Parker v. Board of Education of Prince George's County, Md.

Decision Date28 June 1965
Docket NumberNo. 9932.,9932.
Citation348 F.2d 464
PartiesRay Elbert PARKER, Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Robert H. Reiter and Andrew P. Zimmer, Washington, D. C. (David B. Isbell, Washington, D. C., on brief), for appellant.

Paul M. Nussbaum, Hyattsville, Md., for appellee.

F. Duncan Cornell, Walter S. Levin, and Sauerwein, Benson & Boyd, Baltimore, Md., on brief for amici curiae, Maryland State Teachers' Ass'n, Inc. and Prince George's County Teachers' Ass'n, Inc.

Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, and Stuart H. Rome, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Maryland, on brief for amicus curiae, Maryland State Board of Education.

Before BRYAN and BELL, Circuit Judges, and BARKSDALE, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

His employment as a teacher under a contract with the Board of Education of Prince George's County, Maryland was arbitrarily and illegally terminated, Ray Elbert Parker charged in his complaint, praying the District Court to order his reinstatement and award him damages. From an adverse summary judgment he appeals. We affirm upon the third defense pleaded in the Board's answer, viz., the failure of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. F.R.Civ.P. 12(b) (6).

We need not pass on the merits of the Fifth, Fourteenth and First Amendment deprivations and abridgement asserted by the appellant, consisting of the Board's termination of his employment (1.) without a hearing and (2.) because of his instruction from a book which he said had been proscribed by the Board in violation of freedom of speech. Our decision rests entirely on the contract. By its terms Parker was only employed provisionally and wholly without academic tenure, express or implied. The agreement was that his engagement was simply probationary and "that either of the parties to this contract may terminate it at the end of the first or second school year by giving thirty days' notice in writing to the other during the month of June or July". Concededly, the termination complied with this stipulation. We join the District Judge in upholding the Board's action on this ground. Parker v. Board of Education, 237 F.Supp. 222 (D.C.Md.1965).

Summary judgment, we think too, was appropriate because the premises underlying the decision were without genuine controversy; they appeared in the contract and other supporting papers with the motion. These included the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • Cooper v. Ross
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas
    • June 25, 1979
    ...Ahern v. Board of Education, 456 F.2d 399 (8th Cir. 1972); and Parker v. Board of Education, 237 F.Supp. 222 (D.Md.), aff'd, 348 F.2d 464 (4th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 1030, 86 S.Ct. 653, 15 L.Ed.2d 543 (1966). See generally Goldstein, The Asserted Constitutional Right of Public S......
  • DeCanio v. School Committee of Boston
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • July 3, 1970
    ...387. See also Parker v. Board of Educ. of Prince George's County, Md., 237 F.Supp. 222, 227 (D.Md.), and cases cited at fn. 5, affd. 348 F.2d 464 (4th Cir.), cert. den. 382 U.S. 1030, 86 S.Ct. 653, 15 L.Ed.2d 543; 78 C.J.S. Schools and School Districts § 204, at fn. 42. Cases from other Sta......
  • Albaum v. Carey
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • March 15, 1968
    ...an enactment to preserve its constitutionality. See, e. g., Parker v. Board of Education, 237 F.Supp. 222, 227-228 (D.Md.), aff'd, 348 F.2d 464 (4th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 1030, 86 S.Ct. 653, 15 L.Ed.2d 543 (1966). Recently, in Rosenberg v. Allen, 258 F. Supp. 511 (S.D.N.Y.1966)......
  • Ward v. Hickey
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • August 31, 1990
    ...of that particular book. Parker v. Board of Education of Prince George's County, Md., 237 F.Supp. 222, 224 (D.Md.1965), aff'd 348 F.2d 464 (4 Cir., 1965), cert. denied 382 U.S. 1030, 86 S.Ct. 653, 15 L.Ed.2d 543 (1966). Finally, in two cases which the defendants claim further demonstrate a ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT