Tippecanoe Valley School Corp. v. Leachman, 369A55

• Decision Date: 08 September 1970
• Docket Number: No. 2,No. 369A55,369A55,2
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court
• Parties: TIPPECANOE VALLEY SCHOOL CORPORATION, Appellant, v. James LEACHMAN, Appellee

Page 880

261 N.E.2d 880

147 Ind.App. 443

TIPPECANOE VALLEY SCHOOL CORPORATION, Appellant, v. James LEACHMAN, Appellee.

No. 369A55.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 2.

Sept. 8, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 2, 1970.

Frederick E. Rakestraw, Chipman, Chipman & Rakestraw, Plymouth, for appellant.

Thomas R. Lemon, Warsaw, Lloyd C. Wampler, Plymouth, for appellee; Graham Rasor & Harris, Warsaw, of counsel.

WHITE, Judge.

This is an appeal by the Tippecanoe Valley School Corporation (school corporation), defendant-appellant, from a judgment that James Leachman (teacher), plaintiff-appellee, a former teacher at defendant's Akron High School, have and recover from the school corporation $3,240.92, as damages for breaching the teacher's 1963--64 teaching contract.

The judgment was the result of a court trial. The facts were not found specially but the evidence most favorable to the teacher, supports the following account of the events which culminated in the judgment in his favor.

On June 19, 1963, the teacher and the school corporation executed a teacher's contract on a printed form prescribed by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. By this contract plaintiff was employed to teach during the 1963--64 school year 'in the Public Schools of said School Corporation in such places, grades, and subjects as shall be designated by such employer subject to reasonable conditions of employment' at a total annual compensation of $4,700.00. Words written into blank columns on the form indicated the teacher was licensed to teach English and Social Studies. By a printed clause the teacher agreed 'to use such text materials as are prescribed by said employer, and to observe all reasonable rules and regulations of the properly constituted school authorities. * * *'

The contract also contained this printed clause:

'It is agreed by the parties hereto that in case the said teacher should, after opportunity for hearing with benefit of legal counsel, be held by said employer to be guilty of incompetency, immorality, insubordination or other offense recognized as just cause according to law for cancellation of contract, such teacher, subject to proper appeal, shall be deemed to be dismissed and shall thereafter hold no claim for further compensation, subject, however, to the provisions of law concerning the employment and dismissal of teachers which are in force and effect. Revocation of license by the State Department of Education for any statutory reason shall be deemed to constitute incompentency under this contract.'

Under date of July 11, 1963, the teacher wrote a letter to Mr. Rex McHatton, Principal of the Akron High School, stating that he was 'to teach English and Social Studies at your high school for the coming year.' He expressed the opinion that his abilities and the students' best interests would be served by his 'teaching just literature and social studies'. He pointed out the meagre training in grammar he had received in completing his 'minor' requirements in English and that he felt 'very incompetent in teaching anything in the English field other than speech or literature'. His 'major' was social studies and he 'could teach any course in this field', but he could do better with high school students (rather than those of junior high) and could do better with sociology and government.

On August 27, Mr. McHatton assigned him to teach only social studies: Two classes of United States history (eleventh grade) and two classes of United States government (twelfth grade). He taught these courses from the opening of school until about November 11, 1963, when Mr. McHatton, his principal, telephoned him at his residence and reassigned him to teach ninth and tenth grade English.

Prior to the reassignment he had handed out to his history and government students lists of books from which they were required to read one. Some of these books, such as 'Darkness at Noon' (apparently a novel) and 'Winston Churchill' (apparently a biography of the United Kingdom's W.W. II Prime Minister) did not relate directly to either the georgraphical area or the historical period covered by any of the official course text books. He also read supplementary materials to his classes. Sometimes he 'duplicated' passages from books, passed them out to the students, and required them to read them the night before for class discussion. He did not seek approval for use of the book list or the 'duplicated' material. He did not know that approval was required until about November 19 or 20. He gave the principal a list of paperback books which he asked be made available for sale in the school office. This was not the list he gave to the students and no one ever asked him for that list. It was not until after he had been reassigned that Mr. McHatton told him that books had to be approved by him. Most books on the list given the students were available in the Warsaw book store and others were in his personal library, a part of which he had brought to school for his personal use. Until his conversation with Mr. McHatton about November 19 or 20 he knew of no objection to his teaching 'or any comment one way or the other.'

