Shell v. Richland County School District

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Curtis Shell,       
Respondent,

v.

Richland County School District One,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-503

Heard April 8, 2003 – Filed August 27,
2003

REVERSED

Andrea E. White and Charles J. Boykin, of Columbia, for Appellant.

W. Allen Nickles, III, Carl L. Solomon, and Dona L. Guffey,
of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  The Richland County
School District One Board of Commissioners (“the Board”) terminated Curtis Shell’s
teaching contract pursuant to South Carolina Code Annotated section 59-25-430
(1990).  Shell appealed the Board’s decision to the circuit court.  The circuit
court reversed the Board’s decision and ordered the Board to reinstate Shell,
ruling sufficient evidence did not exist to support the Board’s decision.  The
Board appeals.  We reverse.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL POSTURE

Shell was a teacher
at Carver Lyon Elementary School (“Carver”).  In 2000, Shell was arrested for
attempted possession of crack cocaine.  Shell was placed on administrative leave
pending the resolution of the charges against him.  Subsequently, Ronald Epps,
the school superintendent, notified Shell he was recommending to the Board that
they terminate Shell’s employment pursuant to South Carolina Code Annotated
section 59-25-430 because Shell demonstrated an evident unfitness to teach. 
Subsequently, the solicitor dismissed the charges against Shell. 

The Board approved Epps’ recommendation to terminate Shell’s
employment, finding Shell’s conduct demonstrated evident unfitness to teach. 
Shell appealed to the circuit court.  The circuit court reversed the Board,
holding substantial evidence did not exist to support its finding Shell was
unfit to teach.  The Board appeals.

LAW/ANALYSIS

The Board argues the circuit court erred by reversing its
decision because sufficient evidence exists in the record to support the Board’s
finding Shell is unfit to teach.  We agree. 

“Judicial review of a school board decision terminating
a teacher is limited to a determination whether it is supported by substantial
evidence.”  Felder v. Charleston County Sch. Dist., 327 S.C. 21, 25,
489 S.E.2d 191, 193 (1997); see McWhirter v. Cherokee County Sch.
Dist. No. 1, 274 S.C. 66, 68, 261 S.E.2d 157, 158 (1979) (“[I]f any of the
charges against a teacher are supported by substantial evidence, the school
board’s decision to dismiss must be sustained.”); Barrett v. Charleston County
Sch. Dist., 348 S.C. 426, 432, 559 S.E.2d 365, 368 (Ct. App. 2001) (holding
the reviewing court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the Board). 
“‘Substantial evidence’ is not a mere scintilla of evidence nor the evidence
viewed blindly from one side of the case, but is evidence which, considering
the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion
that the . . . [Board] reached or must have reached in order to justify its
action.”  Laws v. Richland County Sch. Dist. No.1, 270 S.C. 492, 495-96,
243 S.E.2d 192, 193 (1978)).

Section 59-25-430 provides that a teacher “may
be dismissed at any time who shall . . . manifest an evident unfitness for            
teaching . . . [through conduct] such as, but not limited to, the following:
. . . conviction of a violation of the law of this State or the United States,
gross immorality, dishonesty, illegal use, sale or possession of drugs or narcotics
. . . .”  (emphasis added).

Section 59-25-430 does not enumerate all the reasons
a teacher’s employment may be terminated in South Carolina.  See S.C.
Code Ann. § 59-25-430; Hall v. Board of Trs. of Sumter County Sch. Dist.
No. 2, 330 S.C. 402, 406, 499 S.E.2d 216, 218 (Ct. App. 1998).  Rather,
recognizing the importance of school board’s exercise of discretion, the Legislature
created a broad basis upon which a teacher may be terminated.  As such, the
touchstone for dismissal pursuant to section 59-25-430 is conduct evincing unfitness
to teach. 

The evidence before the Board indicates that in
1988, Shell was arrested for possession of crack cocaine when a car in which
he was a passenger was stopped and crack cocaine was found on the floor wrapped
in one of his personal checks.  The evidence also indicates that when the school
administration initially questioned Shell about the event, Shell was dishonest
about it. 

Shell was placed on administrative leave pending resolution
of the charges against him.  The solicitor subsequently dismissed the charges,
and Shell was reinstated. [1]  

In 2000, Shell hired Bernie Lee Thomas to perform
work on his house.  Shell had known Thomas for over twenty years.  Shell offered
to take Thomas home, and upon Thomas’ request, Shell stopped at a house across
the highway from Thomas’ house in an area of West Columbia known to be drug-infested. 
Shell testified he remained in the vehicle while Thomas went to visit a friend. 
When Thomas returned to the vehicle, police officers arrested Thomas for possession
of crack cocaine and Shell for attempted possession of crack cocaine.

According to school officials, Shell’s 2000 arrest was reported
on a local television station and caused negative, distracting, discussion of
the event among teachers, parents, and students, which was disruptive to the
school. [2]   Additionally, Carver’s principal
testified she believed the publicity, coupled with the negative repercussions,
undermined Shell’s ability to be an effective teacher.  Moreover, she testified
she did not believe allowing Shell to teach was in the best interest of the
students. 

Viewing the record as a whole, we conclude this evidence
supports the Board’s finding Shell is unfit to teach.  Shell was arrested twice
for incidents related to crack cocaine.  On both instances, he was intimately
associated with individuals who at the very least did possess crack cocaine
in his presence.  This evidence, combined with the fact that Shell is a role
model for young students, his 2000 arrest was televised, and his principal testified
that his return would not be in the best interest of the students, provides
sufficient evidence to support the Board’s finding Shell is unfit to teach. 
See Feagin v. Everett, 652 S.W.2d 839, 843 (Ark. Ct. App. 1983)
(holding evidence a teacher was arrested for marijuana was sufficient to support
a finding the teacher was unfit to teach, where the arrest resulted in local
publicity); see also Brown v. Board of Educ. of Topeka, Shawnee County,
Kansas, 347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954) (“[E]ducation is perhaps the most important
function of state and local governments. . . . [I]t is a principal instrument
in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional
training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment.”); Rogliano
v. Fayette County Bd. of Educ., 347 S.E.2d 220, 226 (W.V. 1986) (C. J. Neely,
dissenting) (stating teachers in public school systems are more than guides
to instruction and knowledge, they are role models for societal and cultural
values).

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the order of the circuit court is
reversed and the decision of the Board is reinstated.

REVERSED.

CURETON, STILWELL, and HOWARD, JJ., concurring.

[1] At trial, Shell argued evidence regarding his previous arrest in
1988 was inadmissible pursuant to South Carolina Rules of Evidence, Rule 404. 
However, this issue was not ruled on by the circuit court.  Thus, it is not
preserved for appellate review.  See Great Games, Inc. v. South
Carolina Dep’t of Revenue, 339 S.C. 79, 85, 529 S.E.2d 6, 9 (2000) (holding
issues not raised to and ruled on by the lower court are not preserved for
appellate review).

[2] The charges against
Shell were subsequently dropped when Thomas pled to the charges against him
and accepted responsibility for the incident.