McSherry v. City of St. Paul
| Decision Date | 04 February 1938 |
| Docket Number | 31,499 |
| Citation | 277 N.W. 541,202 Minn. 102 |
| Parties | ALICE McSHERRY v. CITY OF ST. PAUL |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county under the teachers' tenure act to recover salary alleged to be due plaintiff as a teacher in defendant's public schools. There were findings for plaintiff, Richard D. O'Brien Judge. Defendant appealed from an order denying its motion for a new trial. Affirmed.
School and school district -- teachers' tenure act -- construction -- employment of substitute teacher -- casual or regular employment.
1. What is casual employment as distinguished from that which is regular is to be determined with principal reference to the scope and purpose of the hiring rather than with sole regard to the duration and regularity of service. Where there is a continuing engagement to serve the employer in his business at such times as the particular and essential service may be needed, the employment is not casual but regular.
Upon facts here appearing and stated in opinion, held that plaintiff's employment was regular, not casual.
School and school district -- teachers' tenure act -- nature and purpose.
2. The teachers' tenure act is based upon the public policy of protecting the educational interests of the state, not upon a policy of granting special privileges to teachers as a class or as individuals. The act should not be strictly construed as against a teacher but should be construed liberally to effect the general purpose of the act, since it is legislation in which the public at large is interested.
Statute -- construction -- legislative intent.
3. It is the duty of the court so to construe statutory enactments as to give effect to the obvious legislative intent.
John W McConneloug and Hilary J. Flynn, for appellant.
Oscar Hallam and Herbert E. Wolner, for respondent.
Plaintiff, claiming right of tenure under the teachers' tenure law (L. 1927, c. 36, 1 Mason Minn. St. 1927, §§ 2935-1 to 2935-14), brought this action to recover a claimed balance due her for salary as a teacher in the St. Paul public schools. Tried to the court, findings were made in her favor. Defendant appeals from an order denying its alternative motion for amended findings or a new trial.
Plaintiff, a graduate of the advanced course of Mankato Teachers College, in 1915 received a life certificate from that institution, having theretofore successfully completed two years of teaching. Although she later taught many years in the St. Paul schools prior to 1930, her claim of tenure is based on employment from and after September, 1930. At that time she was engaged as a "supply substitute" to teach sixth grade. As such she taught continuously, with the exception of a week in November, 1930, during which time she could not teach because of changes being made in the schoolroom, up to January 29, 1933, at which time she was summarily discharged. Her service period thus constituted a span of two and one-half school years. Thereafter, as a "casual substitute," she taught somewhat intermittently but nevertheless with substantial continuity, at various schools in St. Paul, until June, 1935. From January 29, 1933, to June of that year, she lost only 18 days of actual work. In the school years 1933-1934 and 1934-1935, she lost more of her teaching time, but her employment was substantial and reasonably continuous, considering that she was classified as a "casual substitute." She reported for work daily, and no teaching time was lost because of inefficiency or lack of willingness on her part to serve. The record does not disclose that she at any time was under a periodic contract, written or oral. The closest approach thereto was in August, 1932, when she received a letter assigning her to "supply substitute" work for the "coming term."
Defendant has followed the practice of classifying its teachers into three groups: (1) Regulars, (2) Supply Substitutes, and (3) Casual Substitutes. "Regulars" are given single assingments for definite periods; "supply substitutes" are generally employed to take over the work of regular teachers over somewhat long intervals, usually a semester or more; and "casual substitutes" are, as that label indicates, substitutes subject to call for service at any time and for any school in the city. They usually work short periods, a few days to several weeks, depending upon the particular circumstances and requirements presented from time to time.
1 Mason Minn. St. 1927, § 2935-1, defines "teacher" to mean "every person regularly employed, as a principal, or to give instructions in a classroom, or to superintend or supervise classroom instruction, or as a placement teacher and visiting teacher." Other pertinent sections read as follows:
The record leaves no doubt that plaintiff was in fact a "teacher" within the meaning of the act and was so engaged and so recognized by defendant. The question then simmers down to whether she was employed by defendant a sufficient length of time to bring her within the tenure provided by the act. Before that question is taken up let us briefly look back into the past to see if there is anything therein to help us in finding a solution to the problem. In other words, what is the background of our tenure act? What were the reasons for its enactment? What was it intended to accomplish?
The education of our youth to fit them for the duties and responsibilities of citizenship in our state and nation was a matter of vital concern to our pioneers. This seems clear as we find that immediately upon statehood constitutional provision was made to accomplish that end. By art. 8, §§ 1 to 7, inclusive thereof, provision was made for the establishment and maintenance of public education as a state system under its direction and control. Thus § 1 provides: "The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislature to establish a general and uniform system of public schools." Subsequent sections provide for the sale and disposition of lands theretofore or thereafter acquired by the state from the United States; the use of the proceeds to be derived from such sales; the creation of a perpetual school fund to remain forever inviolate with income alone to be used; for the enactment of legislation to support "by taxation or otherwise, as, with the income arising from the school fund, will secure a thorough and efficient system of public schools in each township in the state."
Teachers' tenure, like civil service and other similar movements, dates back now over a period of many years. The abuses existing by reason of the "spoils system" which came into prominence during Jackson's administration, later followed by national and other administrations, led to much deserved criticism. That is why on January 16, 1883 ("An act to regulate and improve the civil service of the United States," 22 St. 403) the first civil service act was passed. In 1885 the National Education Association brought forth the question of tenure of school officials. A committee of that association studied the matter and later submitted a report. Generally speaking, the tenure so sought was interpreted to mean, in substance, the application of the principles of civil service to the teaching profession. It was thought that for the good of the schools and the general public the profession should be made independent of personal or political influence and made free from the malignant power of spoils and patronage. In 1886 the state of Massachusetts enacted a law "relating to the tenure of office of teachers." Thereunder school districts were permitted to enter into contracts with teachers for a longer period than one year. In 1889 the committee on rules of the Boston School Committee suggested a tenure law...
To continue reading
Request your trial