Werblo v. Board of Trustees of Hamilton Heights School Corp., 29S02-8905-CV-371

• Decision Date: 04 May 1989
• Docket Number: No. 29S02-8905-CV-371,29S02-8905-CV-371
• Parties: 53 Ed. Law Rep. 238 Diane P. WERBLO, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the HAMILTON HEIGHTS SCHOOL CORPORATION, and Sylvia Kay Hartley, V. Ray Mosbaugh, Lawrence C. Beck, Keith Schulenburg, and Ronald E. McGill, individually and in their capacity as members of the Board of School Trustees of Hamilton Heights School Corporation, Appellees (Defendants below).
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 499

537 N.E.2d 499

53 Ed. Law Rep. 238

Diane P. WERBLO, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the HAMILTON HEIGHTS SCHOOL

CORPORATION, and Sylvia Kay Hartley, V. Ray Mosbaugh,

Lawrence C. Beck, Keith Schulenburg, and Ronald E. McGill,

individually and in their capacity as members of the Board

of School Trustees of Hamilton Heights School Corporation,

Appellees (Defendants below).

No. 29S02-8905-CV-371.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

May 4, 1989.

Richard J. Darko, Lowe Gray Steele & Hoffman, Indianapolis, for appellant.

James W. Riley, Jr., Donald S. Smith, Callahan & Riley, Indianapolis, Jack G. Hittle, Church, Church, Hittle & Antrim, Noblesville, for appellees.

PIVARNIK, Justice.

This cause comes to us on a petition to transfer from the First District Court of Appeals.

The facts as set forth by the Court of Appeals are as follows:

Diane P. Werblo taught English and Latin at Hamilton Heights High School during the 1983-84 school year as a tenured teacher. As part of the English course Werblo led her class through a movie version of "Romeo and Juliet" in preparation for a test on the Shakespearean play. The students were scheduled to view the final third ( 1/3) of the play on April 11, 1984. However, a convocation entitled "Sportsworld" which contained religious materials was scheduled on the same day. On April 10, 1984, Werblo discussed the conflicting schedule with Eugene Pitts, the school principal, and sought permission for her class to view the final third ( 1/3) of the play, rather than attend the convocation. A resolution to the conflict was not reached at that time. Werblo again discussed the conflict with Pitts on April 11, 1984, and further explained that the video was on loan and could not be secured for another time. Pitts considered the situation and then directed Werblo to attend the convocation with her students. Subsequently, Pitts made an announcement on the school's public address system. The announcement discussed the convocation, noted the speaker's career as a football player, and advised that the convocation would include religious content. The announcement also indicated that anyone who did not wish to attend the convocation for religious or "any other reasons" was to report to the principal's office or Pitts in the hallway.

Werblo interpreted this later announcement as a way for her class to view the movie, rather than attend the convocation. Accordingly, Werblo gave her students the individual option of attending the convocation or viewing the movie. Werblo and sixteen (16) of thirty (30) students chose to view the movie. In accordance with the announcement Werblo and the sixteen (16) students reported to the office and objected to attending the convocation. Werblo objected on religious grounds. Thereafter, Werblo and the students went to the library and viewed the movie.

Werblo v. Hamilton Heights School Corp. (1988), Ind.App., 519 N.E.2d 185, 186-87. The School Board found Werblo guilty of insubordination and she was dismissed.

On October 23, 1984, Werblo filed the instant action, claiming in Count I of her complaint that the School Board violated her constitutional and civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Counts II and III were not brought pursuant to Sec. 1983 but alleged a breach of contract and violation of the Indiana Tenured Teachers Act (now codified at Ind.Code Sec. 20-6.1-4-10, -11, and -12). Count II requested the trial court issue a mandate requiring the School Board to reinstate Werblo and pay her back pay, and Count III sought $50,000.00 in damages.

The School Board filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on all three counts and said motion was granted. The trial court dismissed Count I of Werblo's complaint for failure to comply with the Indiana Tort Claims Act, Ind.Code Sec. 34-4-16.5-1, et seq., found no material issue of fact existed as to Counts II and III, and held the School Board was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

On appeal, in Issue I of its opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in its dismissal of Count I of Werblo's complaint, finding that action brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 was subject to the notice provisions of the Indiana Tort Claims Act. In Issue II of its opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court in its granting of summary judgment as to Counts II and III of Werblo's complaint, finding that insufficient evidence existed to support the School Board's ruling that Werblo willfully refused to abide by a clear and reasonable rule of the school corporation.

Werblo petitions for transfer regarding the Court of Appeals holding in issue I, and claims in Count I of her complaint alleging a Sec. 1983 violation need not comply with the notice provisions of the Indiana Tort Claims Act. Appellee School Board petitions for transfer regarding Issue II of the Court of Appeals opinion and claims the Court of Appeals used improper review standards in reversing the trial court's entry of summary judgment. Appellee School Board's petition to transfer regarding Issue II is denied. Plaintiff Werblo's petition to transfer is granted and the opinion of the Court of Appeals regarding Issue I...