In Re: Rokeeta Richard

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

23-476

IN RE:

ROKEETA RICHARD

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF NATCHITOCHES, NO. 93,545A
HONORABLE DESIREE DUHON DYESS, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

SHANNON J. GREMILLION
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Shannon J. Gremillion, Candyce G. Perret, and Gary J. Ortego,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Jill L. Craft
W. Brett Conrad, Jr.
Jovontee J. Curlee
Attorneys at Law
329 St. Ferdinand Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
(225) 663-2612
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Rokeeta Richard

Thomas M. Hayes, IV
Benjamin D. Jones
Hammond, Sills, Adkins, Guice, Noah & Perkins, LLP
1881 Hudson Circle
Monroe, LA 71201
(318) 324-0101
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Natchitoches Parish School Board

GREMILLION, Judge.

Rokeeta Richard appeals the decision of the district court that upheld her

termination from employment as a non-tenured teacher by the Natchitoches Parish

School Board (NPSB). For the reasons that follow, we affirm the district court’s

judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE 1

Ms. Richard was employed as a non-tenured teacher by NPSB for

approximately five years. In June of 2020, Ms. Richard was diagnosed with stage 4

metastatic breast cancer. In August of 2021, she began teaching virtually at

Natchitoches Virtual Academy. The principal of the virtual academy was Kristie

Irchirl.

The virtual academy faculty were involved in a professional development

program on August 9, 2021, during which they were familiarized with the

“Instructional Staff Responsibilities and Expectations,” which set forth the school’s

policies governing teachers. Among these expectations is grading, set forth in a

section entitled, “Grading & Grade Entry in JCAMPUS.” That section provides,

“Teachers shall transfer all grades from Edgenuity into JCAMPUS. This should be

done at least twice a week, if not daily to keep up with grading.”

Issues arose involving the entry of student grades in December 2021, as

documented by several emails between Mr. Irchirl and Ms. Richard. On Tuesday,

December 7, Ms. Irchirl sent an email to all faculty reminding them that the term

was ending the following week, and all grades should be entered by the week’s end.

Ms. Irchirl sent an email to Ms. Richard indicating that twenty-one students had no

grades posted to the computer system. By Sunday, December 12, Ms. Irchirl noticed

1
At the judicial review hearing, NPSB filed a number of exhibits to which Ms. Richard
objected. Our review will be limited solely to the material contained in the administrative record
produced by NPSB.

that several students’ grades still had not been posted, and she emailed Ms. Richard.

Ms. Richard documented that her students’ civics grades had been updated, but their

health grades had not because the students were still completing assignments. She

also sent screenshots documenting the entry of the grades in civics.

On January 26, 2022, Ms. Irchirl received an email from a concerned parent

who wrote to complain of her daughter’s grades in her food and nutrition class. The

parent had emailed the teacher and received no response. The parent also

complained that when the student began taking a test, “what she read does not match

the questions being asked[.]”

Another issue involving grade entries arose in February 2022.

On Monday, March 7, 2022, Ms. Irchirl emailed the faculty and advised them

that grades for that period would be due by 8:00 a.m. the following Monday. She

advised that she would not be unlocking the system to accommodate teachers who

had failed to post grades by that deadline. On Sunday, March 13, Ms. Irchirl advised

Ms. Richard that twenty-three students had no grades posted. She reminded Ms.

Richard that grades were due at 8:00 a.m. the following morning.

On Tuesday, March 15, 2022, Ms. Irchirl sent an email to Ms. Richard

indicating stating:

I noticed that you didn’t put in any of your Midterm Exam Grades in
JCAMPUS for report cards. However, I took care of that for you last
night. Moving forward, don’t forget that this is always part of the 2nd
quarter for each semester. For those students whose Cumulative exam
was due for today – I averaged their unit tests for the course. Let me
know if you have any questions.

