Herzig v. Board of Ed. of Town of West Hartford

Decision Date10 November 1964
Citation152 Conn. 144,204 A.2d 827
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesFred J. HERZIG v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the TOWN OF WEST HARTFORD et al. Mary E. O'CONNOR et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF NEW HAVEN et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Frederick U. Conard, Jr., Hartford, with whom was Charles B. Milliken, Hartford, for appellants (defendants) in the first case, and Milton P. DeVane, New Haven, with whom was Richard K. Snyder, New Haven, for defendants in the second case.

Joseph F. Skelley, Jr., Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was Harry Tulin, Hartford, for appellee (plaintiff) in the first case, and William L. Hadden, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was William L. Hadden, Jr., New Haven, for plaintiffs in the second case.

J. Read Murphy, Hartford, filed a brief as amicus curiae in the first case but did not argue the cause.

Before KING, C. J., and MURPHY, ALCORN, COMLEY and SHANNON, JJ.

ALCORN, Associate Justice.

These two cases were argued together and are considered together because of the identical nature of the issue involved in each case. The question is whether a local board of education may require a teacher in the public schools to retire for the sole reason that he has reached a retirement age established by the local board of education which is less than the retirement age of seventy years fixed by § 10-166 of the General Statutes. In the Herzig case, the West Hartford board of education had determined upon a retirement age of sixty-five for the teachers employed by it. In the O'Connor case, the New Haven board of education had set a retirement age of sixty-eight for the teachers which it employed. In both cases the plaintiffs sought to have the defendant boards restrained from retiring them or interfering in the performance of their duties as teachers; and they further sought the renewal of their contracts. The action of the boards in requiring the involuntary retirements was claimed to be illegal.

Each case was presented on a stipulation of facts. The O'Connor case was reserved by the trial court for the advice of this court. The Herzig case was decided by the trial court, and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff from which the defendants have appealed. A finding was made by the trial court in the Herzig case. In view of the stipulation of facts this finding was unnecessary. Sheldon House Club, Inc. v. Branford, 149 Conn. 28, 30, 175 A.2d 186; Gilman v. Joseloff, 135 Conn. 595, 596, 67 A.2d 551.

The stipulated facts in the Herzig case are as follows. The plaintiff, Fred J. Herzig, is and has been a teacher in the West Hartford public school system since 1927 and since 1956 has been rated as a 'career' or 'merit' teacher. The defendants are the superintendent of schools and the members of the board of education of West Hartford. The West Hartford board of education is an agency of the state, created by state law. The board had adopted a regulation for the public schools of the town stating that 'all administrative, supervisory and teaching personnel shall be retired at the end of the school year in which they reach the age of 65.' Sixty-five is a reasonable retirement age if the court finds that the defendant board has the power to make the quoted rule. The plaintiff did not apply for retirement, but, nevertheless, on February 26, 1963, the superintendent of schools wrote him a letter stating, in substance, that, since he had reached his sixty-fifth birthday during the current school year, his contract would not be renewed beyond June 20, 1963, in accordance with the regulation already quoted. The letter concluded with the statement: 'As you know, this in no way reflects upon the quality of work you have rendered. I am sure that I speak for the Town as well as hundreds of boys and girls when I express my appreciation to you for these many years of fine teaching'. The attempted retirement of the plaintiff was not for any cause specified in subdivisions (1) through (5) of subsection (b) of § 10-151 of the General Statutes.

There are four plaintiffs in the O'Connor case. The stipulated facts in that case are as follows. The plaintiffs are teachers in the New Haven public school system--Mary E. O'Connor since September, 1919; Veronica Boland since September, 1915; Helen McKenna since September, 1917; and Alice Minnix since September, 1922. The defendants are the individual members of the New Haven board of education, the mayor of the city, who is an ex officio member of the board, and the superintendent of the New Haven public schools. The New Haven board of education has adopted a policy of retiring teachers upon their reaching the age of sixty-eight years. In accordance with that policy the board notified the plaintiffs that, solely because of their having reached the age of sixty-eight during the current school year, their teaching contracts for the school year commencing September, 1964, would not be renewed. The plaintiffs have not applied for retirement, and they wish to continue teaching in the school system. Their removal is not for any cause specified in subdivisions (1) through (5) of § 10-151(b) of the General Statutes, and no charges of any character have been filed against them.

