Diedrick v. School Dist. 81

• Decision Date: 28 October 1976
• Docket Number: No. 44010
• Citation: Diedrick v. School Dist. 81, 555 P.2d 825, 87 Wn.2d 598 (Wash. 1976)
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: William DIEDRICK, Sr., et al., Appellants, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT 81 et al., Respondents.

Page 598

87 Wn.2d 598

555 P.2d 825

William DIEDRICK, Sr., et al., Appellants, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT 81 et al., Respondents.

No. 44010.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

Oct. 28, 1976.

William J. Powell, Spokane, for appellants.

Winston, Cashatt, Repsold, McNichols, Connelly & Driscoll, Robert W. Winston, Jr., James P. Connelly, Spokane, for respondents.

UTTER, Associate Justice.

On April 14, 1972, for reasons of economy due to the failure of special levy elections, Spokane School District 81 was forced to nonrenew a large number of certificated teachers, and to reduce to teaching positions in accordance with an administrative reorganization plan certain administrative and supervisory (A&S) personnel. Subsequently, many of the adversely affected certificated employees commenced a lawsuit in superior court challenging the legality of the school board's action.

The trial court entered a judgment which provided, insofar as relevant, that (1) the claims of nine A&S plaintiffs who were reduced to teaching positions were dismissed with prejudice; (2) twenty-four plaintiffs were awarded damages aggregating $251,103.28, plus interest; (3) certificated teachers Richard Drees and Marjorie Rell were denied relief; (4) David Yost, a certificated teacher, was denied certain special damages; and (5) plaintiffs were awarded attorney's fees in the amount of $10,000 plus costs. These plaintiffs instituted the instant appeal to contest the trial court's judgment to the extent that it denied them the relief requested.

The defendant school district cross-appealed to challenge the plaintiffs' entitlement to the damages awarded. We affirm all portions of the trial court's judgment except the amount of its award of attorney's fees to appellants.

In January 1972 the district projected budget needs in excess of available funds. It determined that a special levy was required to meet the projected budget needs for the 1972--73 school year. A special levy election was held on February 22, 1972, which failed to secure the necessary votes. Following the failure of the first special levy election, a second was scheduled for April 11, 1972. In view of the possibility of a second failure, the board of directors advised the superintendent and the school administration to begin preparation of alternative measures should the second levy fail.

The board advised the school administration that an administrative reorganization plan for the reduction of A&S personnel (which apparently already had been contemplated) should be prepared. The criteria to be recommended to the board by the administration for reduction of certificated employees was directed to be based primarily on Performance, namely competency, with seniority a factor to be considered only if all other considerations taken into account were equal.

On April 5, 1972, Dr. Ayars, the superintendent, submitted a proposed plan, which was adopted by the board on April 8, 1972, for the administrative reorganization and reduction of A&S staff as requested.

On April 6, 1972, Dr. Ayars submitted to the board recommended measures to be taken in case of a second levy failure. The cover letter accompanying the recommendations stated, in part:

In making required staff cuts we would plan to retain the people to fill the remaining jobs on the basis of qualifications by Experience and training, by merit as determined by regular evaluation procedures and, finally, by Seniority, other factors being equal.

(Italics ours.) Attached to the letter were the proposed guidelines to be used to determine which teachers and A&S personnel would be nonrenewed or reduced to teaching positions. The recommended guidelines adopted by the board on April 12, 1972, following the failure of the second special levy election, provided that a relative rank order was to be established by using the following criteria: (1) Form A of the personnel evaluation procedure was to be used as a guide; (2) the program needs of the district for particular Skills and training were to be given consideration along with the relative rank order; (3) those people who were removed from A&S positions were to be offered employment on regular teaching or other certificated contracts; and (4) Seniority was to be given consideration if all other factors were equal. ¹

On March 29, 1972, the principals of the various schools in the district were requested by the director of personnel to prepare a rank order of their respective staffs pursuant to the proposed criteria which the board eventually adopted. In compiling the rank order, they were requested to give consideration to the evaluative factors listed in the district's 'Professional Growth Conference Summary Form A.' ² The various factors to be taken into account listed on this form were: (1) ability to assume responsibility; (2) effective relationship to others on staff; (3) regular attendance; (4) emotional stability and self-control; (5) appropriate appearance; (6) proficiency in communication skills; (7) punctuality; (8) teacher-pupil relationship; (9) ability to obtain courteous classroom attention; (10) plans worked--long range and daily; and (11) keeps room organized, attractive, and interesting. The letter of March 29, 1972, suggested that the principals also give consideration to leadership, creativity, and dedication to tasks in place of items 8, 9 and 11 found in the form.

