Teacher appeals termination, claims use of force was reasonable during incident

A school district terminated a teacher's contract following an incident in which the teacher used physical force against a student. The teacher filed an appeal to the commissioner of education, arguing that the termination was improper because the district failed to consider whether the teacher was immune from termination because he had used reasonable force during the incident. 

The commissioner agreed with the teacher and held that the district could not terminate his contract. The school district appealed this decision, first to district court and then to the court of appeals. Both courts upheld the decision and found that the district had improperly terminated the teacher.

The facts that formed the basis of the attempted termination are as follows: just after the bell rang to start an afternoon class, the teacher went into the classroom and encountered a young man he did not know. The young man began to walk toward the teacher, who was in the doorway. The teacher asked the young man for identification, but the young man refused to provide it. The teacher did not allow the unidentified young man to leave the classroom. Another teacher also asked the young man for identification, but he refused that request as well. 

The teacher sought assistance by sending two other students to the office to ask for help in the classroom. The teacher also phoned the office and texted an assistant principal to get help. 

Before help could arrive, the young man escalated the encounter by grabbing the teacher's upper arms. The young man then aggressively shoved the teacher in an attempt to exit the classroom. The other teacher stepped aside, offering no help. 

The situation developed in a matter of seconds, culminating in both the teacher and the young man falling in a prone position on the ground. The teacher held the young man on the ground for approximately two minutes using the weight of his torso for control and using his left hand to pin the young man’s right hand. The young man used his free hand to repeatedly punch the teacher in the face. 

Other employees stood around, asking the young man to calm down, but they did not appear to be particularly alarmed and did not adequately offer assistance to prevent harm to the young man or the teacher on the floor. The encounter ended when the school principal arrived and instructed the teacher to release the young man.

When the district proposed to terminate the teacher's contract after this incident, the teacher requested a hearing. After the hearing, the independent hearing examiner found that:

• when the two went to the ground and were surrounded by other personnel, the teacher should have backed away, as the young man was no longer a danger;
• the teacher's conduct was inconsistent with the conduct of a person of ordinary prudence under the same or similar circumstances;
• the teacher's restraint of the young man on the ground harmed the district, both in the time that it took away from educational purposes and in public perception; and
• the district had good cause to terminate the teacher.

The independent hearing examiner never mentioned Section 22.0512 of the Education Code in her recommendation. That statute states generally that a professional employee of a school district may not be subject to disciplinary proceedings for the employee’s use of physical force against a student ... when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is necessary to impose order in the learning environment or to maintain discipline in a group.

On appeal, the commissioner of education agreed with the teacher that the independent hearing examiner should have considered whether or not the teacher was immune from disciplinary proceedings (including termination) for use of reasonable force. 

The commissioner further held that the teacher had used reasonable force, concluding that the teacher reasonably believed that the force was necessary, because "releasing an unidentified and violent individual to roam freely in school before administration responded to the situation presented a safety risk.” Based on that, the commissioner determined that the teacher was immune from disciplinary action and that the district could not terminate him for that conduct.

The district appealed the commissioner's decision to district court, which ruled in favor of the teacher. The district then appealed to the court of appeals. 

The court of appeals determined that the district could not simply terminate the teacher for good cause; it must also determine whether the teacher's use of force was reasonable and whether the teacher was entitled to immunity. 

Here, the court of appeals concluded that the commissioner was correct in finding that the teacher had a reasonable belief that force was necessary to compel obedience and keep himself and others safe from violence. The commissioner determined that backing away from the young man could create danger by giving him more space to maneuver and punch. The young man was unexplainably aggressive and had defied a simple and proper command to show a school ID. The teacher did not know that the young man was a student, and his aggressive behavior indicated that he should not be allowed to roam freely. 

Given that the young man repeatedly punched the teacher, and other school employees stood there and watched without any particular alarm, it was reasonable for the commissioner to conclude that the teacher reasonably believed that he could not back away without potentially putting himself in more danger. It was also reasonable for the teacher to believe that the other school employees would not help him if he did back away, because they were simply standing there without attempting to offer assistance.

The court of appeals upheld the decision that the teacher could not be terminated because he was immune from disciplinary action for use of reasonable force with a student.