BRIDGER EDUC ASS N v BD OF TRUS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 83-310 I N THE SUPREI'm COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1984 BRIDGER EDUCATION A S S O C I A T I O N , P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , BOARD OF TRUSTEES, CARBON COUNTY SCHOOL D I S T R I C T # 2 , D e f e n d a n t and R e s p o n d e n t . APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of C a r b o n , T h e H o n o r a b l e C h a r l e s B . Sande, Judge p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: H i l l e y and L o r i n g ; E m i l i e L o r i n g a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana For Respondent: S m i t h Law F i r m ; C h a d w i c k S m i t h a r g u e d , H e l e n a , Montana F o r Amicus C u r i a e : R i c h a r d P . B a r t o s a r g u e d f o r O f f i c e of P u b l i c I n s t r u c tion, Helena, Montana C h a r l e s E r d m a n n argued f o r M o n t a n a S c h o o l B o a r d s A s s o c . , H e l e n a , Montana - Submitted: Decided: Filed: l(lPLK 1 2 d i984 Clerk January 1 2 , 1 9 8 4 March 29, 1984 . -.- Mr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court. Bridger Education Association (Bridger) appeals a judgment entered by the Thirteenth Judicial District, County of Carbon, which held that nontenured teachers need not be given a reason for termination other than that the school district wanted to find a better teacher. We reverse. Bridger is the recognized exclusive representative of teachers employed by Board of Trustees, Carbon County School District #2 (School District). In the spring of 1982, one of the teachers, James Brogan, received a timely notice of termination. He asked for the reasons underlying termination as provided for in section 20-4-206(3), MCA. The School District replied that it believed it "could find a better teacher." Bridger processed the matter through the grievance procedure established in the collective bargaining agreement, without resoluti.on. The final step of the grievance procedure provides, "if the decision is not satisfactory to the teacher, he will reserve his right to appeal. the decision to a court of appropriate jurisdiction." The District Court heard the matter pursuant to the contractual provision. The District Court found the statement "to find a better teacher" was in compliance with section 20-4-206(3) and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The sole This appeal followed. issue presented on appeal is whether the statement qiven by the School District that it believed it could "find a better teacher" is in compliance with the requirement of section 20-4-206(3) that the trustees of the School District furnished a written statement "of the reasons for termination of employment" of a nontenured teacher. Until 1973, Montana law contained protections for nontenured teachers. no procedural In 1973 the Legislature provided nontenured teachers with a requirement that they be notified of termination by April 1 of the year of nonrenewal. Section 1, Chapter 324, L.1973. In 1975 the statute was amended twice, changin-g April 1 to April 15 and adding the section which is now codified as section 20-4-206(3). In 1976 Flathead County School District #44 terminated a nontenured teacher, giving as the only reason that the Board of Trustees "could obtain a better teacher." The nontenured terminated teacher then appealed to the Superintendent of Public Instruction insufficient. who found that the reason was The Superintendent filed a written opinion which said in part: "The evident purpose of the amendment of the section by Chapter 142, Laws of 1975, was to provide nontenured teachers with some indication of the reason or basis for the Board's decision to terminate. There are numerous possible reasons for such a decision; e.g., decline in enrollment, budgetary structures, program changes or deficiencies in the teacher's performance. "The reason given by the board of trustees does imply that Ms. Keosaian is 'worse' than some other hypothetical teacher that the board could hire. In all fairness, it appears that the board could indicate in a general manner those areas where it felt Ms. Keosaian's performance was less than it would expect from another teacher. In doing so, it would cause no reflection on her either personally In the of t h of or professionally. - - Matter - - e - ~ ~ ~ e a l Evelyn J. Keosaian, Superintendent of public 1nstructl7ns1 decision, June 4, 1976." The Keosaian case did not reach the Montana Supreme Court. However, we feel that the Superintendent's conclusion in that case was a proper one. The Legislature must have intended to grant something of meaning when the requirement for stating request, was written into the statute. reasons, upon The specified reason "to find a better teacher" serves no useful purpose. Some public policy must have moved the Legislature to grant this additional protection for nontenured teachers. teachers are to If improve, thereby elevating the teaching profession and the education of Montana youngsters, they should be entitled to know about their deficiencies. Knowing the reasons will assist the teacher to improve his or her professional competence. In School District #8, Pinal County v. Superior Court, 1 0 2 Ariz. 4 7 8 , 4 3 3 P.2d 29 (1967) , the Arizona Supreme Court said: "Since the Legislature did not require 'good cause' for the termination of a contract of a probationary teacher, the purpose of a statement of reasons is simply to point out the teacher's inadequacies in order that she may correct them in the event of subsequent employment. . [TIhe language of a notice is sufficient if it simply states undesirable qualities which merit a refusal to enter into a further contract." . . We go no further in this decision than the rule stated above. The nontenured teacher is entitled to a notice which states what undesirable qualities merit a refusal to enter into a further contract. The judgment of the Distri We concur: Chief Justice Justices \ Mr. Justice L.C. Gulbrandson dissenting. I respectfully dissent. The Federal District Court in Cookson v. School District No. 1 (D. Mont. Lewistown 1972), 351 F.Supp. 983, stated at page 984: "It is quite clear that Montana has adopted an employment policy with respect to teachers which frees a school board from any tenure problems during the first three years of a teacher's employment. These three years are the testing years during which not only may the teacher's merits be weighed but the school's need for a particular teacher assessed. It may be, and perhaps this reasoning underlies the Montana policy, that in the interests of creating a superior teaching staff a school board should be free during a testing period to let a teacher's contract expire without a hearing, without any cause personal to the teacher, and for no reason other than that the board riqhtly or wronqly believes that ultimately it may be able to hire a better teacher." (Emph. add.edr) Thereafter, the Montana legislature enacted Section 20-4-206(3), MCA, which requires that a non-tenured teacher, upon request, be furnished with the reason for the teacher's non-renewal. In 1977, the legislature rejected House Bill 443 which proposed to amend the statute to require that non-tenured teachers be provided with specific reasons for non-renewal of their teaching contracts. At that time, Section 20-4-204, MCA, relating to dismissal of tenure teachers, required, upon request, "a written statement declaring clearly and explicitly the specific reason or reasons for the termination." (Emphasis supplied.) The three subsequent sessions of the legislature did not enlarge the notice requirement, and I do not believe t h a t t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d d o s o by j u d i c i a l o p i n i o n . In my view, S e c t i o n 20-4-206(3), the reason given was sufficient under MCA and I would t h e r e f s I j o i n i n the f o r e g o i n g d i s s e n t o f M r . L.C. Gulbrandson. Justice
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.
