Gardner v. School Dist. No. 55
| Decision Date | 30 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 55,No. 14929,55,14929 |
| Citation | 108 Idaho 434,700 P.2d 56 |
| Parties | , 25 Ed. Law Rep. 605 Spence GARDNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 55; Larry Johnson, Chairman, Gary Haddock, Vice Chairman, Diane Powell, Clerk of the Board of Trustees of School District; and Fred Higley, Individually and as President of the Blackfoot Education Association, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
R.M. Whittier, Pocatello, for plaintiff-appellant.
Fred J. Hahn, Idaho Falls, Byron J. Johnson, Boise, for defendants-respondents.
This is an appeal from a partial summary judgment in favor of defendants and from a general verdict for defendants following jury trial, in a case arising from the nonrenewal of a contract of employment of a superintendent of Blackfoot School District No. 55. We affirm.
Plaintiff-appellant Gardner was hired by Blackfoot School District as a teacher and coach in 1953. In 1960, he became an administrative assistant to the high school principal, and in 1962, he became an assistant to the superintendent of schools of the district. In 1971, following the death of the superintendent of schools, Gardner was named acting superintendent, and in December 1971, Gardner received a three-year contract as superintendent of schools. Thereafter, the school board each year extended Gardner's contract by one year, keeping the agreement on a three-year basis until 1977. Those extensions did not take place after 1977, and therefore Gardner's contract was due to expire January 31, 1980.
Gardner's contract called for a review at the regular January meeting, and in December 1979, Gardner notified the board that his contract review should be placed as an item on the agenda for the January 1980 meeting. That review did not take place, but rather the chairman of the school board called an executive session board meeting to consider the renewal of Gardner's contract. That meeting was held in January 1980, with Gardner not being allowed to attend, and Gardner was later informed that his contract would not be renewed. Although Gardner requested it, he was not allowed to see or discuss his evaluation. Gardner was present at a January 1980 executive session of the board, and the minutes of that session state:
Thereafter, Gardner was rehired on a five-month basis, with his contract to end June 30, 1980. On June 19, 1980, the school board voted to offer Gardner a position as an administrative assistant, and Gardner wrote a letter to the board accepting that position.
The defendant Higley, as president of the Blackfoot Education Association, wrote a letter to the Blackfoot newspaper and communicated with the school board regarding the rehiring of Gardner. A special board meeting was held, at which Higley appeared and stated the objection of the association to the board's spending money for a newly-created administrative position, rather than on other needs of the school system.
At some time in June 1980, Gardner began negotiations with the Pocatello School District for an administrator's position. In early August, he signed a contract with the Pocatello School District. He began employment with that district later the same month.
Gardner brought this action against Blackfoot School District No. 55, its board of trustees, and Fred Higley "as an agent and president of THE BLACKFOOT EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated association." 1 The trial court granted partial summary judgment, dismissing all causes of action against the individual members of the Board of Trustees; holding that Gardner had no right to an automatic renewal of his contract as superintendent; and holding that the school board had not denied Gardner any of his constitutional rights. Following jury trial, a verdict was returned against Gardner on all claims.
Gardner contends that he had a right to the renewal of his contract as superintendent of schools either by virtue of the contract terms or by virtue of rights acquired during the time that he served as a teacher prior to becoming superintendent of schools.
At the time at issue here, Gardner's contract provided he would be employed "for a period of three (3) years (twelve months per year), beginning February 1, 1977 and extending to January 31, 1980." Clearly, Gardner had no vested right to an extension of his contract under the unambiguous terms of that agreement, after January 31, 1980, and we affirm the trial court's holding that the school district committed no breach of the written contract.
Gardner's contract specifically incorporated by reference "the pertinent statutes of the State of Idaho and such regulations as the State Board of Education may legally prescribe...." I.C. § 33-1212, as that section affected renewable teacher's contracts, at the time in question, provided in pertinent part as follows:
I.C. § 33-1001, referred to in the first paragraph of I.C. § 33-1212 for its definition of "teacher," provided from 1974 until 1979 in relevant part:
A "Statement of Determination," passed and adopted by the State Board of Education and appearing in its official board minutes for the meeting of September 6, 1974, contained the following pertinent language:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beaupre v. Kingen
...the discretion of the fact-finder, and a jury decision will not be overturned where supported by the evidence. Gardner v. School Dist. No. 55, 108 Idaho 434, 700 P.2d 56 (1985); Werry v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 97 Idaho 130, 540 P.2d 792 (1975). We hold that sufficient evidence exists in th......