Asadoorian v. Warwick School Committee

• Decision Date: 26 March 1997
• Docket Number: Nos. 95-254-M,s. 95-254-M
• Parties: 117 Ed. Law Rep. 220 Mark ASADOORIAN et al. v. WARWICK SCHOOL COMMITTEE. P., 95-273-M.P.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 573

691 A.2d 573

117 Ed. Law Rep. 220

Mark ASADOORIAN et al. v. WARWICK SCHOOL COMMITTEE.

Nos. 95-254-M.P., 95-273-M.P.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

March 26, 1997.

Robert S. Parker, Richard A. Skolnik, Providence, for Plaintiff.

Rosemary M. Allen, James M. Green, Providence, for Defendant.

OPINION

FLANDERS, Justice.

Do absences from work have any effect on whether a probationary school teacher can qualify for tenure? We issued writs of certiorari on these consolidated petitions to decide various issues pertaining to this question. In this case, the appropriate school authorities determined that, by missing at least 27 days during any one or more of their 180-day-long probationary school years, fifteen teachers had failed to attain tenure because they did not satisfy the minimum statutory requirement of completing three full and consecutive years of teaching. In reviewing the legal propriety of this decision, we must also rule on whether the authorization of these absences by the teachers' collective-bargaining agreements and by Rhode Island's Parental and Family Medical Leave Act (Leave Act) ¹ affects the resolution of the issues presented. Finally, we must resolve whether the commissioner has jurisdiction to adjudge a civil rights claim brought by the teachers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.

All parties have asked us to review a decision of the State Board of Regents for Elementary and Secondary Education (board) that addresses these issues. The board affirmed a decision of Peter McWalters, the Rhode Island Commissioner of Education (commissioner), denying and dismissing an appeal from a ruling of the School Committee of the City of Warwick (school committee) that denied tenure to each of the fifteen probationary teachers, all of whom taught in Warwick's public schools. ² The school committee's ruling upheld the actions of the then-Warwick public schools superintendent, Henry S. Tarlian (superintendent). The sole basis on which the superintendent denied tenure to these teachers was that each had missed "substantial" teaching time during one or more of his or her three consecutive probationary years, thereby preventing the teacher from completing that year of the probationary pretenure period.

Our task on certiorari is to consider whether the commissioner's decision, as affirmed by the board, was supported by any competent evidence and free from any errors of law. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the decisions of the board and the commissioner in all aspects.

Facts and Procedural History

In June 1993, shortly after concluding their third nontenured year of service in the Warwick School System, each of the fifteen teachers in this case received a substantially similar letter from the superintendent:

"This June you will complete your third year with the Warwick School System, and you would normally be entitled to tenure with the satisfactory completion of three years of teaching.

"In your case, however, we are persuaded, on the basis of recent rulings by the Commissioner, that denial of tenure is in order because of the substantial time you've missed from school during [one or more of the previous three probationary school years]. We are advising you, therefore, that [those school years within which substantial time was missed] * * * will not be counted toward tenure.

"We hope that next year you'll be able to complete the year with substantially fewer absences from your teaching duties."

The superintendent based his denial of tenure upon what he perceived to be the teachers' excessive absences (ranging from 27 to 109 days) ³ in at least one of the three previous probationary school years (each one of which comprises 180 teaching days). ⁴ However, the parties' collective-bargaining agreement authorized all the absences, and the Leave Act statutorily sanctioned most of them. Moreover, each teacher's performance was such that the school committee renewed his or her annual contract for the 1993-1994 school year.

