Opinion
No. 83-189
Decided May 9, 1984.
Schools — Teachers — Eligibility for continuing contract determined, how — Regular and substantial part-time teaching experience includable — Reemployment subject to termination, when.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County.
Nora Garay, appellee, is a public school teacher certified by the state of Ohio. She holds a professional teaching certificate. Appellee has been continuously employed by the Hubbard Local School District Board of Education, appellant, since 1971. For the school years 1971-1972 through 1978-1979, she was employed on a part-time basis under a series of limited contracts. Her duties required that she be present in school four hours per day, five days per week. Each successive year appellant gave appellee an increase in pay commensurate with an additional year's teaching experience. For the school years 1978-1979 through 1981-1982, appellee assumed full-tim teaching duties. Beginning with the school year 1979-1980, she was employed under a series of limited contracts. Again, appellant gave appellee a raise in pay commensurate with an additional year's teaching experience for each successive year.
In April 1982, appellee received notice that she would not be reemployed for the 1982-1983 school year due to a reduction in the teaching force. Appellee requested that she be granted a continuing contract, which request appellant denied.
Appellee filed an action in mandamus in the court of appeals seeking to compel the issuance of a continuing contract. The court allowed the writ:
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Mr. J. Walter Dragelevich, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Thomas E. Carney, for appellant. Green, Schiavoni, Murphy, Haines Sgambati Co., L.P.A., Mr. Anthony P. Sgambati II and Mr. Barry Laine, for appellee.
R.C. 3319.11 states in pertinent part:
"A teacher eligible for continuing contract status employed under an additional limited contract for not to exceed two years pursuant to written notice from the superintendent of his intention to make such recommendation, is, at the expiration of such limited contract, deemed re-employed under a continuing contract at the same salary plus any increment granted by the salary schedule, unless the employing board, acting on the superintendent's recommendation as to whether or not the teacher should be re-employed, gives such teacher written notice of its intention not to re-employ him on or before the thirtieth day of April."
In construing R.C. 3319.11 in State, ex rel. Voss, v. Bd. of Edn. (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 274, 276 [20 O.O.3d 267], this court stated:
"A person is eligible for a continuing contract under R.C. 3319.11 if he is (1) a teacher, (2) holds a professional, permanent or life certificate, and (3) has taught for at least three of the last five years in the district."
All parties stipulate that appellee meets the first two requirements for eligibility. Appellant argues, however, that appellee's years as a part-time teacher cannot be counted in determining whether she has fulfilled the third requirement. We do not agree. Where part-time teaching experience is regular and substantial, as in the instant case, years spent teaching less than full school days will be counted in determining eligibility for a continuing contract. State, ex rel. Rodgers, v. Hubbard Local Bd. of Edn. (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 136. Our inquiry does not, however, end here.
Appellant contends that even if appellee would be eligible for a continuing contract, she was given written notification of the board's intention not to reemploy her before the thirtieth day of April and, therefore, was not entitled to a continuing contract.
In State, ex rel. Voss, v. Bd. of Edn., supra, at 276, this court stated, "[a] person * * * eligible [for a continuing contract] can either [1] be denied a contract, [2] be issued a limited contract of up to two years if it is accompanied by written notice containing recommendations regarding professional improvement, or [3] be granted a continuing contract."
In the present case, the record shows that appellant chose the first of those three options based on its intention to reduce the teaching force. Appellant's actions were entirely within the ambit of the authority granted to it by R.C. 3319.11.
This court has held that reemployment pursuant to R.C. 3319.11 is a right subject to termination by proper notification. State, ex rel. Brown, v. Bd. of Edn. (1955), 162 Ohio St. 589 [55 O.O. 481]; State, ex rel. Peake, v. Bd. of Edn. (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 119 [73 O.O.2d 437]; Otterson v. Bd. of Edn. (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 123 [73 O.O.2d 439]. See, also, State, ex rel. Hura, v. Bd. of Edn. (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 19 [5 O.O.3d 10] (holding that a teacher eligible for a continuing contract must be granted the same upon any subsequent reemployment within the district). In the case sub judice, the record shows that appellee was notified that she would not be reemployed, in accordance with the requirements of R.C. 3319.11.
In State, ex rel. Gandy, v. Bd. of Edn. (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 115 [55 O.O.2d 209], paragraph one of the syllabus, this court held that "[w]here a public school teacher who is `eligible for continuing service status' under the provisions of R.C. 3319.11 is unqualifiedly reemployed in the field for which he has a professional teaching certificate, he is entitled to a continuing contract." However, here, inasmuch as appellee was denied a contract of reemployment she was not entitled to a writ of mandamus. The decision of the court of appeals is therefore reversed and the writ prayed for is denied.
Judgment reversed and writ denied.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN and J.P. CELEBREZZE, JJ., concur.