{ "id": 8520827, "name": "EDDIE RAY CRUMP v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, HICKORY ADMINISTRATIVE SCHOOL UNIT, WILLIAM PITTS, LOIS YOUNG, BARBARA A. GARLITZ, RUEBELLE A. NEWTON, C. JOHN WATTS, III and LARRY O. ISENHOUR", "name_abbreviation": "Crump v. Board of Education", "decision_date": "1986-02-18", "docket_number": "No. 8525SC388", "first_page": "372", "last_page": "379", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "79 N.C. App. 372" } ], "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": "230 S.E. 2d 164", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "177-78" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "31 N.C. App. 401", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550007 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "424-25" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/31/0401-01" ] }, { "cite": "102 Ariz. 478", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ariz.", "case_ids": [ 621935 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "480" }, { "page": "30" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ariz/102/0478-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 S.E. 2d 298", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "298 N.C. 293", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570186, 8570163, 8570262, 8570235, 8570206 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/298/0293-02", "/nc/298/0293-01", "/nc/298/0293-05", "/nc/298/0293-04", "/nc/298/0293-03" ] }, { "cite": "257 S.E. 2d 71", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "78" }, { "page": "78" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "42 N.C. App. 404", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8554596 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "416" }, { "page": "416" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/42/0404-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 N.C. L. Rev. 816", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "N.C. L. Rev.", "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "816-19" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "49 N.C. L. Rev. 635", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "N.C. L. Rev.", "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "668-74" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "181 S.E. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "278 N.C. 623", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561214 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/278/0623-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 L.Ed. 456", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "340 U.S. 474", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6931620 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/340/0474-01" ] }, { "cite": "233 S.E. 2d 538", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "541" }, { "page": "544" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "292 N.C. 406", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569880 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "410" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/292/0406-01" ] }, { "cite": "283 S.E. 2d 495", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "498" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "304 N.C. 312", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567539 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "317" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/304/0312-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 730, "char_count": 14994, "ocr_confidence": 0.816, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.816958983337151e-07, "percentile": 0.8981353739156221 }, "sha256": "252fc43990858532e56e5f3e4420ab83d64cbca4b8312fe9114549ba5a7f6c62", "simhash": "1:130fe1ed17ac61da", "word_count": 2488 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:35:53.333939+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Arnold and Martin concur." ], "parties": [ "EDDIE RAY CRUMP v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, HICKORY ADMINISTRATIVE SCHOOL UNIT, WILLIAM PITTS, LOIS YOUNG, BARBARA A. GARLITZ, RUEBELLE A. NEWTON, C. JOHN WATTS, III and LARRY O. ISENHOUR" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "COZORT, Judge.\nPlaintiff appeals the superior court\u2019s entry of judgment affirming the Hickory Board of Education\u2019s dismissal of him on the grounds of immorality and insubordination. Plaintiff contends the Board of Education\u2019s findings, inferences and conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record. Plaintiff also assigns as error the superior court\u2019s taxing cost against him. We affirm.\nAs of the 1983-84 school year, plaintiff Eddie Ray Crump was a public schoolteacher employed by the Board of Education, Hickory Administrative School Unit. Mr. Crump, who was primarily a driver\u2019s education instructor and coach, had been employed for nine years and had attained career status, making applicable the statutory protections for career teachers contained in G.S. 115C-325.