Florida Education Association, Inc. v. Atkinson

• Decision Date: 16 July 1973
• Docket Number: No. 72-2976.,72-2976.
• Citation: 481 F.2d 662
• Parties: FLORIDA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, Hilda Flowers, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilson C. ATKINSON et al., Defendants, School Board of Broward County, Florida, formerly known as the Broward County Board of Public Instruction, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

481 F.2d 662 (1973)

FLORIDA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, Hilda Flowers, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilson C. ATKINSON et al., Defendants, School Board of Broward County, Florida, formerly known as the Broward County Board of Public Instruction, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 72-2976.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 16, 1973.

Edward Marko, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., for defendant-appellant.

Richard H. Frank, Tampa, Fla., for Florida Education Ass'n, Inc. and others.

J. Leonard Fleet, Jerome M. Rosenblum, Hollywood, Fla., for Hilda Flowers.

Before GOLDBERG, CLARK, and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In February 1968, Florida teachers struck the state's public school systems. After the strike the school board of Broward County refused to reinstate seventy-four teachers. The "Broward 74" brought a class action against the School Board to compel reinstatement with back pay for the period of the strike and lockout. This suit was settled by a stipulation entered into between the Board and the class action plaintiffs which was approved by the district court pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 23(e) on June 28, 1971. The settlement provides that the School Board "unconditionally offers each and every member of the `Broward 74' reemployment to the same or substantially equivalent employment status each member occupied on the day prior to the state-wide teacher walkout." The settlement further provides that each teacher accepting the offer of reemployment "shall be granted all intervening pay step increases . . ." For their part of the settlement, the members of the class agreed to dismiss with prejudice any other claims against the School Board.

Pursuant to the settlement, Ms. Hilda Flowers, one of the "Broward 74," applied for reinstatement. Her request was rejected by the School Board on the ground that she had reached her seventieth birthday between the date of strike and date of settlement and therefore under Florida law could not obtain a current teaching certificate required for employment in the public schools. Fla. Stat. § 231.02 and § 231.14, F.S.A. Ms. Flowers then brought the present action to compel the Board to reinstate her as a teacher in accordance with the settlement or in the alternative, to grant her increased retirement benefits as if she had been continuously employed from February 1968 to the date of her seventieth birthday.

The court, without oral argument and without making specific findings relevant to Ms. Flowers' motion, denied her request for reinstatement as a teacher but granted the alternative relief of augmented retirement benefits to be paid retroactively from the date of her seventieth birthday.

The School Board appeals. The present record is inadequate to evaluate the merits of the contentions made on appeal. Therefore, without intimating any ruling on such merits, we remand with directions to the district court to make specific findings regarding the proper construction of the settlement agreement as applied to retirement benefits. These findings should be based upon the well-settled rule that the construction and enforcement of settlement agreements are governed by principles of local law applicable to contracts generally. See e. g., Plymouth Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Illinois Mid-Continent Life Ins. Co., 378 F.2d 389 (3rd Cir. 1967); Homestake-Sapin Partners v. United States, 375 F.2d 507, 511 (10th Cir. 1967); Cf. Mass. Casualty Ins. Co....