In re Resolutions Relating to the Termination and Non-Renewal of the Teaching Contracts of Carol Grzybowski and Heather Mignone, Probationary Teachers. ( 2017 )

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A16-1063
A16-1064
In re Resolutions Relating to the Termination and
Non-Renewal of the Teaching Contracts of
Carol Grzybowski and Heather Mignone, Probationary Teachers.
Filed February 21, 2017
Affirmed
Bjorkman, Judge
Independent School District No. 276
Justin Cummins, Brendan D. Cummins, Cummins & Cummins, LLP, Minneapolis,
Minnesota (for relators Carol Grzybowski and Heather Mignone)
Gregory S. Madsen, Adam C. Wattenbarger, Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Minneapolis,
Minnesota (for respondent Independent School District No. 276)
Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and
Bjorkman, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
BJORKMAN, Judge
By certiorari appeal, relators challenge respondent’s decisions to not renew their
teaching contracts. We affirm.
FACTS
Respondent Independent School District No. 276 hired relators Carol Grzybowski
and Heather Mignone as probationary teachers for the 2014-15 school year. Grzybowski
worked as a guidance counselor at Minnetonka High School and Mignone was a special
education teacher at Minnewashta Elementary School. Relators previously worked for
more than three years in other districts and achieved continuing-contract status.1 Before
the end of the school year, relators’ respective principals inquired whether they were
willing to continue their probationary contracts for the 2015-16 school year. Both
Grzybowski and Mignone responded affirmatively, and confirmed their agreements in
April 2015 via e-mails to their principals. The Minnetonka Teacher’s Association
president and a school district representative signed agreements extending relators’
probationary periods for a second year.
At its May 5, 2016 meeting, the school board passed a resolution to terminate and
not renew the contracts of relators and three other probationary teachers. Prior to the
meeting, counsel for relators provided written argument and copies of relators’ e-mail
communications in opposition to the school board’s proposed action. On May 6, the school
district informed Grzybowski and Mignone of the board’s action. Relators each appealed,
and this court consolidated their appeals.
DECISION
We review school-board teacher non-renewal decisions by writ of certiorari.
Dokmo v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 11, 459 N.W.2d 671, 673-74 (Minn. 1990). Under this
deferential review, we will only reverse a school board’s determination if “it is fraudulent,
arbitrary, unreasonable, unsupported by substantial evidence, not within its jurisdiction, or
1
In Independent School District No. 276, continuing-contract status is equivalent to tenure.
2
based on an error of law.” Id. at 675. “Substantial evidence is: 1. Such relevant evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; 2. More than a
scintilla of evidence; 3. More than some evidence; 4. More than any evidence; and 5.
Evidence considered in its entirety.” Kelly v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 623, 380 N.W.2d 833,
836 (Minn. App. 1986) (quotation omitted). Determination of a teacher’s employment
status under the applicable statutes is a question of law that we review de novo. Flaherty
v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 2144, 577 N.W.2d 229, 233 (Minn. App. 1998), review denied
(Minn. June 17, 1998).
Minn. Stat. § 122A.40 (2016) governs the terms and conditions of teaching
contracts. The first three consecutive years of a teacher’s first teaching position (or the
first year of a teacher’s subsequent employment) is a probationary period of employment.
Minn. Stat. § 122A.40, subd. 5(a). During this period, a school board has discretion to
renew or not renew the teacher’s annual contract. Id. But a “teacher who has completed a
probationary period in any district, and who has not been discharged or advised of a refusal
to renew the teacher’s contract under subdivision 5” is entitled to a continuing contract.
Minn. Stat. § 122A.40, subd. 7(a). A teacher may waive her right to a continuing contract
so long as the waiver is intentional and voluntary. Lucio v. Sch. Bd. of Indep. Sch. Dist.
No. 625, 574 N.W.2d 737, 742 (Minn. App. 1998), review denied (Minn. Apr. 30, 1998).
Intent need not be express; it may be inferred from conduct. Flaherty, 577 N.W.2d at 232.
Relators argue that they did not waive their rights to continuing contracts by asking
the principals to extend their probationary status and that the school district’s 2016
nonrenewal decision violated section 122A.40. We address each argument in turn.
3
I. Relators waived their rights to continuing contracts by asking their principals
to extend their probationary status for a second year.
Relators first argue that their written requests to extend their probationary period for
the 2015-16 school year do not evince the intent to waive their rights to continuing
contracts. We are not persuaded. Grzybowski’s e-mail to her principal stated, “I would
like to ask for a second year of probationary status for the 2015-16 school year to continue
my growth.” The subject line of the e-mail—“Tenure status”—demonstrates
Grzybowski’s knowledge that her request would impact her right to a continuing contract.
Mignone’s initial e-mail communication did not mention her probationary status. But, at
human resources’ request, Mignone sent a second e-mail clarifying that she wished “to
extend [her] probation for an additional year.” As experienced teachers who had
previously achieved continuing-contract status in other school districts, relators understood
that their actions would extend their probationary contracts for another year.2 And neither
questioned why she was treated as a probationary teacher in evaluations throughout the
2015-16 school year. Substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that Grzybowski and
Mignone intended to waive their anticipated continuing-contract rights when they
requested a second year of probationary status.
Next, relators contend that their requests for second probationary contracts were not
voluntary because their alternative was losing their employment with the district altogether.
We disagree. Because relators had not, in April 2015, completed their probationary period,
2
Relators acknowledge that teachers and school districts may agree to extend a
probationary contract without violating section 122A.40.
4
the school district was not required to renew their teaching contracts. Minn. Stat.
§ 122A.40, subd. 5(a). The fact that the school district offered relators a chance for another
year of probation, rather than not renewing their contracts, does not evidence coercion or
compromise the purpose behind the statute. This case is not like Perry v. Indep. Sch. Dist.
No. 696, 297 Minn. 197, 207, 210 N.W.2d 283, 290 (1973), on which relators rely. Perry
agreed to teach on a substitute basis for a second year until the school district found a more
“suitable” candidate. The school district told Perry that it did not offer regular contracts to
married women. The supreme court declined to construe Perry’s agreement as a valid
waiver of her continuing-contract right, stating that the district “appears to have utilized
this device solely to avoid giving tenure to married women in circumvention of Minn. St.
125.12.” Perry, 297 Minn. at 207, 210 N.W.2d at 290. While relators may not have liked
the choice with which they were presented—teach under a second probationary contract or
leave the district—it does not follow that the school district coerced their agreement. And,
as noted above, agreements to extend a probationary term do not violate section 122A.40.
On this record, we conclude that ample evidence establishes that relators voluntarily
waived their rights to continuing contracts.
II. The school district did not violate Minn. Stat. § 122A.40.
On May 5, 2016, the school board elected to not renew relators’ contracts. At that
point in time, relators had not completed their second probationary period. The school
district had discretion to renew or not renew relators’ contracts. Minn. Stat. § 122A.40,
subd. 5(a). Accordingly, the school district’s nonrenewal decisions did not violate section
122A.40.
5
In summary, substantial evidence supports the school district’s implicit finding that
relators were probationary teachers in May 2016. Because relators did not have
continuing-contract rights, the school district did not err or act in an arbitrary fashion when
it declined to renew their contracts.
Affirmed.
6