Miller-Phoenix v. Balt. City Bd. of Sch. Comm'rs

Decision Date29 May 2020
Docket NumberNo. 209, Sept. Term, 2019,209, Sept. Term, 2019
Citation228 A.3d 809,246 Md.App. 286
Parties Scott MILLER-PHOENIX v. BALTIMORE CITY BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

Argued by: Corlie McCormick, Jr. (McCormick Law Firm, LLC, on the brief), Annapolis, MD., for Appellant.

Argued by: Amanda L. Costley (Tamal A. Banton, Senior Counsel, Sheryl D. H. Atkins, on the brief), Baltimore, MD., for Appellee.

Panel: Fader, C.J., Leahy, Deborah S. Eyler, Senior Judge, Specially Assigned, JJ.

Fader, C.J. Scott Miller-Phoenix, the appellant, sued the Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners (the "Board"), the appellee, after the Board decided not to renew his one-year provisional contract of employment as a schoolteacher. Among other claims, Mr. Miller-Phoenix argued that the Board wrongfully terminated his employment in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim.1 The Circuit Court for Baltimore City concluded that a claim for wrongful termination cannot be premised on the non-renewal of a contract and, therefore, granted summary judgment in favor of the Board. We hold that a claim for wrongful termination may lie when an employer's motivation for deciding not to renew a renewable employment agreement contravenes a clear mandate of public policy. We will, therefore, vacate the judgment with respect to the wrongful termination claim and remand for further proceedings.

Mr. Miller-Phoenix also brought claims against the Board for: (1) firing him in retaliation for reporting illegal conduct in violation of whistleblower protection laws; and (2) breaching the parties’ employment contract. We will affirm the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Board on those claims.

BACKGROUND
Statutory and Regulatory Background

Public schoolteachers in Maryland are contractual employees, and the standard terms of their contracts are established by State regulations. See COMAR 13A.07.02.01(A) (2019). The State Board of Education has prescribed two forms of standard teacher's contracts: Regular Contracts and Provisional Contracts. See COMAR 13A.07.02.01(B)-(C). Regular Contracts "continue from year to year," after an initial probationary period, and may be terminated only for cause. Md. Code Ann., Educ. § 6-202(a)(1) (Repl. 2018; Supp. 2019); COMAR 13A.07.02.01(B). Provisional Contracts, by contrast, "automatically terminate and expire on the thirtieth day of June next succeeding the date of [their] signing." COMAR 13A.07.02.01(C).

Separately, Maryland requires that teachers be certified to ensure that "[p]rofessional public educational staff possess the minimum essential knowledge and skills needed to achieve outcomes for public education." COMAR 13A.12.01.01(A). Thus, Maryland public schoolteachers’ contracts require that "teachers ... maintain active professional certification as a condition of employment," McNamara v. Balt. City Bd. of Sch. Comm'rs , MSBE Op. No. 19-15, at 3 (2019), available at http://marylandpublicschools.org/stateboard/Documents/legalopinions/2019/032019/McNamara.Op.19-15.pdf (last visited Apr. 28, 2020), and the Regular Contract "automatically terminate[s] if the employee ceases to hold a professional certificate," COMAR 13A.07.02.01(B). Several types of professional certificates exist, most of which are "valid for 5 years," COMAR 13A.12.01.06, and must be renewed periodically, see COMAR 13A.12.01.11(A)-(B). Although the State Department of Education issues these certificates, local school systems "process[ ] [ ] requests for certificates for [their] employees, ... and decid[e] whether [their] employees have met certification requirements." McNamara , MSBE Op. No. 19-5, at 1. A teacher whose professional certificate expires may be given a conditional certificate, which "is valid for 2 years" and may be renewed only once, for an additional two-year term. COMAR 13A.12.01.11(A)(3), (A)(4), & (C)(2).

When a tenured teacher's regular certification expires without renewal, "the regular teacher's contract terminates automatically," and the school system "ha[s] the discretionary authority to decide whether to hire [that teacher] under a new contract." McNamara , MSBE Op. No. 19-15, at 4-5. If the teacher obtains a conditional certificate, then she or he may be reemployed under a Provisional Contract. Jones v. Balt. City Bd. of Sch. Comm'rs , MSBE Op. No. 15-05, at 2 n.2 (2015) http://archives.marylandpublicschools.org/MSDE/stateboard/legalopinions/2010/docs/Jones.Opin.No.15-05.pdf (last visited Apr. 28, 2020) (citing COMAR 13A.07.02.01(C) ).

Background Facts

Mr. Miller-Phoenix was employed by the Board as a teacher from 1992 to 2017, except for one five-year hiatus. Throughout that period, he alleges, he "observed ... various and sundry violations of policies, violations of laws, and abuse of authority." Mr. Miller-Phoenix asserts that he "timely reported these issues to his union, [the Board], news reporters, and [ ] elected officials," and that in response, the Board "attempted to silence [him] and others who complained of poor school conditions by taking unfair and illegal reprisals."

Mr. Miller-Phoenix began the 2016-2017 school year at Waverly Elementary/ Middle School. On September 14, 2016, he went on leave under the Family & Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 - 2654 (2019), due to post-traumatic stress disorder

he claimed was caused by work experiences during his prior teaching assignments.

