{
  "id": 8521375,
  "name": "TIMOTHY ABELL and DON A. REAMS v. THE NASH COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION",
  "name_abbreviation": "Abell v. Nash County Board of Education",
  "decision_date": "1988-03-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 877SC247",
  "first_page": "262",
  "last_page": "268",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "89 N.C. App. 262"
    }
  ],
  "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": "278 Ark. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1748060
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "Board nonrenewal of teaching contracts for reasons related to coaching effectiveness was not arbitrary and capricious"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "Board nonrenewal of teaching contracts for reasons related to coaching effectiveness was not arbitrary and capricious"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/278/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "517 F. Supp. 686",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        677626,
        677595
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "689-90",
          "parenthetical": "Board's nonrenewal of probationary teacher who served as assistant coach in order to give new head coach flexibility in choosing his staff rebutted teacher's claim of discrimination"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/517/0686-02",
        "/f-supp/517/0686-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "186 S.E. 2d 400",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "406"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 N.C. 460",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572515
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "469"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/280/0460-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 Wake Forest L. Rev. 739",
      "category": "journals:journal",
      "reporter": "Wake Forest L. Rev.",
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "762",
          "parenthetical": "noting that apparent intent of N.C.G.S. Sec. 115C-325(m)(2) is to place the burden of proof on teacher to prove Board's violation of the statute"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "329 S.E. 2d 389",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "313 N.C. 506",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4724648,
        4719920,
        4726261,
        4722874,
        4721598
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/313/0506-04",
        "/nc/313/0506-03",
        "/nc/313/0506-05",
        "/nc/313/0506-01",
        "/nc/313/0506-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 S.E. 2d 502",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "506"
        },
        {
          "page": "507"
        },
        {
          "page": "506-07"
        },
        {
          "page": "506"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 N.C. App. 48",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523740
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "52-53"
        },
        {
          "page": "54"
        },
        {
          "page": "52"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/71/0048-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "306 S.E. 2d 157",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "159",
          "parenthetical": "plaintiff's failure to make out prima facie case allows judge to rule on issue as a matter of law"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 N.C. App. 741",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526255
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "742-43",
          "parenthetical": "plaintiff's failure to make out prima facie case allows judge to rule on issue as a matter of law"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/63/0741-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "243 S.E. 2d 436",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "439"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 N.C. App. 239",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552522
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "242"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/36/0239-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "251 S.E. 2d 452",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "455",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "296 N.C. 533",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567991
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "537",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/296/0533-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 616,
    "char_count": 12016,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.841,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.760080028903926e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5313080028990107
    },
    "sha256": "deb73ebdb973179760ca6d387cf425216f4d288f6c8fdb000a2e371e5cac0d72",
    "simhash": "1:ffdfc1363542411a",
    "word_count": 1917
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:39:00.818604+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Phillips and Cozort concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "TIMOTHY ABELL and DON A. REAMS v. THE NASH COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nThis is a civil action in which plaintiffs seek actual and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief. They allege defendant Nash County Board of Education\u2019s nonrenewal of their teaching contracts was an \u201carbitrary and capricious\u201d action. At the conclusion of plaintiffs\u2019 evidence, the trial court granted defendant\u2019s motion for a directed verdict. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court.\nA motion for directed verdict pursuant to Rule 50(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, N.C.G.S. Sec. 1A-1 (1983), presents a question of whether plaintiffs\u2019 evidence was sufficient to carry the case to the jury:\nIn passing on this motion, the trial judge must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, and conflicts in the evidence together with inferences which may be drawn from it must be resolved in favor of the non-movant. The motion may be granted only if the evidence is insufficient to justify a verdict for the non-movant as a matter of law.