State ex rel. Martines v. Cleveland City School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

• Decision Date: 28 September 1994
• Docket Number: No. 93-1811,93-1811
• Citation: 639 N.E.2d 80,70 Ohio St.3d 416
• Parties: , 93 Ed. Law Rep. 887 The STATE ex rel. MARTINES, Appellant, v. CLEVELAND CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 416

70 Ohio St.3d 416

639 N.E.2d 80, 93 Ed. Law Rep. 887

The STATE ex rel. MARTINES, Appellant, v. CLEVELAND CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Appellees.

No. 93-1811.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted June 29, 1994.

Decided Sept. 28, 1994.

O'Malley, Lenahan, Gill & Lentz and Mary A. Lentz, Cleveland, for appellant.

Duvin, Cahn, Barnard & Messerman, Kenneth B. Stark, Robert M. Wolff and George S. Crisci, Cleveland, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Francis S. Martines, appellant, sought a writ of mandamus against the Cleveland City School District Board of Education and its members, appellees, to compel his reinstatement as an administrator and payment of his lost wages and benefits. The Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County granted the board's motion to dismiss his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6).

For a writ of mandamus to issue, Martines must establish (1) a clear legal right to the relief he seeks, (2) the board's corresponding duty to perform as requested, and (3) the absence of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics & Allied Workers Internatl. Union, Local 333, AFL-CIO, CLC v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 157, 158, 609 N.E.2d 1266, 1267. A complaint is dismissable for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted when the material factual allegations are taken as admitted and all reasonable inferences are drawn in his favor, but it still appears beyond doubt from the complaint that the plaintiff cannot prove facts entitling him to recovery. O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc. (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 71 O.O.2d 223, 327 N.E.2d 753.

In granting the motion to dismiss, the court of appeals accepted as true the allegations that Martines began working for the board of education in 1960 and that he became the Director of School Based Management in November 1983. The court noted that he did not allege that the board had failed to timely advise him of its decision not to renew his contract for the 1992-1993 school year. The court also accepted as true Martines's representation that the board had not complied with the evaluation and hearing requirements of R.C. 3319.02(D). ¹ However, it found that Martines had not stated a cognizable claim for a writ of mandamus because R.C. 3319.02(D) does not impose the duty he sought to compel--in essence, the renewal of his administrator's contract.

We agree. Recently, in State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 217, 631 N.E.2d 150, we rejected part of the argument Martines asserts here--that a board of education's failure to observe the evaluation requirements of R.C. 3319.02(D) voided its decision not to renew an administrator's contract. We explained:

"Although R.C. 3319.02(D) mandates the evaluation procedure, it provides no remedy of reemployment for failure on the part of the board to comply with that procedure. Indeed, R.C. 3319.02(C) deems an administrator reemployed by operation of law only if a timely written notice of the board's intention not to reemploy is not given. By contrast, * * * R.C. 3319.11 specifically provides that a board's failure to comply with the teacher evaluation requirements of R.C. 3319.111 results in reemployment of the teacher. In other words, if the General Assembly had intended that board compliance with the administrative evaluation provisions of R.C. 3319.02(D) be a prerequisite to a valid board decision not to renew an administrative contract, it would have so provided, as it did in R.C. 3319.11 for teachers' contracts."

"Furthermore, R.C. 3319.02(D) expressly states that '[n]othing in this section shall prevent a board of education from making the final determination regarding the renewal of or failure to renew the contract of any assistant superintendent, principal, assistant principal, or other administrator.' This manifestly indicates that noncompliance with any or all of the R.C. 3319.02(D) evaluation procedures does not invalidate a board's action not to renew an administrative contract. * * *." Id. at 222, 631 N.E.2d at 154.

Martines also argues that multiple violations of the duties imposed by R.C. 3319.02(D), i.e., noncompliance with the evaluation and hearing requirements of the statutes, confer a right to contract renewal. He relies on our discussion in State ex rel. Smith v. Etheridge (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 501, 605 N.E.2d 59, which states:

"While the * * * statutory language requires the board to consider the administrator's evaluation, it does not require the board to base its decision on such evaluations. * * * [T]he * * * language indicates that even if a board did not consider an administrator's evaluation in voting to nonrenew a contract, such failure does not by itself undermine a board's decision to nonrenew an administrative contract." (Emphasis added.) Id. at 508, 605 N.E.2d at 64-65.

The administrator in Cassels made a similar argument, asserting that violation of the evaluation requirements, plus prejudice, is enough to cause contract renewal. We disagreed, stating:

"[T]he State ex rel. Smith language should be interpreted to mean that a failure to comply with the R.C. 3319.02(D) evaluation procedures will not invalidate a board's action not to renew an administrative contract. This result comports with the language of R.C. 3319.02(C) and (D). But, cf., State v. Arnold (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 175, 178, 573 N.E.2d 1079, 1082 (it is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that a statute shall be construed, if practicable, [so] as to give some effect to every part of it). Since [the administrator] never alleged anything in addition to the failure of [the board] to comply with R.C. 3319.02(D) and readily admitted that she was sent timely notice of nonrenewal pursuant to R.C. 3319.02(C), she was, as a matter of law, not entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel her reemployment as * * * [an administrator]. In short, she has...