v.
| Decision Date | 12 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | Supreme Court Case No. 15SC1062 |
| Citation | 2018 CO 18 |
| Parties | Petitioners: School District No. 1 in the City and County of Denver; and Valentina Flores, Debora Scheffel, Pam Mazanec, Steve Durham, Jane Goff, Joyce Rankin, and Angelika Schroeder, in their official capacities as members of the Colorado State Board of Education, v. Respondents: Cynthia Masters, Michelle Montoya, Mildred Anne Kolquist, Lawrence Garcia, Paula Scena, Jane Harmon, Lynne Rerucha, and Denver Classroom Teachers Association. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch's homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association's homepage at http://www.cobar.org.
ADVANCE SHEET HEADNOTE
Public Employment—Education.
In this case, the supreme court considers two questions. First, it considers whether the General Assembly, by enacting the Teacher Employment, Compensation, and Dismissal Act of 1990 ("TECDA"), created a legislative contract that it later impaired by enacting the unpaid-leave provisions of section 22-63-202(2)(c.5), C.R.S. (2017). Second, it considers whether a nonprobationary teacher who is placed on unpaid leave under section 22-63-202(2)(c.5)(IV) is deprived of due process. The supreme court holds that TECDA did not create a legislative contract or vest nonprobationary teachers who are placed on unpaid leave with a property interest in salary and benefits. The supreme court therefore concludes that the General Assembly has not impaired a contractual obligation by enacting the unpaid-leave provisions, and that nonprobationary teachers who are placed on unpaid leave have not suffered a violation of their right to due process.
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Case No. 14CA1348
Judgment Reversed
Attorneys for Petitioner School District No. 1 in the City and County of Denver:
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
Eric V. Hall
Tamara F. Goodlette
Stacy Kourlis Guillon
Attorneys for Petitioners Valentina Flores, Debora Scheffel, Pam Mazanec, Steve Durham, Jane Goff, Joyce Rankin, and Angelika Schroeder:
Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General
Frederick R. Yarger, Solicitor General
Antony B. Dyl, Senior Assistant Attorney General and Assistant Solicitor General
Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Respondents:
Colorado Education Association
Kris Gomez
Denver, Colorado
McNamara Roseman & Shechter LLP
Todd McNamara
Mathew S. Shechter
Denver, Colorado
National Education Association
Alice O'Brien
Philip A. Hostak
Washington, District of Columbia
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Colorado Association of School Boards:
Colorado Association of School Boards
Kady D. Lanoha
Attorneys for Amici Curiae The Colorado Children's Campaign, Education Reform Now, and Ready Colorado:
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
Brent Owen
E. Rayner Mangum
Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Colorado Succeeds:
Holland & Hart LLP
Stephen G. Masciocchi
Jason A. Crow
Jessica J. Smith
Attorneys for Amici Curiae Former Colorado Governors Bill Ritter, Jr., and Bill Owens:
Foster Graham Milstein & Calisher, LLP
Chip G. Schoneberger
Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Independence Institute:
Kittredge LLC
Daniel D. Domenico
Attorneys for Amici Curiae Senators Michael Johnston, Owen Hill, Kevin Grantham, Vickie Marble, and Laura Woods; Former Senator John Morse; Representatives Paul Lundeen and Daniel Nordberg; and Former Representatives Terrance Carroll and Christine Scanlan:
MRDLaw
Michael L. Francisco
Denver, Colorado
*
¶1 Teachers who work for Denver Public Schools ("DPS"), together with the Denver Classroom Teachers Association (collectively, "the teachers"), filed this suit, alleging that DPS invoked Senate Bill 10-191—which under certain circumstances allows a school district to place a nonprobationary teacher on unpaid leave—to remove hundreds of teachers from their positions in violation of both due process of law and the contracts clause of the Colorado Constitution. School District No. 1 and members of the Colorado Board of Education (collectively, "the District") moved to dismiss the suit, and the trial court granted that motion. A division of the court of appeals reversed, relying on our decisions interpreting predecessor statutes to the relevant, now-codified law—the Teacher Employment, Compensation, and Dismissal Act of 1990 ("TECDA")—and concluding due process violations occurred under those predecessor statutes. Masters v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2015 COA 159, ¶¶ 38, 40, ___ P.3d ___.
¶2 We granted certiorari1 and now reverse. We hold that TECDA did not create a contractual relationship or vest nonprobationary teachers who are placed on unpaid leave with a property interest in salary and benefits.
¶3 The Teacher Employment, Dismissal, and Tenure Act of 1967 ("TEDTA"), ch. 435, sec. 1, §§ 123-18-1 to -18, 1967 Colo. Sess. Laws 976, provided that a teacher who maintained continuous employment in the same school district for three academic years became tenured upon being retained for a fourth academic year. § 22-63-112(1), C.R.S. (1988).2 It defined a "tenure teacher" as "any teacher who has acquired tenure status in a school district pursuant to law." § 22-63-102(11), C.R.S. (1988). Under TEDTA, a tenured teacher was "entitled to a position of employment as a teacher" under certain circumstances. § 22-63-115(1), C.R.S. (1988). Accordingly, a tenured teacher could be dismissed only for certain, enumerated reasons relating to cause. See § 22-63-116, C.R.S. (1988).
