Naus v. Joint School Dist. No. 1 of City of Sheboygan Falls
| Decision Date | 15 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--186,75--186 |
| Citation | 76 Wis.2d 104,250 N.W.2d 725 |
| Parties | Leone NAUS, Respondent, v. JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 OF the CITY OF SHEBOYGAN FALLS et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Hopp, Hodson & Powell, Sheboygan, on brief, and Alexander Hopp, Sheboygan, argued, for appellants.
James L. Greenwald, Gen. Counsel, Wisconsin Education Association Council, Madison, and William K. Sonnenburg and Rabinovitz & Sonnenburg, Sheboygan, on brief, and Priscilla Ruth MacDougall, Madison, Wisconsin Education Association Council, argued, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order of the county court determining it had jurisdiction to hold a hearing to review the school district's decision through its school board, not to renew the employment contract of Mrs. Leone Naus, a teacher. 1 The court found jurisdiction under the rationale of this court's decision in Hortonville Education Assn. v. Hortonville Joint School District No. 1, 66 Wis.2d 469, 225 N.W.2d 658 (1975). The order appealed from, and the initial briefs by the parties to this court, preceded the June 17, 1976 reversal of the Wisconsin decision by the United States Supreme Court, 426 U.S. 482, 96 S.Ct. 2308, 49 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976). We conclude the lower court erred in finding jurisdiction and therefore reverse.
Based on the limited record before this court, the facts are as follows. Mrs. Naus has been a teacher for sixteen years with the last fourteen years at the Sheboygan Falls High School. 2 She resides in the city of Sheboygan Falls. She holds Bachelor's and Master's degrees in education and has earned credits toward a doctorate. At the high school she taught journalism and English, directed forensics and handled publicity for the school system.
Under Wisconsin statutes 3 and a collective bargaining agreement with the teachers union entitled, 'Certificate of Agreement, 1973--1975,' Mrs. Naus' contract was renewable on or before March 15, 1975. On February 10, 1975, Mrs. Naus received a 'preliminary notice of considering non-renewal of contract' in letter form, signed by the president of the board of education and the superintendent of schools.
The letter set out five reasons why the board was considering non-renewal of her contract for the 1975--1976 school year: (1) failure to maintain a classroom atmosphere conducive to good learning; (2) inability to accept tasks equal to other teachers' assignments without problems resulting; (3) inability to follow simple rules and regulations that are necessary for the operation of an orderly and efficient school; (4) deteriorating teaching evaluations of classroom performance; (5) classroom use of television without lesson plan substantiation. Examples were cited illustrating three of the reasons given.
The letter then set out procedural remedies. First, school board president Joseph E. Richardson, Jr. and superintendent of schools John Brown were directed by the school board to orally advise Mrs. Naus of the particulars of the district's dissatisfaction.
Second, she was advised that pursuant to sec. 118.22(3), 3.5 Stats. and Article XXI 3.6 of the labor contract for 1973--1975 she could request a private conference with the school board to discuss the matter.
Third, Mrs. Naus was advised she was entitled to a hearing before the board. She was told she could retain an attorney, present evidence and call and cross-examine witnesses. It was further stated the board would consider postponing the hearing date if she needed further time, but a decision was to be reached prior to March 15, 1975.
The letter further states,
Mrs. Naus wrote to school board president Richardson on February 13, 1975 stating she desired neither a private conference nor a hearing before the board. Furthermore, she felt the school board was in an adversary position and she did desire
Mrs. Naus also stated she had retained private counsel and requested the board delay giving her a notice of non-renewal until after the matter was heard by the court.
On February 24, 1975, counsel for the school district in effect withdrew the offer to settle the dispute in court, writing to Mrs. Naus' counsel that in his opinion the Hortonville decision contemplated a first adjudication outside of court.
On February 25, the school district was served with a petition by Mrs. Naus addressed to the judge of county court, Branch II for Sheboygan county. In it Mrs. Naus denied the allegations of the school board concerning her performance and demanded a closed hearing before the court, citing the U.S. and Wisconsin constitutions and this court's Hortonville decision as authority. The petition also alleged Mrs. Naus 'was informed by the administration that some of the complaints were supposed to have emanated from some members of the Board of Education . . ..'
By letter dated March 10, 1975 the school district notified Mrs. Naus that in accordance with sec. 118.22, Stats., the board of education held a special meeting on March 6, 1975 at which time it voted not to renew her contract for the 1975--76 school year.
The school district then filed with the county court a 'General Demurrer and Motion to Dismiss.' As grounds for the demurrer the school district argued (1) the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter and, (2) the petition fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The school district argued alternatively that if the matter is determined not to be an 'action' but rather a 'special proceeding,' then a motion to dismiss would lie because the hearing had no basis in law. In support of this motion the district argued (1) the Hortonville remedy did not apply to non-renewal situations, (2) the petition did not establish due process requirements and (3) the petition did not establish the adversary position of the Board.
Acknowledging that the consent of the parties did not of itself confer jurisdiction, the lower court determined it had jurisdiction to hold a de novo hearing in a written decision dated April 25, 1975. The decision was confined to the jurisdictional question with other motions taken under advisement. 4
The trial court treated the issue as on a motion to dismiss and characterized 'this remedy' as a 'special proceeding' and not an 'action.' 5 The court said it was dealing with a 'newly created remedy' and quoted Hortonville Education Association, supra:
66 Wis.2d 498, 225 N.W.2d 673.
In Hortonville, supra, this court decided 'the principle of fair play' 6 dictated that where a school board was involved in a labor dispute with over 80 of its striking teachers an impartial decision maker, not the board, should determine whether the conduct of the striking teachers merited their discharge. The court directed that where an employed teacher is discharged or otherwise disciplined and due process is required, and the school board is in an adversary position, the teacher could, upon petition, obtain a de novo determination of all issues in any court of record in the county where the school district or a part of it is located. 7
Subsequently, the United States Supreme Court ruled that under the United States Constitution the school board could make the firing decision.
Upon remand, the Hortonville teachers moved this court to reaffirm its decision under Wisconsin law. By order dated August 23, 1976, the case was returned to the trial court for resolution of issues which were not the subject of the prior appeal. In addition this court retained jurisdiction to rule on the teachers' motion to reaffirm.
In the instant case, the lower court ruled Mrs. Naus was entitled to a de novo hearing of the sort mandated by this court in its Hortonville decision. In so finding, it disregarded the direction in our decision that:
'The school board should make the initial determination as to the hiring or firing of one or many teachers . . . As much control as possible should be left with the school board to set policy and manage the school.' 66 Wis.2d at 497, 498, 225 N.W.2d at 673.
Thus, even the original Hortonville decision put the primary responsibility for hiring and firing with the school board.
In Hortonville this court found a potential for bias or partiality on the part of the school board arising on the context of the acrimonious labor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Strykowski v. Wilkie
... ... Argued Sept. 1, 1977 ... Decided Jan. 3, 1978 ... Page 437 ... to $500,000 per incident if the fund falls" below certain levels. Sec. 655.27(6) ... \xC2" ... See: San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez 411 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 1278, ... Madison Metropolitan Sewerage Dist. v. Committee, 260 Wis. 229, 255, 256, 50 N.W.2d ... Cf. Naus v. Jt. S. D. No. 1 Sheboygan Falls, 76 Wis.2d ... ...
-
Morris v. Metriyakool
... ... § 27A.5040 et seq., took effect on September 1, 1975. The statute provides for arbitration as ... existed between traffic fine revenues and city finances in general. In so ruling, the Supreme ... Cf. Naus v. Jt. S.D. No. 1 Sheboygan Falls, 76 Wis.2d 104, ... ...
-
Brown v. Siang
... ... accelerated judgment pursuant to GCR 1963, 116.1(2) and 769.1. The motion alleged, and was ... Kaleva-Norman-Dickson School District No. 6, Counties of Manistee, Lake & ... Cf. Naus v. Jt. S. D. No. 1 Sheboygan Falls, 76 Wis.2d ... CONTACT: American Arbitration Association, City National Bank Building, No. 1035, Detroit, ... 9 The Act orders the Legislature to form a joint committee for the purpose of reviewing the ... ...
-
Klosterman v. Sch. Dist. of Omro
... ... SCHOOL DISTRICT OF OMRO, Defendant-Respondent. Appeal ... Submitted on Briefs: December 1, 2021 Opinion Filed: September 28, 2022 On behalf ... 26 In Hortonville Joint School District No. 1 v. Hortonville Education ... board to set policy and manage the school." Naus v. Joint Sch. Dist. No. 1 of Sheboygan Falls , ... " Hopper v. City of Madison , 79 Wis. 2d 120, 130, 256 N.W.2d 139 ... ...