## Facts

- Verna Roberts, a Houston Independent School District (HISD) teacher under a continuing contract, received repeated unfavorable evaluations over multiple school years.
- HISD used written evaluations and videotaped classroom observations conducted by an assessment team, followed by counseling and warnings that failure to improve could result in termination.
- After continued performance deficiencies, the assessment team recommended termination for inefficiency or incompetency.
- HISD gave Roberts notice of proposed termination and the grounds, and she requested a statutorily authorized public hearing before the school board.
- Before the hearing, HISD provided a witness list and copies of exhibits but did not furnish a physical copy of an edited compilation videotape it planned to show.
- Roberts was permitted to view all underlying videotapes maintained in district offices but did not do so.
- At the public hearing, HISD presented evidence including an edited compilation video of Roberts’s classroom performance; the board unanimously voted to terminate her contract.
- Roberts sued, alleging denial of procedural due process, denial of substantive due process, and violation of privacy based on the videotaping and use of the recordings.
- The trial court upheld the termination; Roberts appealed on an agreed record.

## Issues

1. Whether procedural due process was denied because HISD used an edited compilation videotape at the hearing without providing Roberts a copy in advance, despite notice of the charges and access to the underlying tapes.
2. Whether termination for inefficiency or incompetency was so arbitrary or irrational as to violate substantive due process.
3. Whether videotaping a teacher’s performance in a public classroom, and using the tapes in termination proceedings, violated the teacher’s right to privacy.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the judgment upholding Roberts’s termination.
- Procedural due process was satisfied because Roberts received notice of the grounds, a public hearing, and an opportunity to review the underlying videotapes.
- Substantive due process was not violated because the termination decision rested on documented performance deficiencies and a rational educational basis.
- No privacy violation occurred because classroom teaching in a public school is not within a protected zone of privacy, and district procedures permitted videotaping for evaluation.

## Legal Principles

- A public employee with a protected employment interest is entitled to notice of the charges and a meaningful opportunity to be heard; due process does not require advance delivery of demonstrative evidence in the exact edited form used at the hearing when the employee has fair notice and access to the underlying material.
- Substantive due process in public employment is satisfied if the termination decision is rationally related to legitimate governmental (educational/administrative) objectives and is not arbitrary or capricious.
- A public school teacher generally lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy in on-duty classroom conduct; videotaping for performance evaluation, consistent with district procedures, does not implicate constitutionally protected privacy interests.

## Conclusion

The court upheld HISD’s termination of a continuing-contract teacher, holding that the hearing process provided constitutionally adequate notice and opportunity to respond despite the use of an edited video compilation, that the decision had a rational basis grounded in performance evidence, and that classroom videotaping for evaluation did not violate privacy rights.


Roberts v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist., 788 S.W.2d 107 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990)