She blamed staff for the delays and claimed retaliation - judges disagreed
A Mississippi appeals court has upheld a school district's decision not to renew its business manager's contract, rejecting her retaliation and due process claims.
The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed, on June 30, 2026, a chancery court ruling in favor of the Okolona Municipal School District (OMSD), closing out a dispute over late vendor payments, workplace friction, and a business manager's claim that she was pushed out for speaking up.
Casandra Trimble had served as OMSD's business manager since 2013. In April 2023, superintendent Dr. Paul Moton told her that her contract would not be renewed. The reason given: neglect of duty, specifically unprofessional conduct, failing to pay vendors on time, and failing to maintain professional relationships with colleagues - all framed as violations of the Mississippi Code of Ethics.
Trimble requested a hearing, which she was entitled to under state law. Over three days in May 2023, OMSD's Board of Trustees heard from Trimble, the superintendent, and six other employees.
The district's witnesses described daily friction in the business office. A school secretary said she was "forced" to take on extra accounting duties on top of confusing requisition procedures. The special education director told the Board that a classroom assistant's pay was delayed by two months, and that the business office changed procedures "out of the blue." She also described a district grocery account that had been shut down over non-payment. The superintendent testified he fielded "constant complaints about the particular process," calling it "overwhelming" and "tiresome."
Trimble pushed back hard. She testified the payment delays were caused by employees who filled out paperwork incorrectly, despite training she had provided, and said some staff "manipulate[d]" purchase order timestamps to make her office look slow. She said she documented everything by email because there had been "a culture of lying in this district." Several colleagues backed her up, including the assistant superintendent, a middle school principal, and two business office staff, who described her as good at her job and easy to work with.
Trimble also argued the timing looked suspicious. She had emailed a complaint about the superintendent's conduct just two days before her non-renewal letter arrived, and had reported a possible misuse of district property - an air purifier spotted at a maintenance official's church - roughly three months earlier. She said the non-renewal was retaliation for both.
The Board upheld the non-renewal regardless, and the chancery court affirmed that decision. Trimble then appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The appeals court sided with the district on every point. It found OMSD had given a "demonstrable reason" for the non-renewal, backed by witness testimony and documents - which shifted the burden onto Trimble to prove those reasons had no basis in fact. The court held she did not clear that bar, even with her own supporting evidence.
On retaliation, the court pointed to testimony that the superintendent didn't know about Trimble's grievance when he sent the non-renewal letter, and that the assistant superintendent confirmed he never told him about it. That broke the timing argument Trimble was relying on.
The court also rejected her due process claim. State law required OMSD to give specific reasons and a factual summary before the hearing - not a "detailed" account, a distinction the statute doesn't draw. The court found OMSD's pre-hearing notice, witness list, and multi-day hearing met that requirement.
For HR teams, especially in the public sector, the ruling is a reminder that a well-documented pattern of underperformance - backed by witness testimony and a paper trail of emails - can support a non-renewal decision even against determined pushback. It also underscores a key limit on retaliation claims: proximity in time between a grievance and a termination is not enough on its own if the decision-maker can show they didn't know about the grievance when they acted.
