Fercho v. Montpelier Public School Dist. No. 14, 9995

• Decision Date: 12 November 1981
• Docket Number: No. 9995,9995
• Citation: 312 N.W.2d 337
• Parties: 1 Ed. Law Rep. 421 Lucille FERCHO, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MONTPELIER PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 14, a public corporation, Defendant andAppellant. Civ.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Page 337

312 N.W.2d 337

1 Ed. Law Rep. 421

Lucille FERCHO, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MONTPELIER PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 14, a public corporation, Defendant andAppellant.

Civ. No. 9995.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Nov. 12, 1981.

Chapman & Chapman, Bismarck, for plaintiff and appellee; argued by Charles L. Chapman, Bismarck.

Pope & Stites, Jamestown, for defendant and appellant; argued by Georgia M. Pope, Jamestown.

ERICKSTAD, Chief Justice.

Montpelier Public School District No. 14 appeals from a judgment entered by the District Court of Stutsman County in favor of Lucille Fercho. The trial court's judgment reversed a decision by the Montpelier School Board (board) to nonrenew Fercho's teaching contract. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and thereby reinstate the decision of the board.

At the time of the trial court's review in December, 1980, Fercho had been employed approximately nine years as an English teacher with the Montpelier School District.

In the spring of 1980, the Montpelier School District was financially distressed because of a serious decline in enrollment. As a result, the board issued four notices of contemplated nonrenewal to teachers in the Montpelier School District. Fercho was one of the four teachers.

Fercho was notified of the nonrenewal proceedings by letter dated March 13, 1980. Hearings were held on March 19, 1980, and April 1, 1980, to explain, discuss and confirm the reasons for the nonrenewal of Fercho's contract. Following the nonrenewal hearings, the board voted to nonrenew the teaching contract of Mrs. Fercho. The contracts of the other three teachers who received letters of contemplated nonrenewal were also nonrenewed.

Following the nonrenewal of the four teaching contracts, the board reviewed the English, music, and library curriculums in an effort to combine teaching responsibilities. The superintendent presented two plans to the board for their consideration. Plan A provided for two full-time positions, one of which was a full-time English-library position for which Fercho was qualified. Plan A would have eliminated the equivalent of 1.5 positions. Plan B eliminated the equivalent of 1.75 positions. It created a part-time, rather than full-time, English-library position for which Fercho was qualified. The superintendent recommended Plan B over Plan A. He testified at trial that the recommendation was made because Plan B was more economical and, further, it made it easier for the school to hire a music teacher because under Plan B music was combined with English into a full-time position. It was his opinion that the board would have a difficult time finding a part-time music teacher.

The board adopted Plan B and advertised to fill the part-time English-library position. The part-time librarian, Mrs. Limvere, whose contract was one of the four that was previously nonrenewed, was ultimately hired to fill the new, part-time position. Fercho did not submit an application for that part-time position. She did, however, make several demands on the board for a full-time position.

Following her nonrenewal, and the board's rehiring of Mrs. Limvere to fill the part-time English-library position, Fercho commenced an action in the District Court of Stutsman County. The district court entered a judgment in Fercho's favor stating as follows:

"IX.

"The Defendant school district failed to give serious and adequate consideration to the damage resulting to this Plaintiff and failed to entertain and complete the non-renewal proceedings relating to Plaintiff with consideration and dignity and failed to give maximum consideration to basic fairness and decency relating to the Plaintiff's teaching position and career.

"X.

"The Defendant school district acted arbitrarily and in bad faith to terminate the teaching position of the Plaintiff.

"XI.

"Defendant school district failed to give full consideration and regard to the statutory rights of the Plaintiff and to the spirit of Section 15-47-38, North Dakota Century Code.

"XII.

"At the time of the non-renewal, the school district had a reduction in force policy which gave precedence to seniority. The seniority of the Plaintiff, however, was not recognized by the Defendant school district in the process of reorganizing teacher staff."

The trial court awarded Fercho damages in the amount of $13,074.

