Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 538 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CV-25-640 ULANDA DIGBY-BRANCH Opinion Delivered November 4, 2026 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, V. WESTERN DISTRICT [NO. 16JCV-20-620] WESTSIDE CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 5 HONORABLE MELISSA BRISTOW APPELLEE RICHARDSON, JUDGE AFFIRMED MIKE MURPHY, Judge This is the second time this case has been before us. Appellant Ulanda Digby-Branch appeals from the Craighead County Circuit Court’s judgment, entered after a bench trial on remand, finding that appellee Westside Consolidated School District No. 5 (the District) substantially complied with the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act (TFDA) and its personnel policies when it did not renew her contract.1 Digby-Branch v. Westside Consol. Sch. Dist. No. 5 (Digby-Branch I), 2023 Ark. App. 164, at 6, 662 S.W.3d 723, 727. On appeal, she argues that the circuit court erred in finding that the superintendent’s reference to the 1 The parties’ arguments concern the TFDA, codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 6-17- 1501 to -1510 et seq. (Repl. 2021). Although the TFDA has since been replaced by the LEARNS Act, it was in effect at all times relevant to this case. District’s reduction-in-force (RIF) policy and his use of its seniority provision did not invoke the entire RIF policy. We affirm. The underlying facts are set out in Digby-Branch I, and we repeat them only as necessary. Digby-Branch began working for the District in 2015 as the high school assistant principal. In 2016, she moved to the middle school as its assistant principal, where she remained through the 2019–2020 school year. On March 6, 2020, Superintendent Scott Gauntt notified Digby-Branch that he would recommend that her contract not be renewed for the following three reasons: 1. The school district has had static enrollment, is facing an increase of salaries for classified staff of over $150,000, is facing an increase of salaries for certified staff to meet the state imposed new minimum salary, has increased expenses for debt service, and is facing a rising increase in teacher retirement payments. 2. [The] position of assistant principal at the middle school is not required by Arkansas standards. 3. The district cannot afford to keep [Digby-Branch] in a position that is not required to be filled. Digby-Branch requested a hearing, which the school board held on April 23, 2020. Gauntt told the board that the District faced an operating-budget shortfall of $238,000 into the next year. He said a staffing-efficiency review conducted with the State showed that the middle school was required to have only a principal. He explained that he then used the seniority provision of the District’s personnel policies to determine which of the District’s three assistant principals was lowest on the seniority scale, and that person was Digby-Branch. Eliminating the position would save the District approximately $94,000 annually in salary 2 and benefits. Digby-Branch’s counsel argued that the District’s entire RIF policy applied and that other positions should have been considered. The board received a copy of the policy before deliberating. It then voted unanimously that each of the three reasons provided by Gauntt was true and voted unanimously not to renew Digby-Branch’s contract. Digby-Branch appealed the board’s decision to the circuit court. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the District. In Digby-Branch I, we affirmed the dismissal of Digby-Branch’s breach-of-contract claim and the claims against Gauntt individually. We reversed and remanded on her TFDA claim. We explained that “[i]t is undisputed that Gauntt considered RIF policy criteria in reaching his recommendation, but on this record we cannot determine as a matter of law whether only considering certain RIF criteria did not convert the recommendation to exclusively a RIF nonrenewal.” 2023 Ark. App. 164, at 6, 662 S.W.3d at 727. We held that material facts remained regarding “whether the district substantially complied with its policies and procedures.” Id. On remand, the circuit court denied the District’s renewed motion for summary judgment, and a bench trial was held on April 24, 2025. Gauntt testified that while reviewing the RIF policy, he had attached a handwritten note to it that read, “While we aren’t invoking reduction in force policies, we are using this policy as a guideline to determine seniority.” He testified that he consulted the policy to make sure that, if a position had to be cut, the District chose the right person. Digby-Branch was not certified for the elementary school, and she had less seniority in the District than the high school assistant principal. He further testified that the middle school assistant-principal position has not been filled since Digby- 3 Branch’s departure. Digby-Branch testified about her grievances with Gauntt and other administrators. She posited that, had the entire RIF policy been applied, she would not have been the employee nonrenewed. In a letter opinion incorporated into its