Duffey v. Sch. Comm. of Town of Hopkinton

• Citation: 236 Mass. 5,127 N.E. 540
• Parties: DUFFEY v. SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF TOWN OF HOPKINTON.
• Decision Date: 20 May 1920
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

236 Mass. 5

127 N.E. 540

DUFFEY

v.SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF TOWN OF HOPKINTON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 20, 1920.

Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County.

Petition for writ of mandamus by Ellen L. Duffey against the School Committee of the Town of Hopkinton. On report by a single justice to the Supreme Judicial Court. Writ to issue.

Clarence W. Rowley and Daniel J. Riley, both of Boston, for petitioner.

John E. Swift, of Milford, for respondent.

RUGG, C. J.

This is a petition for a writ of mandamus brought to secure reinstatement as teacher in the public schools of Hopkinton, a position from which the petitioner alleges that she has been removed wrongfully. The salient facts are that the petitioner had been a teacher in the high school in Hopkinton since September, 1913, until December, 1919, when she was dismissed by a two-thirds vote of the school committee. She was notified in writing by letter dated on November 1, 1919, of the intention of the school committee to vote on the question of her dismissal at a meeting to be held on December 6, 1919.

[1] This notice was given ‘at least thirty days prior to the meeting exclusive of the customary vacation periods' as required by St. 1914, c. 714, § 2. The customary vacations in Hopkinton as shown by the town reports and by other evidence were at Christmas, Easter and during the summer. The Thanksgiving recess, including Thursday and Friday of Thanksgiving week, was not a ‘vacation period’ within the meaning of those words in the statute.

[2] The petitioner was informed in response to her request that the reasons for which her dismissal was proposed were ‘conduct unbecoming a teacher and insubordination.’ That was a sufficient compliance with the terms of section 2, at least in the absence of demand for more detailed specifications.

[3] The chief question presented is whether St. 1914, c. 714, is applicable to a town (like Hopkinton) which has joined with another town or towns to form a superintendency union or district. R. L. c. 42, § 41, and section 43, as amended by St. 1912, c. 114, and section 44, as amended by St. 1911, c. 384. The title of said St. 1914, c. 714, is ‘An act relative to the tenure of office of teachers and superintendents of public schools.’ It is provided by section 2 that no teacher within its protection shall be dismissed ‘unless * * * the superintendent of schools shall have given to the school committee his recommendations as to the proposed dismissal.’ This provision is broad in its language. It apparently includes all teaches within the commonwealth, because by R. L. c. 42, § 40, all cities and towns must either employ a superintendent of schools or be within a union or district employing a superintendent of schools. The words of section 7 of that act (see St. 1918, c. 257, § 182, as amended by St. 1919, c. 5), namely, ‘This act shall not apply to superintendents of superintendency unions,’ do not exempt teachers within the towns composing such unions or districts. As matter of statutory construction, that section and those words mean that the tenure of office, to which the act is devoted, do not apply to such superintendents. They do not imply that the ‘recommendations as to the proposed dismissal’ required by section 2 shall be inoperative as to union superintendents, and shall afford no...