KEITH E MINO JR V CLIO SCHOOL DIST
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
KEITH E. MINO, JR., and NANCY S. MINO,
FOR PUBLICATION
January 14, 2003
9:25 a.m.
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
CLIO SCHOOL DISTRICT, FAY LATTURE,
JOLENE PEACOCK, SALLY VANROEYEN,
WANDA EMMERLING, BRUCE
FAIRWEATHER, RON MAYGAR, JUDITH
BARRETT, VERN KAMP, and RICH LUTGENS,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 232279
Genesee Circuit Court
LC No. 99-066407-CK
Updated Copy
March 28, 2003
Before: O'Connell, P.J., and White and B. B. MacKenzie*, JJ.
WHITE, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I do not agree that the instant contract violates MCL 380.1230b, and would remand
regarding the breach of contract claim. The contract provided: "Unless required by law to do so,
the Clio Area Schools will not disseminate negative information about Dr. Mino to any person or
organization inside or outside of the Clio Area Schools." The statute prohibits entering into a
contract that has the effect of suppressing information about unprofessional conduct or of
expunging information about that unprofessional conduct from personnel records.
"Unprofessional conduct" is defined by the statute:
"Unprofessional conduct" means 1 or more acts of misconduct; 1 or more
acts of immorality, moral turpitude, or inappropriate behavior involving a minor;
or commission of a crime involving a minor. A criminal conviction is not an
essential element of determining whether or not a particular act constitutes
unprofessional conduct.
The majority states that it is clear that the contractual phrase "negative information"
generally encompasses the statutory phrase "unprofessional conduct." However, "unprofessional
conduct" is defined by statute and encompasses a much narrower range of conduct than is
defined by "negative information." Plaintiffs allege that defendant school district's agents
disseminated negative information that would not fall within the statutory definition of
"unprofessional conduct," including the definition of "misconduct" found in Carter v
-1-
Employment Security Comm, 364 Mich 538, 541; 111 NW2d 817 (1961), e.g., information about
Dr. Mino's leadership style and his management of the budget.
At oral argument before this Court, plaintiffs withdrew various claims. See majority
opinion, n 6. The majority opinion addresses these withdrawn claims, in subsections IV(A), and
in the portions of subsection IV(C) addressing Peacock's letter regarding the union contract.
Because I would not address these withdrawn claims, I do not join in those portions of the
majority opinion.
Plaintiffs' remaining claims were properly dismissed.
/s/ Helene N. White
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
