Adequate notice in the form of a written statement of the reason for action must be afforded a teacher. (see Mathews v. Eldridge, 96 S.Ct.893 (1976)).
(1) The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
(2) Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972)... "in order for a teacher to be entitled to due process, the teacher must have a 'liberty' or 'property' interest at stake."
(3) Perry v. Sindermann, 408 E.S. 593 (1972)... Teacher at UT was employed for four years and then terminated. The Supreme Court held "That he may have acquired a protectible property interest... an unwritten 'common law' of tenure."
"Persons having any matter of dispute among them arising under the school laws of Texas or any person aggrieved by the school laws of Texas or by actions or decisions of any board of trustees or board of education may appeal in writing to the commissioner of education, who, after due notice to the parties interested, shall hold a hearing and render a decision without cost to the parties involved... nothing contained in this section shall deprive any party of any legal remedy."
Further, "any person.. aggrieved by any action of the Central Education Agency may appeal to a district court in Travis County, Texas. Appeals shall be made by serving the commissioner of education with citation issued and served in the manner provided by law for civil suits... Upon trial the court shall determine all issues of law and fact."
V.T.C.A., EDUCATION, Vol.1, Title 2, 11.13, p.101, Notes of Decisions:
"...central education agency [is]... a necessary party defendant in any such suit and that venue properly lay in Travis County." (Longacre v. Wylie Independent School Dist. (Civ.App.1971) 467 S.W.2d 502, ref. n.r.e.)
V.T.C.A., EDUCATION, Vol.1, Title 2, 11.13, p.102, Notes of Decisions:
""After petition... controversy... becomes matter of concern of state, involving uniform enforcement of general school laws..." (Longacre v. Wylie Independent School Dist. (Civ.App.1971) 467 S.W.2d 502, ref. n.r.e.)
V.T.C.A., EDUCATION, Vol.1, Title 2, 11.13, p.102, Notes of Decisions:
"It is within police power of state to adopt standards to guide administration of its public school system... [especially if] there is some element of willful or intentional discrimination or some real threat of injury to vested property right." (Passel v. Fort Worth Ind. School Dist. (Civ.App.1968) 429 S.W.2d 917, appeal dismissed, certiorari denied 91 S.Ct. 1667, 402 U.S. 968, 29 L.Ed.2d 133, rehearing denied 91 S.Ct. 2250, 403 U.S. 941, 29 L.Ed.2d 721).
Vol.1, Title 2, 11.13, p.102-3, Notes of Decisions:
"Orders of state superintendent of public instruction and State Board of Education... were final, and could not be attacked by school district which was party to proceedings." (Borger Ind. School Dist. v. Dickson (Civ.App.1932) 52 S.W.2d 505).
for further verification of conclusiveness of decisions by Commissioner of Ed., see following:
Gragg v. Hill (Civ.App.1933) 58 S.W.2d 150.
Temple Ind. School Dist. v. Proctor (Civ.App.1936) 97 S.W.2d 1047.
Blair v. Board of Trustees, Trinity Ind. School Dist. (Civ.App.1942) 161 s.W.2d 1030.
Lawler v. Castroville Rural High School Dist. (Civ.App.1951) 233 S.W.2d 613, error refused.
Johnson v. City of Dallas (Civ.App.1927) 291 S.W. 972.
NOTE !!! Vol.1, Title 2, 11.13, p.104, Notes of Decisions:
"Generally where questions involving proper administration of school laws are involved, courts are without jurisdiction until after appeal to state superintendent." (see Chastain v. Mauldin (Civ.App.1930) 32 S.W.2d 235).
HOWEVER!!! Vol.1, Title 2, 11.13, p.104, Notes of Decisions:
"Where school board acts contrary to express statute so as to render its acts void, appeal from its action may be taken directly to court without first exhausting remedy of appeal to school authorities." (see Bear v. Donna Ind. School Dist. (Civ.App.1934) 74 S.W.2d 179).
