BOARD OF TRUSTEES v EATON

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

I N THE SUPREME C U T O T E STATE O MONTANA O R F H F No. 14697 BOARD O TRUSTEES O GARFIELD COUNTY F F H I G H SCHOOL, GARFIELD COUNTY, MONTANA, R e l a t o r and Respondent, *. . > I 2 I, a v. L. T O A EATON, H M S Respondent and A p p e l l a n t . O R D E R PER CURIAM: T h i s Court having c o n s i d e r e d t h e p e t i t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g f i l e d h e r e i n by r e l a t o r and r e s p o n d e n t , I T I S NOW ORDERED: T h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e p e t i t i o n r e l a t i n g t o s t r i k i n g t h e award of a t t o r n e y f e e s t o a p p e l l a n t and amending t h e Opinion i n t h i s respect i s granted. The f i n a l s e n t e n c e o f t h e Opinion r e a d i n g , "Damages w i l l a l s o i n c l u d e a n amount e q u a l t o E a t o n ' s a t t o r n e y f e e s and costs p l u s i n t e r e s t from t h e d a t e o f d i s c h a r g e . " i s hereby o r d e r e d d e l e t e d from t h e Opinion. The p e t i t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g i s o t h e r w i s e d e n i e d . D T D this AE /&day of December, 1979. ,chief Mr. J u s t i c e John C. .8, % & Justice Sheehy d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s d e c i s i o n . No. 14697 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1979 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF GARFIELD COUNTY HIGHSCHOOL, GARFIELD COUNTY, MONTANA, Relator and Respondent, L - THOMAS EATON, Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the First ~udicial~istrict, Honorable M. James Sorte, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Pedersen, Herndon, Harper and Munro, Billings, Montana For Respondent: Smith Law Firm, Helena, Montana Cannon and Gillespie, Helena, Montana Submitted on briefs: Decided : Filed: , = - August 1, 1979 pleq 1e 1979 Mr. Justice Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. his appeal is from a summary judgment in favor of respondents rendered November 21, 1978, by the First JudiCourt, County of Lewis and Clark, the Honorcial ~istrict able M. James Sorte, presiding. The Board of Trustees of Garfield County High School (Board), respondents herein, voted to terminate the employment of Thomas Eaton, appellant herein, the principal of the high school, on January 11, 1977, effective June 30, 1977. The executive director of the Montana School Board Association informed the Board that because Eaton was not notified of his dismissal in writing, the dismissal was void. At the same time the Board and Eaton were also informed that the 02 endorsement held by Eaton on his teaching certificate did not qualify him to be a county high school principal under section 75-6112, R.C.M. 1947 (now section 20-4-401, MCA) . At a special meeting of the Board called the next day, Eaton was asked to submit his teacher's certificate for inspection. Eaton did so, and it was found that he had an 02 endorsement. The Board thereupon acted to terminate Eaton as county high school principal because he did not have an 03 endorsement as required by the statute and therefore could not validly hold the position of county high school principal. On June 16, 1977, the Board informed Eaton, in writing, he was being immediately dismissed pursuant to section 75-6112, R.C.M. 1947 (now section 20-4-401, MCA), because he was not properly certified at the level necessary to be a county high school principal. The Board further inquired of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction whether Eaton was qualified to hold the position as county high school principal. On June 17, 1977, the State Superintendent's office informed the Board that Eaton was qualified as a principal. Eaton appealed from the Board's decision, and on July 21, 1977, a hearing was held before the county superintendent of schools. The county superintendent concluded that Eaton was qualified to be principal but that his contract was effectively terminated on June 30, 1977. The county superintendent further held that the Board should make compensation to Eaton for the unused sick leave and unused annual leave for the contract year ending June 30, 1977. Both parties appealed this decision to the State Superintendent. On June 19, 1978, the State Superintendent found that Eaton had been wrongfully discharged and ordered that he be reinstated. The Board petitioned the District Court of Lewis and Clark County for review of the matter, and both parties moved for summary judgment. The Board's motion was granted on the basis of the District Court's finding that Eaton was not qualified as a principal and that the trustees had the power to dismiss him regardless of the unexpired term of his contract. From this summary judgment, Eaton appeals. Two issues face the Court on appeal: 1. Whether the District Court erred in concluding that section 20-4-401, MCA, allowed the Board to summarily dismiss Eaton. 