THOMPSON v BD OF TRUS OF SCH DI
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 8 8 - 5 1 3 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA ROGER THOMPSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, -vs- BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2, YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, MONTANA, said board consisting of the following; MAURICE R. COLBERG, JR.; FRANK J. KOLENDICH; HEWES D. AGNEW; ELLEN ALWEIS; KAREN TRASK DOOLEN; JIM LOGAN, DOUGI,AS R . SIPES; and MIKE YOUNG, Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone, The Honorable Russell K. Fillner, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Charles F. Moses; Moses Law Firm, Billings, Montana For Respondent: _ PLaurence R. Martin and Sol Lovan; Felt JBillings, Montana I & Martin, .--, q- ' Submitted on Briefs: Decided: Clerk April 27, 1 9 8 9 June 7, 1989 Mr. Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. This suit arises out of the nonrenewal of plaintiff's teaching contract with School District No. 2 in Billings, Montana. Plaintiff appealed the Board of Trustees' decision to terminate his employment and the reasons given for nonrenewal therein to the District Court for the Thirteenth Judicial District, Yellowstone County. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the School District on plaintiff's claims for tort liability, punitive damages, violation of due process, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment based on the insufficiency of the reason given for nonrenewal. The court remanded the case back to the School District for a more sufficient statement of reasons. On appeal, the plaintiff challenges the adequacy of the District Court's remedy, alleging that there has been a breach of the employment contract and that he is entitled to monetary damages. Based on our holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to pursue this remedv, we affirm the District Court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the School District and vacate the Order of remand. We reframe the issues as follows: Where a nontenure teacher has received notice of termination under ยง 20-4-206, MCA 1985, and challenges the sufficiency of the reasons given for termination, to what extent has the teacher the following remedies: (1) Remedies under the grievance procedure of the Professional Agreement or union contract between the School Board and the Teacher's Association. (2) The right of appeal under the nontenure teacher's severance policv contained in the union contract providing for appeal of the notification to the School Board; and subsequent rights to appeal to the County Superintendent of School, and then to the State Superintendent, and finally to the court system under the Montana Administrative Procedure Act. (3) Right to proceed in District Court seeking a recovery of damages suffered as a claimed result of the insufficiency of the notice of termination given to the teacher by the school district. MCA 1985, with regard to nontenure Section 2 0 - 4 - 2 0 6 , teacher notification, provides in pertinent part as follows: Notification of nontenure teacher reelection -acceptance -- termination and statement of reasons. (1) The trustees shall provide written notice by April 15 to all nontenure teachers who have been reelected. Any nontenure teacher who does not receive notice of reelection or termination shall be automatically reelected for the ensuing school fiscal year. (3) When the trustees notify a nontenure teacher of termination, the teacher may within 10 days after receipt of such notice make written request of the trustees for a statement in writing of the reasons for termination of employment. Within 10 days after receipt of the request, the trustees shall furnish such statement to the teacher. The pertinent portion of the Professional Agreement, or union contract, between the Board of Trustees of School District No. 2 and the Billings Education Association are as follows: Article IV, Section 7. - Non-Tenure Teacher Severance Policy: - Subd. 1. Every non-tenured teacher shall be entitled to the following rights if his/her contract i.s not being renewed. (a) The teacher shall be notified by the Superintendent, in writing, that his or her contract will not be renewed pursuant to Montana statutes. fb) The notice shall state the specific reasons for non-renewal. (cl The teacher may appeal his/her non-renewal to the Board of Trustees or a committee thereof, by May 1. The Board, or its committee, shall reach a decision within twenty ( 2 0 ) days of the submit-talof the appeal. Subd. 2. - The decision of the Board, or its committee, shall not be subiect to the grievance procedure as outlined in Article XIT. Article XIL, Section 4. Adjustment of Grievance, Time %imitation and Waiver: The parties shall attempt to adjust all grievances which may arise during the course of employment of any teacher within the School District in the following manner: T f a grievant believes there has been