#24576-a-RWS
2008 SD 17
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
* * * *
WILLIAM LILLIBRIDGE, Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
MEADE SCHOOL DISTRICT #46-1
and BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent and Appellee.
* * * *
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
MEADE COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA
* * * *
HONORABLE JEROME A. ECKRICH, III
Judge
* * * *
ANNE PLOOSTER
General Counsel
South Dakota Education Association
Pierre, South Dakota Attorney for petitioner
and appellant.
BRUCE A. HUBBARD of
Hansen & Hubbard
Sturgis, South Dakota Attorneys for respondent
and appellee.
* * * *
CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS
ON JANUARY 7, 2008
OPINION FILED 03/05/08
#24576
SABERS, Justice.
[¶1.] Major William G. Lillibridge (Lillibridge) was hired to be the Marine
Corps JROTC 1 (MCJROTC) instructor for the Sturgis Brown High School in
Sturgis, South Dakota. When Lillibridge’s contract was non-renewed by the Meade
School District School Board (School District), he claimed he was entitled to a due
process hearing detailed in the negotiated agreement between the School District
and the Meade Education Association (MEA). After the School Board denied his
request, Lillibridge filed a grievance with the Department of Labor (Department),
which ruled in his favor. The circuit court reversed the Department, finding
Lillibridge was not a “certificated employee” and therefore, not covered by the
negotiated agreement. He appeals and we affirm.
FACTS
[¶2.] During the summer of 1996, the Meade School District hired
Lillibridge to institute and instruct the MCJROTC program for Sturgis Brown High
School. Lillibridge is a retired major with the Marine Corps and served for twenty-
six years. While Lillibridge has a Masters Degree in Educational Administration,
he does not hold a teaching certificate from the South Dakota Department of
Education, nor has he ever held such certification. Instead, the Marine Corps
provided its certification before it would approve of Lillibridge as an instructor of
the MCJROTC program.
1. Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps.
-1-
#24576
[¶3.] Lillibridge was not placed on the same pay scale as the other teachers.
Rather, his salary was set by the Marines Corps. The Marines required Lillibridge
to receive the same salary as he would if he were an active duty Major. Since
Lillibridge was retired, his retirement pay was deducted from this salary. Then, the
School District was responsible for one half of the difference between Lillibridge’s
retirement pay and salary for an active duty Major, while the Marines were
responsible for the other one half of the difference. For example, in 1996, an active
duty Major’s salary was $5,102.13 per month and Lillibridge received $2,254 per
month in retirement pay. 2 Of the difference between the two, $2,848.13, the School
District was responsible for one half, or $1,424.06 per month. While only
responsible for the $1,424.06 per month, the School District paid the entire
$5,102.13 and was then reimbursed $3,678.07 for the Marines’ monthly share.
Lillibridge’s raises were on par with the raises of other teachers with Masters
Degrees, but his salary was not determined by the teacher salary schedule
contained within the negotiated agreement.
[¶4.] At some point, Lillibridge joined the MEA. All the negotiations of
teachers’ salaries, benefits and schedules with the School District are to be
conducted by the MEA. Despite this agreement, School District claimed Lillibridge
negotiated with Dr. Barry W. Furze, superintendent, and Mr. Richard Deaver,
principal, regarding his salary. Lillibridge denies negotiating for an increase in
2. Figures come from the Department of Labor hearing Petitioner Exhibit 2.
-2-
#24576
salary, yet the record reflects Lillibridge discussed and received a $3,100 raise for
his work with outside classroom activities.
[¶5.] In May of 2005, Mr. Heinert 3 informed Lillibridge that his contract
would not be renewed for the 2005-2006 school year. The termination notice
notified Lillibridge that he “may have access to all of [his] employment records and
[he] may, upon written request, appear before the School Board in executive session
at its next regular meeting on June 14, 2005 to make a statement concerning the
Board’s intent to terminate your employment.” It also notified that he had the right
to be represented.
[¶6.] Lillibridge obtained counsel through the MEA and rejected the offer to
attend the Board meeting. Instead, he filed a grievance with the superintendent.
He claimed he was “a regularly employed certificated personnel,” 4 the negotiated
agreement applied to him and therefore, he was entitled to a due process hearing
3. When Mr. Furze left the district, Mr. Heinert took his place as
superintendent.
4. The clause provides:
Pursuant to the provision of SDCL ch 3-18, the School Board of School
District 46-1, Meade County, South Dakota, hereinafter referred to as the
“Board,” recognizes Meade Education Association hereinafter referred to as
the “Association,” as the sole and exclusive representative for all regularly
employed certificated personnel, hereinafter referred to as “Employee,” except
for the Superintendent, Business Manager, Principals, Assistant Principals,
Director of Community Education/Curriculum Coordinator, Director of
Special Services, Activities Director, and any future position established by
the Board where the person filling the position is required by the State of
South Dakota, either by law or regulation to have an administrative
endorsement.
-3-
#24576
outlined in Appendix D of the negotiated agreement.5 The superintendent denied
his grievance, so Lillibridge filed a grievance with the Department of Labor.
[¶7.] A hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).
Lillibridge claimed he was “certificated personnel” because he was certified by the
Marines to teach the MCJROTC. The School District argued that “certificated
personnel” means teachers who hold a teaching certificate from the South Dakota
Department of Education. The ALJ found in favor of Lillibridge, set aside the
School District’s decision to terminate his contract and reinstated his fulltime
contract. Moreover, Lillibridge was awarded all back pay and back benefits, plus
interest.
[¶8.] The School District appealed to the circuit court, which reversed the
ALJ and found in favor of the School District. The circuit court held that Lillibridge
could not be “certificated personnel” because he did not hold a teaching certificate.
Lillibridge appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[¶9.] This case involves the interpretation of a clause within the negotiated
agreement between MEA and School District. “The contracts negotiated between
public school districts and teachers are like any other collective bargaining
agreement, and disputes over the agreement are resolved with reference to general
contract law.” Wessington Springs Educ. Ass’n v. Wessington Springs Sch. Dist.
5. The pertinent clause of Appendix D provides that “[t]he legal provisions
applying to termination and non-renewal of a teacher’s contract are contained
in SDCL 13-43-6.1 to SDCL 13-43-6.6, inclusive.”
-4-
#24576
#36-2, 467 NW2d 101, 104 (SD 1991) (additional citation omitted). Contract
interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo. Hanson v. Vermillion Sch.
Dist. #13-1, 2007 SD 9, ¶24, 727 NW2d 459, 467 (additional citations omitted).
[¶10.] Whether the circuit court erred when it determined the School
District did not violate, misinterpret or inequitably apply its
negotiated agreement when it terminated Lillibridge’s
contract.
[¶11.] Lillibridge argues that the circuit court erred when it reversed the ALJ
because he had a certificate from the Marines to teach the MCJROTC program.
School District claims that the Marines certificate is irrelevant and the only
certificate that designates an employee “certificated personnel” is a teaching
certificate. Lillibridge claims the School District’s interpretation of the contract is
erroneous because it attempts to add words to the contract. He claims that the
term certificated personnel is undefined and the plain meaning of the utilized
language indicates that any certificate qualifies someone as “certificated personnel.”
[¶12.] When determining the meaning of a contract, “effect will be given to
the plain meaning of its words.” In re Dissolution of Midnight Star, 2006 SD 98,
¶12, 724 NW2d 334, 337 (additional citation omitted). “We must ‘give effect to the
language of the entire contract and particular words and phrases are not
interpreted in isolation.’” Id. (additional citation omitted). We look “to the
language that the parties used in the contract to determine their intention.” Pauley
v. Simonson, 2006 SD 73, ¶8, 720 NW2d 665, 667-68. If the parties’ intention is
made clear by the language of the contract “it is the duty of this Court to declare
and enforce it.” Id. “However, if the contract ‘is uncertain or ambiguous,’ parol and
-5-
#24576
extrinsic evidence may be used for clarification.” Id. (quoting Jensen v. Pure Plant
Food Intern., Ltd., 274 NW2d 261, 263-64 (SD 1979)).
[¶13.] The ALJ and the circuit court both declared the language used in the
negotiated agreement was clear and unambiguous. Whether a term in a contract is
ambiguous is a question of law reviewed de novo. In re J.D.M.C., 2007 SD 97, ¶30,
739 NW2d 796 (citing Canyon Lake Park, L.L.C. v. Loftus Dental, P.C., 2005 SD 82,
¶18, 700 NW2d 729, 734) (additional citation omitted). “A contract is ambiguous
only when it is capable of more than one meaning when viewed objectively by a
reasonably intelligent person who has examined the context of the entire integrated
agreement.” Pauley, 2006 SD 73, ¶8, 720 NW2d at 668. If there is an ambiguity,
“parol and extrinsic evidence may be utilized ‘to show what [the parties] meant by
what they said . . . .’” Id.
[¶14.] Despite the ALJ’s and circuit court’s determination that the language
“certificated personnel” is unambiguous and clear; the term is somewhat ambiguous
as to who must perform the certification. While certificated means “to testify to or
authorize by certificate” 6 it is unclear whether a person is “certificated personnel” if
they are certified by a separate entity to perform their job, such as the food service
director, school nurse, attorney, accountant, etc, or if they are “certificated
personnel” only if certified by the State Department of Education as a teacher. The
words regarding who conducts the certification are capable of more than one
meaning when viewed objectively, thus an ambiguity exists.
6. Definition found at Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, located at www.m-
w.com (last accessed on February 26, 2008).
