Rutherford Educ. Ass'n v. Board of Educ. of Borough of Rutherford, Bergen County
| Decision Date | 11 April 1985 |
| Citation | 99 N.J. 8,489 A.2d 1148 |
| Parties | , 24 Ed. Law Rep. 278 RUTHERFORD EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Carol A. Froehlich, David Skidmore and Joanne Ross, Appellants, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD, BERGEN COUNTY, Respondent. Linda McGOVERN, Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the BOROUGH OF RIVERDALE, MORRIS COUNTY, Respondent. Thea LEVINSKY, Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the PASCACK VALLEY REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, BERGEN COUNTY, Respondent. Laurie CURRIER, Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the TOWNSHIP OF WEEHAWKEN, HUDSON COUNTY, Respondent. FAIR LAWN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Kay Bergquist, Eleanor Jasnow, Flora Frank, Anne Joyce Schleier, Reet Hayden, Phyllis Stolar, Ruth E. Rogler, Eileen Zelch, Nessia Gormanns, Vivian C. Felice, Patricia S. Smotzer, Elaine Pavon, Nancy Dixon, Katherine Solomon, Myra Spira, Clare Salesky, Muriel Hirsch, Virginia E. Whitman, Arlene Albalah, Eileen Spielman, Fyrne Zagoria, Ellen Levy, Marcia Salkowitz, Janet Forer, Natalie Weissman, Sybil B. Pine and Barbara Rudnick, Appellants, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the BOROUGH OF FAIR LAWN, BERGEN COUNTY, Respondent. NEW MILFORD EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Anita Scult, Linda Macchio, Janet Flieger, Elaine Gline and Deborah Bogyo, Respondents, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the BOROUGH OF NEW MILFORD, Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
H. Ronald Levine, Passaic, for respondent Bd. of Educ. of the Borough of Rutherford, etc.
Sidney A. Sayovitz, Roseland, for respondent Bd. of Educ. of the Borough of Riverdale, etc. (Greenwood & Sayovitz, Roseland, attorneys).
Brian N. Flynn, Jersey City, for respondent Bd. of Educ. of the Tp. of Weehawken, etc. (Krieger, Ferrara, Flynn & Catalina, Jersey City, attorneys).
Sheldon H. Pincus, Clifton, for respondents New Milford Educ. Ass'n, et al. (Bucceri & Pincus, Clifton, attorneys; Gregory T. Syrek, Clifton, of counsel and on brief).
Regina A. Murray, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent State Bd. of Educ. (Irwin I. Kimmelman, Atty. Gen., attorney).
Susan Galante, Associate Counsel, Trenton, submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae New Jersey School Boards Ass'n in A-45 Rutherford Educ. Ass'n v. Bd. of Educ. of the Borough of Rutherford (Paula A. Mullaly, Gen. Counsel, Trenton, attorney).
Gregory T. Syrek, Clifton, for appellants Rutherford Educ. Ass'n, et al. (Bucceri & Pincus, Clifton, attorneys).
Gerald L. Dorf, Rahway, for appellant Bd. of Educ. of the Borough of New Milford (Gerald L. Dorf, Rahway, attorney, Russell Weiss, Jr., Trenton, on briefs).
Reginald F. Hopkinson, Hawthorne, for respondent Bd. of Educ. of the Borough of Fair Lawn, etc. (Jeffer, Hartman, Hopkinson, Vogel, Coomber & Peiffer, Hawthorne, attorneys).
Louis C. Rosen, Newark, for respondent Bd. of Educ. of the Pascack Valley Regional High School Dist., etc. (Aron & Salsberg, Nutley, attorneys, Rodney T. Hara, Nutley, on brief).
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
The issue here is whether Spiewak v. Rutherford Board of Educ., 90 N.J. 63, 447 A.2d 140 (1982), is to be applied retroactively to Title 1, supplemental and compensatory education teachers (Title 1 teachers), who filed petitions with the Commissioner of Education prior to June 23, 1982, the date of our decision in Spiewak. In Spiewak, we held that a Title 1 teacher is eligible for tenure unless he or she comes within the explicit exceptions of N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5 or related statutes such as N.J.S.A. 18A:16-1.1. Id. at 74, 447 A.2d 140. We also held that "the legal rule established by these cases shall be applied prospectively to all persons not before the Court * * *." Id. at 83, 447 A.2d 140. Further, we decided that teachers not before the Court would not be entitled to any back pay award, and would not be entitled to be rehired if they had been terminated before the date of the decision. Id. at 83 n. 2, 447 A.2d 140.
Each of the teachers in this appeal was employed by a board of education as a Title 1 teacher and each filed a petition with the Commissioner of Education, prior to the date of our Spiewak decision, seeking a declaration of tenure eligibility, reinstatement, additional salary, and/or additional benefits. Accordingly, this appeal requires us to determine whether the right to tenure and the emoluments of tenure afforded to the plaintiffs in Spiewak should be similarly afforded to these teachers. Today, we hold that a Title 1 teacher still employed by a school district at the time of this Court's decision in Spiewak, who had instituted an action based on his or her right to tenure and the benefits attached thereto prior to our Spiewak decision, is entitled to the same retroactive application of tenure and the emoluments of tenure, as the plaintiffs in Spiewak, subject to the limitations later set forth in this opinion.
