Massey v. Argenbright
| Decision Date | 23 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-16,84-16 |
| Citation | 211 Mont. 331,683 P.2d 1332 |
| Parties | , 18 Ed. Law Rep. 1051 Tim J. MASSEY, Petitioner and Respondent, v. Ed ARGENBRIGHT, Superintendent of Public Instruction, and Trustees of Custer County District High School and Miles City School District # 1, Respondents and Appellants. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
John W. Larson argued, Helena, for Superintendent of Public instruction.
Brown & Huss, Bruce M. Brown argued, Miles City, for School Dist. No. 1.
Richard Bartos, Helena, for respondents and appellants.
Hilley & Loring, Emilie Loring argued, Great Falls, for petitioner and respondent.
Charles Erdmann argued, Helena, for amicus curiae Montana School Boards Assoc. WEBER, Justice.
Tim Massey, a tenured teacher at Custer County High School, sought judicial review in the First Judicial District Court of a decision of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, affirming his dismissal by the school district. The District Court reversed the State Superintendent and held for the tenured teacher. The State Superintendent and school district trustees appeal. We affirm the District Court.
The issue presented on appeal is whether a teacher acquires tenure in all areas in which he is certified, even though he has teaching experience within the district in only one certification area.
The parties stipulated to the following facts. Massey graduated from Dickinson State College in North Dakota in 1970 with a major in business education and a minor in physical education. He taught physical education at the high school and elementary level for one year in South Dakota before coming to Montana.
The Montana Office of Public Instruction has certified Massey with a secondary endorsement (for high school and middle school) to teach business education (with typing), physical education and health.
Massey was employed in 1975 to teach in the business education department at Custer County High School. He taught in that department for seven years. He did not teach physical education or health during that time.
All the teachers in the business education department at Custer County High School had tenure. A drop in student enrollment in that department resulted in a reduction in staff. Massey was timely notified that his teaching contract would not be renewed. Upon his request, reasons were supplied.
At the time the board of trustees terminated Massey's employment, the following non-tenured teachers were employed by the school district:
(1) Female teaching physical education in the Custer County High School for one year.
(2) Male teaching physical education in grades 7 and 8 for one year.
(3) Female teaching elementary education in grades K through 6. This teacher acquired tenure upon signing a contract for the 1982-83 school year.
These three teachers all had majored in physical education in college. It is the policy of the board of trustees to attempt to hire teachers with a major in the field.
Massey contends that the school district's retention of a non-tenured teacher in a position that a tenured teacher is certified to teach is contrary to law.
The school district and State Superintendent of Public Instruction contend that Massey has not taught physical education since 1975; that all teachers presently employed have graduated with majors in P.E.; that only one female teacher is teaching physical education at the high school and that a female teacher is necessary in that position in order to maintain locker room discipline; that all P.E. teachers presently employed by the district have taught P.E. for at least one year and are familiar with the physical education department; and that teaching in the business education department and physical education department are not comparable positions.
The county superintendent affirmed the school district trustees' conclusion that the tenure rights of teachers are delimited by the position held under the last executed contract and the teacher's background and qualifications. The State Superintendent of Public Instruction affirmed the county superintendent, expressly holding that "for the purposes of interpreting the comparable position requirement of Section 20-4-203, MCA, teaching experience is necessary." The absence of physical education teaching experience on the part of Massey was felt to be controlling.
The Superintendent of the Office of Public Instruction states that endorsement of areas of teacher certification is based solely on the teacher's college transcript. The State Superintendent points out that, under current certification standards, no additional or continuing education is required for a teacher to maintain certification in areas of secondary endorsement. He argues that certification was never intended by the Legislature to replace a local school district's evaluation of a teacher's actual teaching experience in that district.
The District Court decision pointed out that it is highly inconsistent for the State Superintendent to encourage certification to increase employability, then insist that certification does not mean a person is qualified to teach in the certified area. The District Court emphasized that a school district may not dismiss a tenured teacher and retain a non-tenured teacher in the same general area of competency. The District Court further pointed out that petitioner is qualified to teach physical education; there is nothing in the record to indicate he was in fact incompetent; and he was therefore dismissed without good cause while a non-tenured teacher was retained to fill a position for which he was qualified. Upon these grounds, the District Court reversed the decision of the State Superintendent. No remedy was ordered because neither the State nor County Superintendent had considered Massey's request for reinstatement and back pay.
From the court's order remanding the cause for a determination of appropriate remedies, the State Superintendent and School District Trustees appeal.
The pertinent statute is section 20-4-203, MCA, which in part provides:
"Whenever a teacher has been elected by the offer and acceptance of a contract for the fourth consecutive year of employment by a district in a position requiring teacher certification ... the teacher shall be deemed to be reelected from year to year thereafter as a tenure teacher at the same salary and in the same or a comparable position of employment as that provided by the last executed contract ..." (emphasis added)
The essential question here is whether any of the positions held by non-tenured teachers in the district at the time the school board voted not to renew Massey's contract to teach in the business education department was a comparable position of employment which should have been offered to Massey.
This Court has held that "[a] teacher's tenure is a substantial, valuable and beneficial right, which cannot be taken away except for good cause." State v. District Court, Fergus County (1954), 128 Mont. 353, 361, 275 P.2d 209, 214. This tenure right must be balanced against the school board's Sorlie v. School Dist. No. 2 (Mont.1983), 667 P.2d 400, 403, 40 St.Rep. 1070, 1074.
In Sorlie, a tenured elementary school teacher had accepted an administrative position as Coordinator of Intermediate Education. When a school mill levy failed the following year, she was reassigned from her position as administrator to teacher of a second grade class. This Court held that tenure rights acquired as a teacher applied to the subsequent administrative position; that for the purposes of tenure the positions were comparable; and that the reassignment did not violate Mrs. Sorlie's tenure rights so long as she retained her administrator's salary after reassignment to the classroom.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trustees, Missoula County School Dist. No. 1 v. Pacific Employer's Ins. Co.
...legislative effort to balance the rights of teachers with those of trustees. Anderson, 757 P.2d at 1318; and Massey v. Argenbright (1984), 211 Mont. 331, 336, 683 P.2d 1332, 1334. The rights of tenured teachers are treated with solicitude because "tenure is a substantial, valuable, and bene......
-
Bauer v. Board of Educ., Unified School Dist. No. 452, Johnson, Kan., 60180
...process, the teacher is entitled to consideration for all positions for which he or she is certified. In Massey v. Argenbright, 211 Mont. 331, 683 P.2d 1332 (1984), the Supreme Court of Montana held that the appellant, a business education teacher also certified in physical education, shoul......
-
Harris v. Bailey
...offered him a job teaching in one of the areas that he was certified. In making this argument Harris relies upon Massey v. Argenbright (1984), 211 Mont. 331, 683 P.2d 1332 and Nye v. Dept. of Livestock (1982), 196 Mont. 222, 639 P.2d In Massey, a teacher with a fully satisfactory performanc......
-
Scobey School Dist. v. Radakovich
...This includes eliminating certain programs and activities, and thereby terminating or reassigning personnel." Massey v. Argenbright (1984), 211 Mont. 331, 336, 683 P.2d 1332, 1334, citing Sorlie v. School Dist. No. 2 (1983), 205 Mont. 22, 29, 667 P.2d 400, ¶ 19 In its revised findings of fa......