Bruinsma v. Wyoming Public Schools, Docket No. 11936

• Decision Date: 25 February 1972
• Docket Number: Docket No. 11936,No. 3,3
• Parties: David J. BRUINSMA et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The WYOMING PUBLIC SCHOOLS and The Board of Education of the Wyoming Public Schools, Defendants-Appellees
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 95

197 N.W.2d 95

38 Mich.App. 745

David J. BRUINSMA et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The WYOMING PUBLIC SCHOOLS and The Board of Education of the

Wyoming Public Schools, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 11936.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 3.

Feb. 25, 1972.

Leave to Appeal Denied May 9, 1972.

Released for Publication May 12, 1972.

Lynwood E. Beekman, Foster, Lindemer, Swift & Collins, Lansing, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Varnum, Riddering, Wierengo & Christenson, Grand Rapids, for defendants-appellees.

Before FITZGERALD, P.J., and R. B. BURNS and HOLBROOK, JJ.

R. B. BURNS, Judge.

Plaintiffs are eight teachers who were employed by defendants during the 1968--1969 school year. Early in June of 1969 the three plaintiffs who were on tenure received a contract memorandum for the 1969--1970 school year. The five remaining plaintiffs who were on probation* signed contracts for the 1969--1970 school year. A millage proposal was defeated on June 9, 1969. Later in June the plaintiffs were notified by defendants that due to the millage failure a reduction in staff was necessary and plaintiffs were relieved from teaching duties for the 1969--1970 school year.

On July 1, 1969, David J. Bruinsma, Michael V. Glass, and Paul Fulkerson filed a class action on behalf of themselves and approximately 70 other teachers, some of whom were tenure teachers, some of whom were employed on a probationary basis. The plaintiffs sought an injunction enjoining the defendants from discharging the plaintiffs and asked for damages. The trial court denied the injunction on the basis that the plaintiffs had an adequate remedy at law.

Subsequently the voters approved the millage increase and defendants notified all of the teachers who had been released to disregard the previous notice terminating their employment. Most of the teachers released accepted this offer and have been dropped as plaintiffs. The eight remaining plaintiffs are those who accepted employment with other school districts before receiving notice from the defendants after the passage of the second millage proposal.

The trial judge held that the contract memoranda in conjunction with the master contract constituted individual contracts with the tenure teachers; that Article IV, section 5 of the Teachers Tenure Act allowed the defendants to make necessary reduction in personnel even though the teachers had permanent tenure and were under contract; that the plaintiffs who had tenure must exhaust their administrative remedies by appeal to the State Tenure Commission before they were entitled to judicial review; that the probationary teachers did not have the right to any administrative review and their claims were a question of fact as to whether the defendants had abused their discretion; and that the probationary teacher plaintiffs were entitled to a trial on the issue.

The plaintiffs stipulated that under the court's interpretation of the Tenure Act, the defendants actions were reasonable. The parties also stipulated as to the damages incurred by the plaintiffs.

We agree with the trial court that the contract memoranda in conjunction with the master contract constituted a binding contract on all parties.

Plaintiffs in the present case were not seeking a review of the Board's actions but were seeking damages for breach of contract. The trial court had jurisdiction to determine damages for the breach of contract.

As a general rule, in the absence of statutory authority or provisions in the teacher contract, a school district is not justified in dismissing a teacher without...