2. Whether the District Court erred in not invoking the doctrines of waiver and/or estoppel which would bar the Board from discharging Eaton. T h i s a p p e a l t u r n s on t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 204-401, MCA. S u b s e c t i o n (1) of t h a t s e c t i o n s t a t e s i n p e r - tinent part: ". . . The t r u s t e e s o f a c o u n t y h i g h s c h o o l s h a l l employ and a p p o i n t a d i s t r i c t s u p e r i n t e n d e n t , e x c e p t t h a t t h e y may employ and a p p o i n t a h o l d e r of a class 3 t e a c h e r c e r t i f i c a t e w i t h a d i s t r i c t s u p e r i n t e n d e n t endorsement as t h e c o u n t y h i g h s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l i n l i e u of a d i s t r i c t s u p e r i n tendent. . ." The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found, and a p p e l l a n t a d m i t s , t h a t he d i d n o t have a d i s t r i c t s u p e r i n t e n d e n t endorsement on h i s c l a s s 03 t e a c h e r c e r t i f i c a t e . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h e r e f o r e found t h a t a p p e l l a n t w a s n o t q u a l i f i e d t o b e a c o u n t y h i g h s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l and h e l d t h a t p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 20-44 0 1 ( 5 ) , MCA, a p p e l l a n t w a s t o be d i s c h a r g e d . S e c t i o n 20-4-401(5), MCA, p r o v i d e s : "At any t i m e t h e class 3 t e a c h e r c e r t i f i c a t i o n o r t h e endorsement o f t h e c e r t i f i c a t e of a d i s t r i c t superintendent o r a county high school p r i n c i p a l t h a t q u a l i f i e s such p e r s o n t o h o l d s u c h p o s i t i o n becomes i n v a l i d , t h e t r u s t e e s of t h e d i s t r i c t o r t h e j o i n t board o f t r u s t e e s s h a l l d i s c h a r g e s u c h p e r s o n as t h e d i s t r i c t superintendent o r county high school p r i n c i p a l r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e u n e x p i r e d t e r m of h i s cont r a c t . The t r u s t e e s s h a l l n o t compensate him under t h e t e r m s o f h i s c o n t r a c t f o r any serv i c e s r e n d e r e d s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e d a t e of t h e i n v a l i d a t i o n of h i s teacher c e r t i f i c a t e . " The language o f t h e above s t a t u t e i s clear and unambiguous. S e c t i o n 20-4-401(1)t MCA, c l e a r l y s t a t e s t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s n e c e s s a r y t o be a c o u n t y h i g h s c h o o l p r i n cipal. S e c t i o n 20-4-401(5), MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t i f t h e endorsement of t h e c e r t i f i c a t e d o e s n o t q u a l i f y t h e p e r s o n t o h o l d such a p o s i t i o n h e must be d i s c h a r g e d . Appellant's c e r t i f i c a t e d i d n o t have t h e p r o p e r endorsement; t h e r e f o r e , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e s t a t u t e , t h e Board would n o r m a l l y be req u i r e d t o d i s c h a r g e him. The f a c t s of t h i s c a s e , however, p r e s e n t a s i t u a t i o n n o t c o n t e m p l a t e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e n o r d e a l t w i t h by c a s e law.. A summary of t h e p e r t i n e n t f a c t s f o l l o w s : (1) s e c t i o n 20-4-401, 75-6112, R.C.M. MCA, was f i r s t e n a c t e d a s s e c t i o n 1947, by s e c t i o n 93, C h a p t e r 5 , Laws o f Montana ( 1 9 7 1 ) , and amended i n 1973 by S e c t i o n 1, C h a p t e r 1 0 5 , Laws o f Montana ( 1 9 7 3 ) . ( 2 ) Eaton w a s employed under f i v e one-year c o n t r a c t s a s c o u n t y h i g h s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l of G a r f i e l d County High School e n d i n g w i t h t h e s c h o o l y e a r 1976-1977. ( 3 ) When E a t o n was i n i t i a l l y h i r e d by t h e Board, he p o s s s e s s e d a c l a s s 3 t e a c h e r s c e r t i f i c a t e , L e v e l 11, w i t h a n 02 endorsement ( s e c o n d a r y p r i n c i p a l ) i n s t e a d of a n 03 e n d o r s e ment ( d i s t r i c t s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ) . ( 4 ) On J a n u a r y 11, 1977, t h e Board d e c i d e d t o t e r m i n a t e E a t o n ' s employment when h i s f i f t h c o n t r a c t e x p i r e d on J