Mack v. Cape Elizabeth School Bd., No. 76-1503

• Citation: 553 F.2d 720
• Decision Date: 25 April 1977
• Docket Number: No. 76-1503
• Parties: 20 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1679 Donna MACK, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. CAPE ELIZABETH SCHOOL BOARD et al., Defendants, Appellees.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)

Page 720

553 F.2d 720

20 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1679

Donna MACK, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. CAPE ELIZABETH SCHOOL BOARD et al., Defendants, Appellees.

No. 76-1503.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Argued March 4, 1977.

Decided April 25, 1977.

Perry H. Clark, Westbrook, Maine, with whom Ray R. Pallas, Westbrook, Maine, was on brief, for plaintiff, appellant.

Merton G. Henry, Portland, Maine, with whom Nicholas S. Nadzo, Washington, D. C., and Jensen Baird Gardner Donovan & Henry, Portland, Maine, were on brief, for defendants, appellees.

Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, ALDRICH and CAMPBELL, Circuit Judges.

ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff Donna Mack, a probationary school teacher in her third year at the Cape Elizabeth, Maine, schools, applied in the middle of the year for maternity leave, and indicated that she wished to stay out during the year succeeding. The school superintendent responded with a letter of acquiescence, adding that she should notify him before February 1 of the next year, "if you wish to return to teaching." When, in January of the following year, plaintiff gave such notification, defendant members of the school board voted not to renew her contract. Plaintiff brought suit in two counts, alleging that the school board's refusal to supply a statement of reasons, and a hearing, deprived her of procedural due process, and that the decision not to renew was based on her pregnancy or other sex discrimination of some sort in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Defendants filed, essentially, a general denial and a motion for summary judgment accompanied by affidavits. After a hearing, the district court granted summary judgment as to both counts.

We affirm that grant of summary judgment against plaintiff's procedural due process claim. On no permissible interpretation of the contractual situation, the surrounding circumstances, or the Maine statutes, can we find that plaintiff had any "legitimate claim of entitlement" to renewal of her contract within the meaning of Board of Regents v. Roth, 1972, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 and Perry v. Sindermann, 1972, 408 U.S. 593, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 33 L.Ed.2d 570. Plaintiff does not seriously dispute that under Maine law, as a nontenured teacher, she had no right to continued employment, but could be rehired only upon nomination by the superintendent and approval by the school board. However, plaintiff asserts that the statement in the superintendent's letter that she should give notice within a certain time if she wished to return to teaching, created an enforceable expectation of continued employment. In light of the propensity of many persons to over-construe statements in their favor, it might have been better for the superintendent to have reminded plaintiff that there was no assurance that her wish would be granted, but we cannot read his statement as making any promise, or waiving the ordinary procedures for reappointment of probationary teachers, a matter which the superintendent would lack authority to do. The maternity leave put plaintiff in the same position concerning her hope for renewal for the 1975-76 year as she would have been in concerning the 1974-75 year had she not taken leave a nontenured teacher with no property right in continued employment.

We cannot agree, however, with the district court's grant of summary judgment against plaintiff's Title VII clai...