## Facts

- Leona Baxter was a North Carolina public-school teacher who had achieved “career teacher” status under state law.
- Baxter taught orthopedically handicapped children in the Charlotte–Mecklenburg school system.
- The school principal instructed Baxter to stop striking students as a form of punishment.
- Baxter continued to strike students after being told to stop, and did so in front of witnesses.
- The superintendent notified Baxter in writing that he was recommending to the Charlotte–Mecklenburg Board of Education that she be dismissed at the close of the school year.
- The notice stated grounds for the recommendation, including inadequate performance, insubordination, neglect of duty, and failure to comply with school-board requirements.
- Baxter requested review of the recommendation by a Professional Review Committee panel.
- The panel held a hearing and issued split recommendations: a majority report favoring reinstatement with back pay and a minority report favoring dismissal.
- Despite the panel’s majority recommendation, the superintendent renewed his recommendation to the school board that Baxter be dismissed.
- The chair of the school board notified Baxter that she was entitled to a hearing before the board.
- The school board held a hearing, received testimony that included hearsay, and unanimously voted to terminate Baxter for the reasons stated in the original notice.
- Baxter sought judicial review in state court, claiming the administrative process violated her constitutional due-process rights; the trial court affirmed the board’s decision.
- Baxter appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the school board’s dismissal procedures provided Baxter constitutionally sufficient due process, including adequate notice and a meaningful chance to be heard.
2. Whether the school board (or superintendent) was required to follow the Professional Review Committee majority recommendation to reinstate Baxter.
3. Whether the school board’s consideration of hearsay evidence in the administrative hearing rendered the proceeding unfair or unconstitutional.
4. Whether the stated grounds and record evidence supported dismissal of a career teacher under North Carolina law.

## Decision

- The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, leaving the school board’s termination decision in place.
- The court concluded Baxter received due process through written notice of the charges and grounds and through hearings before the Professional Review Committee and the school board.
- The court treated the Professional Review Committee’s recommendation as advisory rather than binding on the superintendent or the school board.
- The court rejected the claim that receiving hearsay evidence, by itself, denied due process in this type of administrative proceeding.

## Legal Principles

- A career (tenured) public-school teacher has a protected interest in continued employment and is entitled to procedural due process before termination for cause.
- Due process in a teacher-dismissal setting generally requires timely, written notice of the reasons for dismissal and an opportunity to contest the allegations at a meaningful hearing.
- Where a statute or policy provides for a professional review panel, the panel’s recommendation may be advisory, with the elected school board retaining final decision authority after its own hearing.
- Administrative hearings are not required to apply courtroom rules of evidence; hearsay may be received so long as the overall process is fair and the decision rests on sufficient record support.
- Written notice is adequate when it identifies the alleged misconduct and the asserted legal grounds in a way that allows the teacher to prepare a defense.

## Conclusion

In *Baxter v. Crosby*, the North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld the Charlotte–Mecklenburg Board of Education’s decision to dismiss a career teacher accused of striking orthopedically handicapped students after being directed to stop, holding that the written notice and hearing procedures satisfied due process, the Professional Review Committee’s reinstatement recommendation did not control the outcome, and the board’s receipt of some hearsay evidence did not invalidate the administrative proceeding.


Baxter v. Crosby, 257 S.E.2d 71 (1979)