School Dist. of City of Royal Oak v. Michigan State Tenure Commission

• Decision Date: 01 October 1962
• Docket Number: No. 32,J,32
• Parties: SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY OF ROYAL OAK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MICHIGAN STATE TENURE COMMISSION, Juste A. Rosati, Gladys E. Davis and Roger E. Craig, Defendants and Appellees. une Term.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 181

117 N.W.2d 181

367 Mich. 689

SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY OF ROYAL OAK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MICHIGAN STATE TENURE COMMISSION, Juste A. Rosati, Gladys E.

Davis and Roger E. Craig, Defendants and Appellees.

No. 32, June Term.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Oct. 1, 1962.

James G. Hartrick, Birmingham, for plaintiff and appellant; Robert L. Templin, Birmingham, of counsel.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Eugene Krasicky, Sol. Gen., Lansing, for defendants and appellees.

Cyril E. Bailey, Detroit, amicus curiae.

Before the Entire Bench, Except ADAMS, J.

KELLY, Justice.

Esther Palmer, not a party to this suit, was employed by plaintiff school board as a teacher for the school years 1950-1951 through 1958-1959, the last 2 years (since Mrs. Palmer reached age 60) being on an annual contract basis. Plaintiff board did not renew her contract for the ensuing year, and instead sent her a letter stating that her contract would not be renewed. Mrs. Palmer retained counsel and demanded a hearing under the teachers' tenure act (C.L.1948, § 38.71 et seq. [Stat.Ann.1959 Rev. § 15.1971 et seq.]). Plaintiff board advised her counsel that Mrs. Palmer was not being discharged, but retired. Thereafter, however, plaintiff received an amended petition for hearing and notice of hearing that the cause would be heard by defendant commission.

Plaintiff board filed its bill of complaint in the Oakland county circuit court seeking to restrain defendant commission from holding any hearings on the matter or assuming any jurisdiction relating thereto. Plaintiff, in its bill of complaint, stated that the provisions of the teachers' tenure act had applied to it since June 1943, and that in 1944 the board adopted its policy for retirement, which policy states:

'At the age when teachers may retire under the State retirement act, all such teachers shall cease to be on continuing contract, and contracts shall be deemed renewed from year to year until such teachers, on 60 days' notice to the board of education, elect to retire; or until the board, by a majority vote of the whole membership at least 60 days before the end of the school year, refuses such renewal of the contract.'

Plaintiff further stated that in view of its policy for retirement, the jurisdiction of the Michigan State tenure commission did not apply, nor did the provisions of said act.

Injunction issued, and defendant commission filed answer claiming plaintiff's retirement policy is violative of the teachers' tenure act; that the matters raised in the bill of complaint are within the jurisdiction of the commission and it should be given an opportunity to pass thereon; also, that plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law after it had exhausted its administrative remedies.

The matter came on for hearing before Hon. Clark J. Adams, circuit judge of Oakland county, who held that 'the tenure commission has the authority and responsibility to determine its jurisdiction over controversies between school boards and their teacher employees.'

Appellant present only one question, namely:

'Does the Michigan State tenure commission have any jurisdiction or authority to act or pass upon a retirement policy and program of a board of education?'

Appellee counters, stating the question involved is: Does a court of chancery have jurisdiction to enjoin the Michigan State tenure commission from holding a hearing where the controlling board has not exhausted its administrative remedies and has an adequate...