Sheldon v. Sch. Comm. of Hopedale

• Decision Date: 29 June 1931
• Citation: 276 Mass. 230,177 N.E. 94
• Parties: SHELDON v. SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF HOPEDALE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

276 Mass. 230

177 N.E. 94

SHELDON

v.SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF HOPEDALE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

June 29, 1931.

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Worcester County; George A. Sanderson, justice.

Petition for mandamus by Elba Sherburne Sheldon against School Committee of Hopedale to compel defendant to reinstate petitioner as a teacher in public schools. On petitioner's exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

A. B. Cenedella and H. D. Barbadoro, both of Milford, for petitioner.

J. T. Noonan and E. C. Storrow, Jr., both of Boston, for respondents.

WAIT, J.

This is a petition for mandamus to compel the defendants, the school committee of the town of Hopedale, to reinstate the petitioner as a teacher in the public schools of the town.

The following facts are agreed. The petitioner, then unmarried, was duly elected by the school committee of Hopedale on July 12, 1922, as a grade school teacher. She was duly re-elected in the three years following and, by virtue of G. L. c. 71, § 41, was thereby employed in the schools of the town thereafter to serve ‘at the discretion of the School Committee’ subject to the provisions of law regarding termination of the employment. She continued in this employ until October 14, 1930, rendering constant and competent service and being of good moral character. The defendants have constituted the school committee of the town since April 23, 1930. On May 20, 1930, this committee unanimously voted to instruct the superintendent of schools to ‘eliminate from our teaching force female married teachers.’ This vote was taken without prior specific recommendation in regard thereto by the superintendent. At that time there were four married female teachers employed in the schools; one of them as music supervisor on part time with no particular class or class room under her supervision but engaged in going from class to class advising with the room teachers on music instruction, and, to a certain extent, giving instruction to the class as a group. On May 26, 1930, the petitioner was informed by the superintendent of the vote of May 20, and was invited to resign. This she refused to do. Since May 20, two of the four female married teachers have resigned; the petitioner has not resigned; and the fourth, having been re-elected by the defendants as music supervisor, continued her work-the only married woman employed in the schools of Hopedale.

On September 8, 1930, the superintendent gave to the committee the following letter: ‘In view of the fact that your committee has already adopted a rule precluding the employment of married teachers in your schools, I hereby respectfully recommend the dismissal of Mrs. Elba S. Sheldon as a teacher in the public schools.’ On September 10 the committee voted to take a vote on the dismissal of the petitioner at a meeting to be held on October 14, 1930; and that she be notified forthwith of this intention. She received notice containing a copy of the vote on September 11. This was at least thirty days, exclusive of customary vacation periods, prior to the meeting at which the vote was to be taken. No actual decrease in the number of pupils in the schools of the town rendered her dismissal advisable. On September 17 she mailed to the committee a request for a statement of reasons proposed for her dismissal, and a request for a hearing at which she might be accompanied by a witness. On September 19 she received from the committee two letters. On stated: ‘* * * your dismissal is proposed for the following reason; the School Committee, after careful consideration of the matter, and believing that the best interests of the schools would be served by limiting the employment of female teachers to those who are unmarried, adopted a vote to eliminate married female teachers from the teaching force. Your marriage conflicts with this established rule.’ The other appointed a time and place for a hearing on October 14, 1930. The petitioner appeared with a witness at the hearing, read a statement and left it with the committee. She was informed the committee would consider the matter and notify her. Later, on the same evening, the committee vote unanimously that the petitioner be dismissed, to take effect forthwith, and so notified her. Another teacher in her place was elected on October 14, and began teaching on the next day. The notification and vote of dismissal were prepared before the meeting.

The single justice found that in 1928, the petitioner, contemplating marriage, spoke with the superintendent to find out whether marriage would affect her position, and was told that it would not, that he thought married teachers the best and would be glad to keep her on. At that time no objection on the part of those then constituting the school committee was made. There was no evidence that her contemplated marriage was made known to the committee. She married in 1928, relying on the superintendent's assurance. The music supervisor was continued in service because it was difficult to secure a part time teacher, and because the committee did not consider her to be a regular teacher. Rules against the employment of married women as teachers and requiring female teachers on marrying to resign or be dismissed have been in force in many places before and continuously since the vote of May 20, 1930. The committee throughout have acted in good faith and in the belief their rule was of benefit to the schools.

Many of the foregoing facts are immaterial to the legal rights of the parties. Until chapter 313 of the Acts of 1886 took effect no statutory provision fixed a term of service for a teacher in the employ of school committees. By St. 1844, c. 32, the school committee of any town was, in express terms, ‘authorized to dismiss from employment any teacher in such town, whenever the said committee may think proper.’ And this power was upheld in Knowles v. Boston, 12 Gray, 339, 340, which held that under the provisions of St. 1844, c. 32, and of St. 1854, c. 448, § 56 (which dealt with the public schools of Boston and authorized the committee to elect such instructors ‘as they may deem proper, and remove the same whenever they consider it expedient’), a teacher ‘was liable to dismissal at any time by the school committee.’ The opinion ends in these words: ‘It was suggested that the...