Under date of November 15, he wrote this note to defendant's superintendent of schools:

'Mr. Forbes:

I am asking that Mr. McHatton give this note to you since you have refused to talk with (sic) about this matter of my transfer of classes.

Because I am not qualified to teach English, I feel that I must consider seriously resigning from this position.'

About November 22, 1963, he received his 'dismissal' which was a 'Memo' from Mr. Forbes, defendant's superintendent of schools, stating that defendant's school board 'has voted unanimously to cancel your present contract on the basis of charges of insubordination and willful disobedience * * * to become effective immediately.' He did not teach or report for work at any time thereafter.

About December 9, 1963, while he was still living in the vicinity (at North Manchester) he received a letter from the school corporation (by Mr. Forbes, Superintendent) stating that his contract cancellation had been rescinded, he had been reinstated retroactive to November 22, 1963, and he should report to Mr. Forbes for assignment.

Plaintiff did not report in person to Mr. Forbes for assignment, but did telephone his office and talk to his secretary. The content of that conversation is not in evidence.

One or two days later he received another letter from Supt. Forbes (for the school corporation) notifying him of a hearing to be held before the school board on December 18, 1963, at 9:00 P.M., to consider the matter of terminating his contract on charges of 'incompetency and insubordination'. It also stated: 'If you desire to be heard concerning said charges you should attend the hearing at which time you may be heard by yourself or by counsel.'

Four days after writing that letter, Superintendent Forbes wrote to the teacher's draft board in Terre Haute, as follows:

'Gentlemen:

James Leachman has not taught in our school since November 20, 1963. We have hired a replacement for him. To relieve ourselves of any further financial responsibility, it has been necessary to write a letter of reinstatement, followed by a statement of charges. We will be completely relieved of any responsibility on December 18, 1963. I write this letter inasmuch as I have understood that he is using this reinstatement letter as proof that he is engaged in teaching. Actually he has not even reported to me for assignment as called for in the last paragraph. Whether he has quit or whether he has resigned, or whether he is relieved of assignments and dismissed may be debated, but I assure you he is not teaching in our corporation and he will not be teaching here.'

At about the same time the teacher's attorney, Mr. Henderson, wrote to Superintendent Forbes, making six demands 'in order to protect the interests of our client'. Those demands are summarized as follows:

That the teacher be given:

1. A list of the specific charges.

2. Five days preparation time after receipt of the list.

3. The right to present witnesses.

4. The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.

5. The right to employ at his own expense his own reporter.

6. A public hearing.

Although a reply 'advising us of your intentions' was requested, no reply was ever made. Nevertheless, when the board met on December 18, 1963, at 9:00 P.M., Mr. Leachman was there with his attorneys, Mr. Henderson and Mr. Logue, accompanied by the official reporter of the Kosciusko Circuit Court. The reporter took verbatim notes from which she later typed a transcript which was introduced by the teacher as evidence at the trial.

The transcript, together with the superintendent's letter to the teacher's draft board and the first (the 'rescinded') cancellation of the teacher's contract, provide evidence sufficient to sustain the teacher's contentions concerning the 'hearing' and dismissal. The contentions are: that he was denied a list of the formal charges placed against him; that the decision was predetermined; that he was denied the right of cross-examination; that after learning the charges from the testimony he was not given an opportunity to prepare a defense; and that he was denied the right to call witnesses. The evidence consisted of the testimony (mostly narrative in form) of the high school principal, the school corporation's assistant superintendent, and the school corporation's superintendent. The superintendent conducted the hearing as advocate for the school corporation and made a closing argument. The efforts of the teacher's attorney to act as the teacher's advocate were rebuffed by the superintendent and the school board president who presided. In the main, the testimony was a recitation of the witnesses' experience with the teacher. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the board's implied finding that the teacher was guilty of incompetence and...