A student emailed Ms. Irchirl with a question about her English and Language

Arts class and a group discussion assignment. Ms. Irchirl replied and asked the

student whether she had contacted Ms. Richard. The student had emailed Ms.

2

Richard twice with no response. Ms. Irchirl then emailed Ms. Richard, who

indicated that she had received the emails while at the hospital.

Ms. Irchirl emailed Ms. Richard on Friday, April 8, 2022, to ask whether she

could come to the virtual academy to sign her letter of intent to return for the 2022-

2023 school year. On Monday, April 11, Ms. Richard emailed Ms. Irchirl expressing

her distress from a meeting between them that day and the fact that Ms. Irchirl had

told her she was going to be terminated because of her illness. Ms. Irchirl emailed

her back advising that she had not terminated her.

On Wednesday, April 20, Ms. Irchirl forwarded another email to Ms. Richard

about missing grades and the fact that report cards would be printed on April 25. A

particular student’s parent called to ask about her grades, because the student only

had grades entered in one class. Ms. Richard replied that she would take care of it.

Later the same afternoon, Ms. Irchirl again emailed Ms. Richard:

I ran reports on JCAMPUS. All of your students have no grades for 3
out of 4 classes except Cri. Bro. She is missing two grades for grading
period 7. 1 know you were in the hospital a couple of weeks ago and I
really wish the best for you. However, you need to begin entering
grades today. I see that you have some of the assignments listed in
some of your classes but no grades. You have some classes that you
need to input both the assignments and grades. Remember, students
and parents should be able to see JCAMPUS grades and progress
weekly. Last grading period, I helped you to make sure all Midterm
Exam grades were in. I know this may be hard for you to keep up with
the demands for your health and school work as well. Since you have
been out, it seems as though you have struggled each grading period
with keeping your grades updated. Please let me know how we can
assist you with this so it doesn’t continue to happen.

Ms. Richard replied that she would have all grades entered by April 22, the deadline.

She further indicated that she would have input the Midterm grades had Ms. Irchirl

mentioned them prior to the Sunday before they were due. This, of course, ignored

the March 7 email Ms. Irchirl sent to all faculty, one week before Ms. Richard

claimed she was notified in her April 20 email.

3

On May 24, 2022, Ms. Richard signed a contract for employment for the 2022-

2023 school year. Her evaluation by Ms. Irchirl was submitted that day. The

evaluation found that Ms. Richard was rated as Effective: Emerging. Areas of

weakness were noted, particularly “struggles with inputting student grades in a

timely manner[.]” It noted that Ms. Irchirl had input grades for Ms. Richard and that

grades were missing for many students in many classes in the week grades were to

have been reported. Ms. Irchirl also indicated that she had received “multiple

complaints regarding your communication with parents and students[,]” and that Ms.

Richard had become less communicative with Ms. Irchirl.

Linda Page, the Human Resources Director of NPSB, spoke with Ms. Richard

on June 9, 2022. She offered Ms. Richard an opportunity to resign or take a leave

of absence and return when her health improved. The record diverges regarding this

meeting. Emails submitted by both Ms. Richard and NPSB demonstrate that Ms.

Richard’s interpretation of the meeting was that Ms. Page had offered her the option

to either resign or be fired. The parties, however, do not dispute that this was subject

to Ms. Richard returning after she was well and able to perform her teaching tasks.

On July 18, 2022, Ms. Richard emailed Ms. Page. In that post, she stated:

I am contacting you because last time you called me on June 9, we
spoke on the phone via FaceTime you informed me that since I had
cancer, if I did not quit, you would fire me because I wasn’t capable of
working even the jobs I wanted beyond all the hard work I did through
the virtual academy and I told you quitting wasn’t an option for me and
you said you had no choice but to fire me. I am trying to see where my
pink slip is since you said you were going to fire me and I didn’t have
a job at Natchitoches Parish School Board any longer? I would
appreciate a prompt response in this matter.

