Sch. Dist. No. 1 in the City & Cnty. of Denver v. Masters, Supreme Court Case No. 15SC1062
| Decision Date | 12 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | Supreme Court Case No. 15SC1062 |
| Parties | SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 IN the CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER ; and Valentina Flores, Debora Scheffel, Pam Mazanec, Steve Durham, Jane Goff, Joyce Rankin, and Angelika Schroeder, in their official capacities as members of the Colorado State Board of Education, Petitioners v. Cynthia MASTERS, Michelle Montoya, Mildred Anne Kolquist, Lawrence Garcia, Paula Scena, Jane Harmon, Lynne Rerucha, and Denver Classroom Teachers Association, Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
413 P.3d 723
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 IN the CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER ; and Valentina Flores, Debora Scheffel, Pam Mazanec, Steve Durham, Jane Goff, Joyce Rankin, and Angelika Schroeder, in their official capacities as members of the Colorado State Board of Education, Petitioners
v.
Cynthia MASTERS, Michelle Montoya, Mildred Anne Kolquist, Lawrence Garcia, Paula Scena, Jane Harmon, Lynne Rerucha, and Denver Classroom Teachers Association, Respondents.
Supreme Court Case No. 15SC1062
Supreme Court of Colorado.
March 12, 2018
Attorneys for Petitioner School District No. 1 in the City and County of Denver: Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Eric V. Hall, Tamara F. Goodlette, Stacy Kourlis Guillon, Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Petitioners Valentina Flores, Debora Scheffel, Pam Mazanec, Steve Durham, Jane Goff, Joyce Rankin, and Angelika Schroeder: Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, Frederick R. Yarger, Solicitor General, Julie C. Tolleson, First Assistant Attorney General, Antony B. Dyl, Senior Assistant Attorney General and Assistant Solicitor General, Davin Dahl, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Respondents: Colorado Education Association, Kris Gomez, Denver, Colorado, McNamara Roseman & Shechter LLP, Todd McNamara, Mathew S. Shechter, Denver, Colorado, National Education Association, Alice O'Brien, Philip A. Hostak, Washington, District of Columbia
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Colorado Association of School Boards: Colorado Association of School Boards, Kady D. Lanoha, Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Amici Curiae The Colorado Children's Campaign, Education Reform Now, and Ready Colorado: Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Brent Owen, E. Rayner Mangum, Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Colorado Succeeds: Holland & Hart LLP, Stephen G. Masciocchi, Jason A. Crow, Jessica J. Smith, Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Amici Curiae Former Colorado Governors Bill Ritter, Jr., and Bill Owens : Foster Graham Milstein & Calisher, LLP, Chip G. Schoneberger, Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Independence Institute: Kittredge LLC, Daniel D. Domenico, Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Amici Curiae Senators Michael Johnston, Owen Hill, Kevin Grantham, Vickie Marble, and Laura Woods; Former Senator John Morse ; Representatives Paul Lundeen and Daniel Nordberg; and Former Representatives Terrance Carroll and Christine Scanlan: MRDLaw, Michael L. Francisco, Denver, Colorado
En Banc
JUSTICE BOATRIGHT delivered the Opinion of the Court.*
¶ 1 Teachers who work for Denver Public Schools ("DPS"), together with the Denver Classroom Teachers Association (collectively, "the teachers"), filed this suit, alleging that DPS invoked Senate Bill 10–191—which under certain circumstances allows a school district to place a nonprobationary teacher on unpaid leave—to remove hundreds of teachers from their positions in violation of both due process of law and the contracts clause of the Colorado Constitution. School District No. 1 and members of the Colorado Board of Education (collectively, "the District") moved to dismiss the suit, and the trial court granted that motion. A division of the court of appeals reversed, relying on our decisions interpreting predecessor statutes to the relevant, now-codified law—the Teacher Employment, Compensation, and Dismissal Act of 1990 ("TECDA")—and concluding due process violations occurred under those predecessor statutes. Masters v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2015 COA 159, ¶¶ 38, 40, ––– P.3d ––––.
¶ 2 We granted certiorari1 and now reverse. We hold that TECDA did not create a
contractual relationship or vest nonprobationary teachers who are placed on unpaid leave with a property interest in salary and benefits.