In this connection, it is essential to emphasize what we decided in Spiewak. In that case, we held that Title 1 teachers were "teaching staff members" within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 18A:1-1, and therefore "[a]s to the teachers involved in this litigation, they are all entitled not only to tenure but also to retroactive payment of any benefits they would have received if they had been accorded tenure properly." 90 N.J. at 83, 447 A.2d 140. There, as here, we were concerned with the class of teachers eligible for tenure status.
We did not decide in Spiewak, nor do we decide today, what are the emoluments of tenure. As stated in Spiewak:
We do not decide what, if any, additional benefits the teachers in these cases are entitled to, either retroactively or prospectively. This is primarily a matter of contract and the relevant collective bargaining agreements are not part of the record. Further, the parties for the most part did not brief this question and the Appellate Division did not address it. We therefore remand to the Commissioner of Education to make that determination in accord with the principles laid down in this opinion. [ Id. at 84 n. 3, 447 A.2d 140.]
Accordingly, as in Spiewak, we remand to the Commissioner of Education to determine when tenure accrued for each teacher in this case, what retroactive benefits each teacher is entitled to receive, and the calculations of such benefits, in accordance with the principles set forth in this opinion. 1
On appeal to the Appellate Division, Rutherford Education Association et als. v. Rutherford Board of Education, Bergen County, Linda McGovern v. Riverdale Board of Education, Thea Levinsky v. Pascack Valley Regional High School District Board of Education, Laurie Currier v. Weehawken Township Board of Education, Hudson County, and Fair Lawn Education Association et als. v. Fair Lawn Board of Education, Bergen County, were argued and decided together.
This case (Rutherford) was instituted on April 14, 1980 by the filing of a verified complaint by plaintiffs, Rutherford Education Association, Carol A. Froehlich, David Skidmore, and Joanne Ross, against the Rutherford Board of Education (Board). The three individuals were employed by the respondent, Rutherford Board of Education, as tenure-eligible Title 1 and State Compensatory Education (S.C.E.) teachers. The complaint alleged that Froehlich, Skidmore, and Ross, serving as S.C.E. and Title 1 teachers, were qualified for tenure within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5, and thus entitled to the corresponding salary and benefits of other teaching staff members. Carol Froehlich has been employed by the Board since 1977, David Skidmore since 1975. Joanne Ross' employment was terminated after the 1979-80 school year due to a lack of funding.
The State Board of Education concluded that Ross' position was abolished in good faith for economic reasons and therefore held that Ross was not entitled to tenure or reinstatement. The State Board also held that Froehlich and Skidmore were tenure eligible, but calculated sick leave benefits for them from June 23, 1982 (the date of this Court's decision in Spiewak ). The Board denied all other compensatory claims, retroactive and prospective.
The Appellate Division affirmed the State Board's holding that Ross was not entitled to reinstatement but reversed the State Board's conclusion that Froehlich and Skidmore were not entitled to receive the same salary and benefits as other teachers in the school district. It held that they were entitled to receive proper salary guide placement and benefits on a par with other teaching staff members. However, the Appellate Division denied the teachers' request for retroactive relief holding that all relief commenced on June 23, 1982, and remanded the case to the Commissioner of Education for a determination of the amount of back salary due Froehlich and Skidmore.
This case (McGovern) was initiated on March 16, 1978 by the filing of a verified petition. Linda McGovern claimed tenured status as a teaching staff member on the basis of her service as a Title 1 supplementary teacher from September 1974 through December 1977, and as a regular classroom teacher from January 1, 1978 through June 30, 1978. Following the 1977-78 school year, McGovern's employment was terminated due to a reduction in force caused by declining enrollment. The State Board of Education held that in accordance with the Spiewak decision, McGovern's prior termination by the Board barred her claims of tenure and compensation. On appeal to the Appellate Division, McGovern sought reinstatement, and retroactive and prospective salary and benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the State Board, finding it in accord with Spiewak.
This case (Levinsky) was initiated by the filing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v. Air Brook Limousine, Inc.
...threshold inquiry in any retroactivity decision is whether a new rule of law has actually been announced." Rutherford Educ. Ass'n v. Bd. of Educ., 99 N.J. 8, 21, 489 A.2d 1148 (1985). Consequently, "retroactivity can Even if this Court had concluded that its Order amounts to a new rule of l......
-
Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School Dist. v. Edgewood Independent School Dist.
...A.2d 360, 362 (1990) (declined to adopt Chevron test outright but noted its usefulness and applied it); Rutherford Educ. Ass'n v. Board of Educ., 99 N.J. 8, 489 A.2d 1148, 1155-56 (1985) (test contained "virtually the same factors" as the Chevron test); Gurnee v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., ......
-
New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Com'n v. Citizens to Make Mayor-Council Government Work
...L.Ed.2d 800 (1985). Although retroactive application of judicial decisions is the general rule, see Rutherford Educ. Ass'n v. Rutherford Bd. of Educ., 99 N.J. 8, 21, 489 A.2d 1148 (1985); Mirza v. Filmore Corp., 92 N.J. 390, 396, 456 A.2d 518 (1983), we accord our rulings prospective effect......
-
Cataldo v. Moses, CIV.A. 02-2588FSH.
...i.e. still requiring notice for intentional torts but excluding assault and battery. See Rutherford Educ. Ass'n v. Bd. of Educ. of Rutherford, 99 N.J. 8, 21, 489 A.2d 1148 (1985) (defining the phrases "purely prospectively" and "partially Although the New Jersey Supreme Court discussed the ......