ALSO!!! Vol.1, Title 2, 11.13, p.104, Notes of Decisions:
"Once matter in controversy is submitted to school authorities for decision on appeal, that course of appeal must be exhausted and completed before resort can be had to the courts for relief." (see Cook v. Neill (1962) 163 T. 49, 352 S.W.2d 258).
Vol.1, Title 2, 11.13, p.104, Notes of Decisions:
"Action against school district by former empolyee for alleged breach of contract involved question of fact, and it was therefore necessary for employee to apply to proper school authorities before instituting suit in district court." (see Hinojosa v. San Isidro Ind. School Dist. (Civ.App.1955) 273 S.W.2d 656, also Farrar v. Colorado Ind. School Dist. (Civ.App.1969) 444 S.W.2d 204, ref. n.r.e.).
Vol.1, Title 2, 11.13, p.105, Notes of Decisions:
"Contract dispute between school district and its employees must be submitted for administrative determination and decision before any suit thereon can be filed in court." (see McRae v. Lindale Ind. School Dist. (Civ.App.1970) 450 S.W.2d 118, ref. n.r.e.).
"The rules and regulations pertaining to personnel administration shall include a comprehensive classification plan... These rules and regulations shall likewise provide tenure safeguards, leave and retirement provisions, and establish hearing procedures."
Vol.1, Title 2, Subchapter C. TEACHERS' EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS, 13.106, p.198:
Any teacher employed for three years receives a "continuing contract" in their fourth year.
Vol.1, Title 2, Subchapter C. TEACHERS' EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS, sect. 13.107, p.199:
A teacher under a continuing contract is "entitled to continue in his position... at a salary authorized by the board of trustees of said district... without the necessity for annual nomination or reappointment..."
Vol.1, Title 2, Subchapter D. TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES, sect. 13.203, p.206:
The Professional Practices Commission has one junior college teacher and one senior college teacher included in the 15-member group which rules on ethics in the profession... (a possible avenue for us)
"The board of trustees of each and every school district in the State of Texas shall pay their teachers upon a salary schedule providing a minimum beginning base salary, plus increments above the minimum for additional experience in teaching as hereinafter prescribed."
Vol.1, Title 2, Subchapter D. SALARIES, sect. 16.313, p.282:
"The commissioner of education shall develop policies, subject to approaval by the State Board of Education, to provide proper salary adjustments for promotions and demotions within grades..."
"The board of trustees of each school district shall provide by written policy for the periodic written evaluation of each teacher in its employ at annual or more frequent intervals. Such evaluation shall be considered by the board of trustees prior to any decision by the board not to renew the term contract of any teacher."
Vol.2, Title 2, Subchapter G. TEACHERS' EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS, 21.204, p.142:
If a teacher's contract is not to be renewed, they must be notified on or before April 1 of the preceding employment term. Failure to give such notice forces the board to employ the teacher for an additional year.
Vol.2, Title 2, Subchapter G. TEACHERS' EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS, sect. 21.205, p.143:
"If the teacher desires a hearing after receiving notice of the proposed nonrenewal, the teacher shall notify the board of trustees in writing within 10 days after receiving the notice of nonrenewal. The board shall provide for a hearing to be held within 15 days after receiving written notice from the teacher requesting a hearing. Such hearing shall be closed unless an open hearing is requested by the employee."
Vol.2, Title 2, Subchapter G. TEACHERS' EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS, sect. 21.207, p.144:
"If the teacher is aggrieved by the decision of the board of trustees, he may appeal to the State Commissioner of Education pursuant to Section 11.13 of this code. the commissioner may not substitute his judgment for that of the board of trustees, unless the decision below was arbitrary, capricious, unlawful, or not supported by substantial evidence."
"The Coordinating Board, Texas College and University System, referred to as the coordinating board, shall exercise general control of the public junior colleges of Texas."
