Atwater v. Comm'r of Educ.

• Citation: 33 IER Cases 546,460 Mass. 844,957 N.E.2d 1060,274 Ed. Law Rep. 314
• Decision Date: 21 November 2011
• Docket Number: SJC–10817.
• Parties: Thomas A. ATWATER v. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION & another.1
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

274 Ed. Law Rep. 314

33 IER Cases 546

460 Mass. 844

957 N.E.2d 1060

Thomas A. ATWATER

v.COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION & another.1

SJC–10817.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

Submitted Sept. 7, 2011.Decided Nov. 21, 2011.

Garrick F. Cole (Gerard A. Butler, Jr., with him), Boston, for the plaintiff.

Amy Spector, Assistant Attorney General, for Commissioner of Education.

Geoffrey R. Bok (Colby C. Brunt with him), Boston, for Manchester Essex Regional School District.Matthew D. Jones, Boston, for Massachusetts Teachers Association, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.Michael J. Long, Joshua R. Coleman, Hingham, & Stephen J. Finnegan, Boston, for Massachusetts Association of School Committees, Inc., & another, amici curiae, submitted a brief.

Present: IRELAND, C.J., SPINA, CORDY, GANTS, DUFFLY, & LENK, JJ.

IRELAND, C.J.

The plaintiff, Thomas A. Atwater, a teacher with professional teacher status,² was dismissed by the superintendent of the Manchester Essex Regional School District (district) for multiple instances of conduct unbecoming a teacher. Atwater sought review of the dismissal by filing with the Commissioner of Education (commissioner) a petition for arbitration pursuant to G.L. c. 71, § 42, fourth par., as appearing in St.1993, c. 71, § 44, the Education Reform Act of 1993(act). After conducting several days of evidentiary hearings, the arbitrator issued a decision affirming the dismissal. Thereafter, Atwater unsuccessfully sought to vacate the award pursuant to G.L. c. 150C, § 11. Atwater appealed, and we granted his application for direct appellate review. Atwater argues that G.L. c. 71, § 42, which compels arbitration of a wrongful dismissal claim made by a public school teacher with professional teacher status, violates art. 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights ³ because it impermissibly delegates to a private individual (an arbitrator) a judicial function and denies meaningful judicial review. Atwater also contends that, pursuant to G.L. c. 150C, § 11, the arbitration award should be vacated because the arbitrator acted in excess of her authority, engaged in misconduct, and exhibited bias against him. We affirm.

1. Statutory framework. We begin with an overview of the relevant statutory framework, which will assist in understanding the background of the case. The act made significant changes to the structure and funding of the Commonwealth's public school system. See Hancock v. Commissioner of Educ., 443 Mass. 428, 432, 822 N.E.2d 1134 (2005) (Marshall, C.J., concurring). The changes were enacted to ensure “(1) that each public school classroom provides the conditions for all pupils to engage fully in learning as an inherently meaningful and enjoyable activity without threats to their sense of security or self-esteem, (2) a consistent commitment of resources sufficient to provide a high quality public education to every child, (3) a deliberate process for establishing and achieving specific educational performance goals for every child, and (4) an effective mechanism for monitoring progress toward those goals and for holding educators accountable for their achievement.” G.L. c. 69, § 1, as appearing in St.1993, c. 71, § 27. G.L. c. 69, § 1A, as appearing in St.1993, c. 71, § 28. “To further these goals, statutory changes were made to the statute governing teacher demotions and dismissals, G.L. c. 71, § 42.” School Dist. of Beverly v. Geller, 435 Mass. 223, 225 n. 1, 755 N.E.2d 1241 (2001) ( Geller ) (Cordy, J., concurring). “These changes included (1) transferring from school committees to school principals and superintendents the responsibility for dismissing teachers; (2) expanding the statutorily enumerated grounds for dismissal to include failure to satisfy teacher performance standards, and changing the catchall ground from other ‘good’ cause to other ‘just’ cause; (3) depoliticizing and streamlining the dismissal process by requiring that contested dismissals proceed directly to arbitration, where timelines for decisions and detailed statements of supporting reasons are mandated; (4) providing for limited rather than de novo review of dismissal decisions (as confirmed or not by arbitration) in the Superior Court; and (5) requiring arbitrators specifically to take into account the best interests of students and the need for the elevation of performance standards in determining whether a school district has met its burden of proving grounds for dismissal.” Geller, supra (Cordy, J., concurring).

