Lakeshore Public Schools Bd. of Educ. v. Grindstaff
Decision Date | 25 September 1990 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 83358 |
Citation | 63 Ed. Law Rep. 1005,461 N.W.2d 651,436 Mich. 339 |
Parties | LAKESHORE PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioner-Appellee, v. John GRINDSTAFF, Respondent-Appellant.(After Second Remand) 436 Mich. 339, 461 N.W.2d 651, 63 Ed. Law Rep. 1005 |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Mark H. Cousens, Southfield, for appellant.
Glime, Daoust, Wilds, Rusing & Le Duc, Gary W. Wilds, Mount Clemens, for petitioner-appellee.
Linda L. Bruin, Michigan Ass'n of School Boards, Lansing, Levin, Levin, Garvett and Dill, P.C. by Erwin B. Ellmann, Freya B. Weberman, Southfield, for Michigan Educ. Ass'n, Amicus Curiae.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Gerald F. Young, Asst. Atty. Gen., for amicus State Tenure Com'n.
AFTER SECOND REMAND
The questions presented are (1) whether the State Tenure Commission may reduce the discipline imposed by a school board from discharge to suspension where it finds that the misconduct charged by a school board against a tenured teacher, while proven, did not constitute reasonable and just cause for discharge, and (2) if so, whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Tenure Commission's decision that there was not reasonable and just cause for discharge.
We conclude that the Tenure Commission is empowered to so reduce the discipline, and that its decisions that there was not reasonable and just cause for discharge and that an appropriate discipline was a six-month suspension were supported by the evidence and, accordingly, that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the commission's decision in this case.
John Grindstaff, a tenured teacher, was discharged by the Lakeshore Public Schools Board of Education after a hearing held by the school board pursuant to the provisions of the teacher tenure act. 1 The Tenure Commission, on appeal, reduced the discipline from discharge to suspension without pay for one semester. The circuit court affirmed. The Court of Appeals denied the school board's application for leave to appeal. This Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. 2
The Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated the decision of the school board. 3 The court said that Grindstaff, "[d]espite being constantly reprimanded, suspended twice and taking a one-year leave of absence," was "still unable to reform his conduct," that he continued to violate rules and directives after he was "warned, on at least four occasions, that future violations could result in his dismissal," and that he was "repeatedly warned and reprimanded for using physical force on students, leaving his classes unsupervised for prolonged periods of time, and leaving the school building during school hours without permission."
The school board had, said the Court of Appeals, made "diligent efforts to reform" Grindstaff's behavior. The Court said that "a school board is justified in dismissing an insubordinate teacher who persistently refuses to abide by administrative rules and directives." The Court said that the Tenure Commission's decision to reduce the penalty to a one-semester suspension was not supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence. Another brief suspension was not, said the Court, "warranted by the evidence," nor would it be "an appropriate penalty in light" of Grindstaff's conduct.
Once again, this Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals. 4 The order of remand stated that the Court of Appeals should determine whether the Tenure Commission has the authority, where it concludes that a school board's finding of misconduct was proven, to reduce to suspension a discipline of discharge ordered by the school board.
The Court of Appeals on the second remand 5 found that the teacher tenure act does not authorize the Tenure Commission "to modify or reduce" a discipline from discharge to suspension and that the Tenure Commission erred in its construction of the act and in assuming such authority:
There were four charges. The first concerned an incident on March 3, 1983, and the second an incident two weeks later on March 17. Grindstaff had left his class unattended on those dates. The third charge referred to earlier incidents for which Grindstaff had received written reprimands or warnings and two suspensions, the longest of which was for three days. 6 The fourth charge was insubordination and was based on the same allegations as the third charge. 7
The first charge was that on March 3, 1983, Grindstaff had left his fourth-hour class for twenty to thirty minutes while his students took a test. Two students testified that other students were cheating during Grindstaff's absence. Grindstaff said he was in a nearby classroom working a crossword puzzle. The exam was subsequently thrown out. The Tenure Commission found that a rule or policy requiring the teacher's presence in the classroom and administrative permission to deviate from such rule to be reasonable, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the charge.