\nOn 16 March 1984 the Superintendent, Dr. Stuart Thompson, notified plaintiff in writing of his intent to seek dismissal of Mr. Crump pursuant to the provision of G.S. 115C-325. Subsequently, on 4 June 1984 Superintendent Thompson submitted to the Board of Education his recommendation that plaintiff be dismissed on the grounds of immorality and insubordination, among others.\nBy stipulation, the hearing of the matter commenced on 6 June 1984 and continued into the early morning hours of the next day. At the conclusion of the hearing the Board of Education set out on the record a resolution containing certain findings of fact and conclusions of law and voted to dismiss plaintiff on the grounds of immorality and insubordination. On 11 June 1984 plaintiff received from the Board of Education its resolution entitled \u201cFindings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order\u201d notifying plaintiff that he was dismissed.\nPursuant to G.S. 115C-325(n) plaintiff filed a Complaint and Petition for Judicial Review on 9 July 1984. The Board of Education subsequently filed a transcript of the hearing along with the exhibits offered into evidence. The case was heard by Superior Court Judge Claude S. Sitton on 5 November 1984. On 29 November 1984 Judgment was entered upholding the Board of Education\u2019s dismissal of plaintiff.\nThe primary issue presented by this appeal is whether the decision of the Board of Education dismissing plaintiff is supported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record. G.S. 150A-51(5); Overton v. Goldsboro City Board of Education, 304 N.C. 312, 317, 283 S.E. 2d 495, 498 (1981). Therefore, our review is limited to determining whether the superior court correctly decided that the Board\u2019s decision to dismiss plaintiff on the grounds of immorality and insubordination was supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Overton, supra.\nThe standard of review set forth in G.S. 150A-51(5), which is known as the \u201cwhole record\u201d test, is explained in Thompson v. Wake County Board of Education, 292 N.C. 406, 410, 233 S.E. 2d 538, 541 (1977):\nThis standard of judicial review is known as the \u201cwhole record\u201d test and must be distinguished from both de novo review and the \u201cany competent evidence\u201d standard of review. Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 95 L.Ed. 456, 71 S.Ct. 456 (1951); Underwood v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 278 N.C. 623, 181 S.E. 2d 1 (1971); Hanft, Some Aspects of Evidence in Adjudication by Administrative Agencies in North Carolina, 49 N.C. L. Rev. 635, 668-74 (1971); Hanft, Administrative Law, 45 N.C. L. Rev. 816, 816-19 (1967). The \u201cwhole record\u201d test does not allow the reviewing court to replace the Board\u2019s judgment as between two reasonably conflicting views, even though the court could justifiably have reached a different result had the matter been before it de novo, Universal Camera Corp., supra. On the other hand, the \u201cwhole record\u201d rule requires the court, in determining the substantiality of evidence supporting the Board\u2019s decision, to take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from the weight of the Board\u2019s evidence. Under the whole evidence rule, the court may not consider the evidence which in and of itself justifies the Board\u2019s result, without taking into account contradictory evidence or evidence from which conflicting inferences could be drawn. Universal Camera Corp., supra.\nSubstantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. at 414, 233 S.E. 2d at 544.\nIt is not necessary that we find that all of the grounds for dismissal are supported by substantial evidence. A finding that there is substantial evidence, looking at the record as a whole, of any one of the two grounds listed under G.S. 115C-325(e)(1) which formed the basis of the dismissal is sufficient, where, as here, the teacher was notified that dismissal was based on that ground. Baxter v. Poe, 42 N.C. App. 404, 416, 257 S.E. 2d 71, 78, disc. rev. denied, 298 N.C. 293, 259 S.E. 2d 298 (1979).\nWe turn first to the charge of insubordination. G.S. 115C-325(e)(1)(c) provides that a career teacher may be dismissed for insubordination. The term insubordination \u201c \u2018imports a willful disregard of express or implied directions of the employer and a refusal to obey reasonable orders.\u2019 School District v. Superior Court, 102 Ariz. 478, 480, 433 P. 2d 28, 30 (1967).\u201d Thompson v. Wake County Board of Education, 31 N.C. App. 401, 424-25, 230 S.E. 2d 164, 177-78 (1976), rev\u2019d on other grounds, 292 N.C. 406, 233 S.E. 2d 538 (1977).\nWith respect to the insubordination charge, the Board of Education made the following findings and conclusions:\nFindings of Fact\n* * * *\n7. On April 9, 1981, as a result of the incident with Elizabeth Davis on April 6, 1981, Eddie Ray Crump was instructed in writing by the Principal of the High School that \u201cthere shall be a third person in the car during the road work phase of the driver education of female students\u201d and the \u201cfailure to cooperate with these instructions could be interpreted as insubordination.