¶4 TEDTA laid out the procedure to dismiss a tenured teacher. This procedure included the filing of charges with the board of the employing school district, written notice to the teacher, entitlement to a hearing by an administrative law judge, and the opportunity for judicial review. See § 22-63-117(1)-(11), C.R.S. (1988). It also provided that a school district could cancel a tenured teacher's contract without penalty "whenthere is a justifiable decrease in the number of teaching positions." § 22-63-112(3), C.R.S. (1988).
¶5 TEDTA likewise provided for teacher transfer. A school district's chief administrative officer could transfer a teacher from one school to another within the school district, provided that the teacher was qualified for her new position:
A teacher may be transferred upon the recommendation of the chief administrative officer of a school district from one school, position, or grade level to another within the school district, if such transfer does not result in the assignment of the teacher to a position of employment for which he or she is not qualified by virtue of academic preparation and certification and if, during the then current school year, the amount of salary of such teacher is not reduced except as otherwise provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section.
§ 22-63-114(1), C.R.S. (1988). The receiving school could not refuse to accept a transferred teacher.
¶6 In 1990, the General Assembly supplanted TEDTA by enacting the Teacher Employment, Compensation, and Dismissal Act of 1990 ("TECDA"). Ch. 150, sec. 1, §§ 22-63-101 to -403, 1990 Colo. Sess. Laws 1117. In so doing, the General Assembly removed virtually all tenure-related language. Unlike its predecessor, TECDA did not define a "tenure teacher" or provide any "entitle[ment] to a position of employment as a teacher." Indeed, as we noted today in Johnson v. School District No. 1, 2018 CO 17, ¶ 4, ___ P.3d ___, TECDA used the word "tenure" only once.3 TECDA instead created a distinction between nonprobationary and probationary teachers, defining the latter as"a teacher who has not completed three full years of continuous employment with the employing school district and who has not been reemployed for the fourth year." § 22-63-103(7), C.R.S. (1990).
¶7 Despite removing tenure language, TECDA did retain some of TEDTA's provisions. Specifically, TECDA retained TEDTA's for-cause grounds for teacher dismissal, § 22-63-301, C.R.S. (1990), and its procedures to dismiss a teacher, with some differences not relevant for our purposes, see § 22-63-302(1)-(10), C.R.S. (1990). And TECDA retained TEDTA's transfer language. Compare § 22-63-114(1), C.R.S. (1988), with § 22-63-206(1), C.R.S. (1990).
¶8 But in 2010, the General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 10-191 ("SB 191"), which amended requirements for teacher contracts and the transfer process. Ch. 241, 2010 Colo. Sess. Laws 1053. SB 191 eliminated the practice of placing displaced teachers in schools without the consent of the recipient-school principal by providing—in the bill's sole alteration to section 22-63-206, which governs transfer—that § 22-63-206(5), C.R.S. (2017). SB 191 also provided that "each employment contract . . . shall contain a provision stating that a teacher may be assigned to a particular school only with the consent of the hiring principal and with input from at least two teachers employed at the school." § 22-63-202(2)(c.5)(I), C.R.S. (2017). SB 191 labels a teacher's assignment with consent of the recipient-school principal a "mutual consent assignment." E.g., § 22-63-202(2)(c.5)(IV).
¶9 SB 191 also provides procedures for teachers who are unable to secure mutual-consent assignments. Nonprobationary teachers4 who were deemed effective during the prior school year, but who have not secured a mutual-consent assignment, become members of a "priority hiring pool," ensuring them the first opportunity to interview for a "reasonable number of available...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Houser v. CenturyLink, Inc.
...Bewley v. Semler , 2018 CO 79, ¶ 14, 432 P.3d 582. And in doing so, we apply the same standards as the district court. Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Masters , 2018 CO 18, ¶ 13, 413 P.3d 723. Thus, we determine whether the complaint's factual allegations are sufficient to raise a right to relief above......
-
Ray v. People
...of fact were made. Like the probate court, we are required to assume the truth of Ray’s allegations of material fact. See Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Masters , 2018 CO 18, ¶ 13, 413 P.3d 723.4 Colorado appellate courts have not expressly addressed what is commonly known as the "scrivener’s error do......
-
Johnson v. Sch. Dist. No. 1 in the Cnty. of Denver
...proves unsuccessful, the school district may place the teacher on unpaid leave.Amended Amicus Curiae Brief of Senator Michael Johnston et al. at 6, Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Masters, 2018 CO 18, 413 P.3d 723 (citation omitted). Accordingly, we disagree that reading paragraph (c.5) to apply to all......
-
Stanczyk v. Poudre Sch. Dist. R-1
...years of continuous employment with the employing school district and who has not been reemployed for the fourth year.’ " Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Masters , 2018 CO 18, ¶ 6, 413 P.3d 723, 726 (quoting § 22-63-103(7), C.R.S. 1990 ).¶9 Nonprobationary teachers retained certain of the protections a......
-
Summaries of Published Opinions
...a non-probationary teacher who is placed on unpaid leave under CRS § 22-63-202(2)(c.5) (IV) is not deprived of a state property interest. 2018 CO 18. No. 15SC1062. School District No. 1 in the City and County of Denver v. Masters. Public Employment—Education. In this case, the Supreme Court......