The West Hartford charter confers on that town's board of education the duties and powers which are imposed or vested by the General Statutes on town boards of education in general. 28 Spec.Laws, p. 727, c. 3, § 1. The New Haven board of education likewise has only the powers expressly or impliedly granted by the General Statutes. The sections of the statutes principally involved are 10-220, 10-221, 10-151 and 10-166. Section 10-220, so far as material, provides that boards of education 'shall maintain in their several towns good public elementary and secondary schools * * *; shall have charge of the schools in their respective towns; * * * shall employ and dismiss the teachers of the schools of such towns subject to the provisions of sections 10-151 and 10-158; * * * and shall perform all acts required of them by the town or necessary to carry into effect the powers and duties imposed upon them by law.' Section 10-221, so far as material, provides that '[b]oards of education shall prescribe rules for the management, studies, classification and discipline of the public schools'. Section 10-158, which is referred to in § 10-220, was repealed by Public Acts 1961, No. 544, § 2, and § 10-158a, which supplants it, does not bear on the present issue. The pertinent part of subsection (b) of § 10-151 provides that '[b]eginning with and subsequent to the fourth year of continuous employment of a teacher by a board of education, the contract of employment of a teacher shall be renewed from year to year, except that it may be terminated at any time for one or more of the following reasons : (1) Inefficiency or incompetence; (2) insubordination against reasonable rules of the board of education; (3) moral misconduct; (4) disability, as shown by competent medical evidence; (5) elimination of the position to which the teacher was appointed, if no other position exists to which he may be appointed if qualified; or (6) other due and sufficient cause.' Section 10-166 provides that members of the teachers' retirement association, which these plaintiffs are conceded to be, may retire at the age of sixty or after thirty-five years of teaching, other specified qualifications being met, and that '[a]ny member of the retirement association on attaining the age of seventy years shall be retired from service in the public schools; provided, if the employing board of education so requests in writing, the retirement board may...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • West Hartford Ed. Ass'n v. Dayson DeCourcy
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • April 19, 1972
    ...86 A.2d 662. Our statutes have conferred on the local board broad power the discretion over educational policy. Herzig v. Board of Education, 152 Conn. 144, 150, 204 A.2d 827; Board of Education v. Town of Ellington, 151 Conn. 1, 9, 193 A.2d 466. Section 10-220 of the General Statutes sets ......
  • Packer v. Board of Educ. of Town of Thomaston
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • August 4, 1998
    ...193 Conn. 93, 97, 475 A.2d 289 (1984); City Council v. Hall, 180 Conn. 243, 248, 429 A.2d 481 (1980); Herzig v. Board of Education, 152 Conn. 144, 150, 204 A.2d 827 (1964). Section 10-233d (a)(1) authorizes school boards to expel students from school for conduct that occurs off school groun......
  • Connecticut State Federation of Teachers v. Board of Educ. Members
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • May 21, 1976
    ...alleges, the defendant school boards are "agencies of the state in charge of education in the town(s)." Herzig v. Board of Education, 152 Conn. 144, 150, 204 A.2d 827, 830 (1965). Accord, West Hartford Education Association, Inc. v. DeCourcy, 162 Conn. 566, 573, 295 A.2d 526 (1972). 4 These......
  • Davis v. GRIFFIN-SPALDING CTY., GA., BD. OF ED., Civ. A. No. C-75-6-N.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • April 15, 1976
    ...expressed public policy prevailed over the local school board's right to set a lower mandatory age. Accord, Herzig v. Board of Education, 152 Conn. 144, 204 A.2d 827 (1964). The most persuasive argument, though, is found in the state statute relating to suspension, termination and nonrenewa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT