Case Title: Marzec v. Fremont County, School District No. 2

Citation: 349 P.2d 699

Docket Number: 

State: colorado

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Date: 1960-02-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
349 P.2d 699 (1960) Eugene MARZEC, Plaintiff in Error, v. FREMONT COUNTY, Colorado, SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2 and Dr. N. B. McGrath, Eddie Westwater, John Camerlo, and Robert Crusen, as the Board of Education and, or Employing Board of School District No. 2, Fremont County, Colorado, Defendants In Error. No. 19292. Supreme Court of Colorado. En Banc. February 29, 1960. *700 Jenkins, Stewart and Tursi, Pueblo, for plaintiff in error. Jack Merwin, Florence, for defendants in error. HALL, Justice. The parties appear here in the same order they appeared in the trial court. We refer to the plaintiff in error by name, and to the defendant in error as defendant or the board. Marzec, on March 21, 1956, filed his complaint in the district court, seeking relief for loss occasioned by the board's refusal to grant him rights to stable and continuous tenure claimed as a teacher in the defendant school district, and as provided by C.R.S. '53, 123-18-3, the pertinent portion of which reads as follows: Marzec in his complaint alleged that (a) he was a teacher; (b) he had been employed by the defendant as a teacher and served as such during the following periods: (c) that on April 15, 1955, the board notified him that his contract for the school year 1955-1956 would not be renewed; that he was refused employment for the school year 1955-1956 and subsequent years to his damage. To this complaint the board filed its motion to dismiss the complaint for the reason that it failed to set forth facts showing Marzec entitled to any relief. The trial court sustained this motion and entered judgment against Marzec and in favor of the board. Marzec is here by writ of error, seeking reversal. The only question presented to the trial court and this court is: To resolve this question we first turn our attention to the purpose of the legislation. In 78 C.J.S. Schools and School Districts, § 180(c), p. 1011 it is stated: "The purposes and design of teachers' tenure laws have been the subject *701 of considerable discussion by the courts. Thus, it has been said that the objectives sought by such legislation are to protect competent and qualified teachers in the security of their positions, to assure them, in other words, in their employment during competency and good behavior, and to protect them, after they have undergone an adequate probationary period, against removal for unfounded, flimsy, or political reasons. * * *." (Emphasis supplied.) The following quotation from the opinion of Justice Crow of the Illinois Court of Appeals, Second District, though dealing with the Illinois Tenure Act, S.H.A. ch. 122, § 24-1 et seq., is equally applicable to the facts of this case and our tenure act: This act is in derogation of the common law. Prior to the adoption of teacher tenure legislation, school boards were at liberty to hire and fire at will. The present act not only deprives school boards of such privileges, but goes further and under certain specified conditions subjects such boards to liabilitiesliabilities over which the boards have no control. Such legislation must be strictly construed in favor of those upon whom the liability is imposed. In 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 394, p. 943, it is stated: In Anderson v. Board of Education, 390 Ill. 412, 61 N.E.2d 562, 567, the court said: At no time after completion of "three full years" as a teacher was Marzec re-employed for a fourth year. Had he been so re-employed he would have been entitled to tenure; having failed of re-employment for a fourth year, he had no tenure and is entitled to none of the benefits of tenure. The statutory provision requiring three full years of teaching followed by re-employment thereafter, serves a very definite and useful purpose and it cannot be shortened or waived by the board. This three full years of teaching, a sort of probationary period, is a reasonable period of time fixed by the legislature enabling the board to make a meaningful, on the job appraisal of the teacher's ability to perform his duties; to evaluate his worth to the school and determine whether he should become a permanent employee of the district, *702 subject to removal only as provided in the act. In the case before us the board, after having three full years to make such appraisal, refused to re-employ Marzec. In so doing it was clearly within its rights. In 78 C.J.S. Schools and School Districts, § 180(4) (a), p. 1017, it is said: In Wilson v. Board of Education, 394 Ill. 197, 68 N.E.2d 257, 258, a case in which the teacher had served one year, eleven months and eight days of a required two years' probationary period, the court in denying tenure said: The judgment is affirmed.