\u201d\n8. On April 2, 1982, the suggestion was made to Eddie Ray Crump by the Principal of the High School on his 1981-82 Teacher\u2019s Performance Appraisal Instrument that he \u201cmust make an effort to follow established rules and guidelines.\u201d\n9. During the summer of 1982, while instructing Ursula \u201cHope\u201d Bolick, a female high school student in driver education, the teacher, Eddie Ray Crump, grabbed her leg unnecessarily. The incident occurred while the two were in the driver education vehicle alone, in contravention of the Principal\u2019s instructions to the teacher. The teacher also drove with Ursula Bolick alone during driver training on two other occasions.\n* * * *\n12. On one or more occasions, Eddie Ray Crump instructed the following female students during the times specified, in the road work phase of their driver education while no third person was in the vehicle. These acts were in disobedience of the Principal\u2019s instructions, were knowingly and wilfully done and were admitted by the teacher, Eddie Ray Crump.\na. Ursula \u201cHope\u201d Bolick in the summer of 1982,\nb. Sheree Raker in the fall of 1983.\nConclusions\n* * * *\n2. At all times pertinent to the matters testified to in this hearing, it has been the duty of principals to give suggestions to teachers for the improvement of instruction. [Former N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 115-150, now Sec. 115C-288(c).]\n3. A teacher must follow the reasonable orders, suggestions and instructions of his principal.\n4. The instructions given to the teacher, Eddie Ray Crump, by his principal, which were to the effect that he was to have a third person in the vehicle during the driving phase of driver education, were reasonable and should have been followed by the teacher.\n* * * *\n8. The actions of Eddie Ray Crump in providing instruction to two female students in the road work phase of their driver education vehicle while no third person was in the vehicle has been admitted by the teacher and was done in disregard of the express written directions of his Principal. This was a wilful refusal by the teacher, Eddie Ray Crump, to obey the reasonable directions of his Principal and constitute insubordination under the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 115C-325(e)(1)(c).\nThese findings and conclusions are amply supported by substantial evidence in the record. It is uncontested that in early April 1981, student Elizabeth Davis complained to Principal Henry Williamson about plaintiffs conduct while instructing her during her first day of the road work phase of driver\u2019s education, 6 April 1981. In a letter Ms. Davis wrote and submitted to Mr. Williamson on 7 April 1981, she complained of the following:\nHe was asking personal questions such as: Are you dating anyone steady? Do you play the field? Are you getting a new bathing suit this summer? Are you just going to go skinny-dipping?\nHe also said words that didn\u2019t pertain to driving, such as \u201ccrotch.\u201d He said holding your arm straight and he tried to use my crotch as a place for my elbow to point to and he pointed to my crotch and said, \u201cThat\u2019s your crotch.\u201d He also called me babe and honey.\nHe also touched me where I didn\u2019t think it was necessary, such as way up high on my leg, while holding my arm pressing against my breast. He was messing with my hair.\nThese are the reasons I have for my complaint.\nMr. Williamson showed the letter to Mr. Crump and talked with him about it. According to Mr. Williamson, Mr. Crump stated there was no truth to the letter. Mr. Williamson told Mr. Crump he needed to take action to see that this type of situation did not arise again.\nMr. Williamson instructed Mr. Crump to make sure that at least two students were in the car any time a female was taking the road work phase of driver\u2019s education. In a letter to Mr. Crump dated 9 April 1981, Mr. Williamson wrote the following:\nMr. Eddie R. Crump, Hickory High School.\nDear Mr. Crump:\nThis is to follow up on on our conversation on April 7, 1981, and to reemphasize the instructions given to you on that date.\nThe instructions were as follows:\nThere shall be a third person in the car during the road work phase of the driver education instruction of female students.\nYour cooperation in this matter would be greatly appreciated.\nYour failure to cooperate with these instructions could be interpreted as insubordination and neglect of duty.\nIn accordance with G.S. 115-142(b) the complaint, commendation, or suggestion shall be signed by the person who makes it and shall be placed in the teacher\u2019s file only after 5 days\u2019 notice to the teacher. Any denial or explanation relating to such complaint, commendation, or suggestion that the teacher desires to make shall be placed in the file.