ADAM ANDREW SPRINGER v. BULLITT COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION and DR. MICHAEL EBERBAUGH, SUPERINTENDENT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
JUNE 23, 2006; 10:00 A.M.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth Of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2005-CA-001905-MR
ADAM ANDREW SPRINGER
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM BULLITT CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE JOHN W. POTTER, SPECIAL JUDGE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CI-00601
BULLITT COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION and
DR. MICHAEL EBERBAUGH, SUPERINTENDENT
APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
JOHNSON AND TAYLOR, JUDGES; HUDDLESTON, SENIOR JUDGE.1
HUDDLESTON, SENIOR JUDGE:
Adam Andrew Springer appeals from a
Bullitt Circuit Court summary judgment in favor of his former
employer, the Bullitt County Board of Education and its
Superintendent, Dr. Michael Eberbaugh.
This litigation arose over a salary dispute in the
2000–2001 school year.
Springer had been employed by the Board
as a substitute teacher during the previous school year, 19991
Senior Judge Joseph R. Huddleston sitting as Special Judge by assignment of
the Chief Justice pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution
and KRS 21.580.
2000.
On July 31, 2000, Springer submitted an application for
an emergency-status teaching certificate and began the school
year as a substitute mathematics teacher at Bullitt Central High
School.
Dr. Eberbaugh signed Springer’s emergency certification
application on September 20, 2000, and the certification became
official on September 25, 2000.
Springer’s salary was increased
to the certified teacher’s pay grade on September 20.
Springer filed suit against the Board and Dr.
Eberbaugh alleging he was owed $2,159.00 of retroactive pay at
the certified teacher’s salary for twenty-two days he taught as
a substitute before he received certification.
Springer relied
on an alleged promise by the principal of Bullitt Central High
School that he would be paid retroactively once the
certification was approved.
On cross-motions for summary
judgment, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of
the Board and Dr. Eberbaugh, finding that the promise of the
school principal was not binding upon the Board.
On appeal, Springer contends that the circuit court
erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of the Board and
Dr. Eberbaugh.
Springer claims questions of fact exist
concerning contract interpretation and whether he detrimentally
relied on the principal’s promise.
Upon review of a summary judgment, we consider whether
there is a genuine issue as to any material fact and, if not,
-2-
whether the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter
of law.2
“Only when it appears impossible for the nonmoving
party to produce evidence at trial warranting a judgment in his
favor should the motion for summary judgment be granted.”3
Springer first claims summary judgment was erroneous
because an issue of fact exists as to the interpretation of the
employment contract.
We disagree.
Pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 161.730,4
Springer signed a written “Limited Contract of Employment” on
September 20, 2000.
A limited contract is defined as “a
contract for the employment of a teacher for a term of one (1)
year only or for that portion of the school year that remains at
the time of employment.”5
Furthermore, KRS 161.020 provides that
(1) No person shall be eligible to hold the
position of superintendent, principal,
teacher, supervisor, director of pupil
personnel, or other public school position
for which certificates may be issued, or
receive salary for services rendered in the
position, unless he or she holds a
certificate of legal qualifications for the
position, issued by the Education
Professional Standards Board.
2
Ky. R. of Civ. Proc. (CR) 56.03; Scifres v. Kraft, 916 S.W.2d 779, 781 (Ky.
App. 1996).
3
Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Service Center, Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476, 482 (Ky.
1991).
4
“Each local district shall enter into written contracts, either limited or
continuing, for the employment of all teachers.”
5
Ky. Rev. Stat. (KRS) 161.720(3).
-3-
(2) No person shall enter upon the duties of
a position requiring certification
qualifications until his or her certificate
has been filed or credentials registered
with the local district employer.
According to this statute, Springer was not considered
a “teacher” until his certification credentials were finalized
on September 25.6
Likewise, at the time Springer signed the
limited contract, it became effective from September 20 through
the remainder of the school year.
Springer next claims summary judgment was erroneous
because an issue of fact exists as to whether he was promised
retroactive pay.
On this issue the circuit court found that the
principal lacked authority to make a binding promise on behalf
of the Board.
We agree with the circuit court.
“It is well settled
that the state is not to be made a debtor by implication.
He
who knocks at the door of the treasury demanding the money of
the state must show a clear warrant of law for its delivery to
him.”7
Indeed, KRS 160.380 provides that
(2)(a) All appointments, promotions, and
transfers of principals, supervisors,
teachers, and other public school employees
shall be made only by the superintendent of
schools, who shall notify the board of the
6
Both parties note that Springer was paid a certified teacher’s salary
starting September 20, 2000, when the contract was signed, even though his
certification from the Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board was
not official until September 25, 2000.
7
Allin v. County Board of Edu., 148 Ky. 746, 147 S.W. 920, 922 (1912).
-4-
action taken. All employees of the local
district shall have the qualifications
prescribed by law and by the administrative
regulations of the Kentucky Board of
Education and of the employing board. . . .
Accordingly, only Dr. Eberbaugh, as Superintendent,
had the authority to enter into an employment agreement with
Springer.
Springer was not entitled to judgment as a matter of
law, but the Board and Dr. Eberbaugh were.
Consequently, the
summary judgment in favor of the Board and Dr. Eberbaugh is
affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEES:
John Frith Stewart
Stephen C. Emery
SEGAL, STEWART, CUTLER,
LINDSAY, JANES & BERRY, PLLC
Louisville, Kentucky
Eric G. Farris
Emily Korfhage Monarch
Shepherdsville, Kentucky
-5-
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.
