Hadley v. Moffat County School Dist. RE-1, RE-1

• Citation: 641 P.2d 284
• Decision Date: 23 July 1981
• Docket Number: No. 80CA1036,M,RE-1,80CA1036
• Parties: 2 Ed. Law Rep. 1176 Frank HADLEY and Brian Baxter, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MOFFAT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICToffat County, Colorado, Defendant-Appellee. . I
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

Page 284

641 P.2d 284

2 Ed. Law Rep. 1176

Frank HADLEY and Brian Baxter, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MOFFAT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-1, Moffat County, Colorado,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 80CA1036.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

July 23, 1981.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 20, 1981.

Certiorari Granted March 1, 1982.

Law Offices of Larry F. Hobbs, Larry F. Hobbs, Denver, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Paul D. Renner, P. C., Paul D. Renner, John R. Rodman, Denver, for defendant-appellee.

COYTE, Judge.

Plaintiffs, Frank Hadley and Brian Baxter, appeal the granting of summary judgment by the trial court dismissing their complaint which they contend states a cause of action arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We affirm.

Plaintiffs, who were non-tenured teachers, filed a complaint in the trial court against defendant school district alleging a claim for relief because of the decision by the school district not to renew plaintiffs' teaching contracts for the next school year. In seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiffs allege that their teaching contracts for the ensuing year were in fact terminated and not renewed at least in part "in retaliation for their participation in school district and community affairs" and that "(i)n terminating plaintiffs' employment because of their exercise of their federal and state constitutional rights, the defendants have acted in bad faith with malice toward the plaintiffs."

After filing their complaint plaintiffs noticed defendant in for the taking of depositions of the superintendent of schools, the former principal under which plaintiffs had served, the members of the board of education, and certain former members who had held that office at the time plaintiffs were not renewed. The school district moved for protective orders barring these depositions. The trial court allowed the taking of the deposition of the superintendent and the school principal but as to the board members and former board members, the court ordered that they "shall not be deposed until or unless the Plaintiffs make a proper preliminary showing as required by law and obtain an Order of Court modifying this Order."

Plaintiffs then filed a motion accompanied by affidavits of the plaintiffs, seeking to modify the court's protective order.

In their affidavits, plaintiffs recited that their principal had recommended renewal of their contracts, that they had requested hearings regarding their non-renewals but had been denied them, even though such hearings had been previously given to other teachers who had been non-renewed. They then alleged the receipt of an anonymously delivered note purportedly written to the superintendent from an administrative assistant in the school which note indicated that an effort was underway to prevent plaintiffs from remaining in the school system. However, each affidavit stated that the affiant could not vouch for the authenticity of the note but that it was "consistent with the school staff and local community view of the nonrenewal of my teaching contract." The Board filed a counter-affidavit by the purported writer of the note wherein he denied having written the note and also denied any knowledge of its origination. The trial court held that proper showing had not been made and denied the motion to change its protective orders.

Plaintiffs on appeal contend that entry of summary judgment was improper in that there was a genuine issue of material fact to be tried by the jury and further maintain that they were entitled to take the depositions of the various board members so that they could inquire of the board members as to whether they considered the community activities of the plaintiffs in effecting the non-renewal of their teaching contracts.

As set out in Durango School District No. R-9 v. Thorpe, Colo., 614 P.2d 880 (1980), a nontenured public school teacher does not have a right to annual renewal of his teaching contract, and in order for such a teacher to assert a claim on constitutional grounds he must show that:

"his conduct was...