McNAUGHTON v. CHARLESTON CHARTER SCHOOL Case Brief

Supreme Court of South Carolina • 2015
411 S.C. 249 768 S.E.2d 389 Contracts Remedies Administrative Law

Complete case briefs with LSD+

Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

4 min read

tl;dr: A charter school fired a teacher mid-contract, citing a “contingent on funding” clause to reallocate her salary. The court found this was a breach and held the school liable for special damages because it knew the firing would prevent her from completing her teacher certification program.

Legal Significance: Establishes that a “contingent on funding” clause is not a license for discretionary reallocation of funds. It also clarifies that an employer’s knowledge of an employee’s special circumstances can create liability for foreseeable special damages beyond lost wages upon breach of an employment contract.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Cynthia McNaughton was a participant in the Program of Alternative Certification for Educators (PACE), which required a full induction teaching year to become a certified teacher. She signed a one-year employment agreement with the Charleston Charter School for Math and Science (Appellant) for the 2010-2011 school year. The agreement contained a clause stating it was “contingent on funding and enrollment.” Appellant was aware of McNaughton’s participation in the PACE program at the time of hiring. Despite positive performance reviews, Appellant terminated McNaughton’s employment in December 2010, midway through the school year. The school’s principal stated the termination was necessary to reallocate funds from McNaughton’s salary to hire a new math teacher following poor student test scores. However, the principal conceded at trial that funding for McNaughton’s position was available at the time of termination but was repurposed. Evidence also showed other unused funds in the school’s budget. As a result of the mid-year termination, McNaughton was unable to find another qualifying teaching position, could not complete the PACE program, and suffered significant financial consequences, including foreclosure on her home and incurring additional student loan interest.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Did the school breach its employment contract and become liable for special damages when it terminated a teacher mid-year by invoking a “contingent on funding” clause to discretionarily reallocate her salary, knowing the termination would prevent her from completing a required certification program?

Yes. The school breached the employment contract because the “contingent on funding” Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

About IRAC analysis

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.

Legal Issue

Did the school breach its employment contract and become liable for special damages when it terminated a teacher mid-year by invoking a “contingent on funding” clause to discretionarily reallocate her salary, knowing the termination would prevent her from completing a required certification program?

Conclusion

This case provides a significant precedent on the scope of consequential damages Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla

Legal Rule

Special damages for breach of contract are recoverable when such damages may Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore

Legal Analysis

The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the lower court's judgment, focusing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut al

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A “contingent on funding” clause in an employment contract is breached
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectet

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial