Allen had an employment contract that stated he could only be dismissed for good cause.  The “good cause” term is not vague because an ordinary person could sufficiently understand the meaning of the term and conduct himself or herself in a manner to avoid termination (here, conduct seriously prejudicial to the institution).

Even an exempt person cannot be discharged without good cause.  So if he is protected whether exempt or classified from discharge without good cause, why bother determining if exempt or not?  Because the remedy for discharge without good cause of an exempt employee is back pay.  The remedy for discharge without good cause of a classified employee is reinstatement.

The Board made findings of fact and showed evidence, including employment incompatibility and adverse effects on the school’s welfare, as to “good cause”.
-But isn’t this a Q of Law for which the court should not have given deference to the Board’s factual findings?