a grievance, he/she shall discuss the matter with the responsible administrator in an attempt to arrive at a satisfactory solution. If the griev-ance is not resolved as a result of this meeting, the grievance shall be reduced to writing, setting forth the facts and the specific provisions of the Agreement allegedly violated, and the particular relief sought. An alleged grievance must be presented in writing within twenty (20) days of the occurrence of the event, or within twenty (20) days of the time that the grievant through the use of diligence should have known of the alleged grievance. Subd. 1. Level I: The written grievance, siqned by the grievant involved must be presented to the responsible administrator within t.he time limits provided in Section 4. The responsible administrator shall meet with the grievant within seven (7) days after receipt of the written grievance and give a written answer to the grievance within five (5) days of the meeting. The Grievant has five (5) days in which to either accept the answer or appeal it in writing to the next level. Subd. 2. Level 11: If the grievance has not been resolved in Level I, it may then be processed to Level I1 by presenting the written grievance to the Superintendent. The Superintendent or his designee shall meet within ten (10) days after receipt of the written appeal to discuss the problem with the grievant. Within seven ( ? ) days of the meeting the Superintendent or his designee shall submit his written answer to the grievant. Subd. 3 Level LIL: If the grievance remains unresolved at the conclusion of Level 11, i t . may he submitted for binding arbitration at the discretion of the Associati-on provided written notice of the request for submission to arbitration is delivered to the Superinten-, dent's Office within ten (10) days after the date of receipt of the decision at level TT. The case has a complex procedural history which unfortunately extends over a period starting in 1983. Mr. Thompson was employed by School District No. 2 as the choir director ! at Billings West High School. He served in that capacitv for three years, each year being offered a one-year contract. Tn March, 1983, the Board of Trustees voted not to renew Mr. Thompson's contract for the 1983-84 school year. That contract would have granted him tenure rights. Mr. Thompson was notified of the Board's deci-sion by letter dated March 30, 1983 which said: In accordance with Section 20-4-206, of the School Laws of Montana, Annotated, (copy attached!, you are provided notice of termination of your contract with School District No. 2, at the close of the 1 9 8 2 - 8 3 school year. In keeping with the District No. 2 of retaining for tenure, School District served by another teacher in On March which stated: philosophy of School only the best teachers No. 2 would be better this position. 31, 1983, Mr. Thompson responded by letter In accordance with Section 20-4-206, MCA, I am requesting the reason or reasons for the board's decision to terminate my employment with the district. Also, in consideration with the board's statement at the March 29, 1983 meeting, I am requesting a hearing before the board to address this matter. In response to the foregoing letter, the Board sent a letter to Mr. Thompson dated April 6, 1983, which stated: This responds to your letter of March 31, 1983. You have already been notified of the termination of your contract with School District No. 2, by letter from Dr. Poore, dated March 30, 1983. This letter included the reasons for the termination of your employment. Pursuant to your request, you may appeal your nonrenewal to the Roard of Trustees at the Board meeting to be held at 4:00 p.m., Monday, April 11, 1983, at the Administration Building. This appeal is granted you under the provisions of Article IV, Section 7, of the Professional Agreement between the Board of Trustees and the Billings Education Association. On April 11, 1983, Mr. Thompson and his counsel appeared hefore the Board of Trustees. Mr. Thompson's counsel presented argument but was not allowed to call any witnesses. The Roard characterized the proceeding as an "appeal" rather than a "hearing" and therefore did not allow the presentation of witness testimony. Fol..l.owing the presentation by Mr. Thompson's counsel, the Roard voted to affirm its prior decision not to renew Mr. Thompson's contract. In a letter dated April 11, 1983, addressed to Mr. Thompson, he was advised as follows: You have been afforded an appeal OF the termination of your employment with School District No. 2 at the cl.ose of the 1982/83 school year, pursuant to Article IV, Section 7 of the Professional Agreement between the Roard of Trust-ees of SchooJ- District No. 2, and the Billings Education Association. This is to denying your sion of the contract and at the close notify you of the Board's decision, appeal, and affirming the prior c-leci--. Board of Trustees, to terminate your employment with School District No. ?, of the 1982/83 school