Falgren v. State, Bd. of Teaching

• Citation: 545 N.W.2d 901
• Decision Date: 05 April 1996
• Docket Number: No. CX-94-1876,CX-94-1876
• Parties: 108 Ed. Law Rep. 890 In the Matter of the Teaching License of Jon A. FALGREN, Relator, v. STATE of Minnesota, BOARD OF TEACHING, Respondent.
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

Page 901

545 N.W.2d 901

108 Ed. Law Rep. 890

In the Matter of the Teaching License of Jon A. FALGREN, Relator, v. STATE of Minnesota, BOARD OF TEACHING, Respondent.

No. CX-94-1876.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 5, 1996.

Syllabus by the Court

1. In a teaching license revocation hearing, the ALJ properly allowed the teacher's termination hearing to preclude the issue whether the teacher engaged in nonconsensual sexual conduct.

2. Even though collateral estoppel may be applied to preclude the issue whether the teacher engaged in nonconsensual sexual contact, the ALJ must still consider any additional

evidence the teacher may wish to present concerning the alleged immorality of his or her conduct or whether the ALJ should recommend revocation based exclusively on immoral conduct.

Harley M. Ogata, Minnesota Educ. Ass'n, St. Paul, MN, for appellant.

Nancy J. Joyer, Attorney General's Office, St. Paul, MN, for respondent.

Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc.

OPINION

TOMLJANOVICH, Justice.

On November 4, 1991, Independent School District No. 492 (the District) proposed the discharge of one of its teachers, respondent Jon A. Falgren, for allegedly engaging in nonconsensual sexual contact with a student. Falgren contested this action. Under Minn.Stat. § 125.12, subd. 9a (1990), Falgren elected to have his contested discharge proceeding heard by an arbitrator rather than by the school board. On July 9, 1992, the arbitrator found that it was more probable than not that Falgren had engaged in immoral conduct. Subsequently, the District terminated Falgren from his teaching position.

Following Falgren's termination, the Board of Teaching (the Board) commenced a license disciplinary action in the Office of Administrative Hearings, alleging Falgren had engaged in immoral conduct. The Board moved for summary disposition on the ground that collateral estoppel prohibited Falgren from denying the facts that had been proven in the termination hearing, including the fact that Falgren had engaged in nonconsensual sexual conduct. On May 25, 1994, the administrative law judge (ALJ) granted the Board's motion and recommended Falgren's teaching licenses ¹ be revoked. On July 20, 1994, the Board, adopting the ALJ's findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations, determined that Falgren had engaged in immoral conduct, and revoked his teaching licenses.

Falgren appealed the Board's revocation to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The court of appeals reversed the Board and remanded the case to the ALJ. Falgren v. Board of Teaching, 529 N.W.2d 382 (Minn.App.1995). The Board appeals this decision. It should be noted at the outset that on June 27, 1995, respondent Falgren died. However, this court has retained jurisdiction of Falgren's case because it involves an issue of public concern that is capable of repetition, yet may evade review. See State v. Rud, 359 N.W.2d 573, 576 (Minn.1984).

The revocation of Falgren's licenses stems from his interaction with I.B., a student Falgren had counseled for about four and a half years. A complaint was filed with the District in late July or early August of 1991, shortly after I.B.'s graduation, concerning alleged nonconsensual sexual contact between Falgren and I.B. The contact was alleged to have occurred on July 23, 1991. On September 4, 1991, the District suspended Falgren with pay and subsequently proposed to terminate Falgren's teaching contract.

The termination proceedings consisted of a full evidentiary hearing before a neutral arbitrator. The hearing lasted four days: February 10 and 11 and March 11 and 12 of 1992. Falgren was represented by counsel. Thirty witnesses were called, sworn, examined and cross-examined. The hearing resulted in a transcript of 841 pages.

At the termination hearing, I.B. and Falgren's testimony concerning what happened on July 23 differed. I.B testified that Falgren phoned I.B. to ask her if she would like to go out to practice driving. After the driving lesson, I.B. claims that Falgren drove her to his home where the two were alone. According to I.B., they wound up in Falgren's bedroom together where Falgren told I.B. that he should not be alone in the house with someone as pretty as she. Later, in the basement of Falgren's home, I.B. claims that Falgren kissed her on the neck. Falgren then drove I.B. to a truck stop where they both had something to eat. From there they drove to I.B.'s residence. I.B. testified that once in her home, Falgren

made her put her arms around his neck and kissed her a second time. In addition * * * he then touched her breasts with his hands over her clothes. * * * Falgren next took her hand and made her touch his genitals over his clothes. [Falgren also] told her his wife liked it when he touched her 'private parts' with his hands, and that it would be better for her with his mouth on her private parts.

Falgren, on the other hand, claims that I.B.'s mother contacted him to see if he might be interested in giving her daughter a driving lesson. Falgren further asserts that I.B. asked to see his home. Falgren did admit that he told I.B. he should not be alone in his house with "a pretty girl like you"; however, he claims he never went to his bedroom or basement. Falgren further testified that it was I.B. who put her arms around his neck and attempted to hug him in a gesture of gratitude. Falgren claims he never touched I.B.'s breasts or rubbed her hand against his genitals through his pants. He also maintains that he never told I.B. anything about sexual relations between himself and his wife.

The arbitrator apparently found I.B.'s version of the events of July 23, 1991 more credible than Falgren's; he held that the district "ha[d] met their statutorily mandated requirement and that the preponderant evidence supports a finding that it is more probable than not that [Falgren's] conduct on the day in question was immoral and unbecoming a person who occupies a very influential and sensitive position of trust within the school system." The District then terminated Falgren's employment. Falgren did not appeal this decision.

Following Falgren's termination, the Board instituted an action to revoke Falgren's teaching licenses. The parties appeared in a contested hearing before an ALJ. The Board moved for summary disposition asking that Falgren be collaterally estopped from challenging the arbitrator's findings that Falgren committed the acts for which he was terminated. Based upon the arbitrator's award, the ALJ, while noting that the award was not "organized into findings of fact and conclusions," determined that the events of July 23, 1991 took place essentially as I.B. testified they did at the termination hearing. The ALJ thus granted the Board's motion holding that Falgren was collaterally estopped from relitigating the fact determination that he had "engaged in nonconsensual sexual contact with a minor student." The ALJ also held that "[n]onconsensual sexual contact with a minor student establishes a prima facie case justifying revocation of a teacher's license. Licensee has not introduced any evidence to rebut that prima facie case or to show that any genuine issues of fact remain for hearing."

The Board heard oral arguments by attorneys representing Falgren and the Executive Secretary of the Board. The Board adopted the ALJ's findings of fact and conclusion and revoked Falgren's licenses for a minimum of three years.

Falgren appealed the Board's decision to the court of appeals which found that the termination hearing could not be given preclusive effect. Falgren v. Board of Teaching, 529 N.W.2d 382, (Minn.App.1995). The court found that the level of judicial review to which the arbitrator's decision was subject was insufficient for the decision to collaterally estop a later proceeding. Id. at 384. The court further found that Falgren's due process rights would be violated by application of collateral estoppel in this situation. Id. at 385-86. The Board appeals this decision.

In a judicial review of an agency decision, the court may affirm, remand, reverse, or modify the decision of the agency if

the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the administrative finding, inferences, conclusion or decisions are:

(a) In violation of constitutional provisions; or

* * *

(c) Made upon unlawful procedure; or

(d) Affected by other error of law * * *.

Minn.Stat. § 14.69 (1994). "Whether collateral estoppel is available is a mixed question of law and fact subject to de novo review." In Re Trusts Created by Hormel, 504 N.W.2d 505, 509 (Minn.App.1993), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 19, 1993).

Collateral estoppel "precludes parties from relitigating issues which are identical to issues previously litigated and which were necessary and essential to the former resulting judgment." Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc., 452 N.W.2d 648, 650 (Minn.1990). However, collateral estoppel is not rigidly applied. Johnson v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc., 420 N.W.2d 608, 613 (Minn.1988). "As a flexible doctrine, the focus is on whether its application would work an injustice on the party against whom estoppel is urged." Id. at 613-14. In order for a court to apply collateral estoppel to an agency decision, five factors must be met:

1. the issue to be precluded must be identical to the issue raised in the prior agency adjudication;

2. the issue must have been necessary to the agency adjudication and properly before the agency;

3. the agency determination must be a final adjudication subject to judicial review;

4. the estopped party was a party or in privity with a party to the prior agency determination;

5. the estopped party was given a full and fair opportunity to be heard on the adjudicated issue.

Graham v. Special School Dist. No. 1, 472 N.W.2d 114, 116 (Minn.1991) (citations omitted). The parties do not dispute that elements two, four, and five have been met. However,...