\nArnold v. Sharpe, 296 N.C. 533, 537, 251 S.E. 2d 452, 455 (1979) (citation omitted).\nPlaintiffs\u2019 evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to them, tends to show the following: Plaintiffs were probationary high school teachers who also performed various coaching duties at Northern Nash High School pursuant to year-to-year contracts. Plaintiffs\u2019 coaching duties included serving as assistant football coaches. Plaintiff Abell was employed during the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years. Plaintiff Reams was employed during the 1981-82 school year. Both plaintiffs were certified only in health and physical education but were assigned to teach federally funded remedial math courses. Abell was required by his 1980-81 contract to obtain math certification within three years, although this requirement was not mentioned in his 1981-82 contract. Reams was required to take six semester hours of math courses during 1981-82.\nOn 28 April 1982, the Nash County Board of Education (hereinafter the \u201cBoard\u201d) voted not to renew plaintiffs\u2019 contracts. About the same time plaintiffs were advised of their nonrenewals, a new football coach was employed by Northern Nash because of alleged improprieties on the part of the former head coach. Plaintiffs were told if they wanted to continue their employment at the high school, they would have to \u201csell\u201d themselves to the new football coach. The new coach chose instead to employ other assistants. Reams was later offered a position in the Nash County system at a junior high school but declined and accepted a position which included coaching duties with another school system. Abell was later employed as a community recreational director.\nThe sole issue presented is whether, because of \u201ccoaching changes\u201d at the high school, the Board\u2019s nonrenewal of the contracts of probationary high school teachers who also served as assistant coaches is arbitrary or capricious.\nI\nThe nonrenewal of the contract of a probationary school teacher in the North Carolina public schools is governed by N.C.G.S. Sec. 115C-325(m)(2) (1987) which provides:\nThe board, upon recommendation of the superintendent, may refuse to renew the contract of any probationary teacher or to reemploy any teacher who is not under contract for any cause it deems sufficient: Provided, however, that the cause may not be arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory or for personal or political reasons.\nFor plaintiffs to overcome defendant\u2019s motion for a directed verdict they are required to offer evidence, beyond mere speculation or conjecture, sufficient for a jury to find every essential element of their claim. Upon a failure to do so, the motion for a directed verdict is appropriately entered against them. Oliver v. Royall 36 N.C. App. 239, 242, 243 S.E. 2d 436, 439 (1978). See also Hong v. George Goodyear Co., 63 N.C. App. 741, 742-43, 306 S.E. 2d 157, 159 (1983) (plaintiff\u2019s failure to make out prima facie case allows judge to rule on issue as a matter of law). An essential element of plaintiffs\u2019 claims here is that the nonrenewals of their teaching contracts were for \u201carbitrary or capricious\u201d reasons. An arbitrary or capricious reason is one \u201cwithout any rational basis in the record, such that a decision made thereon amounts to an abuse of discretion.\u201d Abell v. Nash Co. Bd. of Education, 71 N.C. App. 48, 52-53, 321 S.E. 2d 502, 506 (1984), disc. rev. denied, 313 N.C. 506, 329 S.E. 2d 389 (1985) (hereinafter \u201cAbell D.\nPlaintiffs contend the Board has the burden of establishing a rational basis for the nonrenewals and that it failed to meet this burden because it brought forward no evidence of a rational basis for its decision. However, N.C.G.S. Sec. 115C-44(b) provides:\nIn all actions brought in any court against a local board of education, the order or action of the board shall be presumed to be correct and the burden of proof shall be on the complaining party to show the contrary.\nThis statute clearly places the burden of proof on plaintiffs here to establish that the actions of the Board were arbitrary or capricious. See also Winn, Teacher Nonrenewal in North Carolina, 14 Wake Forest L. Rev. 739, 762 (1978) (noting that apparent intent of N.C.G.S. Sec. 115C-325(m)(2) is to place the burden of proof on teacher to prove Board\u2019s violation of the statute).\nPlaintiffs argue that this Court\u2019s holding in Abell I required the Board to bear the burden of proof to establish a rational reason for its refusal to renew their contracts. However, Abell I held only that in order to prevail on a summary judgment motion, \u201cthe Board, as movant, bore the burden of establishing a rational reason for its action.\u201d Abell I, 71 N.C. App. at 54, 321 S.E. 2d at 507. As the record in Abell I disclosed conflicts between what plaintiffs were told and what school administrators stated in their affidavits, and because the reasons advanced by the administrators were too \u201cvague and conclusory,\u201d the Court held that summary judgment was improperly granted for the Board and reversed the trial court. Id. The Court in Abell I did require that the \u201cadministrative record, be it the personnel file, board minutes or recommendation memoranda,\u201d disclose the basis of the Board\u2019s actions in nonrenewing the contracts. Id. at 53, 321 S.E. 2d at 506-07. However, that requirement of record keeping does not shift the burden of proof at trial which remains on the party-challenging the nonrenewal. The burden of proof includes not only the burden of going forward with the evidence, but also the burden of persuasion. See 2 H. Brandis, Brandis on North Carolina Evidence Sec. 201 at 133 (1982).