Perron v. Board of Educ. of Royal Oak School Dist.
Decision Date | 20 February 1987 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 85859 |
Citation | 155 Mich.App. 759,400 N.W.2d 709 |
Parties | , 37 Ed. Law Rep. 697 Margaret A. PERRON, Petitioner-Appellee, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ROYAL OAK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent-Appellant, and State Tenure Commission, Respondent. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Levin, Levin, Garvett & Dill by Harvey I. Wax and Glen M. Bis, Southfield, for petitioner-appellee.
Thrun, Maatsch & Nordberg, P.C. by Philip J. Goodman, Farmington Hills, for respondent-appellant.
Before CYNAR, P.J., and T.M. BURNS and KOBZA, * JJ.
The Board of Education of the Royal Oak School District (hereafter respondent) appeals from an order of the circuit court which reversed the State Tenure Commission's affirmance of the respondent's discharge of Margaret Perron (hereafter petitioner).
Respondent claims that the trial court erred (1) because the court was without power to reverse the State Tenure Commission's determination that petitioner could properly be discharged while on a leave of absence, (2) because the court made findings of fact independent of the State Tenure Commission, and (3) because the State Tenure Commission's decision was authorized by law, and supported by competent, material and substantial evidence on the whole record. 1 We are not persuaded by respondent's claims of error and we affirm.
The record shows that petitioner had taught twelve years prior to the 1978-1979 school year, the year the district brought charges that petitioner was unfit to teach.
At the conclusion of the previous, 1977-1978, school year, petitioner's principal met with petitioner to discuss her performance for that year. On August 31, 1978, at the commencement of the new school year, her principal prepared a document listing five job targets, areas of petitioner's performance in which she needed improvement based on the principal's perception during observation of petitioner the previous school year. These areas were (1) classroom atmosphere and control, (2) varied instructional techniques, (3) reading instruction, (4) mathematics instruction, and (5) social studies and science instruction. The targets were discussed thoroughly, and petitioner was informed by a memorandum that she would be evaluated on December 1, February 1, and April 15 of the 1978-1979 school year to determine her progress with regard to the targets. By memorandum placed in petitioner's personnel file the same date, the principal stated, "it is my expectation that you will be able to meet the agreed-upon targets and that you and your students will have a successful year."
Petitioner's principal and the principal of a third school, Mr. Wiggins, observed petitioner's classroom during November of 1978. Both found problem areas to be classroom atmosphere and control, and lack of efficient instructional techniques. Petitioner's principal concluded that petitioner had improved by January of 1979 only in the area of social studies and science instruction. Otherwise, there was little or no improvement in the other target areas.
In the fall of 1978, petitioner's performance was reviewed by the Teacher Fitness Advisory Committee, a creature of the teachers' association and school district's collective bargaining agreement, composed of representatives of both the association and the district, which gives advice as to teacher performance problems, particularly in the area of health concerns. During her presentation to the committee, petitioner maintained that her teaching difficulties were due to stress. The committee recommended that petitioner take health leave and obtain physical and psychiatric examinations. Petitioner eventually accepted the recommendation and requested leave, which was granted as of January 29, 1979.
On April 9, 1979, petitioner's principal filed tenure charges against petitioner and sought her discharge. Respondent found reasonable and just cause for discharge 2 and dismissed petitioner.
Petitioner appealed to the State Tenure Commission. Initially, petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that respondent's grant of petitioner's request for leave of absence estopped the district from filing teacher tenure charges against petitioner. An evidentiary hearing was ordered limited to the issue of whether the granting of petitioner's leave of absence estopped the respondent from discharging petitioner.
Following the hearing, the commission determined that the district had never held out that the leave of absence was disciplinary or was granted in lieu of filing teacher tenure charges against petitioner. Rather, the commission found that any detrimental reliance by petitioner was founded only in the statements of union representatives who advised petitioner to take the leave of absence based upon their subjective belief that her failure to do so would result in the filing of teacher tenure charges. Accordingly, her motion for summary judgment was denied.
Pursuant to M.C.L. Sec. 600.631; M.S.A. Sec. 27A.631 petitioner appealed that ruling to the Oakland Circuit Court, which affirmed, relying on the same testimony relied upon by the commission. Upon remand, testimony was taken on the issue of whether there was just and reasonable cause for petitioner's discharge. By a four to one vote, the Commission affirmed petitioner's discharge.
The State Tenure Commission majority was troubled by petitioner's claim that she was not afforded enough time to improve her performance since she was effectively given only until January 29, 1979, to improve her performance, as opposed to the entire school year as held out in the "job targets" document. However, the commission ultimately concluded:
The lone dissenter opined:
Petitioner appealed to the Ingham Circuit Court. Over respondent's contentions that the court was precluded by the law of the case doctrine from deciding whether the district could have filed tenure charges against petitioner during her leave of absence, the trial court held that once the district held out that petitioner would have the entire year to improve, it could not deny petitioner that improvement by discharging her during a leave of absence granted by the respondent before the period had expired. The trial court stated: "Application of the 'law of the case' doctrine is not appropriate in this case since [Oakland Circuit Court] Judge Kuhn's order, issued as it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Clute v. General Acc. Assur. Co. of Canada
...became the law of the case, cannot be disturbed or ignored by this Court on subsequent appeal. Perron v. Royal Oak School Dist. Bd. of Ed., 155 Mich.App. 759, 766, 400 N.W.2d 709 (1986), lv. den. 428 Mich. 891 (1987). Yet, this is exactly what the majority has done in holding that plaintiff......
-
Taylor v. Nutting
...also Barney v. Winona, & c., Railroad Co., 117 U.S. 228, 231, 6 S.Ct. 654, 655, 29 L.Ed. 858 (1886); Perron v. Royal Oak Bd. of Ed., 155 Mich.App. 759, 766, 400 N.W.2d 709, 713 (1986), or where the issue before the court was not "fully briefed and squarely decided" when the case was previou......
-
Poyzer v. Amenia Seed and Grain Co.
...the case for further proceedings, that decided legal question becomes the law of the case. Perron v. Royal Oak School District Board of Education, 155 Mich.App. 759, 400 N.W.2d 709 (1986). Where a summary judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for trial because issues of material fac......
-
Molengraff v. Holland Transmission Service, Inc.
...issue of entitlement to a credit, there was no law of the case established with regard to this issue. See Perron v. Royal Oak Bd. of Ed., 155 Mich.App. 759, 767, 400 N.W.2d 709 (1986). Moreover, we disagree with the WCAC that defendants are barred from presently claiming a credit, presumabl......