u n e 30, 1977. No r e a s o n s f o r t e r m i n a t i o n w e r e g i v e n n o r w e r e t h e y r e q u i r e d by l a w ( s e c t i o n 20-4-401(3), MCA). Eaton had a c t u a l knowledge o f t h i s d e c i s i o n ; however, h e w a s n o t n o t i f i e d i n w r i t i n g a s r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 20-4401 ( 3 ) , MCA. ( 5 ) Following i t s J a n u a r y 11, 1977, d e c i s i o n , t h e Board i m m e d i a t e l y a d v e r t i s e d f o r a new c o u n t y h i g h s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l and s u b s e q u e n t l y h i r e d one R o b e r t E . Aumaugher t o f i l l the position. The q u a l i f i c a t i o n s s e t f o r t h i n t h e a d v e r t i s e - ment w e r e i d e n t i c a l t o t h o s e h e l d by Eaton and, i n f a c t , Aumaugher p o s s e s s e d o n l y a n 02 endorsement on h i s c e r t i f i c a t e . ( 6 ) On J u n e 1 4 , 1977, t h e p a r t i e s w e r e informed by t h e ~ ~ ~ c u t D iv ee t o r o f t h e Montana School ~ o a r d s s s o c i a t i o n i r c ~ t h a t t h e n o t i c e o f t e r m i n a t i o n g i v e n t o Eaton was i n e f f e c t i v e because it w a s n o t i n w r i t i n g . I t was a t t h i s t i m e a l s o f t h a t t h e Board and Eaton were made aware t h a t a n 03 e n d o ~ s e m e n t , n o t a n 02 endorsement, was r e q u i r e d by s t a t u t e t o be a c o u n t y h i g h s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l . .(7) The Board t h e n c a l l e d a s p e c i a l m e e t i n g on J u n e 1 5 , 1977, and asked Eaton t o produce h i s t e a c h i n g c e r t i f i c a t e . Eaton d i d s o , and i t w a s found t o have a n 02 endorsement, n o t a n 03 endorsement. The Board s e n t a l e t t e r t o Eaton d a t e d J u n e 1 6 , 1977, s t a t i n g t h a t p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 20-44 0 1 ( 5 ) , MCA, E a t o n ' s s e r v i c e s were immediately t e r m i n a t e d b e c a u s e he d i d n o t have a n 03 endorsement on h i s c e r t i f i c a t e . The Board a l s o r e e v a l u a t e d Aumaugher b u t a g r e e d t o ret a i n him upon h i s a s s u r a n c e t h a t he would have t h e n e c e s s a r y ! .. q u g l i f i c a t i o n s a s s e t f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 20-2-401(1), MCA, a f t e r h i s s t u d i e s i n J u l y 1977. ( 8 ) I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t a n 03 endorsement w a s E a t o n ' s merely f o r t h e a s k i n g w i t h o u t f u r t h e r s t u d y . E a t o n , i n f a c t , r e q u e s t e d t h a t endorsement, and i t was t e n d e r e d him by t h e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t of P u b l i c I n s t r u c t i o n on J u l y 2 1 , 1977. The B o a r d ' s methodology i n t h i s matter d o e s n o t conform t o t h e p r o c e d u r e e n v i s i o n e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n s e c t i o n 20-4-401, MCA. I t i s clear t h a t when t h e B o a r d ' s o r i g i n a l a t t e m p t t o t e r m i n a t e Eaton went awry, t h e y s o u g h t o u t t h e c o n v e n i e n c e of s e c t i o n 20-4-401(5), MCA. The Board s u b m i t s t h a t t h e y d i d n o t become aware of t h i s s t a t u t e u n t i l J u n e 1 4 , 1977. T h i s e x p l a n a t i o n , however, i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t i n l a w a s t h e Board h a s a d u t y t o be aware o f t h e s t a t u t e s g o v e r n i n g such matters. The judgment of the District Court is reversed and the cause is remanded to the District Court with instructions to enter judgment for Thomas Eaton for improper discharge and compute damages in an amount equal to the amount Eaton would have earned in wages and benefits for one year under the terms of his contract at the time of his improper discharge. Damages will also include an amount equal to Eaton's attorney fees and costs plus interest from the date of discharge. We concur: 0 Wp:;:;ice Cf e Justice WQ QX Z Daniel J. Shea concurring in part and dissenting I concur in the opinion allowing Thomas Eaton one year's wages and benefits as damages, but I cannot agree that he is entitled, as damages, to recover attorney fees. In the ab- sence of a statute so allowing, or in the absence of court a opinion clearly setting forth new/element of damages to be applied to cases arising under a myriad of circumstances, as they normally do, I cannot agree that attorney fees can be recovered as part of his damages. Justice Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy, deeming himself disqualified, did not participate in this decision.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.