## Facts

- Bernice Martin Russell was employed by Watson Chapel School District as Special Education Supervisor.
- The superintendent recommended nonrenewal of Russell’s contract and sent written notice listing three numbered reasons: (1) evasive responses to administrators’ questions, (2) arguing with administrators rather than cooperating, and (3) neglecting duties by failing to improve professional conduct despite administrative assistance (including memos, reprimands, evaluations, and improvement plans).
- Russell requested a school board hearing; the District presented testimony and documentation supporting the stated reasons.
- Russell, represented by counsel, cross-examined witnesses and presented her own evidence.
- Russell challenged the nonrenewal as void under the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act (TFDA), arguing the written notice did not provide sufficiently “specific reasons” to allow preparation of a defense.
- After an earlier remand directing review of the notice in light of what occurred at the hearing, the circuit court found substantial compliance and dismissed Russell’s complaint; Russell appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the District’s nonrenewal notice, evaluated in light of the school board hearing record, substantially complied with the TFDA requirement that reasons be stated so a reasonable teacher can prepare a defense.
2. Whether the court should reject or modify prior precedent applying a substantial-compliance standard to TFDA procedural requirements.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal.
- The court held the notice and the hearing record, considered together, substantially complied with the TFDA.
- The court declined to revisit its precedent applying substantial compliance to TFDA procedures.
- The court upheld the circuit court’s factual determinations under a clearly erroneous standard of review.

## Legal Principles

- TFDA nonrenewal notice must state reasons in separately numbered paragraphs sufficient for a reasonable teacher to prepare a defense.
- Substantial compliance with TFDA notice requirements may satisfy the statute; minor defects in wording do not void nonrenewal when the statutory purpose—fair opportunity to defend—is met.
- Sufficiency of notice is evaluated in context, including what actually occurred at the school board hearing and whether the teacher was prejudiced in preparing or presenting a defense.
- On review after remand, appellate courts defer to the circuit court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the District’s nonrenewal decision because the three numbered reasons in the notice, together with the evidence presented and contested at the board hearing, gave Russell an adequate opportunity to understand and defend against the allegations, satisfying the TFDA under a substantial-compliance standard.


Russell v. Watson Chapel Sch. Dist., 313 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. 2009)