The second charge was that on March 17, 1983, Grindstaff had left his seventh-hour class unattended and unsupervised, without prior approval, for approximately fifteen minutes. Grindstaff testified that he left the classroom to seek out a student to confirm an appointment made at the request of the student's parents. The evidence was conflicting whether he was gone five or fifteen minutes. The Tenure Commission found that Grindstaff's reason for leaving was not compelling and that the charge was proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
The Tenure Commission, however, went on to find that the penalty of discharge imposed by the school board was inappropriate, and that there was not reasonable and just cause for discharge. The commission stated that while insubordination may constitute reasonable and just cause for discharge, insubordination does not automatically justify discharge in all cases. Grindstaff had shown himself to be a "true motivator" of students in his eighteen years of service. He had "demonstrated outstanding skills as an educator." His was "the classic case of a good teacher, but a poor employee."
Grindstaff had been suspended on two other occasions, the longest suspension was for three days. "Bearing in mind the concept of progressive discipline, as well as the nature of his March 1983, offenses--the only new misconduct which precipitated the instant case," the commission found that a "lengthy suspension" would serve as an adequate deterrent to Grindstaff and others, and concluded that the record "established reasonable and just cause" for a suspension without pay for the first semester of the school year. 8
The tenure act provides that after satisfactory completion of the probationary period, a teacher shall acquire tenure and "shall not be dismissed or demoted except as specified" in the act: 9
--A tenured teacher may be "discharge[d] or demot[ed]" only "for reasonable and just cause...." 10
--A tenured teacher may appeal "any decision" of a school board to the state tenure commission. 11
--The Tenure Commission is "vested with such powers as are necessary to carry out and enforce the provisions of" the act. 12
--The Tenure Commission shall "act as a board of review for all cases appealed" from a decision of a school board. 13
Grindstaff contends that the Tenure Commission has the authority to modify penalties imposed by a school board. He contends that the purpose of the act is to protect teachers' rights and prevent turnover in the teaching profession. That purpose is achieved by de novo review of decisions of local school boards. De novo review means and requires that the Tenure Commission determine any penalty to be imposed. The commission's decision was supported by the record. The Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Tenure Commission's decision. 14
The school board contends that while the Tenure Commission reviews the decision of a school board de novo, that power does not extend to the modification of discipline imposed by a school board. Absent a determination that there was a procedural irregularity or that the school board acted arbitrarily or capriciously in imposing discharge, the Tenure Commission must affirm a discharge decision where the charged misconduct is proven. Limitations must, the school board argues, be placed on the reviewing authority of the Tenure Commission to avoid unwarranted interference with local control of schools. Acceptance of the Tenure Commission's view of its de novo reviewing authority would reduce disciplinary proceedings before a school board to an idle ceremony. 15 The determination of the appropriate measure of discipline requires the exercise of discretion, and the decision of the school board must be given deference by the Tenure Commission.
The school board urges that where the punishment does not fit the crime, the Tenure Commission is empowered to reverse the decision of the school board and order reinstatement if reasonable and just cause has not been established or if the discipline was arbitrary, capricious or imposed in bad faith. The Tenure Commission's decision to reduce Grindstaff's discharge to a one-semester suspension was not supported under the facts established before the commission or by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record. 16
In Rehberg I, 17 the teacher was removed by the school board. The Tenure Commission reversed. This Court reversed and remanded to the Tenure Commission for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Payne, In re, Docket No. 94486
...minimis, and the violations were far less severe than another violator). 24 Cf. Lakeshore Bd of Ed. v. Grindstaff (After Second Remand ), 436 Mich. 339, 461 N.W.2d 651 (1990), in which this Court held that the State Tenure Commission may reduce a discipline of a tenured teacher imposed by a......
-
Lewis v. Bridgman Public Schools
...an independent finding of facts, opinionate upon the same, and enter an order accordingly.'" Lakeshore Bd. of Ed. v. Grindstaff (After Second Remand), 436 Mich. 339, 354, 461 N.W.2d 651 (1990) (citations omitted). The Court affirmed the authority of the tenure commission to "vary or reverse......
-
Birmingham School Dist. v. Buck
...subjects all questions of fact and law to Commission review and determination de novo. Lakeshore Bd. of Ed. v. Grindstaff (After Second Rem.), 436 Mich. 339, 353-354, 461 N.W.2d 651 (1990); Long v. Royal Oak Twp. and Royal Oak Bd. of Ed., Dist. No. 1, Fractional, 350 Mich. 324, 326-327, 86 ......
-
Lewis v. Bridgman Pub. Schools (On Rem.)
...with decision-making authority regarding an appropriate penalty for teacher misconduct. In Lakeshore Bd. of Ed. v. Grindstaff (After Second Remand), 436 Mich. 339, 461 N.W.2d 651 (1990), our Supreme Court held that the tenure commission has the authority under MCL 38.101 to reduce the level......