O'Melia v. Sweetwater County School Dist. No. 1, s. 4046

• Decision Date: 25 May 1972
• Docket Number: 4047,Nos. 4046,s. 4046
• Citation: 497 P.2d 540
• Parties: Joseph O'MELIA, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. SWEETWATER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 et al., Appellees (Defendants below). Joseph E. ROUSH, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. SWEETWATER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 et al., Appellees (Defendants below).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 540

497 P.2d 540

Joseph O'MELIA, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. SWEETWATER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 et al., Appellees (Defendants below).

Joseph E. ROUSH, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. SWEETWATER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 et al., Appellees (Defendants below).

Nos. 4046, 4047.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

May 25, 1972.

Rehearings Denied June 28, 1972.

Graves & Smyth and Charles E. Graves, Cheyenne, for appellants.

Joseph H. Galicich, of Galicich & Hamm, Rock Springs, for appellees.

Before McINTYRE, C. J., and PARKER, McEWAN, and GUTHRIE, JJ.

Mr. Justice PARKER delivered the opinion of the court.

On March 5, 1971, Joseph E.Roush, a continuing contract teacher, and Joseph O'Melia, an initial contract teacher, ¹ at Wamsutter, Wyoming, filed separate actions, each seeking a declaratory judgment in the district court which would provide an opportunity to continue their employment as teachers subsequent to the time they had been advised by the authorities that teachers of the district must reside in Wamsutter five days a week, that this policy was a condition of the teaching contract, and that the district was aware of the two teachers commuting to Rawlins (forty miles distant) each day and not living in Wamsutter. ² Defendants denied and counterclaimed for an alleged overpayment in salaries. The cases were consolidated for trial and by stipulation the findings and decision of the district court were to be considered as those of the school board so that a hearing before the board as to Roush would be unnecessary. The court found generally for the defendants and against plaintiffs, who have now presented their consolidated appeals. ³

The skeletal circumstances occasioning the controversy were that, although the teachers initially lived in Wamsutter, after their marriages they refused to stay in that community during the five weekdays, despite the school authorities' insistence that they were obligated to do so under the provisions of a rule which read: 'New teachers being hired by the district will be expected to reside in the community at least five days a week and to take part in school activities on weekends.' Both teachers and their wives maintained residences in Rawlins and admittedly plaintiffs by their pleadings spent weekends there as well as other times when their teaching duties did not require their presence in Wamsutter, the evidence showing that commencing in the fall of 1970 they resided in Rawlins and commuted to their work.

The contention of the defendants was that the rule applied to all the teachers employed after January 18, 1966, while the plaintiffs indicated that had not been their understanding when they commenced their employment and that in any event such a requirement was unreasonable and a violation of their constitutional rights. The board had provided teacherages at a minimal rental, for which the plaintiffs paid, and which they occupied initially full time but after their marriages to women who resided in Rawlins only on occasions when they stayed overnight at Wamsutter.

The trial court's findings of fact stated, inter alia: that the question for determination was the interpretation of the school policy which read, 'New teachers being hired by the district will be expected to reside in the community at least five days a week and take part in school activities on weekends'; that when such policy had been adopted the district had not had adequate housing for its teachers but the same was in the process of construction; that the district had two of its teachers commuting from Rawlins and the policy was not intended to apply to those two but was intended to apply to teachers newly employed after the adoption of the policy, which was by reference made a part of each plaintiff's contract; that the policy was a valid and reasonable contractual condition of employment; that there was no evidence of coercion on the part of the school board to compel plaintiffs to enter their contracts; that the plaintiffs had not been unlawfully or improperly denied any constitutional rights or privileges; and that the school policy was not capricious or arbitrary.

The conclusions of law provided, inter alia, the fact that plaintiffs paid rent for housing at Wamsutter did not make them residents of the community within the meaning of the school policy and their physical presence there was what was intended by the policy; the term 'New teachers being hired by the district' meant teacher employed after the adoption of the policy; the policy was a valid and reasonable contractual condition of employment, did not violate any constitutional right or privilege of either plaintiff, and was not arbitrarily or capriciously applied nor was it applied in a way which violated...