Ex parte Wright
| Decision Date | 10 November 1983 |
| Parties | 15 Ed. Law Rep. 1017 Ex Parte Dorothy L. WRIGHT, et al. (In re BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS OF MOBILE COUNTY, Alabama v. Dorothy L. WRIGHT, et al.) 82-877. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Gregory B. Stein, of Blacksher, Menefee & Stein, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., Mobile, for petitioner.
Frank G. Taylor of Sintz, Pike, Campbell & Duke, Mobile, for respondents.
Certain Mobile County public school teachers, who had attained continuing service status under the Alabama Teacher Tenure Act, were presented new contracts for the next school year that reduced by one the number of months they would be employed, with a resulting reduction in pay. Each signed and returned the contract with a letter attached expressing the teachers' displeasure and advising that the contract was signed "under protest and under duress." Subsequently, an attorney acting for the teachers sent a letter to the superintendent, again stating the teachers' displeasure with the contract. The school board maintained the new contracts were valid.
The teachers, contending the new contracts were invalid, appealed to the State Tenure Commission, which found the appeal proper. The Commission found that the school board had improperly cancelled the teachers' contracts. The board then petitioned for a writ of mandamus to review the order of the Commission. The writ was denied and the board appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals, 443 So.2d 35, reversed the decision of the Commission. The State Tenure Commission (composed of Dorothy L. Wright, et al.) sought review of the Court of Civil Appeals decision by writ of certiorari, which we granted. We reverse.
The part of the Teacher Tenure Act that is central to this litigation is Code 1975, § 16-24-3, which in pertinent part states:
"The contract of employment of any teacher who shall attain continuing service status shall remain in full force unless superseded by a new contract signed by both parties, or cancelled as provided in §§ 16-24-9 or 16-24-10 ...."
It is uncontroverted that the teachers' prior contracts were not cancelled under the provisions of § 16-24-9 or § 16-24-10. We are therefore confronted with the issues of whether the new contracts superseded the old, and if they did, whether the adoption of the new contracts could be used to effectively cancel the old contracts.
The Court of Civil Appeals concluded that the teachers had consented to the change, and that their signing of a new contract incorporating that change brought the board's actions within the terms of § 16-24-3. We disagree. We do so because ordinary contract principles do not control when they conflict with the intent of the tenure law. Barger v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 372 So.2d 307 (Ala.1979); Madison County Board of Education v. Wigley, 288 Ala. 202, 259 So.2d 233 (1972).
It is well established that the Teacher Tenure Act has as its primary purpose the securing of permanency in the teaching force and that it is remedial in nature and is therefore to be liberally construed in favor of the teacher. State Tenure Commission v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 378 So.2d 1142 (Ala.Civ.App.1979); Haas v. Madison County Board of Education, 380 So.2d 873 (Ala.Civ.App.1980). While the letters by the teachers, attached to the signed contracts, do not use the words "I do not consent," it is clear that the teachers did not agree with the terms of the new contract and failed to consent to the changing of the terms. The teachers' attorney sent another letter to the superintendent, further stating the teachers' position that they did not consent to the terms of the new contracts. In light of the liberal construction principle, we hold that the teachers took adequate steps to state their position as to the contract.
Even under common law contract principles, the return of the proposed new contract with the attached letter was more in the nature of a counter-offer than an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ronnie Van Zant, Inc. v. Pyle
...of no meeting of the minds after a party repeatedly rejecting lease agreement and then notating "signing under protest"); Ex parte Wright, 443 So.2d 40, 42 (Ala. 1983) (failing to find a "meeting of the minds" when new employment contracts were signed "under protest and under duress"); Chur......
-
Dodson v. Barclays Bank Del.
..."An acceptance is required to be identical with the offer; otherwise, there is no meeting of the minds and no agreement." Ex parte Wright, 443 So. 2d 40, 42 (Ala. 1983) (citing Smith v. Chickamauga Cedar Co., 263 Ala. 245, 82 So. 2d 200 (Ala. 1955)). The Alabama Supreme Court recognizes "[t......
-
International Paper Co. v. Whilden
...672 (Ala.1981); Ralls v. First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Andalusia, 422 So.2d 764 (Ala.1982); Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County v. Wright, 443 So.2d 35 (Ala.Civ.App.), rev'd on other grounds, 443 So.2d 40 In general, many courts have found that three essential ele......
-
SIMMONS v. COOSA County Bd. of Educ., 2071135.
...[establishing procedural protections that must precede cancellation].” (Emphasis added.) Relying on its earlier decision in Ex parte Wright, 443 So.2d 40 (Ala.1983), the supreme court analyzed the case as an invalid “partial termination” of the lunchroom workers' employment. 508 So.2d at 24......