Stieler v. Spokane School Dist. No. 81
| Decision Date | 06 January 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 44423,44423 |
| Citation | 88 Wn.2d 68,558 P.2d 198 |
| Parties | , 39 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 498, 13 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 11,512 Gretchen STIELER, Respondent, v. SPOKANE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 81 et al., Appellants. Gretchen STIELER, Appellant, v. SPOKANE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 81 et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
William J. Powell, Spokane, for appellants.
Winston, Cashatt, Repsold, McNichols, Connelly & Driscoll, Robert W. Winston, Jr., Spokane, for respondents.
This appeal from judgments of the Superior Court involves two suits by a certificated employee of the Spokane School District, who was nonrenewed as a member of the administrative staff as a result of the reorganization of the administrative structure and was then reemployed as a music teacher, with reduced salary. In the first suit challenging this procedure, the Superior Court found that the respondent was given a fair hearing and that the district acted in good faith and within the scope of its powers, but nevertheless held that the nonrenewal was invalid because the notice addressed to the respondent failed to specify the criteria, standards or guidelines for elimination of the respondent's administrative position of music consultant or filing the new positions created in the revised organizational structure, and also failed to advise her that seniority would not be a factor in the rehiring.
The school district has appealed from that decision, assigning error to these conclusions and to the awarding of damages and attorney fees. On cross-appeal, the respondent has assigned error to the refusal of findings and conclusions which would have tended to support the judgment on other grounds. She concedes the error of the Superior Court in holding the notice defective for failure to specify criteria and guidelines for dismissal, acknowledging that Pierce v. Lake Stevens School Dist. 4, 84 Wash.2d 772, 529 P.2d 810 (1974), has since clarified the law on that subject and that Williams v. Board of Directors, 10 Wash.App. 579, 519 P.2d 15 (1974), upon which the Superior Court relied in this case, is out of harmony with Pierce v. Lake Stevens School Dist. 4, supra, and was impliedly overruled therein. The holding of the Pierce case that a notice of nonrenewal giving as the reason the curtailment of the education program due to insufficient funds, is an adequate notice of probable cause where the employee is afforded a fair hearing, has been reaffirmed in Diedrick v. School Dist. 81, 87 Wash.2d 598, 555 P.2d 825 (1976); Hill v. Dayton School Dist. 2, 85 Wash.2d 204, 532 P.2d 1154 (1975); and Martin v. Dayton School Dist. 2, 85 Wash.2d 411, 536 P.2d 169 (1975). If criteria, including seniority, have been previously adopted, and they have not been applied in the particular employee's case, however, he must be so notified. Barendregt v. Walla Walla School Dist. 140, 87 Wash.2d 154, 550 P.2d 525 (1976).
While she now concedes that the notice which was sent her (which gave as the reason for nonrenewal the elimination of existing positions due to school district reorganization) was adequate, provided she was thereafter afforded a fair hearing, the respondent urges that the judgment should be sustained upon other grounds.
She first contends that the district was required to adopt objective criteria for the filling of positions in the new organization. The evidence showed that the superintendent, with the concurrence of the board of directors, chose the persons to fill these positions, using the job descriptions to determine the necessary qualifications, following guidelines suggested or implied in documents prepared by an 'ad hoc district task force' which had been set up to study the reorganization, and placing particular emphases upon broad subject-matter background.
No objective criteria were adopted. Such criteria are relevant when a district must make a choice among qualified applicants whose contracts have been nonrenewed because of a financial reduction in personnel, when vacancies occur prior to the expiration of their existing contracts, as was the case in Peters v. South Kitsap School Dist. 402, 8 Wash.App. 809, 509 P.2d 67 (1973), relied upon by the respondent. While the Court of Appeals in that case said that it thought that due process would require that the district promulgate specific criteria to apply in satisfying its needs, it declared that the district's failure in this regard was not prejudicial to the appellant teacher, since during the period of time under consideration, no vacancies for which he was qualified occurred within the district. 1
That is the situation which exists in the present case. The Superior Court found, after conducting a hearing de novo, that the district considered the respondent's qualifications for the administrative positions which were created or became open after her nonrenewal and that the evidence preponderated in favor of the district's finding that she was not qualified for any of these positions.
The respondent's training and experience had been concentrated in the field of music. She had spent 23 years with the school district, during most of which she had performed the duties of a music consultant. The main purpose of the reorganization was to change the structure from one which was oriented toward specialization to one which was process-oriented, with greater efficiency as its goal. It was decided in each case that the respondent's background was not broad enough to qualify her to perform the duties of the position.
The respondent makes no showing that the trial court's finding with respect to her qualifications was unsupported by the record, but she contends that without objective criteria, there were no satisfactory means of determining her qualifications. It appears, however, that the district, acting in good faith as the Superior Court found, was able to staff its new administration satisfactorily, even though its selection of personnel was not based upon objective criteria. The respondent has not shown that she was qualified for one of the positions for which she applied or that the job descriptions were so vague that an intelligent judgment could not be made concerning an applicant's ability to perform its duties. We cannot set aside the trial court's findings, absent at least one such showing.
Since the respondent was not qualified for any position which she sought, the failure to adopt criteria for choosing among qualified applicants (assuming without deciding that such criteria would be required in the circumstances of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fahn v. Cowlitz County
...Washington Water Power Co., 91 Wash.2d at 69, 586 P.2d 1149; Sarruf, 90 Wash.2d at 884, 586 P.2d 466; Stieler v. Spokane School Dist. No. 81, 88 Wash.2d 68, 558 P.2d 198 (1977). See also Barnes v. Washington Natural Gas Co., 22 Wash.App. 576, 591 P.2d 461 (1979); Davis v. Department of Labo......
-
Shannon v. Pay 'N Save Corp.
...are not without guidance. Federal cases decided under Title VII provide precedent in construing RCW 49.60. Stieler v. Spokane Sch. Dist. 81, 88 Wash.2d 68, 73, 558 P.2d 198 (1977). However, as we noted in Fahn v. Cowlitz Cy., 93 Wash.2d, at 380-81, 610 P.2d 857, different federal circuits h......
-
E-Z Loader Boat Trailers, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co.
...U.S. 424, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971). See Fahn v. Cowlitz Cy, 93 Wash.2d 368, 610 P.2d 857 (1980); Stieler v. Spokane Sch. Dist. 81, 88 Wash.2d 68, 558 P.2d 198 (1977). Here, the plaintiffs were the direct targets of the employer because of their sex, age and in retaliation. They w......
-
Dean v. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle-Metro
...might fit his abilities and by accepting reasonably compensatory work he could perform. As observed in Stieler v. Spokane Sch. Dist. 81, 88 Wash.2d 68, 558 P.2d 198 (1977), at page 74, 558 P.2d There is no civil rights violation in denying a job to a person who is not qualified to perform i......