Morrison v. BD. OF EDUC., WEATHERFORD, 96,871.

• Decision Date: 18 January 2002
• Docket Number: No. 96,871.,96,871.
• Citation: 47 P.3d 888,2002 OK CIV APP 52
• Parties: Geoffrey MORRISON, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WEATHERFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Appellee, and Grant Frankenberg, Defendant.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

47 P.3d 888

2002 OK CIV APP 52

Geoffrey MORRISON, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WEATHERFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Appellee, and Grant Frankenberg, Defendant.

No. 96,871.

Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1.

January 18, 2002.

Certiorari Denied April 2, 2002.

Phil W. Gordon, Hays & Gordon, Chickasha, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant.

Kenneth D. Upton, Jr., Noland, Upton & Wenzel, P.C., Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendant/Appellee Board of Education of Weatherford Public Schools.

Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1.

KENNETH L. BUETTNER, Judge:

¶ 1 Geoffrey Morrison was a probationary teacher in the Weatherford, Oklahoma public school system. He was also a soccer coach for the school. After receiving notice of intent not to renew his contract, Morrison asked for, and was granted, a due process hearing before the Board. After the hearing, the Board of Education decided not to renew Morrison's contract. He sued the Board and the Superintendent for tortious breach of contract. He claimed that the Board's failure to follow the procedure as found in the Teacher Due Process Act of 1990 resulted in his re-employment by operation of law. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Board. We reverse and remand.

¶ 2 The material facts in this case are undisputed. On April 10, 2000, Superintendent Frankenberg instructed Morrison's principal to hand deliver a letter to Morrison. The letter contained information that the Superintendent intended to recommend to the Board that Morrison's contract not be renewed. The letter informed Morrison of the reasons:

First, with premeditation and intent, you violated the rules of the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association. Additionally, you articulated your intent to cheat to parents and to student-athletes. When you explained your actions to me you said, "Everyone is doing it," and that you were "bending the rules as far as possible."

Second, when initially confronted by your building principal, Jim Ritz, regarding O.S.S.A. allegations of impropriety, you denied being involved with the soccer student-athletes in violation of the rules. Only after the third meeting with Mr. Ritz, and, after a fellow coach who was present at the time "jogged your memory," did you concede that the O.S.S.A. allegations were, in fact, true.

¶ 3 A probationary teacher may be dismissed or not re-employed for cause, subject to the provisions of the Teacher Due Process Act of 1990. 70 O.S. Supp.1998 § 6-101.22(B). Although probationary teachers are afforded pretermination hearings before the Board, if the Board decides to terminate the probationary teacher's contract, unlike a career teacher, the probationary teacher is not entitled to a de novo trial in the district court. ¶ 4 The gravamen¹ of this case concerns the interpretation of 70 O.S. Supp.1993 § 6-101(E) which states, in part:

If, prior to April 10, a board of education has not entered into a written contract with a regularly employed teacher or notified the teacher in writing by registered or certified mail that a recommendation has been made not to reemploy the

...