The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D hired P to teach 6th, 7th, and 8th-grade art, along with the yearbook class. D knew that P was participating in the ACE program and that her completion of the program was contingent upon her fulfillment of further requirements, including the completion of an induction teaching year. P signed an employment agreement, in which P agreed to be a full-time teacher at D for the school year 2010-2011. The agreement was 'contingent on funding and enrollment.' D would pay P a yearly salary of $34,040. P received positive feedback from students and parents. According to the principal, P was a talented art teacher, especially when it came to designing cross-curricular lessons. On December 1, 2010-in the middle of the school year-the D informed P that D was terminating her employment. D needed to use the funds designated for P's salary to hire and pay a new math teacher because some of the students had performed poorly on a recent math achievement test. When P was terminated, there was funding available to pay P's salary, but that the funding was instead used to hire and pay the new math teacher. P invoked D's grievance and termination policy and began the grievance procedure. D told her that D had the legal right to move funding around as it chose and that because P was an at-will employee, the principal 'could do whatever she wanted.' The chairwoman of the board of D notified P that she had no 'standing' to continue the grievance procedure. P sued D in part for breach of contract. D wrote a letter of reference, but P was only able to find a job teaching two days a week, which did not grant her enough teaching hours to remain in the PACE program. P applied for jobs in graphic design as well as entry-level jobs but was unsuccessful. P also applied for and received unemployment benefits. P testified she was forced to purchase COBRA health insurance for $250 per month, withdraw the available funds from her state retirement fund, and deferred her student loans, which resulted in $2,500 additional interest. P testified that she was unable to refinance her home and that her bank foreclosed upon her mortgage. The jury returned a verdict of $20,623 in actual damages and $74,112 in special damages. D moved for JNOV and a new trial. Both were denied. The court also awarded attorney fee. D appealed, and the case was certified to the South Carolina Supreme Court. (The Blum 4th Casebook only looks at the special damages part of the judgment).

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.