Turnbough v. Mammoth Spring School Dist.

• Decision Date: 20 June 2002
• Docket Number: No. 01-696.,01-696.
• Citation: Turnbough v. Mammoth Spring School Dist., 78 S.W.3d 89, 349 Ark. 341 (Ark. 2002)
• Parties: Rose TURNBOUGH v. MAMMOTH SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

78 S.W.3d 89

349 Ark. 341

Rose TURNBOUGH v. MAMMOTH SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2.

No. 01-696.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

June 20, 2002.

Larry Dean Kissee, Ash Flat, for appellant.

Laser Law Firm, P.A., by: Dan F. Bufford and Brian A. Brown, Little Rock, for appellee.

Kristen Craig Gould and W. Paul Blume, Little Rock, for amicus curiae Arkansas School Boards Association.

DONALD L. CORBIN, Justice.

This case is before us on a petition for review from a decision by the Arkansas Court of Appeals in Turnbough v. Mammoth Spring Sch., 74 Ark.App. 107, 45 S.W.3d 430 (2001). For reversal, Appellant Rose Turnbough argues that the trial court erred in determining that Appellee Mammoth Spring School District No. 2 was not required to pay her for accumulated sick leave when she resigned her teaching position. This issue is one of first impression, properly decided by this court; hence, our jurisdiction is pursuant to Ark. Sup.Ct. R. 1-2(b)(1) and 2-4(c)(iii). We find no error and affirm.

Turnbough was employed as a school teacher with the school district from August 1, 1979, until the end of the school year in 1999. At that time, Turnbough notified the school district that she would not be renewing her contract. She also requested that the school district pay her for ninety days of sick leave that she had accumulated. The school district refused on the basis that Turnbough did not meet either of the two criteria for such payment as established in the district's policies, which were subsequently incorporated into Turnbough's teaching contract.

Thereafter, Turnbough filed a declaratory-judgment action in the Fulton County Circuit Court, seeking a declaration that she was entitled to payment for the sick leave under the Arkansas Teachers' Minimum Sick Leave Law, codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 6-17-1201 — 1209 (Repl. 1999). A hearing was held on this matter on June 20, 2000. At that time, Turnbough testified that after leaving her job with the school district, she took a counselor's position with the West Plains High School in West Plains, Missouri. Turnbough also stated that she filed for teacher retirement before taking the counselor position in Missouri, but was told that she was not eligible for retirement benefits at that time. On cross-examination, Turnbough also admitted that she read the school district's sick-leave policy as set forth in her teaching contract.

Also testifying at this hearing was Houston Case, the school district's superintendent. He testified that under the employment contract signed by Turnbough, payment for unused sick leave only occurred where an employee accumulates more than ninety days of sick leave or where an employee is eligible and files for retirement benefits. Case stated that because neither of these situations applied to Turnbough, there was no provision to pay her for her unused sick leave.

Finally, Wilma Rogers testified that she was an administrative bookkeeper with the school district. According to Rogers, she was unaware of any teacher ever being paid for unused sick leave that did not fall within one of the two provisions set forth in the school district's sick-leave policy. After considering this testimony, the circuit court determined that Turnbough was not entitled to payment for the unused sick leave under the terms of the Sick Leave Law or her teaching contract. The trial court then entered an order dismissing Turnbough's complaint with prejudice.

On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's order dismissing Turnbough's complaint. In so ruling, the court of appeals agreed that a plain reading of the statute revealed that while school districts are free to decide whether to compensate teachers for unused sick leave, they are not required to do so. The only requirement set forth in the Sick Leave Law regarding payment for unused sick leave is that any such payments must come from the school district's salary funds. In the same vein, the court of appeals determined that Turnbough was not entitled to payment for the unused sick leave under the terms of her contract with the school district. Turnbough then petitioned this court for review of the court of appeals' decision.

After granting Turnbough's petition for review, this court also granted a motion allowing the Arkansas School Boards Association to file an amicus curiae brief in this matter. Therein, the Association argues that the General Assembly has been aware of this school district's, as well as numerous other school districts', policies regarding payment of unused sick leave and has not stepped in to require a modification of those policies. The Association also argues that under Turnbough's interpretation of the Sick Leave Law, school districts could be left financially devastated by a sudden onslaught of requests for cash payments by teachers who have accumulated sick leave. Finally, the Association argues that Turnbough's interpretation of the Sick Leave Law is contrary to public policy. Specifically, the Association avers that the purpose of the law is to create a buffer against economic hardship for teachers who fall ill or have family that become ill. Allowing teachers to request payment for that sick leave would then defeat the intent of the General Assembly when they passed the Sick Leave Law.

On appeal, Turnbough argues that the trial court erred in ruling that she was not entitled to payment for the unused sick leave under the terms of the Sick Leave Law. She also argues that the school district's sick-leave policy is more restrictive than allowed by the statute and that the policy also violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution. The school district counters that the intent of the Sick Leave Law is not to provide cash payments for unused sick leave, but rather to provide teachers with a mechanism for accumulating sick leave as a buffer against financial hardship in the event of future illness or injury. Thus, the school district argues that the trial court's declaration that Turnbough was not entitled to a cash payment was correct. As to Turnbough's remaining two arguments, the school district contends that these arguments were not raised below, and thus, are not preserved for appellate review. We agree that the latter two arguments were not raised below, and thus, will not now be reviewed by this court. It is well settled that with the notable exception of matters involving subject-matter jurisdiction, we will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, even where the issue is a matter of constitutional magnitude. R.N. v. J.M., 347 Ark. 203, 61 S.W.3d 149 (2001); Burke v. Strange, 335 Ark. 328, 983 S.W.2d 389 (1998); Furman v. Holloway, 312 Ark. 378, 849 S.W.2d 520 (1993).

Turning now to the issue of the applicability of the statutes, we begin by reiterating our well-established principles regarding statutory construction. We review issues of statutory construction de novo, as it is for this court to decide what a statute means; thus, we are not bound by the trial court's determination. Bourne v. Board of Trustees of Little Rock Policeman's Relief Pension Fund, 347 Ark. 19, 59 S.W.3d 432 (2001); Stephens v. Arkansas Sch. for the Blind, 341 Ark. 939, 20 S.W.3d 397 (2000). The basic rule of statutory construction is to give effect to the intent of the General Assembly. Bond v. Lavaca Sch. Dist., 347 Ark. 300, 64 S.W.3d 249 (2001); Ozark Gas Pipeline v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 342 Ark. 591, 29 S.W.3d 730 (2000). In determining the meaning of a statute, the first rule is to construe it just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language. Stephens, 341 Ark. 939, 20 S.W.3d 397. This court construes the statute so that no word is left void, superfluous, or insignificant; and meaning and effect are given to every word in the statute if possible. Id. When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no need to resort to rules of statutory construction. Id. However, this court will not give statutes a literal interpretation if it leads to absurd consequences that are contrary to legislative intent. Burford Distrib., Inc. v. Starr, 341 Ark. 914, 20 S.W.3d 363 (2000).

We now apply these principles to the provisions at hand. Section 6-17-1204 provides:

(a) Each school district in the state shall provide sick leave for each of its teachers at a minimum rate of one (1) day per month or major portion thereof that the teacher is contracted, at full pay.

(b) Such leave shall be in force beginning with the first day of the first school term for which each teacher is employed.

(c) If a teacher resigns or leaves his teaching position for any reason before the end of the school term, the employing district may deduct from his last paycheck full compensation for any days of sick leave used in excess of the number of days earned.

(d) A teacher shall be entitled to sick leave only for reasons of personal illness or illness in his...