Williams v. Board of Education, Cass R-VIII School District

11 Citing cases

  1. Elrod v. Harrisonville Cass R-IX School District

    706 S.W.2d 465 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 7 times

    A teacher with tenure, on the other hand, enjoys a property interest in reemployment which due process protects — an expectation which cannot inure to a principal or assistant principal. Williams v. Board of Education, Cass R-VIII School District, 573 S.W.2d 81, 84 et seq. (Mo.App. 1978). That construct of premises rests on the implicit assumption, of course, that the contract executed on April 13, 1981, was for employment by Elrod as a tenured teacher to teach.

  2. Thorne v. Monroe City School Bd.

    542 So. 2d 490 (La. 1989)   Cited 11 times

    The predominant view is that the purpose of teacher tenure laws is to promote good order and the welfare of the state and school system by preventing the removal of capable and experienced teachers by political or personal whims, and to insure accomplishment of the purposes for which tenure statutes are enacted they should be liberally construed. State Tenure Commission v. Madison County Bd. of Ed., 282 Ala. 658, 213 So.2d 823 (1968); School Dist. of City of Royal Oak v. Schulman, 68 Mich. App. 589, 243 N.W.2d 673 (1976); State ex rel Kohr v. Hooker, 106 Ohio App. 1, 152 N.E.2d 788 (1958); Barendregt v. Walla Walla School Dist. N. 140, 87 Wn.2d 154, 550 P.2d 525 (1976); Bd. of Ed., Tucson High School Dist. No. 1 v. Williams, 1 Ariz. App. 389, 403 P.2d 324 (1965); Williams v. Bd. of Ed., Cass R-VIII School Dist., 573 S.W.2d 81 (Mo.Ct.App. 1978); State ex rel Saxtorph v. District Court Fergus County, 128 Mont. 353, 275 P.2d 209 (1954); Mroczek v. Bd. of Ed., 61 Ohio Misc. 6, 15 Ohio Op.3d 394, 400 N.E.2d 1362 (1979). Although this court has adopted this position with regard to the teacher tenure law it now refuses to extend such open handed construction in favor of bus drivers.

  3. Atencio v. Board of Education

    99 N.M. 168 (N.M. 1982)   Cited 33 times
    Concluding that this is the purpose of the Certified School Personnel Act, renamed in 1991 as the SPA

    In Floyd v. Board of Education of Green-up County, 598 S.W.2d 460, 461 (Ky.Ct.App. 1979), the Kentucky Court of Appeals said that under the Kentucky Teacher Tenure Act a school superintendent "obviously lost his status as a teacher once he obtained the position of superintendent." Similarly, in Seyfang v. Bd. of Trustees of Washakie, Etc., 563 P.2d 1376 (Wyo. 1977), the Supreme Court of Wyoming held that a school superintendent, terminated from that position, was not thereafter entitled to tenure protection as a teacher within the meaning of the Wyoming Teacher Employment Law. Compare Williams v. Board of Ed., Cass R-VIII Sch. Dist., 573 S.W.2d 81 (Mo.Ct.App. 1978); Board of Education v. Sand, 227 Minn. 202, 34 N.W.2d 689 (1948); Houtz v. School Dist. of Borough of Coraopolis, 357 Pa. 621, 55 A.2d 375 (1947). Since tenure is a creature of statute, it has been recognized that the cases from other jurisdictions are of little assistance to a court interpreting the tenure laws of its state.

  4. McCormack v. Maplewood-Richmond Heights

    935 S.W.2d 703 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 10 times

    Principals are covered by § 168.101 because they are ineligible for permanent status in the position of principal. See, Elrod, 706 S.W.2d at 470; Williams v. Board of Ed., Cass R-VIII Sch. Dist., 573 S.W.2d 81, 85 (Mo.App. 1978). See also, Smith v. Dora R-III School Dist., 682 S.W.2d 182, 184 (Mo.App. 1984).

  5. Inman v. Reorganized School District No. II

    845 S.W.2d 688 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 13 times
    In Inman v. Reorganized School Dist. No. II, 845 S.W.2d 688 (Mo.App. 1993), the court pointed out that the concept of tenure protected by the Act is predicated on the assumption that the individual gaining tenure has exhibited teaching skills and competence for the requisite period as gauged by the local school district.