I. Facts and Procedural History
¶ 3 The Teacher Employment, Dismissal, and Tenure Act of 1967 ("TEDTA"), ch. 435, sec. 1, §§ 123–18–1 to –18, 1967 Colo. Sess. Laws 976, provided that a teacher who maintained continuous employment in the same school district for three academic years became tenured upon being retained for a fourth academic year. § 22–63–112(1), C.R.S. (1988).2 It defined a "tenure teacher" as "any teacher who has acquired tenure status in a school district pursuant to law." § 22–63–102(11), C.R.S. (1988). Under TEDTA, a tenured teacher was "entitled to a position of employment as a teacher" under certain circumstances. § 22–63–115(1), C.R.S. (1988). Accordingly, a tenured teacher could be dismissed only for certain, enumerated reasons relating to cause. See § 22–63–116, C.R.S. (1988).
¶ 4 TEDTA laid out the procedure to dismiss a tenured teacher. This procedure included the filing of charges with the board of the employing school district, written notice to the teacher, entitlement to a hearing by an administrative law judge, and the opportunity for judicial review. See § 22–63–117(1)–(11), C.R.S. (1988). It also provided that a school district could cancel a tenured teacher's contract without penalty "when there is a justifiable decrease in the number of teaching positions." § 22–63–112(3), C.R.S. (1988).
¶ 5 TEDTA likewise provided for teacher transfer. A school district's chief administrative officer could transfer a teacher from one school to another within the school district, provided that the teacher was qualified for her new position:
A teacher may be transferred upon the recommendation of the chief administrative officer of a school district from one school, position, or grade level to another within the school district, if such transfer does not result in the assignment of the teacher to a position of employment for which he or she is not qualified by virtue of academic preparation and certification and if, during the then current school year, the amount of salary of such teacher is not reduced except as otherwise provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section.
§ 22–63–114(1), C.R.S. (1988). The receiving school could not refuse to accept a transferred teacher.
¶ 6 In 1990, the General Assembly supplanted TEDTA by enacting the Teacher Employment, Compensation, and Dismissal Act of 1990 ("TECDA"). Ch. 150, sec. 1, §§ 22–63–101 to –403, 1990 Colo. Sess. Laws 1117. In so doing, the General Assembly removed virtually all tenure-related language. Unlike its predecessor, TECDA did not define a "tenure teacher" or provide any "entitle[ment] to a position of employment as a teacher." Indeed, as we noted today in Johnson v. School District No. 1, 2018 CO 17, ¶ 4, 413P.3d 711, TECDA used the word "tenure" only once.3 TECDA instead created a distinction between nonprobationary and probationary teachers, defining the latter as "a teacher who has not completed three full years of continuous employment with the employing school district and who has not been reemployed for the fourth year." § 22–63–103(7), C.R.S. (1990).
¶ 7 Despite removing tenure language, TECDA did retain some of TEDTA's provisions. Specifically, TECDA retained TEDTA's for-cause grounds for teacher dismissal, § 22–63–301, C.R.S. (1990), and its procedures to dismiss a teacher, with some differences not relevant for our purposes, see
§ 22–63–302(1) – (10), C.R.S. (1990). And TECDA retained TEDTA's transfer language. Compare § 22–63–114(1), C.R.S. (1988), with § 22–63–206(1), C.R.S. (1990).
¶ 8 But in 2010, the General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 10–191 ("SB 191"), which amended requirements for teacher contracts and the transfer process. Ch. 241, 2010 Colo. Sess. Laws 1053. SB 191 eliminated the practice of placing displaced teachers in schools without the consent of the recipient-school principal by providing—in the bill's sole alteration to section 22–63–206, which governs transfer—that "[n]othing in [ section 22–63–206 ] shall be construed as requiring a receiving school to involuntarily accept the transfer of a teacher. All transfers to positions at other schools of the school district shall require the consent of the receiving school." § 22–63–206(5), C.R.S. (2017). SB 191 also provided that "each employment contract ... shall contain a provision stating that a teacher may be assigned to a particular school only with the consent of the hiring principal and with input from at least two teachers employed at the school." § 22–63–202(2)(c.5)(I), C.R.S. (2017). SB 191 labels a teacher's assignment with consent of the recipient-school principal a "mutual consent assignment." E.g., § 22–63–202(2)(c.5)(IV).
¶ 9 SB 191 also provides procedures for teachers who are unable to secure mutual-consent assignments. Nonprobationary teachers4 who were deemed effective during the prior school year, but who have not secured a mutual-consent assignment, become members of a "priority hiring pool," ensuring them the first opportunity to interview for a "reasonable number of available positions for which [they are] qualified in the school district." § 22–63–202 (2)(c.5)(III)(A). But SB 191 does not promise an assignment. Instead, it provides that if a nonprobationary teacher fails to secure a position after the longer of twelve months or two hiring cycles, the teacher is placed on unpaid leave until he or she secures an assignment. § 22–63–202(2)(c.5)(IV).
¶ 10 Respondents...
To continue reading
Request your trial