1

Running head: Clayton County Board of Education v. Wilmer

EDS860

School Law and Ethics

Court Case 2:. Clayton County Board of Education v. Wilmer

Lavern Stubbs

October 16, 2017

 2
Running head: Clayton County Board of Education v. Wilmer

Appellant: Burnedetta Wilmer

Appellee: Clayton County Board of Education

Case Number: 2012-40

Nature of Suit: Fair Dismissal Act

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

January 24, 2014.

Reconsideration Denied February 5, 2014.

Case Summary

The Superintendent of Clayton County Board of Education gave Wilmer, a tenured Kindergarten

teacher, notice on April 20, 2011 that her contract would not be renewed for the 2011-2012

school year. It appeared that protocol was being followed; however, the Appellants interest was

harmed because the Local Board deprived Burnedetta Wilmer, of a written decision and notice of

her rights to appeal to the Board in a timely manner. Next, the Local Board failed to provide any

explanation for its obvious failure to follow Georgia law. After her notice from the

Superintendent, Wilmar asked for an evidentiary hearing that came about on September 20,

2011. According to the Fair Dismissal Act, a teacher is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to

dispute the non-renewal. The Local Board failed to render a written decision in accordance with

O.C.G.A. 20-2- 1160 (LEagle, 2017). Then, the Local Board did not determine if the decision

was mistaken because the Local Board failed to issue a written decision supporting the basis for

its decision. More importantly, the Local Boards postponement caused this matter to be put off
 3
Running head: Clayton County Board of Education v. Wilmer

for over a year after the non-renewal letter was given. Her appeal was continually denied until it

went all the way to the State Board and then the Local Board filed with the Supreme Court where

the decision supported the State Board that upheld Wilmers rights confirming the Local Board

had not acted in a timely manner.

Rationale

Under the Fair Dismissal Act, the Local Board must give a tenured teacher written notice of its

intention not to renew contract, When the written notice was given by the teacher, the Local

Board had 14 days to give a notice that included reasons for non-renewal. Doyle noted, When a

call comes that a principal wants to move rapidly to terminate a teacher, the superintendent

should examine whether an adequate case has been built (Doyle, 2006, p.3). It did not mention

in the case whether the principal had documented sufficient evidence to the Superintendent

concerning the teacher. According to Doyle, Superintendents, rightfully eager to support their

principals, nonetheless must insist that principals must be prepared to justify any termination

they propose. There is a natural tendency for principals to procrastinate before confronting

teachers about deficient performance. This delay, however, is unfair to the teacher, and it can

jeopardize future action on the part of the district (Doyle, 2006. p.3). This case shared not only

what took place from the administrative and superintendent point, but it also gave detail that the

Local Board failed to follow through with a written notice which became a domino effect that led

to the State Court and then the Superior Court having to become involved. There is so much

more to consider after reading this case such as to whether Wilmer was given the support she

needed before the decision was made. This case also had another similar case that also took

place in the same school district which draws more questions.

 4
Running head: Clayton County Board of Education v. Wilmer

References

Doyle, Clem. (2006, November). The Fair Dismissal Act: Ten Mistakes School Systems Make.

Unique Employment Law Issues for School Districts, 3. Retrieved from:

http://www.gregorylefirm.com

LEagle. (2017). Clayton Couunty v. Burnedetta Wilmer. Retrieved from:

https://www.leagle.com/decision/ingaco20140124244