Demers v. School Committee of Worcester
| Decision Date | 03 November 1952 |
| Citation | 108 N.E.2d 651,329 Mass. 370 |
| Parties | DEMERS v. SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF WORCESTER. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Philip J. Murphy, Worcester, for plaintiff.
Archibald M. Hillman, City Sol., Worcester, (Richard W. Mirick, Asst. City Sol., Worcester, with him), for defendant.
Before QUA, C. J., and RONAN, WILKINS, SPALDING and WILLIAMS, JJ.
The plaintiff, describing himself as 'Director of Industrial Arts in the public school system of the City of Worcester,' seeks a declaratory decree to the effect that he can be demoted from his position only after notice, charges, and a hearing in the manner set forth in G.L. (Ter.Ed) c. 71, § 42A, inserted by St.1945, c. 330. See School Committee of Cambridge v. Superintendent of Schools of Cambridge, 320 Mass. 516, 517-518, 70 N.E.2d 298. He appeals from a decree denying that he has rights under that section.
The material parts of c. 71, § 42A, provide that 'No principal or supervisor who has served in that position for over three years shall * * * be demoted * * *' except as provided therein. The plaintiff contends that, although designated as a director, he was in truth a principal or a supervisor or both. We do not deal with this question, since in our opinion the plaintiff has failed to meet the other requirement of the section that he shall have 'served in that position for over three years'.
The facts appear from findings of the trial judge based upon an 'agreed statement of facts.' The plaintiff was first elected to the position of director of industrial arts on June 13, 1947, by vote of the school committee, 'effective September 3, 1947.' The records of the committee, opposite the marginal heading 'election of teachers,' show that on June 4, 1948, he was again elected director of industrial arts. On June 7, 1949, his name as director of industrial arts was included among 'teachers' elected. The two votes last mentioned contained no reference to time. In 1950 he was not re-elected. On August 15, of that year he 'was called in and questioned by the committee.' On September 8 a motion that the plaintiff be elected 'on tenure' was voted down, and it was voted that he be relieved from his duties as director of industrial arts and returned to his former position as a teacher. This was the demotion claimed. Before this the plaintiff had been included among the assistant superintendents, supervisors and directors to whom the superintendent of schools had sent a circular letter, dated May 29, 1950, reminding them of the need of their services 'the last week in August to assist in completing plans for the reopening of schools on September 6,' and stating that the superintendent expected 'to find * * * [him] ready for work on and after Tuesday, August 29.' Notwithstanding the failure of the committee to re-elect the plaintiff, he reported for work on August 29 as director of industrial arts 'and served in that position through September 8, 1950,' when the committee voted to deny him election on tenure. Subsequent votes are not important, except that the plaintiff's request for a hearing was ultimately denied.
The words of § 42A, 'No principal or supervisor who has served in that position for over three years shall * * * be demoted * * *', must be held to refer to lawful service rendered under authority of the school committee. They cannot refer to some kind of unauthorized service which one may manage to perform on his own volition or by direction of someone having no authority to direct. From the several votes passed by the school committee it is apparent that the plaintiff was elected annually for a term which presumably corresponded with the ensuing school year. This was in accordance with the prevailing practice in electing teachers. See G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 71, § 41, as most recently amended by St.1950, c. 283; Frye v. School Committee of Leicester, 300 Mass. 537, 16 N.E.2d 41; Callahan v. City of Woburn, 306 Mass. 265, 268-269, 28 N.E.2d 9; Hayes v. City...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woodward v. Emulex Corp.
...to employ him was vested solely in the school committee.’ ” Id. at 359, 480 N.E.2d 327, quoting Demers v. Sch. Comm. of Worcester, 329 Mass. 370, 373, 108 N.E.2d 651 (1952). The Court found, however, that, under section 90(1) of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts (1981),23 unless the dir......
-
Ward v. Hickey
...of Brockton v. Teachers' Retirement Board, 393 Mass. 256, 260, 471 N.E.2d 61, 64 (1984); See also Demers v. School Committee of Worcester, 329 Mass. 370, 373, 108 N.E.2d 651, 652 (1952) and cases cited therein. ("Authority to employ him plaintiff teacher was vested solely in the school comm......
-
School Committee of West Springfield v. Korbut
...Mass. 162, 165, 202 N.E.2d 612 (1964); Murphy v. Cambridge, 342 Mass. 339, 341, 173 N.E.2d 616 (1961); Demers v. School Comm. of Worcester, 329 Mass. 370, 373, 108 N.E.2d 651 (1952); O'Brien v. Pittsfield, 316 Mass. 283, 285-286, 55 N.E.2d 440 (1944); Leonard v. School Comm. of Springfield,......
-
Needleman v. Bohlen, Civ. A. No. 73-669-C.
...hearing. The power to renew contracts belongs to the school committee. Mass.Gen.Laws ch. 71, § 38 (1969); Demers v. School Committee of Worcester, 329 Mass. 370, 108 N.E.2d 651 (1952). Therefore, plaintiff's complaint against defendant Gainey based on the recommendation alleges no action ta......