Shannon v. Board of Ed. of Kingsport

• Decision Date: 09 December 1955
• Parties: , 199 Tenn. 250 Solomon N. SHANNON and the State of Tennessee on relation of Solomon N. Shannon v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF KINGSPORT, Tennessee, etc., et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 571

286 S.W.2d 571

3 McCanless 250, 199 Tenn. 250

Solomon N. SHANNON and the State of Tennessee on relation of Solomon N. Shannon v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF KINGSPORT, Tennessee, etc., et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

Dec. 9, 1955.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 3, 1956.

Z. Alexander Looby, Avon N. Williams, Jr., Nashville, Carl A. Cowan, Knoxville, for appellants.

H. Marvin Parsons and Wilson & Worley, Kingsport, for appellees.

NEIL, Chief Justice.

The complainant, Solomon N. Shannon, on relation of the State of Tennessee, filed his original bill in the Chancery Court of Sullivan County against the Board of Education of the City of Kingsport, seeking to enforce certain rights as a teacher in the public schools pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 76 of the Public Acts of 1951, Code, § 2345.1 et seq., known as the 'Teacher Tenure Act'.

The bill charges that complainant Shannon was a resident citizen of Kingsport and had been employed as a regular teacher for six consecutive school years next preceding the school year, 1953-1954, by the Board of Education of said city.

The complainant holds the A. B. degree from an approved four year college; the M. A. degree from Fisk University; and two 'Specialist in Education degrees' awarded by Columbia University Teachers College, New York City, and New York University, respectively. It also appears in the bill that he holds a 'valid professional certificate based on four years' college training covering the subjects of grades taught by him.'

It is next charged in the bill that on April 30, 1954, he received written notice from the defendant Board of Education advising him of his dismissal as a teacher; that said notice did not state any reason for his dismissal; that no charges had been preferred against him and hence no opportunity given him for a hearing upon any charges.

On May 2, 1954, the complainant wrote a letter to each member of the Board of Education protesting the action of the Board in dismissing him and expressed a desire to be heard upon any charges preferred against him; it is further charged that interested citizens of the community signed a petition addressed to the Board requesting that the complainant be granted a hearing and that the Board reconsider its action in dismissing the complainant. To all of these requests the complainant received no reply.

Paragraph (5) of the bill contains the following averments:

'That the complainant has made teaching his life work, having taught for twelve years, including seven years in the Kingsport City Schools as aforesaid. That the custom and policy of the defendant Board of Education is and has been for many years, that upon completion of three years as a regular teacher in the City Schools of Kingsport a teacher becomes a permanent teacher; and that, in reliance upon said well-known custom and policy the complainant some time ago purchased a home in the City of Kingsport, on which a large indebtedness remains unpaid. The FHA loan which complainant obtained for the purchase of said home was conditional in part upon a statement given by the defendant Robinson to the Moore-Walker Insurance Agency in Kingsport, to the effect that complainant's work as a teacher was quite satisfactory and that said defendant Robinson saw no reason why complainant would not be retained in the future as a teacher in the City Schools of Kingsport.'

Complainant charges that the Board's action in dismissing him was void because he was not furnished a copy of any charges against him or advised as to his legal duties and rights.

The bill prays for a declaratory judgment, and that a decree be pronounced requiring the defendant Board to recognize him and reinstate him as a teacher in the School System of Kingsport, Tennessee. There is a prayer in the alternative that a writ of mandamus issue to require the Board to reinstate the complainant, etc. The bill prayed for general relief.

The defendants demurred to the bill upon the following grounds:

'1. There is no equity on the face of the bill.

'2. The bill shows on its face that its object is to review an action of the Board of Education of the City of Kingsport in failing or refusing to reelect complainant as a teacher in its public schools, and a proceeding in Mandamus or for Declaratory Judgment does not lie for that purpose.

'3. Because Sect. 17, Ch. 76, Acts 1951 (Code Sect. 2345.17) prescribes the exclusive method of judicial review in the event of alleged denial of rights conferred thereunder.

'4. Because the bill shows on its face that this complainant's cause of action, if any he has, is asserted here too late, and is barred by the limitation prescribed in Sect. 17, Chap. 76, Acts 1951 (Code Sect. 2345.17).