Between March 29, 1972, and April 3, 1972, rank orders of the teaching staff and A&S personnel, except the school principals, were compiled by the principals and other supervisory personnel. A rating committee composed of seven central school administrators ³ also met and ranked the district's principals in accordance with the proposed guidelines or criteria. Once the initial ranking process was completed, a master list was compiled by the district's central administration. The A&S personnel and teaching staff were given districtwide rank order numbers which theoretically were designed to reflect the Performance of all certificated employees as educators and teachers. The rank order numbers were used to determine which A&S personnel would be reduced to teaching positions and which teachers would be nonrenewed. The district's central administration then applied criteria 2, 3 and 4 of the proposed guidelines, in addition to the ranking process that had occurred already on the basis of criterion 1, in making the final determination of which individuals to nonrenew or reduce to teaching positions.

Following the second levy failure, the board issued notices of nonrenewal to the lowest ranked teachers and notices of nonrenewal accompanied with an offer of a teaching position to the lowest ranked A&S personnel.

Defects in Notice of Nonrenewal

The notice of nonrenewal addressed to the A&S personnel who were nonrenewed and reduced in status stated:

You are hereby notified that at the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of Spokane School District No. 81 on April 12, 1972, a resolution was adopted not to renew your existing contract of employment for the school year 1972--73.

The cause for this is that the said Board of Directors has determined and resolved after careful consideration of the finances of the District, that your contract will not be renewed for reasons of economy.

For the school year 1972--73, we are prepared to submit for your acceptance a contract $ $

RCW 28A.67.070 ⁴ which established the procedure for nonrenewal of certificated employees, provided, in relevant part:

Every board of directors determining that there is probable cause or causes that the employment contract of an employee should not be renewed by the district for the next ensuing term shall notify that employee in writing on or before April 15th preceding the commencement of such term of that determination of the board of directors, which notification shall specify the cause or causes for nonrenewal of contract. . . .

. . . Any decision not to renew such employment contract shall be based solely upon the cause or causes for nonrenewal specified in the notice of probable cause to the employee and established by a preponderance of the evidence at the hearing to be sufficient cause or causes for nonrenewal.

Appellant primarily contends the notice of nonrenewal addressed to the A&S personnel was defective because: (1) it failed to notify the certificated employee of probable cause for nonrenewal, but instead constituted a final determination; (2) the phrase 'reasons of economy' stated in the notice did not apprise the employee of the exact reasons for his nonrenewal contrary to RCW 28A.67.070; and (3) the notice did not otherwise indicate the specific standards by which the A&S appellants were selected for reduction to teaching positions.

The phrase 'reasons of economy' adequately informed the A&S employees of the basic nature of the Probable cause for nonrenewal. There is no showing that the failure of the notice to specify the exact reasons for nonrenewal as opposed to the more general statement 'reasons of economy' prejudiced the A&S appellants. They were given ample opportunity to demonstrate at the trial court level that there was not Sufficient cause for nonrenewal. The form of the notice did not result in the denial of any statutory right of the A&S appellants. ⁵

While the notification must specify generally the cause or causes for nonrenewal of a contract, RCW 28A.67.070 does not require each element of the criteria chosen by the board for nonrenewal purposes be stated in the notice. Pierce v. Lake Stevens School Dist. 4, 84 Wash.2d 772, 778, 529 P.2d 810 (1974). ⁶

Sufficient Cause for Nonrenewal

It is further argued that sufficient cause did not exist to nonrenew and reduce to teaching positions A&S appellants Harris, Danke, and Schoening because they effectively continued to perform the same jobs they had been assigned prior to the nonrenewal. Their contention fails on two grounds: (1) The record reflects t...