Thruston v. Jefferson City School Dist.
| Decision Date | 14 January 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. WD 60172.,WD 60172. |
| Parties | Cheryl THRUSTON, Fern Ward and Luana Gifford, Appellants, v. JEFFERSON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Ronald Gladney, St. Louis, for appellant.
Johnny Richardson, Jefferson City, and Thomas Mickes, Chesterfield, for respondent.
Before HAROLD L. LOWENSTEIN, Presiding Judge, THOMAS H. NEWTON, Judge, and RONALD R. HOLLIGER, Judge.
Appellants Cheryl Thruston and Fern Ward were employees of respondent Jefferson City School District. Appellant, Luana Gifford, is the president of the Missouri Federation of Teachers and School-Related Personnel, AFT-AFL-CIO, and the union representative of both Thruston and Ward.
Thruston was employed as a teacher in charge of a special education classroom for learning-disabled and/or behavior-disordered children. Ward was employed by the District as a principal. Both Thruston and Ward sought to bring separate grievances against the District, with Gifford acting as their union representative. Thruston's grievance concerned allegations that she had not been provided sufficient resources to enable her to adequately instruct and educate her class of "special needs" pupils. Ward's grievance addressed unilateral changes made to Ward's job responsibilities as principal toward the end of her contract with the District.
Thruston, Ward, and Gifford filed a suit with the Cole County Circuit Court seeking declaratory relief against the District. Thruston and Ward claimed that the District's actions with respect to their respective grievances denied them rights under both the Missouri and United States Constitution. Specifically, they claimed that the District's actions violated Article I, Section 29 of the Missouri constitution, as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Gifford also claimed that the District's refusal to permit her to represent Thruston and Ward in their grievances violated her rights under those constitutional provisions. Appellants sought a ruling that the District's actions were unconstitutional and an order directing the District to refrain from similar conduct against them. Appellant's motion was dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim. Because we find that all of the claims are moot, the appeal is dismissed.
Both Thruston and Ward claim that they were penalized as a result of bringing their grievances. Thruston's supervisors imposed "job targets" shortly after her grievance was filed, and she was repeatedly asked by the building principal if she wanted to resign. She further claims that she was ordered to refrain from discussing matters relating to the classroom or her employment with other individuals, including Gifford, her union representative. Unlike Thruston, Ward was not permitted to pursue her grievance at all. After her initial grievance was filed, Ward's duties were apparently even further limited.
The District filed a motion to dismiss the suit, arguing that the facts alleged by appellants failed to state a claim. The District further contended that existing precedent clearly refuted the claims raised. The trial court granted the District's motion and dismissed the declaratory judgment action. This appeal follows.
To dismiss for failure to state a claim (or to review a dismissal on that basis), the court must test the adequacy of the allegations of the petition. It must assume that all facts alleged by the petition are true and grant the plaintiff all reasonable inferences from those facts. If those facts and inferences meet the elements of a recognized cause of action (or a cause of action that might be adopted by the court), then the case cannot be dismissed. See Nazeri v. Mo. Valley College, 860 S.W.2d 303, 306 (Mo. banc 1993).
While not fully addressed by the parties, certain events during the pendency of the case cast doubt on whether the plaintiffs present a justiciable controversy to the court. If a case has become moot, an appellate court may raise that issue sua sponte. State ex rel. Reed v. Reardon, 41 S.W.3d 470, 473 (Mo. banc 2001).
Plaintiffs Thruston, Ward, and Gifford raise a single point on appeal, claiming that the trial court erred in dismissing their petition, arguing that they asserted proper claims that the District violated their rights under the United States and Missouri Constitutions by refusing to permit them to collectively bargain with the District. This single point on appeal contains three subparts, one for each of the three plaintiffs. Thruston argues that her constitutional rights were violated because the District representatives recommended that she resign after raising her initial complaints, assigned "threatening" job targets, as if she was performing her duties in a substandard manner, and ordered her to refrain from discussing her working conditions with anyone outside of the school. Ward claims that she was denied her constitutional rights by the District's refusal to accept the grievance she submitted regarding changes made to her job responsibilities during the last few months of her employment with the District. Gifford contends that the District abrogated her constitutional rights by refusing to permit her to represent Thruston and Ward in their specific grievances.
Article I, Section 29 of the Missouri Constitution guarantees employees the right to collectively bargain with their employers. This section has been long interpreted to apply only to private sector employees. City of Springfield v. Clouse, 356 Mo. 1239, 206 S.W.2d 539, 541-42 (banc 1947). Section 105.510, RSMo 2000, part of the Public Sector Labor Law, grants certain public employees limited rights of collective bargaining, but teachers are explicitly excluded from the classes of public employees granted those rights. This interpretation of the Missouri Constitution and § 105.510 has been upheld as constitutional on appeal. See Sumpter v. City of Moberly, 645 S.W.2d 359, 361-62 (Mo. banc 1982).
The gravamen of appellants' appeal is a challenge to the interpretation of the above-cited provision of the Missouri Constitution contained within Clouse, supra. We have no authority to overrule Clouse, as it is an opinion by our Supreme Court, but appellants suggest that there may be some means to distinguish Clouse or otherwise restrict its application to the case at bar.
In our view, however, appellants' claim faces a more fundamental obstacle than that posed by Clouse. The District contends that the appellants fail to present a justiciable controversy upon the grounds that none of the appellants have standing. They argue that the declaratory and injunctive relief requested by appellants would be of no avail to them, as Thruston and Ward are no longer employed1 by the District. The District couches the issue as one of standing, arguing that appellants Thruston and Ward lost standing with regard to their claim once their employment with the district came to an end. The District further argues that Gifford also lost standing at that stage, based upon a view that her claims are essentially derivative of those maintained by Thruston and Ward.
Standing is closely related to its sister doctrine, mootness, and both are derived from...
To continue reading
Request your trial