Stanczyk v. Poudre Sch. Dist. R-1

• Decision Date: 13 February 2020
• Docket Number: Court of Appeals No. 18CA2345
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals
• Parties: Patricia STANCZYK and Poudre Education Association, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. POUDRE SCHOOL DISTRICT R-1 and Poudre School District R-1 Board of Education, Defendants-Appellees.

490 P.3d 582

Patricia STANCZYK and Poudre Education Association, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.POUDRE SCHOOL DISTRICT R-1 and Poudre School District R-1 Board of Education, Defendants-Appellees.

Court of Appeals No. 18CA2345

Colorado Court of Appeals, Division III.

Announced February 13, 2020

Brooke Copass, Rory Herington, Charles Kaiser, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Semple, Farrington, Everall, & Case, P.C., M. Brent Case, Jonathan Fero, Mary Barham Gray, Denver, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellees

Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Julie C. Tolleson, First Assistant Attorney General, Jenna Zerylnick, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Amicus Curiae Patricia Stanczyk and Poudre Education Association

Opinion by JUDGE LIPINSKY

¶1 In 2010, the Colorado General Assembly enacted sweeping changes to the state's teacher evaluation and compensation system that, for the first time, tied a teacher's nonprobationary status to his or her performance. As with the prior concept of tenure, a teacher who achieves nonprobationary status receives job protections not available to other teachers, including protection against unreasonable dismissal and hearing rights.

¶2 The General Assembly further provided that a nonprobationary teacher has the right to transfer his or her nonprobationary status from one school district to another by submitting specified evidence of his or her effectiveness as an educator. This statutory right is known as nonprobationary portability.

¶3 In this case, we consider the narrow question whether a school district may restrict a teacher's ability to exercise the right of nonprobationary portability through use of a job application and form employment contract that require the teacher to relinquish the right to nonprobationary portability as a condition of employment. (We refer to such a job application and employment agreement as the Restrictions.)

¶4 Plaintiffs, Patricia Stanczyk and Poudre Education Association (Association), allege that defendants, Poudre School District R-1 and Poudre School District R-1 Board of Education (the Poudre Defendants), unlawfully stymied Stanczyk's and similarly situated teachers’ exercise of their right to nonprobationary portability through use of the Restrictions. The Poudre Defendants deny that their application form and form employment agreement are unlawful. In the alternative, they assert that, under their prerogative of local control, school districts may disregard the statutory mandate of nonprobationary portability.

¶5 We affirm in part and reverse in part:

• We affirm the district court's award of summary judgment to the Poudre Defendants on Stanczyk and the Association's claim for violation of article IX, section 2 of the Colorado Constitution.

• We affirm the district court's award of summary judgment to the Poudre Defendants on Stanczyk's claims for breach of statutory contract, violation of due process rights, and mandamus relief.

• We reverse the district court's award of summary judgment to the Poudre Defendants on Stanczyk and the Association's claims for declaratory judgment.

• We hold that the Association is entitled to summary judgment on both the declaratory judgment claims because the Poudre Defendants’ use of the Restrictions is unlawful and, under the nonprobationary portability statute, the Poudre Defendants must provide a qualifying teacher with nonprobationary status upon the teacher's compliance with the statutory requirements for nonprobationary portability.

• We hold that Stanczyk is entitled to summary judgment on the claim that the Poudre Defendants’ use of the Restrictions unlawfully deprived her of the right to nonprobationary portability, but that disputed issues of material fact preclude the entry of summary judgment to any party on the claim for a declaratory judgment that she is entitled to nonprobationary status.

• We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶6 First, we discuss the history of the statute granting teachers the right to nonprobationary portability. Second, we summarize the factual and procedural background of the case. Third, we determine whether Stanczyk and the Association have standing to assert the claims they pleaded against the Poudre Defendants. Fourth, we explain the standard of review applicable to this case. Fifth, we consider the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Poudre Defendants on the Association and Stanczyk's claims for declaratory judgment. Sixth, we consider the Association and Stanczyk's remaining claims.

I. The History of the Nonprobationary Portability Statute

A. Nonprobationary Status Replaced Tenure in Colorado

¶7 Before 1990, a teacher received tenure if he or she was continuously employed in the same school district for three academic years. § 22-63-112(1), C.R.S. 1989. Once tenured, a teacher could be dismissed only for certain, enumerated reasons relating to cause. § 22-63-116, C.R.S. 1989. Thus, with limited exceptions, a tenured teacher was "entitled to a position of employment as a teacher." § 22-63-115, C.R.S. 1989; see Johnson v. Sch. Dist. No. 1 , 2018 CO 17, ¶ 3, 413 P.3d 711, 713.