year. The Board did not advise Mr. Thompson orally or by the above letter of any additional reasons in support of the nonrenewal. By notice dated April 19, 1985, Mr. Thompson appealed to B y order denyina the County Superintendent of Schools. appeal dated April 28, 1983, the County Superintendent concluded that the appeal had failed to meet the requirements set forth in the Administrative Rules of Montana in Failing to set forth a proper caption, names and addresses, clear and concise statement of the matters asserted., a statement indicating that the petitioner has a contested case and that the County Superintendent has proper jurisdiction together with references to the particular sections of the statutes and rules involved. The County Superintendent concluded that he did not consider this a contested case and that he lacked jurisdiction. No appeal was taken by Mr. Thompson from that order. As a result, there was no further attempt to follow the procedure outlined in such cases as Throssell v. Board of Trustees of Gallatin County (Mont. 1988), 757 P.2d 348, 45 St.Rep. 1228, and Yanzick v. School District No. 23, Lake County (1982), 196 Mont. 375, 641 P.2d 431. This was the extent of the appeal procedure exercised under the administrative law approach as outlined in the above cited cases. In addition to proceeding under the appellate approach as previously described, Mr. Thompson also proceeded under the grievance provisions of the union contract, and in particular Article XII, Section 4 which is previously set forth. On April 5, 1983, Mr. Thompson filed a grievance with the School District under the provisions of Article XII, Section 4 of the union contract. The grievance was made on the regular Grievance Report form used by the Billings School District and was signed by the Billings Education Association representative. The key portions of that form stated: Date grievance occurred: March 29, 1983 Statement of facts: March 29, 1983. Inaccurate evaluations termination. Teacher was terminated on are a factor in this Specific Provisions of Agreement Alleqedly Violated: Article XV - Sections 1, 2, 5, 6 Particular Relief Sought: Evaluation dated March 1, 1983, is to be removed from his file and grievant is to be offered a contract for the 1983-84 school year. In support of the School District's motion for summary judgment, the uncontradicted affidavit of the Director of Personnel of the School District established that the grievance was denied through Level I and I1 administratj-ve hearings. As previously set forth, those levels provide at Level I for the presentation of the grievance to the responsihle administrator who is required to meet with the grievant, and denied the written grievance. A.t Level IT, the grievance was presented to the Superintendent, and such Superintendent also denied the grievance. The next choice under the contract for Mr. Thompson was to submit that grievance for binding arbitration at Level 111. The affidavit establishes that the Billings Education Association, Mr. Thompson's representative, dropped its attempts to move the grievance to binding arbitration. As a result, the record establishes that Mr. Thompson failed to proceed through to binding arbitration and thereby obtain a final binding arbitration determination of his grievance. In considering the grievance requirements under the union contract, it is important to keep in mind that Mr. Thompson's grievance as stated in the Report. Form was limited to his argument that the evaluation dated March 1, 1983, was inaccurate and should he removed from the file and that he should be offered a contract for the next school year. At that point, Mr. Thompson made no suggestion that the reasons given in the notice of nonrenewal were insufficient. This is significant because he now urges that the insufficiency of such notice should be a proper basis for the award of damages in the District Court action which was brought against t.he School District. The next procedural aspect is the filing of the complaint by Mr. Thompson against the School District. On June 16, 1983, after all the above-described procedures were followed, Mr. Thompson filed his complaint in the District Court of Yellowstone County. In that complaint he alleged that the defendants had negligently, wrongfully and unlawfully terminated his employment and that the School Board did not provide standards or guidelines for termination, that his termination was prejudged, that the District violated the open meeting law, that such termination did not represent the independent and informed judgment of each member, and that the notice was defective "in that it did not set forth the specific reasons for his termination as required by law." The compl aint cl aimed damages by hei-no deprived of empl o\pent and t e r m i n a t e d w i t h o u t r i g h t . EF-L.er 'she r i l i n g o f v a r i o u c p l e a d i n v s , a motion f o r p a r t i a l sumr11cir;7 judgment was f i l e d by t h e p l a i n t _ ; - f f5x16 t h e rlefenclant a l s o f i l e d motions f o r surruna- 1 , 1.988, t h e D i s t r i c t Court g r a n t e d summary juc-Igment t o b o t h t h e p l a i n t i f f and t h e . n 9 r a n t l n y t h e motion o f t h e p l a i n t i f ' vhorrip~rn d f? F t ~ : f \ ~ l*h , r ? ry judgment. o r d e r c7,ate6 Parch By -r f o r summary iudgment a s t o t h e s u f 5 c j ~ r r c yo r t h e n n t j c e , t h e O r d e r sf-ate?: ?. T h a t t h e P7ajn-f-i .'T'F C:rcss-Potion f o r Summary Judgment c r f t h e a13eged i n s u f f i c i e n c y o f +he z t a t u - t o r y n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e ~ t s is hereby GRANTED. This i s s u e i s REMANDED t o t h e s c h o o l board o f t h e F i l l i n g s ''!