June 16, 2025 judgment, the circuit court found there was no evidence that any of the three reasons the board found true were in fact untrue. It also found, after considering witness demeanor and credibility, that Gauntt’s recommendation was not a pretext for personal animus. The court framed the remaining questions as (1) whether the TFDA and the District’s policy permitted elimination of the middle school assistant-principal position without invoking the RIF policy and (2) whether Gauntt’s reference to the policy and consideration of seniority invoked it even if the policy did not otherwise require it. The court answered the first question yes and the second question no. It concluded that the District substantially complied with the TFDA and its personnel policies, and it dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Digby-Branch timely appealed. Our standard of review in matters involving the TFDA is limited to whether the circuit court’s decision was clearly erroneous. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Hart, 2025 Ark. App. 529, at 5, 725 S.W.3d 532, 536. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court, on the entire evidence, is left with a firm conviction that an error has been made. Id. Facts in dispute and determinations of credibility are within the province of the fact-finder. Id. Whether a school district has complied with 4 the TFDA, however, is a question of law. Id. A circuit court’s conclusions on a question of law will be given no weight on appeal. Id. Under the TFDA, “[a] nonrenewal . . . by a school district shall be void unless the school district substantially complies with all provisions of this subchapter and the school district’s applicable personnel policies.” Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-1503(c). In reliance on this statute, Digby-Branch argues that the District’s RIF policy applied to her nonrenewal and that, because the District did not follow the entire policy, it failed to substantially comply with its personnel policies, rendering the nonrenewal void. Digby-Branch’s argument lacks merit because the RIF policy was not triggered. Arkansas Code Annotated section 6-17-2407 (Supp. 2025) requires each school district to have a written RIF policy based on objective criteria for the layoff and recall of employees. The statute does not, however, require the policy to define when it is triggered. Overton v. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 2025 Ark. App. 123, 708 S.W.3d 813. And there can be no violation of a district’s RIF policy when a reduction in force does not occur. Hart, 2025 Ark. App. 529, at 7, 725 S.W.3d at 537 (citing Overton, supra). The evidence here was that a staffing-efficiency review identified one surplus licensed position in the District: the middle school assistant principal. No other licensed positions were identified as surplus, and none were eliminated in connection with Digby-Branch’s nonrenewal. The board found true, and Digby-Branch does not dispute, that the position was not required by Arkansas standards and that the District could not afford to keep a 5 position it was not required to fill. On this record, the circuit court did not err in concluding that the District was not required to invoke its RIF policy to eliminate that position. Digby-Branch’s reliance on the District’s later decisions not to fill two administrative positions does not change our conclusion. Those positions became vacant through a retirement and a resignation in a subsequent school year. The policy expressly treats retirement and resignation as “normal attrition,” which it distinguishes from a layoff. Moreover, those events occurred after the board’s April 2020 decision. They do not show that the board conducted a districtwide reduction in licensed personnel when it nonrenewed Digby-Branch. The policy was not implicated by the elimination of a single surplus position. Further, Gauntt’s reference to the policy did not convert the recommendation into a RIF nonrenewal. Gauntt’s contemporaneous note stated that the District was “not invoking reduction in force policies” and was using the policy “as a guideline to determine seniority.” He testified that he looked to the policy because it was the only written District policy addressing seniority, and he used it to make sure that the choice among the three assistant principals was objective. The circuit court credited that testimony. After observing the witnesses, it rejected Digby-Branch’s contention that the recommendation was a pretext for personal animus. Those are determinations of credibility and of the weight to be given the evidence, which are matters for the fact-finder. Kasinger v. E. End Sch. Dist. ex rel. Bd. of Dirs., 2011 Ark. App. 595, at 5, 385 S.W.3d 885, 888. 6 Accordingly, on this record, we are not left with a firm conviction that the circuit court erred in finding that the District substantially complied with the TFDA and its applicable personnel policies. Affirmed. ABRAMSON and BARRETT, JJ., agree. Law Office of Felicia L. Branch PLLC, by: Fellicia L. Branch, for appellant. Mixon & Worsham PLC, by: Donn Mixon, for appellee. 7