In reviewing the teachers' individual records of absence, the superintendent determined that those who were absent 15 percent or more of the school year--that is, those who missed twenty-seven or more days--were absent so excessively during that year that it would not count as one of the three consecutive probationary teaching years that each teacher had to complete to obtain tenure (the 27-day rule ⁵). The superintendent came to this conclusion after considering the individual reasons for each teacher's absences, conferring with his cabinet of advisors, ⁶ and reviewing the commissioner's ruling in Brunetti v. Woonsocket School Committee, Commissioner of Education (April 24, 1992). In Brunetti the commissioner reaffirmed that "a teacher does not become tenured until three full years of service under three successive annual contracts have been completed." Id. at 5 (quoting Dunn v. Middletown School Committee, Commissioner of Education (July 26, 1976)). The commissioner then ruled that probationary school years during which a teacher incurs absences of other than a "brief * * * de minimis nature" ⁷ are not properly counted toward tenure because those years are not "full." Id. at 7. Thus, in adopting the 27-day rule, the superintendent was attempting both to clarify and to define the more general de minimis standard first articulated by the commissioner in Brunetti.

The teachers appealed their denial of tenure to the school committee. After a hearing the school committee, itself relying upon Brunetti, voted to uphold the superintendent's determination that "when an individual had 27 or more days of absence in a school year, that year would not count as one of three annual successive contract years for tenure purposes." September 21, 1993 Decision of the School Committee of the City of Warwick.

The teachers then appealed their tenure denial to the commissioner, claiming also that the 27-day rule constituted an unlawful employment practice under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 in that it allegedly had a disproportionate impact on women. In a decision written by a hearing officer, the commissioner held that by missing at least 15 percent of class time (or twenty-seven or more days) out of at least one of three probationary school years, none of the teachers had completed "three full years of service under * * * [the three] successive annual contracts [each was issued]." Asadoorian v. Warwick School Committee, Decision of Commissioner of Education at 6 (August 12, 1994). ⁸ The commissioner characterized the 27-day rule as a "line drawn" that is "consistent with the notion of a 'full' school year yet permit[ting] brief routine absences of a de minimis nature." Id.

"[C]onstruction of our statute to require that a teacher be in attendance every single day of the school year in order for the year to be counted for tenure purposes, while it would provide a definite number of days, would result in a teacher's starting the probationary period anew when he or she was absent a single day during the probationary period. This reading of our statute would be unduly rigid and would produce the irrational result of restricting the class of tenured teachers to those with perfect attendance during the probationary period. Our interpretation of the statute permits for some flexibility, yet * * * effectuates the legislative objective to require a demonstration of the probationary teachers' ability to give satisfactory service over a sustained and uninterrupted period." Id.

The commissioner further held that absences authorized by the Leave Act could be counted in determining whether a teacher had worked a full year for tenure purposes. However, he ruled that such absences could not interrupt the requirement of three successive years of service on the tenure track. Id. at 9. Finally, the commissioner declined to decide whether the 27-day rule constituted an unlawful employment practice under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 because that "issue * * * is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, as it does not arise under a law relating to schools or education." Id. at 10.

Thereafter, both the teachers and the school committee appealed the commissioner's decision to the board. The board found that "the Commissioner's findings of fact are supported by the record and that his decision properly applies the law to those facts." Thus, the board affirmed the decision of the commissioner. Asadoorian v. Warwick School Committee, Board of Regents for Elementary and Secondary Education (April 27, 1995).

The teachers and the school committee then filed separate petitions for writs of certiorari with this court, seeking review of the board's decision. We granted the petitions and consolidated them for briefing and oral argument. The teachers argue that they should not have been denied tenure solely because of their asserted excessive absences when those absences were taken pursuant to contract and were sanctioned by the Leave Act--especially when there were no previous written policies, guidelines, rules, or regulations concerning how such absences would affect their quest for tenure. They also contend that it was error for the commissioner not to hear and decide their 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 claim. They seek reversal and the quashing of "any portion of any decision rendered inconsistent" with their arguments. The committee, on the other hand, seeks reversal of the board's decision "to the extent that it allows for a break in the three-successive-year requirement * * * and to the extent that it holds prior years of service to be protected benefits" preventing the probationary period from starting anew by teachers who take Leave Act-sanctioned absences.

Standard of Review on Certiorari

Our review on a writ of certiorari is restricted to an examination of the record to determine whether any competent evidence supports the decision and whether the decision maker made any errors of law in that ruling. See D'Ambra v. North...