Ms. Page responded that she had tried to call Ms. Richard several times and that she

was mischaracterizing the conversation. Ms. Richard then replied that her

characterization was correct, that her problems were due to a “personal vendetta of

Miss Irchirl,” and that she had performed the work of others at the virtual academy
4

when they were absent. Since Ms. Page had told her that unless she quit, she would

be fired, Ms. Richard saw no purpose in answering Ms. Page’s calls.

Dr. Grant Eloi, Superintendent of NPSB, wrote an August 3, 2022 letter to

Ms. Richard outlining seven reasons for which she might be subjected to disciplinary

action:

1) Failure to place grades for 18 of your 21 students in all four of
your courses during the 2nd quarter (December 2021).

(2) Failure to adequately complete student grades in March for
grading period 6. Twenty-three of your thirty-two students were
missing grades in one or more courses.

(3) Failure to enter any midterm grades for your students.

(4) Failure to provide grades for your students during grading period
7.

(5) Failure to update grades weekly as provided in the handbook.

(6) The teacher refused to answer any phone calls from the Principal
during school hours, even when she was allowed to work from
home about the Principals concerns.

(7) On April 24th, 2022 you failed to let your Principal know in a
timely manner that your grade book was locked, though you
knew it was, thus not allowing you to enter grades for progress
reports for marking period 4.

At that time, Ms. Richard was placed on paid administrative leave. She was advised

by Dr. Eloi that she had seven days in which to respond, after which he would notify

her of his decision.

On August 12, 2022, Ms. Richard responded, “In response to the letter written

by you and given to me on August 3, 2022 by Linda Page witnessed by Shenita

Nolley. All of the allegations are Unsubstantiated. Thank you.”

By letter dated August 15, 2022, Dr. Eloi informed Ms. Richard of his

decision:

On August 5th, 2022, 1 provided you with a letter detailing eight
(8) concerns relative to your performance. Such letter also informed
5

you that, based upon those reasons, I was contemplating disciplinary
action against you, including your possible termination. You were
afforded seven (7) days to respond to the allegations.

On August 12th you responded via an email in which you simply
stated that all the allegations concerning your employment were
“unsubstantiated.” You did not go into any further detail, nor did you
dispute the claims in any specific manner.

Based on the reasons outlined in my initial letter and the
available information, coupled with your failure to dispute them in any
specific manner and your failure to provide any additional information,
it is my determination that the concerns/reasons are substantiated.
Accordingly, I am terminating your employment with Natchitoches
Parish School Board effective Tuesday, August 16th, 2022.

A copy of my initial letter, your response, and this letter will all
be placed in your personnel file. You have sixty (60) days from your
receipt of this letter within which to seek a review of my decision by
the District Court, should you so desire.

While I regret having to make this decision, I believe it to be in
the best interest of the District and the students it serves.

Ms. Richard did seek judicial review of Dr. Eloi’s decision by the Tenth

Judicial District Court. In her petition for judicial review, Ms. Richard maintained

that she was fired solely because of her illness. She also complained that she was

denied a meaningful opportunity to respond because her gradebook had been locked

by NPSB. She also complained that Dr. Eloi had considered eight reasons for her

termination, and she was not given notice of an eighth reason. All of these actions,

Ms. Richard argued, violated her due process rights under La.R.S. 17:443 and the

14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The trial court rendered a judgment with incorporated written reasons in

which it upheld the superintendent’s decision. Contrary to Ms. Richard’s argument,

she was not vested with a property interest in her employment as a non-tenured

teacher. Even if she were, Ms. Richard was afforded due process in her termination.

The trial court found that Dr. Eloi’s actions were neither arbitrary nor capricious,

and Ms. Richard’s termination was upheld.
6

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Ms. Richard asserts that the following errors warrant reversal:

1. The Lower Court erred by rejecting Mrs. Richard’s rights to notice
of the alleged charges, explanation of the employer’s evidence, and
meaningful opportunity to respond before she was fired.

2. The Lower Court erred by applying the wrong standard of review as
set forth under La. R.S. 17:443 and applicable jurisprudence.

3. The Lower Court erred by upholding Mrs. Richard’s termination
based on evidence that was not considered by the Superintendent.

4. The Board’s discipline was arbitrary and capricious as the evidence
shows Mrs. Richard was terminated because of her cancer and she
did not violate policy.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Assignment of Error 1:

Discipline of teachers is governed by La.R.S. 17:443. Subsection (A)

provides for the procedures for disciplining a non-tenured teacher:

A. The school superintendent may take disciplinary action
against any nontenured teacher after providing such teacher with the
written reasons therefor and providing the teacher the opportunity to
respond. The teacher shall have seven days to respond, and such
response shall be included in the teacher’s personnel file. The
superintendent shall notify the teacher in writing of his final decision.
Within sixty days of such notice, the teacher may seek summary review
in a district court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Article 2592.
The district court’s review shall be limited to determining whether the
action taken by the superintendent was arbitrary or capricious.

Non-tenured teachers are at-will employees of the school board. La.R.S. 17:442(B).

The protection afforded non-tenured teachers has been addressed by this court before,

and is summarized as follows:

The Louisiana Constitution and legislature entrust the
administration of the school system to the parish school boards and not
to the courts. The School Board is vested with broad discretion in the
administration of the school system; nevertheless, due process requires
judicial review to ensure that the school boards do not abuse this
discretion. Judicial review is limited, and where there is a rational
basis, which is supported by substantial evidence for the school

7

board[‘]s discretionary determination, the courts cannot and should not
substitute their judgment for that of the school board. Scott v.
[O]uachita Parish Sch. Bd., 768 So.2d 702, 711 (La.App. 2 Cir.2000);
Myres v. Orleans Parish School Board, 423 So.2d 1303 (La.App. 4
Cir.1982), writ denied, 430 So.2d 657 (La.1983).

The Supreme Court has accepted the following definition of
“substantial evidence:”

[“‘]Substantial evidence[‘] has been defined as
[‘]evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and
fair-minded men in exercise of impartial judgment might
reach different conclusions.’” (citations omitted) Wise v.
Bossier Parish School Board, 851 So.2d 1090, 1094
(La.2003).

The district court must give great deference to the school
board[‘]s findings of fact and credibility. Arriola v. Orleans Parish
Sch. Bd., 809 So.2d 932, 941 (La.2002). The district court may not
substitute its judgment for that of the school board or interfere with the
school board’s good faith exercise of discretion. Howard v. W. Baton
Rouge [Parish] Sch. Bd., 793 So.2d 153 (La.2001). Thus, the school
board[‘]s judgment should not be reversed in the absence of a clear
showing of abuse of discretion. Gaulden v. Lincoln Parish School
Board, 554 So.2d 152, 157 (La.App. 2 Cir.1989), writ denied, 559
So.2d 126 (La.1990).

The School Board is given great discretion in fashioning,
adopting[,] and implementing its plan[,] and the standard of review
used by courts when called upon to review whether a school board
complied with its own policies is substantial compliance. Harris v.
West Carroll Parish School Board, 605 So.2d 610 (La.App. 2
Cir.1992). Reasons for dismissal are largely in the sound discretion of
the school board. Gaulden, supra. General warnings are adequate
against conduct that the teacher should know is unacceptable. Gaulden,
supra; Wiley v. Richland Parish Sch. Bd., 476 So.2d at 439 (La.App. 2
Cir.1985). It is also well established that determinations of credibility
are within the purview of the school board. Gaulden, supra; Wiley,
supra.

VENTROY, as a non-tenured employee of the BOARD, did not
have a constitutionally protected property interest in her continued
employment and, therefore, was not entitled to due process over and
above that provided by the School Board’s policy. See Scott v.
Ouachita Parish School Board, supra.