    Section 168.101 was enacted in 1973. Williams v. Board of Ed., Cass R-VIII Sch. Dist., 573 S.W.2d 81 (Mo.App. 1978), is one of the first cases to discuss the distinctions between the two statutes in a situation similar to this case. Williams held that "[t]he employment and reemployment of a principal, therefore, are governed not by The Teacher Tenure Act which specifically excludes that position from its terms, but necessarily by § 168.101 which concerns all certificated employees ineligible for permanent status under The Teacher Tenure Act."

  6. Franklin v. Board of Directors

    772 S.W.2d 873 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 12 times

    Farmer's Bank of Antonia v. Kostman, 577 S.W.2d 915, 921, n. 7 (Mo.App. 1979), citing State ex rel. Tax Comm'n. v. Walsh, 315 S.W.2d 830, 834 (Mo. banc 1958). A school principal in a nonmetropolitan school district, such as Franklin, is not entitled to tenure qua principal, but rather his rights as principal are governed by Section 168.101, RSMo 1986. Duncan v. Reorganized School District No. R-1, 617 S.W.2d 571, 572 (Mo.App. 1981); Williams v. Board of Ed., Cass R-VIII Sch. Dist., 573 S.W.2d 81 (Mo.App. 1978). Section 168.101, RSMo 1986, Subsection 3, provides that a school board shall notify each employee covered by § 168.101 in writing concerning his reemployment in his present staff position or lack thereof on or before April 15th in the year in which the contract then in force expires.

  7. Kennedy v. City of St. Louis

    749 S.W.2d 427 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 10 times
    In Kennedy, the Eastern District, citing to Murrell, observed generally that "[w]hile the doctrine of ‘equitable estoppel’ ordinarily is not applicable against governmental entities, courts may apply the doctrine in ‘exceptional cases' where required by ‘right and justice.

    In order to have a property interest in a benefit or public employment, a person must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must, instead, have legitimate claim of entitlement to it. Williams v. Board of Ed. Cass R-VIII School Dist., 573 S.W.2d 81 (Mo.App. 1978). In Roth, supra, an assistant professor who had no tenure rights was not deprived of any liberty or property rights when he was not rehired for a subsequent year.

  8. Long v. St. Francois County School District

    670 S.W.2d 116 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984)

    The provisions of subsection 6 for a statement of reasons and a hearing are simply post-determination and do not delay the effectiveness of the determination already made. This analysis of Section 168.101.6 was made in Williams v. Board of Ed., Cass R-VIII Sch. Dist., [ 573 S.W.2d 81], supra at p. 85 [Mo.App. 1978] which holds that a principal entitled to the protections of that section "may be terminated by simple notice" and that the notice method there provided requires only that "the school authority shall merely inform the employee `of demotion or lack of reemployment on the same terms and in the same position' in order to effectuate nonrenewal of employment."Duncan v. Reorganized School District No. R-1, 617 S.W.2d at 573-74.

  9. Beal v. Board of Education

    637 S.W.2d 309 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 5 times

    We conclude that he is not. Section 168.101(6) specifically states that certified employees who have been re-employed five times within the district are entitled to a written statement from the board specifying reasons for their demotion, and are entitled to a hearing, if requested. There is no doubt that Beal would be entitled to the procedural guidelines set out in the statute if he had been re-employed five times within the district, as school principals are entitled to the due process protections of § 168.101. Williams v. Board of Ed., Cass R-VIII Sch. Dist., 573 S.W.2d 81, 85 (Mo.App. 1978); Duncan v. Reorganized School Dist. No. R-1, 617 S.W.2d 571, 572 (Mo.App. 1981). Beal argues that the "re-employed five times within the district" requirement was met by his combined employment in the district as a teacher and as principal for 27 years.

  10. Fuller v. North Kansas City School Dist

    629 S.W.2d 404 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 7 times

    The tenure period is a trial period (five years in Missouri) during which the employing authority can gauge the skills and competence of the teacher and during which the teacher can perfect those values before permanent tenurial contracts of employment are made. Although the language of this portion of § 168.104(4) is less than crystal-clear in this regard, the case of Williams v. Board of Education, Cass R-VIII School District, 573 S.W.2d 81, 85 [7, 10] (Mo.App. 1978) lends support to this construction, l.c. 85: "In these express terms it denies tenure to a principal [§ 168.104.4]: ... The provision which excludes a principal from tenurial employment in that position but allows him status as a teacher, shows a legislative intention for flexibility and change in key administrative positions while at the same time affords a principal a certain degree of employment security — as a tenured teacher."