\nIf I can answer any question or be of any help, please let me know.\nHenry Williamson.\nThe letter had no expiration date. Ms. Davis was assigned to another instructor.\nPlaintiff admitted that he subsequently drove alone with Hope Bolick and Sheree Raker. He testified that he drove with only one female student on these occasions because of absenteeism. Mr. Williamson admitted that he made no special arrangements for Mr. Crump on how to deal with a situation when there was only one student to drive.\nPlaintiff testified that his driving alone with Ms. Bolick in the summer of 1982 was the first time since the Davis incident that he had driven alone with a female student. When asked if Principal Williamson\u2019s directive on driving with one female student was still in effect in 1982 and whether he was still obligated to follow it, plaintiff responded:\nWell, it had been a year or year and a half after the letter and doing no wrong and everything going along smoothly as far as I know, you know, and I just assumed that everybody was driving. And Coach Barger had one in the car and Coach Craft had one in the car. And we would go on and pick up other drivers from their homes.\nWhen asked why he did not go to Mr. Williamson and inquire about the restriction when one student was absent, plaintiff replied: \u201cWe don\u2019t tell him what to do. We don\u2019t set guidelines for him to tell me. We got a chain of command. Coach Barger is my chain of command.\u201d Plaintiff testified, however, that he was unsure whether Coach Barger knew of the two-student requirement. In any event, he never asked Coach Barger or Mr. Williamson if the restriction had been lifted. There is no evidence that the directive was changed.\nBased on an examination of the whole record, we conclude that the Board\u2019s dismissal of plaintiff on the ground of insubordination is supported by substantial evidence. There is substantial evidence to support the Board\u2019s conclusion that by twice driving alone with a female student, plaintiff willfully disregarded and refused to obey Principal Williamson\u2019s 9 April 1981 reasonable directive. While plaintiff seeks to explain his conduct on the grounds of passage of time and the unprovided for situation of one student being absent, these events do not prevent his conduct from being a willful refusal to obey a reasonable directive. The uncontradicted evidence shows that rather than going to Mr. Williamson to find out if the directive had been lifted and what to do when one of his two students was absent, he disregarded the reasonable instructions given him.\nHaving found substantial evidence in light of the whole record to support the Board\u2019s dismissal of plaintiff on the grounds of insubordination, we need not pass on the question whether the evidence of the other ground, immorality, was substantial. Baxter v. Poe, supra, 42 N.C. App. at 416, 257 S.E. 2d at 78.\nWe find plaintiffs second assignment of error, concerning the superior court\u2019s assessment of costs, to be without merit.\nThe judgment of the superior court affirming the Board of Education\u2019s dismissal of plaintiff is\nAffirmed.\nJudges Arnold and Martin concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "COZORT, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Ferguson, Watt, Wallas & Adkins by John W. Gresham for plaintiff appellant.", "Mitchell, Teele, Blackwell, Mitchell & Smith by Thomas G. Smith and W. Harold Mitchell; and A. Terry Wood for defendant appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "EDDIE RAY CRUMP v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, HICKORY ADMINISTRATIVE SCHOOL UNIT, WILLIAM PITTS, LOIS YOUNG, BARBARA A. GARLITZ, RUEBELLE A. NEWTON, C. JOHN WATTS, III and LARRY O. ISENHOUR\nNo. 8525SC388\n(Filed 18 February 1986)\nSchools \u00a7 13.2\u2014 driver\u2019s education teacher \u2014 dismissal for insubordination \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nEvidence was sufficient to support defendant\u2019s dismissal of plaintiff driver\u2019s education teacher on the ground of insubordination where it tended to show that plaintiff twice drove alone with a female student, thereby willfully disregarding and refusing to obey the principal\u2019s written, reasonable directive given over a year earlier; and the uncontradicted evidence showed that rather than going to the principal to find out if the directive had been lifted and what to do when one of his two students was absent, plaintiff disregarded the reasonable instructions given him.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Sitton, Judge. Judgment entered 29 November 1984, in Superior Court, CATAWBA County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 5 November 1985.\nFerguson, Watt, Wallas & Adkins by John W. Gresham for plaintiff appellant.\nMitchell, Teele, Blackwell, Mitchell & Smith by Thomas G. Smith and W. Harold Mitchell; and A. Terry Wood for defendant appellees." }, "file_name": "0372-01", "first_page_order": 400, "last_page_order": 407 }