Chiodo v. Board of Ed. of Special School Dist. No. 1
| Citation | 215 N.W.2d 806,298 Minn. 380 |
| Decision Date | 22 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 44188,44188 |
| Parties | Arthur J. CHIODO, Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Respondent. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Cohen, Budd & Douglas, Edward M. Cohen, and Bruce C. Douglas, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Lindquist & Vennum and Jerrold F. Bergfalk, Minneapolis, for respondents.
Peter S. Popovich and Ivars J. Krafts, St. Paul (for Minn. School Boards Assoc.), amicus curiae.
Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and KELLY, TODD, and SCOTT, JJ., and considered and decided by the court.
Plaintiff brought an action for a declaratory judgment that he had acquired tenure as a basketball coach under the provision of Minn.St. 125.17. This appeal is from a judgment entered pursuant to an order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
Plaintiff is a certified teacher who has been employed by defendant Minneapolis school board as a social studies teacher since 1954. His position as a tenured teacher of social studies is not involved in this action. In addition to these teaching duties, plaintiff has served in various coaching positions, including that of head basketball coach from 1962 until June 1972. Plaintiff is certified as a head basketball coach pursuant to Minnesota State Board of Education regulations.
In the spring of 1972, plaintiff was informed that he would not be reappointed as head basketball coach for the 1972--1973 school year. This decision was made by the school principal under authority delegated to him to appoint each year from the teachers at that school those who would coach each sport.
Plaintiff requested a written statement of the reasons why he was not being reappointed and a hearing on the matter. Both requests were denied. The sole issue before this court is whether plaintiff has acquired tenure as basketball coach so as to be entitled to the protections of the teacher tenure act as to that position.
The teacher tenure act for cities of the first class is Minn.St. 125.17. It applies to the teachers of Special School District No. 1 since the district's boundaries are coterminus with the boundaries of the city of Minneapolis. Minn.St. 125.17, subd. 3, provides in pertinent part that after the completion of a 3-year probationary period without discharge,
'* * * such teachers as are thereupon re-employed shall continue in service and hold their respective position during good behavior and efficient and competent service and shall not be discharged or demoted except for cause after a hearing.'
Minn.St. 125.17, subd. 1(a), defines the key word 'teacher' as follows:
Plaintiff contends (1) that his certification as head basketball coach pursuant to State Board of Education regulations establishes him as a 'teacher'; (2) that an analysis of coaching functions brings a coach within the statutory definition of a teacher as anyone 'regularly employed * * * to give instruction in a classroom or to superintend or supervise classroom instruction'; and (3) that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the trial court's decision because the court's reasoning, incorporated by memorandum into the order, included assumptions of fact neither supported by affidavit nor stipulated.
Defendants argue that the statutory definition of 'teacher' is exclusive and should be strictly interpreted to include only basic teaching positions, not extracurricular duties or assignments.
This court has held that the enumeration in the statute of those entitled to the benefits of the teacher tenure act is exclusive. Board of Education v. Sand, 227 Minn. 202...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brewer v. Purvis
...(Okla.1981); White v. Banks, 614 S.W.2d 331 (Tenn.1981); Stang v. Indep. Sch. Dist., 256 N.W.2d 82 (Minn.1977); Chiodo v. Bd. of Educ., 298 Minn. 380, 215 N.W.2d 806 (1974). As noted in Tate, "while such decisions are not controlling and can be distinguished on their facts, or on difference......
-
Baribeau v. City of Minneapolis
...of a criminal law is ambiguous, we construe it narrowly according to the rule of lenity."); Chiodo v. Bd. of Ed. of Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 298 Minn. 380, 215 N.W.2d 806, 808 (1974) ("[W]ords of a statute are to be viewed in their setting, not isolated from their Under such an interpretat......
-
In re Cities of Annandale and Maple Lake, A04-2033.
...Data Corp., 295 Minn. 348, 352, 205 N.W.2d 121, 124 (1973) (interpreting a contract provision). See also Chiodo v. Bd. of Educ., 298 Minn. 380, 382, 215 N.W.2d 806, 808 (1974) ("[W]ords of a statute are to be viewed in their setting, not isolated from their To determine if 40 C.F.R. § 122.4......
-
Independent Sch. Dist. v. Dept. of Educ., No. A07-1.
...869, 874-75 (Minn. 2000). Furthermore, statutory language must be viewed in its proper context. Chiodo v. Bd. of Educ. of Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 298 Minn. 380, 382, 215 N.W.2d 806, 808 (1974) ("[W]ords of a statute are to be viewed in their setting, not isolated from their The federal ID......