On October 14, 2016, Zakia McAllister, the Certification Manager for the Board, informed Mr. Miller-Phoenix in writing that his teaching certification from the State Department of Education had expired because he had failed to submit "timely and sufficient documentation required for renewal." As a result, the letter continued, Mr. Miller-Phoenix's "employment contract with City Schools terminated and, if applicable, [his] tenure expired." The letter stated that the Department had issued Mr. Miller-Phoenix a conditional certificate, gave him instructions for seeking reinstatement of his full teaching certification, and informed him that he needed to sign a Provisional Contract by October 28, 2016 to maintain his employment. Although Mr. Miller-Phoenix later asserted that he had, in fact, completed the certification requirements before the applicable deadline, he did not challenge the Board's decision at the time. Instead, on October 18, 2016, he signed a Provisional Contract with a stated term of July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017.

The day after signing his Provisional Contract, Mr. Miller-Phoenix sent an email to his principal at Waverly in which he expressed an intent to submit a workers’ compensation claim for post-traumatic stress disorder

. Although the record does not contain a copy of the workers’ compensation claim, Mr. Miller-Phoenix alleged in his complaint, and the Department conceded in its answer, that he filed such a claim on December 23, 2016.

In an email dated April 28, 2017, the Board informed Mr. Miller-Phoenix that his Provisional Contract would not be renewed and that, as a result, his "employment with City Schools will cease on June 30, 2017." Although the email states that "[i]t is our understanding that you and your principal have met to discuss this matter and the rationale that led to this decision," Mr. Miller-Phoenix alleges that he did not receive notice of the decision until months later, when his union representative forwarded the email to him.2 The email further states that the Board "expects you to fulfill all of the terms of your contract through June 30, 2017, including continuing to report to your assigned teaching location each day and fulfilling all of your teaching obligations." Mr. Miller-Phoenix did not file a grievance regarding the non-renewal of his Provisional Contract.

Procedural History

On December 18, 2017, Mr. Miller-Phoenix filed suit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. In Counts I and II of his complaint, Mr. Miller-Phoenix alleged that the Board had discharged him in retaliation for his complaints about the Board's misconduct, in violation of the Maryland Public School Employee Whistleblower Protection Act, Md. Code Ann., Educ. §§ 6-901 – 6-906 (2017) (Count I, the "State Whistleblower Claim"), and Baltimore City's Whistleblower Rights and Responsibilities Ordinance, Balt. City Code art. I, §§ 8-1–8-13 (2019) (Count II, the "City Whistleblower Claim"). In Count III, he brought a claim for common law wrongful termination premised on his assertion that the Board had discharged him in retaliation for filing his workers’ compensation claim. In Count IV, he alleged breach of contract.

After a period of discovery, the Board moved for summary judgment on all four counts. At the conclusion of a hearing on the motion, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the Board with respect to (1) the City Whistleblower Claim, on the ground that Mr. Miller-Phoenix was not a Baltimore City employee,3 and (2) the State Whistleblower Claim and breach of contract claim, on the ground that Mr. Miller-Phoenix had failed to exhaust his administrative and contractual remedies. The court reserved ruling on the wrongful termination claim and requested further briefing from the parties as to whether a contractual employee could state a claim for wrongful termination based on non-renewal of the contract at the end of its term.

After receiving the parties’ supplemental briefs, the circuit court issued a written order granting summary judgment in favor of the Board on all counts. With respect to wrongful termination, the court held that the tort did not apply to the non-renewal of an employment contract. Thus, the court held, the Board "did not discharge [Mr. Miller-Phoenix]; rather, it had the right in the agreement to not renew his employment contract when it expired ... and it chose not to renew." Mr. Miller-Phoenix timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

"The question of whether a trial court's grant of summary judgment was proper is a question of law subject to de novo review on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Jordan v. Elyassi's Greenbelt Oral & Facial Surgery, P.C.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • December 29, 2022
    ...797 (2020) (refusing to reach multiple arguments that were not decided by the circuit court); Miller-Phoenix v. Baltimore City Bd. of Sch. Comm'rs , 246 Md. App. 286, 305 n.9, 228 A.3d 809 (2020) (refusing to affirm a grant of summary judgment on an alternative ground because "[t]he Board d......
  • Wheeling v. Selene Fin. LP
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • May 29, 2020
  • Rovin v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • July 31, 2023
    ... ... to consider that ground. See Miller-Phoenix v. Baltimore ... City Bd. of Sch. Comm'rs , 246 ... Balt. L. Rev. 231 (2009) ... [ 42 ] The Heien opinion ... ...
  • Jordan v. Elyassi's Greenbelt Oral & Facial Surgery, P.C.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • December 29, 2022
    ...(refusing to reach multiple arguments that were not decided by the circuit court); Miller-Phoenix v. Baltimore City Bd. of Sch. Comm'rs, 246 Md.App. 286, 305 n.9 (2020) (refusing to affirm a grant of summary judgment on an alternative ground because "[t]he Board did not seek summary judgmen......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT