State ex rel. Thompson v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of City of Milwaukee

• Citation: 191 N.W. 746,179 Wis. 284
• Parties: STATE EX REL. THOMPSON v. BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS OF CITY OF MILWAUKEE ET AL.
• Decision Date: 09 January 1923
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

179 Wis. 284

191 N.W. 746

STATE EX REL. THOMPSON

v.BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS OF CITY OF MILWAUKEE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 9, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; Gustave G. Gehrz, Judge.

Application for mandamus by the State of Wisconsin, on the relation of Elsie Dickerhoff Thompson, against the Board of School Directors of the City of Milwaukee and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Modified, and affirmed as modified.

In June, 1914, the relator commenced service as a teacher in the public schools of the said city of Milwaukee and continued such service thereafter continuously until the 5th of September, 1921. In 1914 she was unmarried, and her name appeared on the records as Elsie Dickerhoff. In January, 1921, the said school board adopted and made a part of its rules and regulations the following:

“Married women teachers shall not be transferred, promoted or permanently appointed to regular teaching positions except in clearly attested cases where the teacher becomes the sole support of a family by reason of the death or incapacity of the husband and that married teacher shall be known by her married name on all school records and printed matter.”

On March 5, 1921, the relator married one Peter Thompson. She made no report at that time of her marriage to the principal of the school where she was then engaged, nor to any of the school authorities and continued for the rest of the then semester and until school closed in June, 1921, to sign the school records and the payroll with her maiden name of Elsie Dickerhoff only.

Prior to the commencement of the school work in September, 1921, the relator did report the fact of her marriage to her school principal, and it was communicated to the superintendent of city schools. On September 5, 1921, the latter gave written notice to relator to the effect that she was suspended from service as such teacher and stating as follows:

“The ground for your suspension is that you repeatedly signed your former maiden name to the school records during the second semester of the last school year in violation of the board's proceedings in this regard.”

Thereafter proceedings were had before the defendant school board, and on November 1, 1921, by resolution of said board the action of the superintendent in so suspending her on September 5th was approved, and further stating that the relator has been discharged as such teacher as of September 5th because of her violation of the rule of the school board providing that--

“Married teachers shall be known by her married name on all school records and printed matter.”

The relator had reported for duty on September 6th, and thereafter held herself in position to serve as such teacher. In March, 1922, the relator obtained an order for an alternative writ of mandamus. Defendants moved to quash such writ. An agreed statement of facts was submitted on the hearing.

The court found, in addition to the facts already recited: That the only rule or regulation of the board of school directors dealing with the subject of causes for dismissal or discharge of teachers is as follows:

“Article XVII. The committee on complaints shall hear all charges against teachers and janitors and shall, subject to the approval of the board, dismiss teachers and janitors by majority vote for misconduct, incompetency, inefficiency, or inattention to duty.”

That there was no other cause for the suspension of relator except that as stated above. That she was by reason of such suspension unable to secure employment as a teacher in any of the public schools of the city of Milwaukee during the school year of 1921 to 1922. That during such period and during hours in which the services of teachers may reasonably be and frequently are required in the public schools of Milwaukee she secured other employment, and earned therefrom the sum of $150, and that no showing had been made that she might by the exercise of reasonable diligence have earned any greater sum during said period. That a balance of $1,730 was due her for the monthly installments for her fixed salary during said period, less the deductions of $2 per month to be paid into the public school-teachers' annuity and retirement fund, and less the said sum of $150, as above stated; to which amount there was added the interest accrued on the same and a further allowance of $250 as the reasonable value of her attorney's services rendered in the conduct of this litigation to compel compliance with the command of the alternative writ of mandamus.

As conclusions of law the court found, in substance, as follows: That the action of the board of school directors in discharging relator from her position as a teacher was unwarranted, unjustifiable, unlawful, and void; that she is entitled to her position as a teacher in such public schools as was held by her until September 5, 1921; that she is entitled to...