¶8 In 1990, the Teacher Employment, Compensation, and Dismissal Act (TECDA) eliminated all substantive references to tenure from Colorado's education statutes. Ch. 150, sec. 1, §§ 22-63-101 to -403, 1990 Colo. Sess. Laws 1117-28; see Johnson , ¶ 4, 413 P.3d at 713-14. "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.’ " Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Masters , 2018 CO 18, ¶ 6, 413 P.3d 723, 726 (quoting § 22-63-103(7), C.R.S. 1990 ).

¶9 Nonprobationary teachers retained certain of the protections afforded to tenured teachers under prior law. See id. at ¶ 7, 413 P.3d at 726. Sections of TECDA still in force today provide that nonprobationary teachers can be dismissed only for enumerated reasons. § 22-63-301, C.R.S. 2019; see § 22-63-302, C.R.S. 2019. Additionally, before termination of their employment, nonprobationary teachers are entitled to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard by a neutral hearing officer. § 22-63-302 ; see § 22-63-202(2)(c.5)(III)(B), C.R.S. 2019.

B. SB 191 Tied Nonprobationary Status to Performance

¶10 In 2010, Senate Bill 10-191 (SB 191) changed the way Colorado teachers are evaluated and receive nonprobationary status. Ch. 241, sec. 10, § 22-63-103, 2010 Colo. Sess. Laws 1070. SB 191 rests on the belief that a "system to evaluate the effectiveness of licensed personnel is crucial to improving the quality of education in this state" and that "such a system [should] be applicable to all licensed personnel in the school districts and boards ... throughout the state." § 22-9-102(1)(a), C.R.S. 2019.

¶11 SB 191 created a uniform, statewide framework for evaluating teachers, provided for development of statewide criteria to measure teacher effectiveness, mandated annual teacher evaluations, and required that fifty percent of a teacher's evaluation score be based on student academic growth. Ch. 241, sec. 5, § 22-9-105.5, 2010 Colo. Sess. Laws 1056-61.

¶12 As part of this framework, the General Assembly linked nonprobationary status to teacher performance. § 22-9-102(1)(a)(V). To attain nonprobationary status, a teacher must demonstrate three years of effectiveness, measured by the statewide standards established in SB 191. §§ 22-9-105.5(3)(d), -63-103(7), -63-203(1)(b), C.R.S. 2019.

C. SB 191 Established Nonprobationary Portability

¶13 SB 191 granted teachers who had attained nonprobationary status the right to transfer that status from one district to another. § 22-63-203.5, C.R.S. 2019. Section 22-63-203.5 provides that a nonprobationary teacher

who is employed by a school district and is subsequently hired by a different school district may provide to the hiring school district evidence of his or her student academic growth data and performance evaluations for the prior two years for the purposes of retaining nonprobationary status.

Id. (We refer to such evidence and evaluations as Required Documentation.) Importantly, the statute says that "[i]f, upon providing such data, the nonprobationary teacher can show two consecutive performance evaluations with effectiveness ratings in good standing, he or she shall be granted nonprobationary status in the hiring school district." Id. (emphasis added). Before the General Assembly enacted section 22-63-203.5, school districts had the sole discretion whether to grant nonprobationary status to a nonprobationary teacher who relocated from another school district.

D. School Districts Can Obtain Exemptions from Certain of the Statewide Mandates in the Education Statutes

¶14 School districts, the State Board of Education, and the General Assembly have different and distinct roles in overseeing the education of Colorado's children. Under the Colorado Constitution, school districts have the authority to control "instruction in [their] public schools," Colo. Const. art. IX, § 15, while the State Board of Education possesses general supervisory power over Colorado's public schools, Colo. Const. art. IX, § 1 (1). The General Assembly is charged with "provid[ing] for the establishment and maintenance of a thorough and uniform system of free public schools throughout the state" (the Thorough and Uniform Clause). Colo. Const. art. IX, § 2.

¶15 In keeping with these differing roles, school districts may seek an exemption from the State Board of Education from most, but not all, of the statewide mandates set forth in title 22 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. § 22-2-117, C.R.S. 2019. (The mandates for which a school district may not obtain an exemption are listed in subsections (1)(b) and (1.5) of section 22-2-117. Nonprobationary portability is not one of them.)

¶16 To obtain an exemption from a statewide...