Ventroy v. Lafayette Parish Sch. Bd., 08-1249, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/1/09), 6

So.3d 1039, 1043(alterations in original). In accordance with Ventroy, Ms. Richard

8

did not have a property interest in her employment with NPSB, as she did not hold

tenure. Her first assignment of error lacks merit.

Assignment of error 2:

Ms. Richard argues that the trial court applied the wrong standard in affirming

the superintendent’s decision: “the Lower Court applied a more onerous standard

holding that all that was required to uphold Mrs. Richard’s termination was ‘credible

evidence in support of any one ground for Mrs. Richard’s dismissal.’” She correctly

states that the district court’s role in her case is to determine whether the

superintendent’s actions were arbitrary or capricious. La.R.S. 17:443(A).

Generally, an abuse of discretion results from a conclusion reached
capriciously or in an arbitrary manner. See Burst v. Bd. of Com’rs Port
of New Orleans, 93-2069 (La.10/7/94), 646 So.2d 955, writ not
considered, 95-265 (La.3/24/95), 651 So.2d 284. The word “arbitrary”
implies a disregard of evidence or of the proper weight thereof. A
conclusion is “capricious” when there is no substantial evidence to
support it or the conclusion is contrary to substantiated competent
evidence. Coliseum Square Association v. City of New Orleans, 544
So.2d 351, 360 (La.1989).

Wise, 851 So.2d at 1094. “Substantial evidence” is “‘evidence of such quality and

weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in exercise of impartial judgment might

reach different conclusions.’[] Coleman v. Orleans Parish School Bd., 93-0916

(La.App. 4 Cir. 2/5/97), 688 So.2d 1312, 1315[.]” Id.

In the present matter, we find that the exchanges of emails and other evidence

submitted to the district court constitute substantial evidence. As such, the

superintendent’s decision was not capricious. We further find that the evidence was

properly weighed. Ms. Richard did not attempt to rebut the allegations; accordingly,

the only evidence before Dr. Eloi was that submitted to him by Ms. Richard’s

supervisors. He was presented with no substantiated competent evidence against

which to weigh those allegations.

9

Neither the trial court nor this court are free to substitute their judgments for

that of the superintendent. Our sole task is to ensure the superintendent does not

abuse his discretion in personnel matters involving nontenured teachers. La.R.S.

17:443(A). Even if the superintendent relied in part on an eighth reason, we find

that he did not abuse his discretion when the other seven reasons or any one of them

are proven. This assignment of error lacks merit.

Assignments of Error 3 & 4:

Ms. Richard contends:

Here, Ms. Richard was only given a conclusory listing of seven
(7) alleged reasons for proposed discipline. She was given no actual
description of her alleged conduct, including a description of:

• which 18 students she allegedly failed to input grades during
2nd quarter? (Charge No. 1);

• which 23 students she allegedly failed to input grades for
grading period 6, when was the deadline for inputting grades
for grading period 6, and which courses did not have grades
input? (Charge No. 2);

• when was the deadline for inputting midterm grades? (Charge
No. 3);

• which grades during grading period 7 did she fail to input and
when was the deadline to do so? (Charge No. 4);

• which grades did she fail to update and where in the handbook
does it state she was required to update grades on a weekly
basis? (Charge No. 5);

• what phone calls did she allegedly refuse to answer and when?
(Charge No. 6); and

• when should Mrs. Richard have let Principal Irchirl know her
grade book was locked? (Charge No. 7).

We note that La.R.S. 17:443(A) does not require that the written reasons for

disciplining a nontenured teacher include the documentation on which the

superintendent relies. Booker v. Richland Parish Sch. Bd., 393 So.2d 785 (La.App.

2 Cir. 1981). “[S]ome factual declarations” are all that is required. Id. at 790.

10

Ms. Richard indicates that she was deprived access to the JCAMPUS records,

grade book, and phone logs. She does not contend that she was deprived of access

to her emails, though. The emails of December 9, 2021 and March 13, 2022 from

Ms. Irchirl to Ms. Richard itemized the students whose grades were not entered and

the classes for which they were not entered. The email from April 20, 2022, from

Ms. Irchirl documented that none of Ms. Richard’s students had grades entered.

