the authority \u201cto order an appropriate salary adjustment.\u201d\nIn his brief the plaintiff, while still arguing that he is entitled to reinstatement, states that he is willing \u201cto accept the law award of back salary and benefits from the date of his demotion until a proper hearing can be held, and waive his right to reinstatement as Vocational Education Director.\u201d Thus, there no longer exists a justiciable issue with regards to whether the plaintiff is entitled to reinstatement.\nUnder the terms of G.S. 115C-325(d)(2) the plaintiff might not be transferred to \u201ca lower-paying nonadministrative position,\u201d without being afforded the procedural safeguards of the statute, since he was demoted without being afforded these safeguards he is entitled to a salary adjustment to compensate him for any loss of salary and benefits which he suffered because of this improper demotion.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Martin and Parker concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ferguson, Watt, Wallas & Adkins, by Frank E. Emory, Jr., for plaintiff appellee.",
      "House, Hill, Jones, Nash & Lynch, by William L. Hill, II and David A. Nash, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JAMES H. FAISON, JR. v. THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION\nNo. 845SC1055\n(Filed 18 June 1985)\n1. Schools 8 13.2\u2014 dismissal of supervisor \u2014 timing of career teacher status\nThe court properly granted summary judgment for plaintiff on the issue of whether he was entitled to the safeguards of the Teacher Tenure Act before being demoted from his supervisory position where plaintiff had served as Director of Vocational Education from April of 1977 through the 1982-1983 school year. The 1982 amendment to G.S. 115C-325(d)(2) showed that the legislature intended to protect persons who had served as principals and supervisors for at least three consecutive years regardless of whether this time was served prior to attaining career teacher status.\n2. Schools 8 13.2\u2014 dismissal of career supervisor \u2014 damages\nPlaintiff, a former Director of Vocational Education, was entitled to a salary adjustment to compensate him for any loss of salary and benefits where he was improperly demoted by transfer to a lower-paying nonadministrative position without being afforded the procedural safeguards of G.S. 115C-325 (d)(2).\nAppeal by defendant from Tillery, Judge. Order entered 16 August 1984 in Superior Court, New HANOVER County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 May 1985.\nThe plaintiff was employed to serve as the Director of Vocational Education for the New Hanover County Schools on 1 April 1977. He continued to serve in that capacity during the 1977-1978, 1978-1979, 1979-1980, 1980-1981, 1981-1982, and the 1982-1983 school years. On 1 March 1983, the defendant decided not to continue plaintiff in this position for the 1983-1984 school year, but instead offered him a position as a teacher of Trade and Industrial Education at D. C. Virgo Junior High School. Plaintiff sought to have the board\u2019s actions reviewed pursuant to the procedure set forth in the Teacher Tenure Act. The defendant denied this request stating that plaintiff had not attained career status as a supervisor and was, therefore, not entitled to the procedural safeguards set forth in the act.\nIn November 1983, plaintiff filed this action in which he sought a judgment declaring that his job transfer was illegal and unconstitutional, a judgment directing that he be reinstated as Director of Vocational Education with back pay and benefits, and attorney\u2019s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1988. The defendant answered denying the dispositive allegations of the complaint and contending that while the defendant had attained career status as a teacher he had not attained such status as a supervisor.\nOn 16 August 1984, the court entered an order granting plaintiff partial summary judgment and holding that plaintiff had attained career status as a supervisor in the New Hanover County School System as of the date he was informed of the defendant\u2019s intention to remove him from his supervisor\u2019s position and reassign him to a teaching position. From this Order, the defendant appealed.\nOn 10 October 1984, the court ordered that the plaintiff be reinstated as Director of Vocational Education and that he be awarded back salary and benefits from the date of his demotion. The enforcement of this Order was stayed pending the resolution of the defendant\u2019s earlier appeal. No notice of appeal from this Order appears in the record on appeal.\nOn 25 October 1984, the plaintiff took a voluntary dismissal of his claim for attorney\u2019s fees filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988.\nFerguson, Watt, Wallas & Adkins, by Frank E. Emory, Jr., for plaintiff appellee.\nHouse, Hill, Jones, Nash & Lynch, by William L. Hill, II and David A. Nash, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0334-01",
  "first_page_order": 366,
  "last_page_order": 370
}
