Hagely v. Board of Educ. of Webster Groves School Dist., 68332

• Decision Date: 06 August 1996
• Docket Number: No. 68332,68332
• Citation: 930 S.W.2d 47
• Parties: 113 Ed. Law Rep. 509 J. Scott HAGELY and Mary Helen Brindell, Respondents, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the WEBSTER GROVES SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 47

930 S.W.2d 47

113 Ed. Law Rep. 509

J. Scott HAGELY and Mary Helen Brindell, Respondents, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the WEBSTER GROVES SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant.

No. 68332.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Eastern District,

Division Two.

Aug. 6, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to

Supreme Court Denied Sept. 9, 1996.

Application to Transfer Denied

Oct. 22, 1996.

Douglas Allen Copeland, Clayton, for appellant.

Charles A. Werner, St. Louis, for respondent.

DOWD, Judge.

On remand from the Supreme Court of Missouri, the trial court reversed the Board of Education ("Board") of the Webster Groves School District's ("District") dismissal of the salary grievances of J. Scott Hagely and Mary Helen Brindell ("Teachers"). ¹ The Board and District appealed from that judgment. We reverse.

Teachers were employed throughout this litigation by the Board as permanent teachers with indefinite contracts within the meaning of § 168.104 of the Missouri Teacher Tenure Act, §§ 168.102-130, RSMo 1986. ² The Board, in consultation with representatives of all the teachers in the District, establishes annual salary schedules pursuant to § 168.110. The salary schedules consist of five channels related to each teacher's educational attainment. Each channel is divided into several steps. A teacher's salary is determined by reference to the step number in the channel applicable to that particular teacher.

When determining each teacher's yearly contract, the Board follows a custom and practice that has never changed: For each year of employment, a teacher progresses one step within their current channel. By earning an advanced degree or by taking additional credit hours, a teacher satisfied the requirements to move to a higher channel. When a teacher moved to the higher channel in the succeeding school year, they would also progress one step within the new channel. For example, a teacher who completed a Master's degree while on step eight of the Bachelor's channel would move up to step nine on the Master's channel the next school year.

However, for the 1986-1987 school year--at the request of the teachers in May 1986--the Board adopted a salary schedule that reduced the number of steps within each channel. The Board also adopted a salary conversion table to convert a teacher's placement from the prior salary schedule to the new one. The reduction in steps--with a concomitant salary increase per step--allowed teachers to reach the top of a channel quicker and, simultaneously, earn higher salaries per step each year. The initial conversion table placed all teachers in the old seventeen step Master's channel onto the new thirteen step Master's channel and placed those teachers moving from the Bachelor's channel to the Master's channel. During the negotiations between the representatives of the Board and the teachers that led to the condensed salary schedule for the 1986-1987 school year, it was clear that the new salary schedule would only be adopted with a salary conversion table. A conversion table was used in the following school years: 1986-1987, 1987-1988, 1988-1989, and 1989-1990. For the 1990-1991 school year, the Board abandoned use of the conversion tables at the insistence of the teachers.

In January 1991 the Teachers filed a petition alleging the Board's salary conversion tables discriminated against them and arbitrarily denied them the benefits they were entitled to as established by the past practices and actions of the Board because the tables placed them in a lower step in the Master's degree channel as compared to their placement without a conversion table. After a non-jury trial, the trial court found the 1986-1990 conversion tables unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious and unlawful. The court also found the conversion tables unreasonable, capricious, arbitrary, and unlawful as applied to Hagely in 1987 and as to Brindell in 1989. ³ Finally, the court found the Board in 1990 unreasonably, arbitrarily, capriciously and unlawfully refused to retroactively place the Teachers in the Master's channel position they would have assumed without a conversion table.

The scope of our review in this matter is governed by the familiar dictates of Rule 73.01 and Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) because we review the judgment of the circuit court, not the decision of the administrative agency. Barry Service Agency Co. v. Manning, 891 S.W.2d 882, 887 (Mo.App. W.D.1995). Accordingly, we review the circuit court's judgment to determine whether its adjudication under § 536.150, RSMo 1994, ⁴ rests on substantial evidence and correctly declares and applies the law. Id.

We address the Board's second point on appeal first. The Board argues the trial court erred in not barring the Teachers' claims to back pay for the school years 1987-1988, 1988-1989, and 1989-1990 under the equitable doctrine of laches. Those years were neither included in the Teachers' grievance submitted to the Board nor included in the circuit court petition filed in January 1991. The Board also asserts Brindell is similarly barred from claiming back pay for the 1989-1990 school year. We agree.

In Hagely, our Supreme Court stated the following:

Laches is a question of fact to be determined from all the evidence and circumstances adduced at trial. Zykan, 495 S.W.2d at 657.... No clear test has been established for the application of laches, nor are we able to set one now. Basically, the court must determine whether the harm to the Board in allowing the suit to proceed outweighs the harm to appellants in failing to consider their claims.

On remand, the circuit court should attempt to balance the hardships and practicalities facing each party by inquiring into the circumstances surrounding appellants delay in invoking their administrative remedies, and the effect of allowing claims against the Board for past budget years. Because the statutory limitation periods in this area tend to be quite short ..., it could be inferred that the General Assembly intended the prompt resolution of matters related to yearly school budgets. Nevertheless, the Board will have the burden of proving prejudice or change in circumstances sufficient to defeat appellant's claims covering the earlier school years. Zykan, 495 S.W.2d at 657.

Hagely, 841 S.W.2d at 670.

The trial court accepted the Teachers' analysis of the laches issue. It found the back pay claims would not adversely impact the District's budget and the Teachers did not waive their right to challenge the salary schedule by signing their contract each of the years in question. However, neither the Teachers nor the trial court specifically addressed the effect of allowing "claims against the Board for past budget years." Hagely, 841 S.W.2d at 670. Furthermore, the trial court did not consider why the General Assembly made the statutory limitation periods in this area so short. See id. Therefore, the trial court failed to weigh an important part of the laches question.

The District estimates its anticipated revenues each year and then negotiates with the teachers' representatives, usually in February. Several salary schedules are discussed and the cost of each is considered. The District does not set its annual budget until it knows the cost of the teachers' salary schedule for that year. The teachers vote on the proposed salary schedule, even though the result is not binding on the Board. The Board then considers the fiscal integrity of the District and the teachers' concerns and adopts a salary schedule. Next, the Board issues the teachers' contracts in either April or May. Under this framework, the Board commits funds in advance each year for the teachers' salaries and the District's budget.

As our Supreme Court noted, the statutory timetable placed upon the school districts' budgeting and the very short statute of limitations in this area, demonstrate a legislative intent that disputes over yearly school budgets are handled quickly. See Hagely, 841 S.W.2d at 670. Here, the District has an established grievance procedure available to its teachers. After a salary grievance is filed and a presentation is made to the Board, a decision is made regarding that teacher's salary. If the decision dissatisfies the teacher, the teacher can file an action under § 536.150,...