Welsh v. Kan. City Pub. Sch.
| Decision Date | 28 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | WD 83337 |
| Citation | 608 S.W.3d 751 |
| Parties | Michael WELSH, Respondent, v. KANSAS CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
William E. Quirk and Elizabeth Marden, Kansas City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.
Jeff Klusmeier and Shana Long, Kansas City, MO, Attorneys for Appellant.
Before Division Two: Karen King Mitchell, Presiding Judge, and Anthony Rex Gabbert and W. Douglas Thomson, Judges
The School District of Kansas City 33 d/b/a Kansas City Public Schools (KCPS) appeals from the grant of summary judgment in favor of its former employee, Michael Welsh, on his claim that KCPS violated Missouri's Teacher Tenure Act when it failed to renew his teaching contract for the 2018-2019 school year without providing him the protections afforded to permanent teachers under the Act. KCPS raises two points on appeal. First, it argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion to dismiss Welsh's petition for failure to state a claim. And, second, it argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Welsh because he was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Because Welsh's petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, we reverse the trial court's grant of summary judgment and remand with directions to dismiss Welsh's petition.
Welsh began working for KCPS as a teacher on July 1, 2013. KCPS discontinued his employment as of June 30, 2014, but rehired him beginning September 8, 2014, and continuing until June 30, 2018.2
Before working for KCPS, Welsh was employed in a teaching capacity for ten consecutive years in the Kansas City – St. Joseph Catholic School System and six consecutive years in the Cristo Rey Network of Schools, neither of which is a public school district. As part of Welsh's employment, both the Kansas City – St. Joseph Catholic School System and Cristo Rey Network of Schools required him to have a valid Missouri teaching certificate, which he continuously held from 1997 through August 2019.
On March 28, 2018, KCPS notified Welsh by letter that his employment would not be renewed for the 2018-19 school year. KCPS gave Welsh no advance statement of reasons for his non-renewal, no opportunity for a hearing on the non-renewal, and no right to appeal the outcome of any hearing.
He further alleged that, as a "permanent teacher," he was entitled to "written warning, prior to his non-renewal, identifying the actions that could result in his non-renewal for incompetency, inefficiency, or insubordination"; "written charges, prior to his non-renewal, that specified with particularity the alleged grounds for [his] non-renewal"; "notice and an opportunity for a hearing with the Board of Education on these written charges"; and "the right to appeal the Board of Education's decision after such a hearing." And he alleged that, by failing to provide the above, KCPS violated the Teacher Tenure Act, as well as his teaching contract.
KCPS moved to dismiss Welsh's petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted insofar as the facts alleged did not support Welsh's claim that he was a "permanent teacher" as defined by the Act. The trial court denied KCPS's motion, and Welsh filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted Welsh's motion for summary judgment, and KCPS appeals.
KCPS brings two points on appeal. First, it argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion to dismiss Welsh's petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Second, it argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Welsh because he was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Generally, the denial of a motion to dismiss is not a final judgment and, therefore, not reviewable. In re Care & Treatment of Bradley , 554 S.W.3d 440, 450 n.5 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018). But we may "review ... the denial of a motion to dismiss, ‘as part of the appeal from a final judgment[.]’ " U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Coverdell , 483 S.W.3d 390, 401 (Mo. App. S.D. 2015) (quoting In re O.J.B. , 436 S.W.3d 726, 729 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) ). Though in some circumstances, the review of the denial of a motion to dismiss is for abuse of discretion, "[t]he question of whether a petition states a claim for which relief can be granted is a question of law," State ex rel. Cmty. Treatment, Inc. v. Mo. Comm'n on Human Rights , 561 S.W.3d 107, 111 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) ; and "[q]uestions of law are reviewed de novo. " Schoen v. Mid-Missouri Mental Health Ctr. , 597 S.W.3d 657, 659 (Mo. banc 2020).
Here, Welsh's petition alleged two counts: (1) violation of the Teacher Tenure Act; and (2) breach of contract premised upon the same alleged violation of the Act. Both claims were premised upon Welsh's allegation that he was a "permanent teacher" as defined in the Act. KCPS moved to dismiss the petition because, under the facts alleged, Welsh failed to meet the definition of a "permanent teacher" and, therefore, was not entitled to the protections that KCPS failed to provide and that are afforded by the Act to permanent teachers.
"A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted is an attack on the plaintiff's pleadings." McConnell v. W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co. , 606 S.W.3d 181 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) (). "Such a motion is only a test of the sufficiency of the plaintiff's petition." Id. (quoting R.M.A. , 568 S.W.3d at 424 ). "When considering whether a petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, [we] must accept all properly pleaded facts as true, giving the pleadings their broadest intendment, and construe all allegations favorably to the pleader." Id. (quoting R.M.A. , 568 S.W.3d at 424 ). We do not "weigh the factual allegations to determine whether they are credible or persuasive." Id. (quoting R.M.A. , 568 S.W.3d at 424 ). "Instead, [we] review[ ] the petition to determine if the facts alleged meet the elements of a recognized cause of action...." Id. (quoting R.M.A. , 568 S.W.3d at 424 ).
The Teacher Tenure Act is codified in sections 168.102 through 168.130 of the Missouri Revised Statutes. § 168.102.3 "The Act identifies two different kinds of teachers to which it applies: permanent teachers and probationary teachers." Stolov v. Jackson Cty. Sch. Dist. C-1 of Hickman Mills, Jackson Cty. , 408 S.W.3d 218, 222 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (citing § 168.104(4) - (5) ). A permanent teacher, in relevant part, is "any teacher who ... is ... employed as a teacher in the same school district for five successive years and who ... thereafter continues to be employed as a teacher by the school district...." § 168.104(4). A probationary teacher is "any teacher as herein defined who has been employed in the same school district for five successive years or less." § 168.104(5). But, "[i]n the case of any probationary teacher who has been employed in any other school system as a teacher for two or more years, the board of education shall waive one year of his probationary period." Id.
"The distinction between permanent and probationary teachers relevant to this appeal is that permanent teachers are afforded considerably more procedural protections than are probationary teachers before a school board is allowed to terminate their teaching contracts." Stolov , 408 S.W.3d at 222-23. "Specifically, before the indefinite contract of a permanent teacher [may] be terminated upon one of six statutorily specified grounds,[ ] a school board must serve the permanent teacher with ‘written charges specifying with particularity the grounds alleged to exist for termination of such contract, notice of a hearing on [the] charges and a hearing by the board of education on [the] charges if requested by the teacher.’ " Id. at 223 (quoting § 168.116.1). "For probationary teachers, on the other hand, ‘a school board may refuse to renew the contract ... for any reason or no reason, as long as the non-renewal is not based on some ground impermissible under the Constitution.’ " Id. (quoting Smith v. King City Sch. Dist. R-1 of Gentry Cty. , 990 S.W.2d 643, 646 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998) ). "And the only procedural protection afforded a probationary teacher is that the school board must notify him of its decision not to renew his contract no later than the fifteenth day of April, and, only upon request , must the board provide a concise statement of the reason or reasons for the termination."4 Id. (citing § 168.126.2).
The nature of each of Welsh's claims is that he was a "permanent teacher" and, therefore, entitled to the additional protections. In support of this assertion, Welsh alleged the following facts in his petition:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forbes v. Allison
...from that final judgment. In re Halverson ex rel. Sumners , 362 S.W.3d 443, 448 n.7 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012) ; Welsh v. Kansas City Pub. Schs. , 608 S.W.3d 751, 753 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020). Here, the denial of the Allisons’ motion to dismiss is reviewed as part of the appeal from the final judgmen......