$ 1 Sc:!lc\c-I. r i s t r i c t No. 2 , Yellowstone Cour,-. t y , Wontana, ant: saic-1 school hoard i s d i r e c t & t o p r o v i d e t h e P l a i n t i "F wF+h s p e c i f i c r e a s o r s fcr rc.r.--renewal o f h i s c o n t r a c t w i t h i n t h i r t y days o' T h e C o i l r t recogr?Fzes that t h i s t h e d a t e hereoT. cause a r o s e o v e r f i v e v e a r s a q o and t h a t t h e s c h o o l boar?. rr.&y no i o n g e r be a b l e t o prov:i-de ?he P1.a.int i f f w i t h s p e c i L i c r e a s o n s 'or non-renewal due t c changes 0 5 members or. t h e s c h o c l b o a r d , a n d chang6-s o f personnc! , l o s t o r m i s p l a c e d r e c o r d s a ~ c l t h e 1;-ke. T-F t h e hoard i s 1117abie to comply w i t h t h e Caul-kl:l: Crcleu due t o such r e a s o n s , i t may c e r t i f y such +at 'c t o t h e Court w i t h i n t h e t i n e h e r e i ~ b e f o r e p r o v i d e 6 and s e r v e a copy o f such c e r t i f i c a t i o n t o counsel f o r t h e P l a i n t i f + . On t h e o t h e r ha-nc!, i f +he board i s a b l e t o comply by p r o v i d i n g PI a i n t i FF w i t h spw:.; l ( * reZscns f o r non-renewal and ceutifiricatiorr o F such compliance i s rnac7e t o g e t h e r w i t h p r o o f o f s e r v i c e o f s u c h c c r t i f i - c a t i o n on c o u n s e l f o r P l a i n t i f f , t h e n j u d g n e ~ l tmay h e e n t e r e d a c c n r e i rclv. The Crcler c ; T + h e D i s t - r i c t Court a l s o g r a n t e d t h e de5eendan+s1 ~no-lion f o r summary judgmer~t. n " 1- he "ollowj-ng r e s p e c t s : r e - g a r d i n 9 the n o n a p p l i c a h i l i f - y of +he fi7orltana Opcn F e e t i n g law; regardS r l q i hc. d e r e n d a n t s ' c l a i m t h a t t h e indivFc?ual.ly named T r u s t e e s a r e immune Trom !!c?hi! j t j 7 ; for imposition Pi 1 -r - I T i of lit. p u ~ i t i v e clamages r e ; 2s as detendants tcl plainti'q's t o both ' motion the clajrn Scho~l i-egariJ;nc the f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m f o r b r e a d 1 01 t h e c o v e n a n t o f good and d~Tenc7arlf ' m t i o n l o r t h e f a i l s f a i t h an< f a i r d e a l i r g : u r e t o s t - a t e a claim f o r wrongful d i s c h a r g e . T h e ~ ~ C ' e c t oi t h e t o r e g o i n g O r d e r on summary i u d g m e r t v 7 c s t o remand t o t h e S c h o o l G i s t r i c i - 5 11 o r d e r t o p r o v i d e M r . Thompson w i t h n o t i c e O F r e a s c j r ~ svrhir.11 n e t the r e q u i r e m e n t or' Eciuca'r-io ~ i A s s o c i a t i o n v . Bridyer County (19841, 203 Board o f P : o ~ t . 21, 6 7 8 Trustees, 059. P.22 Carbon Tho~rpson r . c h a l l e n g e d t h e adequacy o f t h e remedy by m o t i o n t o z l t e r o r amencl cvhicl- F i s t r i c t Court denied. C!-IP I n h i s a p p e a l Ilr, Thompson c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e Schc~n: D i s t r i c t was o b l i g a t e d t o Zurnish s p e c i f i c r e a s o ~ s f c r t affc)~-cit.cl a r thet appeal o r a hearing, nieaninqful The key e l e m e n t i s t h a t M r . s i he was not t h a t t h e r e has b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t .mil khzt h e i s eritjtles t o d a r v a g e s . bec11 to r damaqes u n Thompson c o n t e n d s h e i s e n t i t l e d f l a ~ r c ~ F 3 t c t i v e l y been e whi(-.!? juc7qr11ent: h e denied District him by the and the Court a b o v e - d e s c r i b e d remanc?. T L . PXPV".EI~LrJ:,C,ITNDER GRTEVANCE PROCEDITFF OF U N I O N CONTRACT his I I Grievance &port t e r ~ i l i a t i o non March 29, rate were eva1uet.ions asked that from h i s the factor in that e ~ r a l u a t s o r l S a t e d biarch file. fEis to his IIe t h c n c l s i n e d t h a t i n a c c u - 1983. a Thcmpscn r e f e r r e d Mr. deterniniltion 1, 1 9 8 3 , c)tm G ~ r i e v a n c e R e p o r t and b e removed contra2jcts the b a s i c a s s e r t i o n ir! t h e c o m p l a i n t f i l e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t f C c u r t where h e c o m p l a i n s t h a t t h e n o t i c e was i n s u f f i c i e n t . 