Vol.2, Title 3, Subchapter C: FACULTY DEVELOPMENT LEAVES OF ABSENCE, sect. 51.101 (3), p.494:
Vol.2, Title 3, Subchapter C.: POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE COORDINATING BOARD, sect. 61.057, p.704:
"To achieve excellence in the teaching of students at institutions of higher education, the board shall develop and recommend (A) minimum faculty compensation plans, basic increment programs, and incentive salary increases; (b) minimum standards for faculty appointment, advancement, promotion, and retirement.."
The board at Mississippi State Junior college notified teacher of intent to not renew contract after deadline in their policy book. He sued district for breach of contract. Court denied because he did not lose anything as a result of untimely notification. For same decision in Oregon, see Boyce v. Umpqua Comm.College, 680 P.2d 671 (Or.App.1984).
for academic distinctions, read the following cases:
Kramer v. Bd. of Educ., 393 N.Y.S.2d 80(A.D.2d Dept.1977).
Sullivan v. Hannon, 374 N.E.2d 911(Ill.App.1st Dist.1978).
Goddard v. South Bay Union High School Dist., 144 Cal.Rptr. 701 (App.2d Dist.1978).
Loyd v. Bd. of Educ., 364 N.E.2d 977 (Ill.App.2d Dist.1977).
Cent.Educ.Agency v. George West School Dist., 750 S.W.2d 900 (Tex.App.Austin 1988).
"Texas law sets a two year maximum probationary period for teachers. The Texas Term Contract Nonrenewal Act requires school boards to make written policies for teacher evaluation and nonrenewal notice before the end of any employment term. Failure to give notice results in contract renewal. School boards which do not enact written policies for probationary periods are governed by the act's language."
Ezzell v. Bd. of Regents of Georgia, 838 F.2d 1569 (11th Cir.1988). U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit...
"Individual regents could be sued in their official capacities to prevent them from engaging in unconstitutional behavior..."
There is a "General requirement that a teacher be given the opportunity to remedy a deficiency, unless the deficiency is so serious that it is irremediable: (1991 Deskbook, 304). see the following cases:
Wright v. Superintending School Comm., 331 A.2d 640 (Me.1976).
Gilliland v. Bd. of Education, 365 N.E.2d 322(Ill.1977).
Adams v. Clarendon County School Dist., 241 S.E.2d 897 (S.C.1978).
Busker v. Bd. of Educ., 295 N.W.2d 1 (S.D.1980).
"Hearings are generally required for demotion of tenured employees just as they are for dismissal" (1991 Deskbook, 343). see the following cases:
Norwin School Dist. v. Chlodney, 390 A.2d 328 (Pa.Cmwith.1978).
Harlan County Bd. of Educ. v. Stagnolia, 555 S.W.2d 828 (Ky.App.1977).
Appeal of Sergent, 360 N.E.2d 761 (Ohio 1976).
Stellmaker v. DePetrillo, 710 F.Supp. 891 (D.Conn.1989).
"A tenured Connecticut teacher filed a grievance against his board of education. He was then transferred to a less desirable position at a different school. The teacher sued the school district in a federal district court, alleging that his First Amendment right to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances had been violated. The court agreed, holding that the First Amendment protects the right of public employees to associate in a labor union and seek redress of grievances through collective action. The school district could not retaliate against the teacher for doing so."
Fleice v. Chualar Union Elem. Sch. Dist., 254 Ca.Rptr. 54 (Cal.App.6th Dist.1988).
Change of status by board, even though it was their mistake, was upheld by the court. This was, however, a special case due to the details of the California statutes.
1991 Deskbook encyclopedia of American school law. (1991). Rosemont, Minnesota: Data Research, Inc.
1992 Deskbook Encyclopedia of American School Law. (1992). Rosemont, Minnesota: Data Research, Inc.
Texas. Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated: Education, 3 vols.