'5. Because the bill shows on its face that complainant failed of reelection as a teacher before having acquired either 'permanent' or 'limited' tenure under the law, and that, therefore, the provisions of law relating to dismissal of teachers having acquired tenure are inapplicable as to him.

'6. Because the bill shows on its face that complainant has not acquired either 'permanent' or 'limited' tenure as a teacher under the law, and that he is therefore not entitled to judicial review of the action of the Board of Education in his failure of reelection.

'7. To paragraph IV of the bill, in that a 'custom and policy' of the Board of Education of the City of Kingsport with regard to reemployment of teachers if it had existed, could create no right in complainant to reemployment entitled to protection in law or equity.'

The demurrer was coupled with an answer by the Board, the contents of which is not material in deciding the legal question raised by the original bill and the demurrer thereto.

The Chancellor sustained the demurrer and granted an appeal to this Court.

The following assignments of error are before the Court for consideration:

(1) The Chancellor erred in holding that the 'Teacher Tenure Act' (Chapter 76, Public Acts of 1951) must be construed prospectively as to probationary service, and that consequently complainant had not acquired permanent tenure status under said Act.

(2) The substance of this assignment is that the Chancellor erred in holding that the Board of Education could terminate complainant's teaching contract during the probationary period without preferring written charges and affording him a hearing as required by the 'Teacher Tenure Act'.

(3) Contention is made that the attempted dismissal was illegal and void because of defendant's failure to furnish the notice referred to in the foregoing assignment.

(4) 'The Chancellor erred in holding that defendant Board of Education was not bound by its well-known custom and policy to the effect that upon completion of three years as a regular teacher in the City Schools of Kingsport, a teacher becomes a permanent teacher.'

(5) 'The Chancellor erred in holding that complainant was precluded from judicial review by reason of failure to comply with the thirty-day period of limitations prescribed in the Teacher Tenure Act (Pub.Acts 1951, Ch. 76, Sec. 17; Code Sec. 2345.17)'.

The case before us involves the rights of principals and teachers, etc., who are employed in the public schools of this State as provided by Code Section 2336 et seq., Article 6 (School Teachers), Section 2340.1, Acts of 1943, c. 147, and Article 6A (System of Tenure in Schools), Code Section 2345.1 et seq., 1952 Cumulative Pocket Supplement.

It will be noted that under Section 2340 of the Code, 'All teachers must make a written contract with the county board of education at a fixed salary per month before entering upon their duties in any public elementary or high school.' Both teachers and county boards are subject to a fine of $25 for a failure to do so.

Section 2340.1 reads as follows:

'Teachers in service and under contract in the public elementary and high schools of Tennessee shall continue in such service until they have received written notice, from their board of education, of their dismissal or failure of reelection at least thirty days prior to the close of the school term; provided the board of education may transfer any teacher from one position to another at its option; provided that nothing contained in this section of this act shall affect any rights that may have accrued, or may hereafter accrue, in behalf of any teachers or principals in any county under any act providing a tenure of office for said teachers and principals.'

The foregoing Section of the Code is often referred to by counsel as a teacher's 'Continuing Service Contract'. The sharply controverted issue in this case is whether or not the complainant had acquired tenure rights at the time the defendant Board of Education declined to renew his teaching contract.

The contention of the complainant is that certain tenure rights accrued to him pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 76, Acts of 1951, known as the 'Teacher Tenure Act'. This Act was approved on March 1, 1951, and became effective on July 1, 1951. The complainant's bill shows that his contract of employment terminated by written notice on April 30, 1954, effective at the end of the current school year. He was not dismissed or discharged by the Board. The Board simply declined to reemploy him for the year, 1954-1955. It is urged upon us by complainant's counsel that this is equivalent to a dismissal and the Court should so declare.

The defendant Board by demurrer says: 'It is apparent on the face of the bill that complainant has not had the requisite service for 'tenure' after the effective date of the Act, and could not be held to have acquired 'tenure' except by giving the Act a retroactive construction.'

The Chancellor held that the Act was prospective only and that the entire period of probationary service must have been served following the effective date of the law in order to confer tenure. This brings us to a consideration of the first assignment of error.

Until the...