\nTherefore, in order to establish a prima facie case, plaintiffs must produce sufficient evidence to support a finding that the actions of the Nash County Board of Education were \u201carbitrary or capricious.\u201d After a review of the record, we hold the evidence produced by plaintiffs is not sufficient to support a finding that the nonrenewals were \u201carbitrary or capricious\u201d and instead, establishes a rational basis for the nonrenewals.\nWhether the action of the school board in not renewing the contracts of the plaintiffs was \u201carbitrary or capricious\u201d is a mixed question of law and fact. The jury determines the factual issues involved and the judge applies these findings to determine whether the nonrenewals were arbitrary or capricious as a matter of law.\nThe discretion of Boards regarding the status of probationary teachers remains very broad, but a nonrenewal decision must have some non-arbitrary basis in order to comply with N.C.G.S. Sec. 115C-325(m)(2). Abell I, 71 N.C. App. at 52, 321 S.E. 2d at 506. Both plaintiffs contend that the primary reason they were nonre-newed was because of coaching changes at the school. Accepting plaintiffs\u2019 argument that a coaching change was the primary reason for their nonrenewals, it is a question of law for the court to determine if this reason was arbitrary or capricious. Cf. Singleton v. Stewart, 280 N.C. 460, 469, 186 S.E. 2d 400, 406 (1972) (in reviewing defendant housing commission\u2019s decision to purchase property for low-rent public housing, where easement across property was admitted which might have prevented this use, it was for the court to determine whether the commission\u2019s purchase was an arbitrary and capricious act).\nSubject to State Board of Education rules and regulations, the local board of education is required to make \u201call rules and regulations necessary for the conducting of extracurricular activities in the schools under their supervision, including a program of athletics . . . N.C.G.S. Sec. 115C-47(4). Given the broad legislative grant of authority over the status of probationary teachers and the legislative grant to local Boards requiring them to promulgate rules and regulations for interscholastic athletics, we hold a Board may properly consider coaching changes as a basis for determining whether to renew a probationary teacher\u2019s contract when the teacher also serves as a coach.\nThe evidence at trial tended to show both plaintiffs were originally hired based on their coaching ability. Both testified they were interviewed first by the former head football coach before they contacted the school administration about the teaching positions. Both plaintiffs had previous experience in coaching, but neither had any experience in teaching math. Neither plaintiff was certified as a math teacher. Both plaintiffs were specifically advised by the new principal that their renewal depended on their ability to \u201csell\u201d themselves to the new head football coach. The Board\u2019s refusal to renew plaintiffs\u2019 contracts assured the new head coach of some flexibility in developing his own coaching staff and football program.\nTherefore, we hold the Board\u2019s action in nonrenewing plaintiffs\u2019 contracts based on coaching changes was not arbitrary or capricious. The action was consistent with the Board\u2019s duty and responsibility to oversee extracurricular activities, including the personnel involved in coaching interscholastic sports. See Lee v. Ozark City Bd. of Education, 517 F. Supp. 686, 689-90 (M.D. Ala. 1981) (Board\u2019s nonrenewal of probationary teacher who served as assistant coach in order to give new head coach flexibility in choosing his staff rebutted teacher\u2019s claim of discrimination); Lamar School District No. 39 v. Kinder, 278 Ark. 1, 642 S.W. 2d 885 (1982) (Board nonrenewal of teaching contracts for reasons related to coaching effectiveness was not arbitrary and capricious).\nII\nBecause we find the action of the Board was not arbitrary or capricious, it is unnecessary to address the additional evidentiary assignments of error raised by the plaintiff-appellants. The order of the trial court granting the directed verdict was correct and that action is\nAffirmed.\nJudges Phillips and Cozort concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GREENE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ferguson, Stein, Watt, Wallas & Adkins, by John W. Gresham, for plaintiff-appellants.",
      "Tharrington, Smith & Hargrove, by Richard A. Schwartz, J. David Farren, and C. Allison Brown, and Valentine, Adams, Lamar & Etheridge, by L. Wardlaw Lamar, for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "TIMOTHY ABELL and DON A. REAMS v. THE NASH COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION\nNo. 877SC247\n(Filed 15 March 1988)\n1. Schools \u00a7 13.2\u2014 probationary teachers \u2014 arbitrary failure to renew contracts \u2014burden of proof\nPlaintiff probationary teachers had the burden of proving that defendant board of education acted arbitrarily or capriciously in failing to renew their contracts. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-44(b).\n2. Schools \u00a7 13.2\u2014 assistant football coaches \u2014 probationary teachers \u2014 nonre-newal of contracts because of coaching change\nA board of education\u2019s refusal to renew teaching contracts of probationary teachers who also served as assistant football coaches was not arbitrary or capricious because nonrenewal was based on a change of the head football coach. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-325(m)(2).\nAppeal by plaintiffs from Strickland (James R.), Judge. Judgment entered 11 September 1986 in Superior Court, NASH County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 September 1987.\nFerguson, Stein, Watt, Wallas & Adkins, by John W. Gresham, for plaintiff-appellants.\nTharrington, Smith & Hargrove, by Richard A. Schwartz, J. David Farren, and C. Allison Brown, and Valentine, Adams, Lamar & Etheridge, by L. Wardlaw Lamar, for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0262-01",
  "first_page_order": 290,
  "last_page_order": 296
}
