Joanou v. Board of Educ. of Town of East Lyme

• Decision Date: 02 January 1974
• Citation: 165 Conn. 671,345 A.2d 46
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: James O. JOANOU v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the TOWN OF EAST LYME.

Page 46

345 A.2d 46

165 Conn. 671

James O. JOANOU v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the TOWN OF EAST LYME.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Jan. 2, 1974.

Robert L. Krechevsky, Hartford, with whom was Martin A. Gould, Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).

Richard D. O'Connor, Glastonbury, with whom were Donald W. Strickland, Hartford, and, on the brief, Robert W. Marrion, New London, for appellee (defendant).

Before HOUSE, C.J., and SHAPIRO, LOISELLE, MacDONALD and BOGDANSKI, JJ.

MacDONALD, Associate Justice.

This appeal arises from an unsuccessful attempt by the plaintiff to obtain an injunction restraining the defendant, the board of education of the town of East Lyme, from dismissing him from his position as a nontenured teacher in the public school system of that town.

The finding, which requires no correction despite a wholesale attack, ¹ discloses the following facts: The plaintiff, a nontenured employee under § 10-151 of the General Statutes entitled 'Employment of teachers. Notice and hearing on temination of contract,' was hired as an art teached under a written contract which expired August 31, 1972. Because of his unsatisfactory work, the plaintiff was not given any increment in salary for the school year 1971-72, and at a meeting on February 7, 1972, of the defendant board of education, attended by all of its members, the superintendent of the East Lyme schools recommended, based upon the poor evaluation of the plaintiff's work by his principal, that the plaintiff not be granted tenure. As a result of this recommendation, the plaintiff's name was crossed off the tenure list with the informal agreement and acquiescence of the board. At an executive session on February 28, 1972, the board formally ratified its action of February 7 by voting to grant continuing contracts to a list of successful candidates, specifically omitting the plaintiff from such list. The superintendent, prior to March 1, 1972, personally delivered to the plaintiff a letter stating this his contract would not be renewed. Thereafter, pursuant to a written request by the plaintiff, the superintendent, on March 7, 1972, sent the plaintiff a letter setting forth the reasons why his contract had not been renewed and fixing a date for a hearing before the board, as requested by the plaintiff. At the hearing the plaintiff had every opportunity to present evidence and to be represented by counsel and thereafter, having considered the evidence, the board voted not to renew the plaintiff's contract and so advised him by letter dated April 14, 1972.

As a result of the foregoing events, the plaintiff brought this action against the defendant board alleging, inter alia, that improper procedure under § 10-151 had been followed in that his dismissal and notification thereof had been by the superintendent rather than by the board and that it was, therefore, illegal and void, and claiming a temporary and permanent injunction restraining the board from dismissing him 'without complying with the General Statutes of Connecticut.' The trial court concluded that the proper statutory procedure had been followed, and denied the injunctive relief sought. We find no error in that conclusion.

Section 10-151(a), the relevant portion of what is commonly referred to as the Teacher Tenure Act, imposes three procedural requirements upon a board of education in order properly to decline to renew the...