On appeal to this court, the Montpelier School District asserts that the trial court improperly substituted its judgment for that of the school board.

Fercho admits that the school board followed the procedural requirements of Section 15-47-38, N.D.C.C., regarding written notice of contemplated nonrenewal. She admits that the school district was suffering financial difficulties. Further, Fercho does not dispute that reduction in staff for financial reasons is a proper reason for nonrenewal. Fercho does argue, however, that the board members had additional, unstated motives for nonrenewing her contract.

Section 15-47-38, N.D.C.C., provides that the reasons for nonrenewal shall not be "frivolous or arbitrary." Fercho contends that the board's reasons were "frivolous or arbitrary" for the following reasons:

1. The board did not give proper consideration to Fercho's seniority;

2. In restructuring its curriculum, the board should have adopted Plan A which would have made a full time English-library position available; and

3. The board should have considered teaching responsibility changes prior to the nonrenewal process, so that the nonrenewed teacher could have had input into the decisions.

Additionally, Fercho asserts that she had protection from the "reduction in force" policy adopted by the board at its December 12, 1977, meeting. That policy provided a sequential policy for staff reduction as follows:

"When teachers are judged to be similarly qualified and significant differences in length of full-time district service exist preference in retention will be given to teachers with the longest district service. Recommendations for termination under this policy will be made by the Principal involved and the Superintendent of schools for action by the School Board. A conference prior to the School Board action will be held between the teacher and the administration. Notification of contemplated non-renewal will follow section 15-47-38 of the North Dakota Century Code.

"Staff members, who have lost their positions because of this policy, may request and be given consideration for re-employment if a vacancy for which they are qualified should occur."

Fercho asserts that if this policy had been followed, she would have retained her position with the Montpelier School District.

We hold that the trial court erred in concluding that the school district failed to give "serious and adequate consideration to the damage" resulting to Fercho and that the board "acted arbitrarily." In analyzing findings of fact and conclusions of law to determine our standard of review, we look to their substance rather than the label given them by the trial court. Hamilton v. Winter, 281 N.W.2d 54, 58 (N.D.1979). Although the trial court termed these conclusions findings of fact, they are in substance conclusions of law and, therefore, fully reviewable by this court. Hager v. Devils Lake Public School District, 301 N.W.2d 630, 633 (N.D.1981).

In Rolland v. Grand Forks Public School District No. 1, 279 N.W.2d 889, 893 (N.D.1979), we stated that Section 15-47-38, subsections (1) and (5), N.D.C.C., merely requires the board to "vote to nonrenew the contract for reasons stated in the notice of contemplated nonrenewal, thus in effect confirming the action by which it decided to send the notice of the contemplated nonrenewal of the contract."

In this case, Fercho does not dispute that the reasons stated in her letter of contemplated nonrenewal were proper reasons for nonrenewal. Further, she does not dispute that the board "confirmed" those reasons by voting to nonrenew at her hearing. Therefore, the procedural requirements of Section 15-47-38, N.D.C.C., as interpreted in Rolland were met.

The Montpelier School District asserts that the trial court improperly substituted its judgment for that of the school board. In Dobervich v. Central Cass Public School District, 302 N.W.2d 745, 751-52 (N.D.1981), we stated that the trial court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board, concluding:

"(E)xcept for procedural matters, the trial court's review of the reasons given for nonrenewal of the teacher's contract and the evidence submitted at the hearing pertaining thereto is limited to: (1) determining whether or not the reasons given are in accordance with the statutory provisions, i. e., they are not frivolous or arbitrary but, rather, are related to the ability, competence, or qualifications of the teacher as a teacher, or the necessities of the district such as lack of funds calling for a reduction in teaching staff; and (2) determining if those reasons are legally sufficient whether or not under the facts of the case the school board has abused its discretion in reaching the nonrenewal decision. Such a review will, in our estimation, permit the teacher his day in court and, at the same time, will not unduly involve the courts in the...