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 conc,l1~dc contract ra: .;eF t-hat "hzt t h e grievance procedure under t h e u r i n n i s t h e b i n d i n g metl?c?c7 o r cirisposj-ng o f 11nc'er t h e q r i e v a n c e ~ r o c e r ? ~ i r c - ,' F e Ylr - I ~ could I not have the issues t h e r e f o r e conclude procee?ec' ;ntc Disl-rj-ct Court on the same issues raised in the grievance procedure. Under the agreement negotiated by the Billings Education Association with the School District, the final decision in the grievance process is a binding arbitration. Because Mr. Thompson chose not to proceed to binding arbitration, that terminated any further rights with regardt to the claimed grievance. As we review Article IV, Section 7 of the union contract, we conclude that the issue of the sufficiency of the notice of termination properly could have been included in the Grievance Report form and handled through the gri-evance procedure. Had he properly proceeded in that manner, his right to receive a specific statement of reason for nonrenewal would have been satisfied through the grievance procedure. In this instance he chose not to proceed to arbitration as he apparently concluded that he preferred to make a claim for damages in District Court. We hold that the proper method for obtaining a statement of specific reasons for nonrenewal by Mr. Thompson was set forth in the grievance provisions of the union contract. We further hold that by failing to follow these contract provisions, Mr. Thompson has lost his right to obtain specific reasons for nonrenewal. We therefore conclude that that the District Court improperly remanded to the School District. 11. RIGHT OF APPEAL UNDER CONTRACT SEVERANCE POLICY In his complaint in District Court Mr. Thompson argues that the notice did not contain specific reasons for nonrenewal. In making these contentions he overlooks the procedure which he previously followed. We pointed out that Mr. Thompson appealed his nonrenewal to the Board of Trustees of the School District. Pursuant to the contract, he was given an appellate hearing and the decision by the School Board was affirmed. At that point Mr. Thompson appealed to the County Superintendent of Schools. As previously described, the County Superintendent declined to rule on his appeal. Under the administrative procedure outlined in Throssell and Yanzick, Mr. Thompson was required to appeal to the State Superintendent and in the event of an adverse ruling, only then did he have the right to proceed in District Court, following the procedure under the Administrative Procedure Act. As a result, his remedies would have been limited to recovery appropriate under the union contract and the Act. We hold that by failing to follow the administ-rative procedure outlined in the mentioned two cases, Mr. Thompson gave up his right to a final determination under the administrative procedure required in Montana. We therefore conclude that he no longer had a claim for nonrenewal of his contract. 111. nISTRICT COURT CLAIM OF DAMAGES Mr. Thompson argues extensively that he has a right to recover all damages which he has suffered in all- of these proceedings, including references to the idea of reinstatement, and most important, to monetary damages. As Mr. Thompson summarized in his own brief, he claims he is entitled to damages for the breach by the School District of his contract. We conclude that he does not have such a right under the facts of this case. As previously outlined, Mr. Thompson had the opportunity of grieving the sufficiency of the notice itself under the grievance procedures. He chose not to go to binding arbitration. As a result, h e no l o n g e r had a r i g h t t o con- tend! i n t h e P i - s t r i p : . Cnllv: ~ ~ c { - k o h a t t h e n o t i c e i t s e l f w a s tn insufficient. - n a s i r n j l a r w a y , i f M r . Thompscn b e l i e v e r that he properl;: teacher, the nizt-linrcy ur.6er chnn7d h a v e been ~ r o c e c l ~ r t c be e Fart I1 o f retained f o i l o w e d was this opinion. a non+c$~~~ire as that As previously he Fai7ecl to foT-?.ow the a p p r o p r i a t e a d n l i n i s t r a t 5 vt. proceclure , h e i s b a r r e d "ram rnak?'r.cr t h e s a r r e c o n ? - ~ n ;' c ) l t : . In '-hc p r e s e n t p r o c e e d i n g s before t h e D i s t r i c t Court. ICe t h e r e C c , r t ~hci1(7 I available t o Mr. r qranted t h e r e w e r e no f u r t h e r remedLcs Thompscr~ ur1~3er1.lle c o m p l a i n t which he i n the 0:stri ct C o u r t ; 11o t anc? ccnc!vde sumrnarv that j u d a r n ~ r t on fj!~?. t h t 2 l?.'s-lr i c t C o u r t the v a r j ous theories r e q u e s t e d by t h e S c h o o l D i s t r i c t . v a c a t e t b e rerranc! by t h e E;n: I-ic:: Cc,urt t o t h e School ~ i ~ t ~ h e r e i s no r e q u i r e m e n t f o r s u c h f u r t h e r c o n s i d ci a:, ' : P'e eration by the School D l s t + r i c t u . n c ' ~ r the unicr ccnt:rii(--'. P t h thzt f:>:ception we a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C c l u r f - . S %e Concur: ,A M r . J u s t i c e John C . decision. Sheehy d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s
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.
