Consolidated School Dist. No. 4, Bryan County v. Millis
| Decision Date | 06 April 1943 |
| Docket Number | 30836. |
| Citation | 139 P.2d 183,192 Okla. 687,1943 OK 127 |
| Parties | CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DIST. NO. 4, BRYAN COUNTY, v. MILLIS. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied July 6, 1943.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A teacher in a consolidated school district may be legally dismissed for neglect of duty by the school board in conjunction with the county superintendent.
2. In the absence of a statutory restriction upon a board of education to transfer a teacher from service in one grade to service in another, the board has discretionary power to assign, re-assign and transfer.
3. The rules of law relating to performance and breach of contracts generally apply to contracts between teachers and school authorities.
4. In an action by a teacher to recover salary on a claim that she was unlawfully discharged, where the testimony of the plaintiff and other uncontroverted evidence clearly shows that plaintiff was guilty of neglect of duty in failing to comply with her contract to observe the rules and regulations of the school board, there is no question of fact to submit to a jury as to whether plaintiff was lawfully discharged.
Appeal from District Court, Bryan County; Roy Paul, Judge.
Action by Dena Spencer Millis against Consolidated School District No. 4, Bryan County, Oklahoma, for salary as a teacher for the nine months beginning September 4, 1939, less certain credits. The trial court refused to sustain defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's evidence and to instruct a verdict for defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
C. C Hatchett, of Durant, for plaintiff in error.
Utterback & Utterback, of Durant, for defendant in error.
Defendant in error obtained a judgment against plaintiff in error for salary as teacher for the nine months beginning September 4 1939, less certain credits.
The parties will be referred to as in the trial court.
The basis of plaintiff's claim is that she was regularly employed as a teacher in said district for the nine months as evidenced by written contract, a copy of which was attached to her petition; that after teaching eight days, for which she was paid, she pleads that she was wrongfully and unlawfully discharged; that notwithstanding such wrongful discharge, she continued to present herself, prepared, ready, able and willing to carry out all the terms of her contract, but was not permitted to do so; that she endeavored to obtain other employment but was unable to do so, except as a substitute teacher in another school for five days, for which she was paid $11.50.
The defendant school plead that at the opening of the school the Superintendent of Schools assigned, as he was authorized to do, the plaintiff to teach the 4th and 5th grades; that plaintiff agreed to the assignment and entered upon the discharge of her duties for about four days, but that she, without authority or consent, peremptorily took charge of the 7th grade and advised that she would teach only that grade; that after consultation with the County Superintendent, the defendant endeavored to persuade plaintiff to perform her duties as teacher of the 4th and 5th grades, which she declined and refused to do, and that by reason of failure of plaintiff to observe the rules and regulations of the district board, the dismissal of plaintiff was entered.
The cause was tried to a jury under an instruction submitting the issue as to whether plaintiff had refused to teach the 4th and 5th grades, and a judgment was entered upon the verdict favorable to plaintiff in the sum of $891.50.
The defendant appeals, contending the evidence is insufficient to authorize a judgment in plaintiff's behalf, and assigns as its first proposition the error of the trial court in refusing to sustain defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's evidence and instruct a verdict for defendant.
The defendant is a consolidated district and is governed with respect to the employment of teachers by Section 6814, O.S.1931, 70 O.S.1941 § 117, which provides in substance that such employment shall be by contract in writing and that: "The board, in conjunction with such superintendent, may dismiss such teacher or teachers for incompetency, cruelty, negligence or immorality."
No form of contract is provided by the statute, but this court in Consolidated School District No. 20 v. Crowder, 111 Okl. 125, 238 P. 405, held that the contract may lawfully provide additional grounds for dismissal. School District v. Colvin, 10 Kan. 283.
The contract involved in the case at bar specifically provides that plaintiff "*** agrees in all things to observe the rules and regulations of the district Board ***."
It was upon this provision of the contract that the defendant contended plaintiff breached the contract in that, by failure to teach as directed, she failed and refused to observe the rules and regulations of the district board.
The plaintiff in her brief on appeal, in an endeavor to sustain the judgment, says that no evidence was introduced that in any way tended to change or vary the terms of the written contract, and that it was established beyond question that this plaintiff was employed with the distinct understanding that she would be assigned to teach the 7th grade.
Nowhere in the contract is it provided that plaintiff was to teach the 7th grade, although it is true that she taught that grade in the school for the prior year, and it is likely that she understood and desired to teach that grade for the succeeding year. To the contrary, the contract provided that plaintiff was "to teach all branches required by law."
The contract also...
To continue reading
Request your trial