Steve Perrin v. Windham Southeast Supervisory Union et al.

Summary

The Vermont Superior Court, Bennington Unit, reviewed Steve Perrin’s Rule 74 appeal from the Windham Southeast School District Board’s decision terminating him as principal of Brattleboro Union High School. The court held that the Board’s findings were supported by the record, that Perrin had fair notice and sufficient procedural due process, and that the Board’s decision should be affirmed. The court denied the Rule 74 appeal and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Holdings

1. The Rule 74 appeal was denied because the administrative record contained credible evidence supporting the board's findings that Perrin engaged in egregious misconduct, had fair notice that the conduct could result in discharge, and was dismissed for just and sufficient cause.
2. The court properly reviewed the appeal on the administrative record without a jury and would not reweigh conflicting testimony or second-guess the board's credibility determinations.
3. Perrin received constitutionally adequate procedural due process because he received notice of the charges, an explanation of the employer's evidence, an opportunity to respond before termination, and a full statutory post-termination evidentiary hearing with judicial review.
4. Perrin's bias challenge was not reviewable because he did not seek recusal before the administrative hearing and therefore failed to preserve the issue.
5. Summary judgment was proper on the IIED claim because Perrin offered no evidence that defendants engaged in conduct sufficiently extreme and outrageous or that he suffered the requisite severe emotional distress.
6. Summary judgment was proper on the defamation claim because Perrin identified no specific false published statement and the statement that he was dismissed for cause was true.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the school board's decision dismissing Perrin for just and sufficient cause should be reversed under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 74.
2. Whether the Rule 74 review required a jury trial or review beyond the administrative record.
3. Whether Perrin received constitutionally adequate pre-termination and post-termination procedural due process.
4. Whether Perrin preserved a challenge based on alleged bias or public pressure affecting the school board's decision.
5. Whether Perrin presented evidence sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact on his intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim.
6. Whether Perrin presented evidence sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact on his defamation claim.
7. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Perrin's breach-of-contract claim.

Disposition

other