More particularly, under the statute pertaining to teacher dismissals, G.L. c. 71, § 42 (statute), a teacher with professional teacher status, such as Atwater, “shall not be dismissed except for inefficiency, incompetency, incapacity, conduct unbecoming a teacher, insubordination or failure on the part of the teacher to satisfy teacher performance standards ... or other just cause.” G.L. c. 71, § 42, third par. The procedure for review of a teacher dismissal decision provides:

“A teacher with professional teacher status may seek review of a dismissal decision within thirty days after receiving notice of his dismissal by filing a petition for arbitration with the commissioner.⁴ The commissioner shall forward to the parties a list of three arbitrators provided by the American Arbitration Association [AAA]. Each person on the list shall be accredited by the National Academy of Arbitrators. The parties each shall have the right to strike one of the three arbitrators' names if they are unable to agree upon a single arbitrator amongst the three. The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the rules of the [AAA] to be consistent with the provisions of this section.... The board of education shall determine the process for selecting arbitrators for the pool. The fee for the arbitration shall be split equally between the two parties involved in the arbitration.”

Id. at § 42, fourth par. Each of the parties at the arbitral hearing may be represented by counsel, present evidence, and call witnesses. Id. at § 42, fifth par. The school district “shall have the burden of proof.” Id. “In determining whether the district has proven grounds for dismissal consistent with this section, the arbitrator shall consider the best interests of the pupils in the district and the need for elevation of performance standards.” Id.

Following the hearing, the arbitrator is required to issue a “detailed statement of the reasons for the decision.” Id. at § 42, sixth par. “The arbitral decision shall be subject to judicial review as provided in [G.L. c. 150C, concerning collective bargaining agreements to arbitrate].” Id. “With the exception of other remedies provided by statute, the remedies provided hereunder shall be the exclusive remedies available to teachers for wrongful termination.” Id. “The rules governing this arbitration procedure shall be the rules of the [AAA] as pertains to arbitration.” Id.

As indicated, the scope of judicial review of the arbitrator's decision is limited by G.L. c. 71, § 42, which in turn relies on the standard set forth in G.L. c. 150C. Under G.L. c. 150C, § 11 ( a ), a Superior Court judge “shall vacate” an arbitrator's award on a party's application if, among other enumerated grounds:

“(1) the award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means;

“(2) there was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral, or corruption in any of the arbitrators, or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party;

“(3) the arbitrators exceeded their powers or rendered an award requiring a person to commit an act or engage in conduct prohibited by state or federal law.”

“Absent proof of one of the grounds specified in G.L. c. 150C, § 11 ( a ), a reviewing court is ‘strictly bound by the arbitrator's factual findings and conclusions of law, even if they are in error.’ ” School Comm. of Lowell v. Robishaw, 456 Mass. 653, 660, 925 N.E.2d 803 (2010), quoting School Comm. of Pittsfield v. United Educators of Pittsfield, 438 Mass. 753, 758, 784 N.E.2d 11 (2003). We, however, have carved out an exception to the narrow scope of judicial review of arbitration awards by permitting a reviewing court to overrule an award on the ground that it conflicts with public policy. See Geller, supra at 237–238, 755 N.E.2d 1241 (Ireland, J., concurring), and cases cited. See Lawrence v. Falzarano, 380 Mass. 18, 28, 402 N.E.2d 1017 (1980) (arbitrator may not award relief of nature that offends public policy).

2. Background.⁵ a. Atwater's dismissal. In February of 2005, Atwater was a teacher with professional teacher status at Manchester Essex Regional Middle High School, where he also served as the coach of the girls' varsity basketball team. On March 10, 2005, the district's superintendent sent Atwater a letter notifying him of the superintendent's intent to dismiss Atwater from his position based on the superintendent's investigation of a reported incident that occurred at Atwater's home in February, 2005, between Atwater and a female student, whom Atwater coached. The superintendent attached various documents to the notice of intent, including the superintendent's summaries of statements made to him from the student, one of the student's friends, and a teacher, regarding the incident or the student's recollection of it; a letter placing Atwater on administrative leave; the district's harassment and sexual harassment policy; ⁶ an affidavit signed by Atwater during a meeting with the student's uncle (who is a lawyer); and a series of electronic mail messages (e-mails) from Atwater to the student between February 18 and February 25, 2005. In addition, in his letter, the superintendent offered to meet with Atwater to give him an opportunity to respond to the charges and to provide any additional information, but Atwater declined.

In a letter dated March 16, 2005, after “having considered all of the information available to [him], and having reviewed the documents included...