Hajduk v. Vocational Technical & Adult Ed. Dist. No. 13
| Decision Date | 18 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 71-C-449. |
| Citation | 356 F. Supp. 33 |
| Parties | Wayne HAJDUK, Plaintiff, v. VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL AND ADULT EDUCATION DISTRICT NO. 13 et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
Gregory B. Conway and Herbert C. Liebmann, III, Green Bay, Wis., for plaintiff.
Robert Bittner, Green Bay, Wis., for defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
The plaintiff in this action was a teacher in the public schools whose yearly employment contract was not renewed by the defendant school board. This matter is before the court on defendants' motion to dismiss. Two violations of due process are alleged, one procedural and one substantive: first, that the school board did not follow lawful procedures in deciding not to retain plaintiff; second, that the true reason for plaintiff's nonretention was his exercise of his first amendment rights. Jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. I find that plaintiff's procedural claim no longer presents a cause of action in light of the Supreme Court decision in Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). Plaintiff's substantive claim, however, plainly does present a cause of action, and, accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss is denied.
Plaintiff was a nontenured teacher at the Northeast Wisconsin Technical Institute in Green Bay, Wisconsin, during the 1969-1970 and 1970-1971 school years. On February 24, 1971, he was notified that defendants were considering nonrenewal of his contract. Plaintiff then requested a list of the reasons and a hearing. The board responded with the following reasons:
1. Failing to meet the required standards of preparation for class.
2. Failing to meet the required standard of class control and discipline.
3. Failing to meet required standards of articulation of presentation of course materials.
4. Failing to meet the required standard of community involvement.
5. Failing to show an interest in upgrading himself in his particular discipline in order to become eligible for unqualified certification.
6. Evidencing a lack of cooperation in implementing the school policies relating to community involvement, student selection, and development of teaching materials.
A hearing was held on May 12, 1971, before the Northeast Wisconsin Technical Institute School Board (hereafter "Board"). Plaintiff was represented by counsel; opposing counsel appeared on behalf of the school staff that had recommended against plaintiff's retention. The format of the hearing was that required by the district court opinion in Board of Regents v. Roth, 310 F.Supp. 972, 979-980 (W.D.Wis.1969), whereby the burden of going forward and the burden of proof was on the teacher, and the school was only obliged to respond if the teacher made a reasonable showing that the stated reasons were wholly inappropriate or that they were wholly without a basis in fact. Plaintiff was the sole witness on his behalf. Without hearing any witnesses for the school, the Board concluded that plaintiff had not met his burden and voted not to renew his contract. Plaintiff then filed this action alleging that the statement of reasons and hearing provided were constitutionally deficient and that the actual reason for his nonretention was his criticism of the defendants' administrative policies, especially one aspect of their admission's policy. The relief requested is reinstatement and back pay.
The alleged procedural deficiencies were the failure of the Board to call any witnesses or offer any evidence to substantiate the charges against plaintiff, the failure to clarify certain charges at his request, and the failure to maintain an appearance of impartiality. After plaintiff filed the action, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972), and in so doing answered these procedural objections. The Court in Roth held that a nontenured teacher employed under a yearly contract did not have a sufficient property interest in the renewal of his contract to invoke...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Calo v. Paine, Civ. No. H-74-269.
...802 (7th Cir. 1972); Russell v. Hodges, supra; Berry v. Hamblin, 356 F.Supp. 306 (M.D.Pa.1973); Hajduk v. Vocational Technical & Adult Education District No. 13, 356 F.Supp. 33 (E.D.Wis.1973); Sayah v. United States, 355 F.Supp. 1008 (C.D.Cal.1973); Heaphy v. United States Treasury Dept., B......
-
Setty v. Minnesota State College Board, 44897
...States Post Office, 475 F.2d 1256 (9 Cir. 1973); Russell v. Hodges, 470 F.2d 212 (2 Cir. 1973); Hajduk v. Vocational Technical & Adult Ed. Dist. No. 13, 356 F.Supp. 33 (E.D.Wis.1973); Ferris v. Special School Dist. No. 1, supra; Suarez v. Weaver, 484 F.2d 678 (7 Cir. 1973); Lipp v. Board of......
-
Fries v. Wessington School Dist. No. 2 4, 13160
...board may refuse to offer a nontenured teacher a contract without giving any reasons for doing so. Hajduk v. Vocational Technical & Adult Ed. Dist. No. 13, 356 F.Supp. 33 (E.D.Wis.1973); Cohoes City Sch. Dist. v. Cohoes Tchrs. Ass'n, 40 N.Y.2d 774, 390 N.Y.S.2d 53, 358 N.E.2d 878 (1976). Th......
-
O'Brien v. City of Saginaw
...2009); Seneca v. New Hope Borough, No. 01-2307, 2002 WL 321663, at *4-5 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 27, 2002); Hajduk v. Vocational Technical & Adult Educ. Dist., 356 F. Supp. 33, 34 (E.D. Wis. 1973). Procedural due process, of course, requires only notice and an opportunity to be heard. See, e.g., Cons......