-6-
#24576
[¶15.] Since there is an ambiguity, we can examine extrinsic evidence to
determine the intentions of the parties. When examining the document and the
evidence, we conclude that “certificated personnel” means persons holding a
teaching certificate issued by the South Dakota Department of Education and not a
person holding a general certificate from a different entity.
[¶16.] First, there was testimony that Lillibridge negotiated his own salary
increases, which would be prohibited by the MEA as it is the sole bargaining unit
for its members. He claims that he did not negotiate his own salary, but the record
reflects he asked the superintendent and principal for and received $3,100 extra
duty pay based on his extra activities. Furthermore, his contract simply read
“contract” and not “teacher contract.” He was never placed on the teacher pay
schedule. He was evaluated only once a year and the second and third evaluations
were on the same forms used for teachers, but the fourth evaluation was conducted
on a form provided by the Marines, while his first evaluation was entitled “non-
certified personnel evaluation” staff and the last evaluation was entitled “support
staff evaluation form.” Under the negotiated agreement, a teacher must be
evaluated twice a year using exclusively the MEA forms.
[¶17.] Therefore, the negotiated agreement and the parties’ actions
demonstrate that the parties did not intend “certificated personnel” to include
everyone who possesses a certificate for their profession. Instead, the language
means a person who holds a teaching certificate from the South Dakota Department
of Education.
-7-
#24576
[¶18.] Even if we consider “certificated personnel” unambiguous, as the
parties urge, we reach the same result. The term “certificated personnel” used in
this document means personnel possessing a teaching certificate. The common
usage of “certificated” is typically in reference to teaching and specifically, persons
holding a teaching certificate. As one court found, “the terms [teacher or
certificated employee] are well understood in the education community. The terms
are generally interchangeable. Teachers are certificated employees because they
must possess a state teacher’s certificate in order to be permitted to teach in the
public schools.” Byrn v. Metropolitan Bd. of Public Educ., 1991 WL 7806, at *8
(TennCtApp 1991) (unreported) (emphasis added). When an education association
and school district enter into a contract, it makes sense that certificated personnel
means a teacher who holds a teaching certificate and not a person who holds a
generic certificate qualifying them to perform their job, but not authorizing their
teaching.
[¶19.] To construe certificated personnel in the manner urged by Lillibridge
would produce an “absurd result” according to counsel for School District, who
argues that Lillibridge’s interpretation would mean that anyone holding some sort
of certificate for their job, such as the school attorney, school nurse, school lunch
supervisor, or even a custodian with a boiler operator certificate would be included
within the collective bargaining unit of the Education Association. 7 We do not give
7. During a hearing in a related case, Meade Education Association v. Meade
School District, 2008 SD 18, __ NW2d __, the president of the MEA, Mary
Maher, testified that it was her and the MEA’s position that any person
holding a certificate, including all of the positions mentioned in paragraph
(continued . . .)
-8-
#24576
contracts such broad interpretations as to produce an absurd result. Kling v. Stern,
2007 SD 51, ¶8 n3, 733 NW2d 615, 618 n3. As the circuit court noted:
A contract is interpreted “according to the natural and
obvious import of the language, without resulting to
subtle and forced construction for the purpose of either
limiting or extending their operation.” Citibank (S.D.),
N.A. v. Hauff, 2003 SD 99, ¶12, 668 NW2d 528, 533
(citations and quotations omitted). Here the natural and
obvious import of the language of the Negotiated
Agreement does not automatically extend to individuals
who hold a certificate for his or her respective profession.
[¶20.] Lillibridge does not fall under the negotiated agreement as he does not
have a teaching certificate and therefore, was not “certificated personnel.” We
affirm the circuit court.
[¶21.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, concur.
[¶22.] KONENKAMP, ZINTER and MEIERHENRY, Justices, concur in
result.
MEIERHENRY, Justice (concurring in result).
[¶23.] I agree with the analysis that the contract term “certificated
personnel” is ambiguous and I concur in the holding that certificated personnel
“means a person who holds a teaching certificate from the South Dakota
________________________
(. . . continued)
19, would be “regularly employed certificated personnel” and therefore, were
part of the MEA’s bargaining unit and covered under the negotiated
agreement between School District and the MEA. This was her testimony
even though some of the positions like nurses and attorneys actually require
licenses or some of the positions were actually hourly and not salaried
contractual positions. See e.g. Meade Educ. Assoc. v. Meade Sch. Dist., 2008
SD 18, ___ NW2d ___.
-9-
#24576
Department of Education.” However, having found the term ambiguous, I would
not analyze the outcome under the hypothetical that the term is unambiguous. The
term must be one or the other. Having determined the term is ambiguous the
analysis need go no further.
[¶24.] KONENKAMP and ZINTER, Justices, join this special writing.
-10-
Lillibridge v. Meade School District 46-1
Court: South Dakota Supreme Court
Date filed: 2008-03-05
Citations: 2008 SD 17, 746 N.W.2d 428
Copy Citations