Fitz v. Board of Educ. of Port Huron Area Schools, 85-1776

• Citation: 802 F.2d 457
• Decision Date: 19 August 1986
• Docket Number: No. 85-1776,85-1776
• Parties: 125 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2615 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. CAROL FITZ, Plaintiff-Appellee v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE PORT HURON AREA SCHOOLS; THE PORT HURON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 457

802 F.2d 457

125 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2615

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.

CAROL FITZ, Plaintiff-Appellee v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE PORT HURON AREA SCHOOLS; THE

PORT HURON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 85-1776.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Aug. 19, 1986.

Before: KENNEDY, WELLFORD and BOGGS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

WELLFORD, Circuit Judge.

The defendants appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff in this case under the Veterans' Reemployment Rights Act, 38 U.S.C. Sec. 2021-2026. Upon consideration of the record, briefs, and oral argument, we affirm the decision of the District Court. We adopt the District Court's reasoning and analysis on the question of liability. Although we might have adopted the method of computation of damages that the defendants urge, we cannot say that the method that the District Court utilized was unreasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

WELLFORD, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

The defendant, Board of Education and School District, located in Port Huron, Michigan, a city of less than 35,000, were placed in the proverbial position, "between a rock and a hard place" in this case. They were faced with a demand by plaintiff that she be immediately placed in her former teacher position (voluntarily vacated more than four years earlier) some several months after the school year started and thus replace a teacher then serving who might well sue (or her union on her behalf) under Michigan law unless defendants paid the replaced tenured teacher for the balance of the year. ¹ It is unquestioned that approximately 75 tenured teachers in this relatively small school district were at the time on a layoff status due to declining enrollments and budgetary cuts. The effect of the district court decision, affirmed in this case, is to establish that defendants unfortunately made perhaps the worst choice of the unhappy ones presented for their decision even after guidance from their attorneys. Reluctantly, I must concede that the Veterans Reemployment Rights Act may be interpreted in the fashion ratified by our court in this decision, although other state courts have interpreted it less stringently, or at least that...