The deadline for entering the midterm grades in March 2022 were conveyed

by email from Ms. Irchirl to all faculty on March 7. Teachers, including Ms. Richard,

were advised that grades were required to be entered “at least twice a week, if not

daily” during the professional development program held on August 9, 2021.

Ms. Richard cites a plethora of cases in which specificity was required.

However, several of these cases involved the disciplining of police officers. 2 Police

officers in municipalities of between 13,000 and 250,000 population are subject to

civil service law. La.R.S. 33:2471. Cases involving these officers are not analogous,

much less binding, in cases involving nontenured teachers. Similarly, the principal

dismissed by the school board in Johns v. Jefferson Davis Sch. Bd., 154 So.2d 581

(La.App. 3 Cir. 1963) was tenured. As previously discussed, the law treats tenured

teachers differently than it does nontenured teachers. Lastly, Webb v. Dep’t of Pub.

Safety & Permits, 543 So.2d 582 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1989), involved an employee who

was classified under civil service law. In short, Ms. Richard can point to no case in

which a nontenured employee was held to have been entitled to protections

equivalent to a tenured employee, and for one simple reason: nontenured teachers

have no protected property interest in their continued employment. Ventroy, 6 So.3d

1039.

2
Middleton v. City of Natchitoches, 06-1531 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/4/07), 954 So.2d 356;
Cannon v. City of Hammond, 97-2660 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/28/98), 727 So.2d 570; Procell v. City
of Baker Police Dep’t, 19-1523 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/12/20)(unpublished opinion).
11

Ms. Richard also complains of the phantom “eighth” reason for her

termination. Discounting the possibility that the letter from Dr. Eloi on August 15,

2022, contained a typographical error, 3 we note that regardless of whether there were

seven or eight—or just one—stated grounds for termination, proof of any one ground

suffices. Wise, 851 So.2d 1090. The courts ought not second-guess the

superintendent’s decisions; what fosters or impairs a positive learning environment

lies beyond our expertise and mandate under La.R.S. 17:443. Our role is simply to

determine whether those decisions are arbitrary or capricious. As noted above,

substantial evidence supported the superintendent’s decision. That Ms. Richard

failed to enter grades in a timely manner, as outlined in the policies and procedures

covered in the August 9, 2021 faculty professional development meeting, was

supported by substantial evidence in the form of emails, including those authored by

Ms. Richard. Grading irregularities constituted five of the seven reasons set forth in

the August 3, 2022 letter from Dr. Eloi. These assignments of error lack merit.

SUMMARY

Nontenured teachers do not enjoy the same protections as tenured teachers.

The law requires only that they be provided with the written reasons for disciplinary

action and given the opportunity to respond within seven days. The superintendent

must notify the teacher in writing of his final decision. Within sixty days of such

notice, the teacher may seek summary review in a district court pursuant to Code of

Civil Procedure Article 2592. The district court’s review is limited to determining

whether the action taken by the superintendent was arbitrary or capricious.

In determining whether the superintendent’s decision was arbitrary or

capricious, the courts look to determine whether it was supported by substantial

3
That letter also stated that his original letter was dated August 5, 2022, when it was, in
fact, dated August 3, 2022, so perhaps proofreading was not strongly prioritized.
12

evidence. Here, substantial competent evidence demonstrated that Ms. Richard

experienced difficulties in entering her students’ grades in a timely fashion. She

maintains that she was terminated solely because of her health problems. And the

court cannot discount the possibility that her job performance problems were health-

related; however, her students cannot be made to bear the burden of Ms. Richard’s

health problems.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are taxed

to Plaintiff/Appellant, Rokeeta Richard.

AFFIRMED.

13