No. 83-310
I N THE SUPREI'm COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1984
BRIDGER EDUCATION A S S O C I A T I O N ,
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, CARBON COUNTY
SCHOOL D I S T R I C T # 2 ,
D e f e n d a n t and R e s p o n d e n t .
APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of C a r b o n ,
T h e H o n o r a b l e C h a r l e s B . Sande, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
H i l l e y and L o r i n g ; E m i l i e L o r i n g a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s ,
Montana
For Respondent:
S m i t h Law F i r m ; C h a d w i c k S m i t h a r g u e d , H e l e n a , Montana
F o r Amicus C u r i a e :
R i c h a r d P . B a r t o s a r g u e d f o r O f f i c e of P u b l i c I n s t r u c -
tion, Helena, Montana
C h a r l e s E r d m a n n argued f o r M o n t a n a S c h o o l B o a r d s A s s o c . ,
H e l e n a , Montana
-
- -
. -.-
Submitted: January 1 2 , 1 9 8 4
Decided: March 29, 1984
Filed:
l(lPLK 2 d i984
1 Clerk
Mr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, Jr. delivered the opinion of
the Court.
Bridger Education Association (Bridger) appeals a
judgment entered by the Thirteenth Judicial District, County
of Carbon, which held that nontenured teachers need not be
given a reason for termination other than that the school
district wanted to find a better teacher. We reverse.
Bridger is the recognized exclusive representative of
teachers employed by Board of Trustees, Carbon County School
District #2 (School District). In the spring of 1982, one of
the teachers, James Brogan, received a timely notice of
termination. He asked for the reasons underlying termination
as provided for in section 20-4-206(3), MCA. The School
District replied that it believed it "could find a better
teacher." Bridger processed the matter through the grievance
procedure established in the collective bargaining agreement,
without resoluti.on. The final step of the grievance
procedure provides, "if the decision is not satisfactory to
the teacher, he will reserve his right to appeal. the decision
to a court of appropriate jurisdiction." The District Court
heard the matter pursuant to the contractual provision. The
District Court found the statement "to find a better teacher"
was in compliance with section 20-4-206(3) and dismissed the
complaint with prejudice. This appeal followed.
The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the
statement qiven by the School District that it believed it
could "find a better teacher" is in compliance with the
requirement of section 20-4-206(3) that the trustees of the
School District furnished a written statement "of the reasons
for termination of employment" of a nontenured teacher.
Until 1973, Montana law contained no procedural
protections for nontenured teachers. In 1973 the Legislature
provided nontenured teachers with a requirement that they be
notified of termination by April 1 of the year of nonrenewal.
Section 1, Chapter 324, L.1973. In 1975 the statute was
amended twice, changin-g April 1 to April 15 and adding the
section which is now codified as section 20-4-206(3).
In 1976 Flathead County School District #44 terminated a
nontenured teacher, giving as the only reason that the Board
of Trustees "could obtain a better teacher." The nontenured
terminated teacher then appealed to the Superintendent of
Public Instruction who found that the reason was
insufficient. The Superintendent filed a written opinion
which said in part:
"The evident purpose of the amendment of the
section by Chapter 142, Laws of 1975, was to
provide nontenured teachers with some indication of
the reason or basis for the Board's decision to
terminate. There are numerous possible reasons for
such a decision; e.g., decline in enrollment,
budgetary structures, program changes or
deficiencies in the teacher's performance.
"The reason given by the board of trustees does
imply that Ms. Keosaian is 'worse' than some other
hypothetical teacher that the board could hire. In
all fairness, it appears that the board could
indicate in a general manner those areas where it
felt Ms. Keosaian's performance was less than it
would expect from another teacher. In doing so, it
would cause no reflection on her either personally
or professionally. - - Matter - - e - ~ ~ ~ e a l
In the of t h of
Evelyn J. Keosaian, Superintendent of public
1nstructl7ns1 decision, June 4, 1976."
The Keosaian case did not reach the Montana Supreme
Court. However, we feel that the Superintendent's conclusion
in that case was a proper one.
The Legislature must have intended to grant something of
meaning when the requirement for stating reasons, upon
request, was written into the statute. The specified reason
"to find a better teacher" serves no useful purpose.
Some public policy must have moved the Legislature to
grant this additional protection for nontenured teachers. If
teachers are to improve, thereby elevating the teaching
profession and the education of Montana youngsters, they
should be entitled to know about their deficiencies. Knowing
the reasons will assist the teacher to improve his or her
professional competence.
In School District #8, Pinal County v. Superior Court,
1 0 2 Ariz. 4 7 8 , 4 3 3 P.2d 29 (1967) , the Arizona Supreme Court
said:
"Since the Legislature did not require 'good cause'
for the termination of a contract of a probationary
teacher, the purpose of a statement of reasons is
simply to point out the teacher's inadequacies in
order that she may correct them in the event of
subsequent employment. . . .
[TIhe language of a
notice is sufficient if it simply states
undesirable qualities which merit a refusal to
enter into a further contract."
We go no further in this decision than the rule stated
above. The nontenured teacher is entitled to a notice which
states what undesirable qualities merit a refusal to enter
into a further contract.
The judgment of the Distri
We concur:
\
Chief Justice
Justices
Mr. Justice L.C. Gulbrandson dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The Federal District Court in Cookson v. Lewistown
School District No. 1 (D. Mont. 1972), 351 F.Supp. 983,
stated at page 984:
"It is quite clear that Montana has
adopted an employment policy with respect
to teachers which frees a school board
from any tenure problems during the first
three years of a teacher's employment.
These three years are the testing years
during which not only may the teacher's
merits be weighed but the school's need
for a particular teacher assessed. It
may be, and perhaps this reasoning
underlies the Montana policy, that in the
interests of creating a superior teaching
staff a school board should be free
during a testing period to let a
teacher's contract expire without a
hearing, without any cause personal to
the teacher, and for no reason other than
that the board riqhtly or wronqly
believes that ultimately it may be able
to hire a better teacher." (Emph. add.edr)
Thereafter, the Montana legislature enacted Section
20-4-206(3), MCA, which requires that a non-tenured teacher,
upon request, be furnished with the reason for the teacher's
non-renewal.
In 1977, the legislature rejected House Bill 443 which
proposed to amend the statute to require that non-tenured
teachers be provided with specific reasons for non-renewal
of their teaching contracts. At that time, Section
20-4-204, MCA, relating to dismissal of tenure teachers,
required, upon request, "a written statement declaring
clearly and explicitly the specific reason or reasons for
the termination." (Emphasis supplied.)
The three subsequent sessions of the legislature did
not enlarge the notice requirement, and I do not believe
t h a t t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d d o s o by j u d i c i a l o p i n i o n .
In my view, the reason given was sufficient under
S e c t i o n 20-4-206(3), MCA and I would t h e r e f
s
I j o i n i n the f o r e g o i n g d i s s e n t o f M r . Justice
L.C. Gulbrandson.