Austin v. Benefield
| Decision Date | 27 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 52226,52226,1 |
| Citation | 140 Ga.App. 96,230 S.E.2d 16 |
| Parties | Linda AUSTIN et al. v. J. W. BENEFIELD et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Haas, Holland, Levison & Gibert, Theodore G. Frankel, David L. Ross, Atlanta, for appellants.
Webb, Fowler & Tanner, Jones Webb, J. L. Edmondson, Lawrenceville, for appellees.
This class action was brought on behalf of teachers employed by the Gwinnett County School System based on certain teacher employment contracts entered into before July 3, 1975. Every teacher employed by the defendants for the 1975-76 academic year signed a standard form employment contract, which contained a stated salary figure. The contract provided, however, that the specified salary was 'subject to adjustment according to the Georgia 'Minimum Foundation Program of Education,' . . . without obligation by the employer to make up any deficit . . .' It also stated, 'The terms and conditions of this contract are made expressly subject to provisions of the Constitution and the laws of the State of Georgia relating to public education and the appropriations therefor.' In order to persuade contracting teachers not to breach the contract unnecessarily, the contract also provided that in case the teacher breached the contract for reasons other than emergency, 'the employer shall recommend to the State Board of Education that the certification of the teacher be suspended in accordance with policies of the State Board of Education and the rules of the Professional Practices Commission.'
The plaintiffs brought this action in two counts. Count 1 asserts that the defendants breached the contracts of employment entered into with their teachers. Count 2 sought a declaration that the legislative action in repealing the appropriations for teacher salary raises, which action caused the defendants' breach, constituted the passage of a law impairing the obligation of contracts.
The dispute in this case is a direct result of the actions of the Georgia General Assembly in first granting, and then revoking, appropriations for a statewide teacher salary increase. The chronology of events leading to this lawsuit is, briefly, as follows.
During the regular session of the General Assembly, commencing in January 1975, the General Appropriations Act for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1975, was passed. Section 44A of that Act appropriated the sum of $29,972,562 to the Georgia Department of Education to fund a seven percent increase in the statewide minimum teachers salary index. This index states the minimum salary a local school system must pay any teacher, and is dependent upon the number of years of service any type of certificate held by the teacher. Local school districts may supplement the minimum salary, as did the Gwinnett County School District. This index is also the basis upon which state funds are transmitted to local districts for payment of teacher salaries. Each school district in Georgia receives funds from the state to operate its schools, and is required to also contribute a certain amount of local funds from local property taxes. The amount of state funds received is determined in large measure by the state minimum index and the number of teachers allocated by law to the system.
After passage of the General Appropriations Act, the state board established its index for the 1975-76 year. The Gwinnett County School District then entered into written contracts with its teachers, each contract containing a stated salary which included Gwinnett's annual local supplement.
The trouble began, however, when on June 18, 1975, the Governor announced that decreasing state revenue estimates necessitated a special session of the legislature to trim the budget. That session concluded on July 3, 1975, with the enactment and signing by the governor of 'House Bill No. 1-Ex, Executive Act No. 4,' which amended the General Appropriations Act. One of the principal amendments was the repeal of Section 44A of the General Appropriations Act, which had provided funding for the increase in the state teachers index, as well as pay raises for other state employees, including professors in the state university system.
As a result of the repeal, the State Board of Education rescinded its published state index for the 1975-76 year, and reverted to the same scale used the previous year. Thereafter, the defendants announced that they would not be able to pay the exact amount specified in the contracts and would have to reduce each teacher's salary by the amount of the reduction in the state index. The only reason for the defendants' refusal to honor the original contractual terms was the loss of state funds resulting from the legislature's repeal of § 44A.
On August 7, 1975, this class action was filed on behalf of the teachers in Gwinnett County seeking judicial enforcement of the contracts signed prior to the repeal of the state appropriations. On that same day, an action was filed on behalf of all university professors who had similar contracts with the Board of Regents. The professors' claims for relief were upheld by the Supreme Court of Georgia on December 4, 1975. Busbee v. Ga. Conference, American Assn. of University Professors, 235 Ga. 752, 221 S.E.2d 437.
In his order entered February 23, 1976, Judge Charles C. Pittard of the Superior Court of Gwinnett County denied the plaintiffs' claims on the contract (Count 1) and entered judgment for the defendants. The trial judge made no ruling on Count 2 of the plaintiffs' complaint.
1. The instant case is materially different from the university professors case in that the professors' contracts had no provision for reduction in case of the unavailability of state funds. 'Considering the merits,' the Supreme Court said, 'we note initially that the faculty contract forms do not contain a provision to the effect that the payments provided for therein are subject to reduction depending upon the availability of funds as provided by the appropriations Act and amendments thereto . . . The state can protect itself against reoccurrence (sic) of this situation in the future by contract, or by statute if that be deemed appropriate.' Busbee, supra, 235 Ga. 760, 762, 221 S.E.2d 443, 444.
The Gwinnett County teacher contract, on the other hand, did provide for reduction in case of the unavailability of state funds. The contract stated, 'The terms and conditions of this contract are made expressly subject to provisions of the Constitution and the laws of the State of Georgia relating to public education and the appropriations therefor.' The plaintiffs argued that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Horne v. Drachman
...contract is severable, ... the invalid provision does not render other provisions of the contract void. (Cits.)" Austin v. Benefield, 140 Ga.App. 96, 99, 230 S.E.2d 16 (1976). "The issue of the severability of a contract is determined by the intention of the parties, as evidenced by the ter......
-
Grant v. Nellius
...Comm'n v. Beard, 27 Ariz.App. 534, 556 P.2d 1137 (1976); Butterworth v. Boyd, 12 Cal.2d 140, 82 P.2d 434 (1938); Austin v. Benefield, 140 Ga.App. 96, 230 S.E.2d 16 (1976); Committee of Int. & Res. v. City of New York, 87 Misc.2d 504, 386 N.Y.S.2d 177 (1976); Personnel Division of Executive ......
-
Health Facility Investments v. Georgia Dept. of Human Resources
...That agreement expressly authorized appellee to make downward adjustments in the reimbursement rate. Cf. Austin et al. v. Benefield et al., 140 Ga.App. 96, 230 S.E.2d 16 (1976). Then, on April 17, 1976, appellant instituted the present suit in the Fulton Superior Court. Appellant argued tha......
-
Strickland v. City of Albany
...spouse of a non-retired City employee. See Withers v. Register, 246 Ga. 158, 159(1), 269 S.E.2d 431 (1980); Austin v. Benefield, 140 Ga.App. 96, 101(3), 230 S.E.2d 16 (1976). With regard to equal protection, all similarly situated surviving spouses of non-retired City employees are treated ......