Case Title: Palone v. Jefferson Parish School Board

Citation: 306 So. 2d 679

Docket Number: 

State: louisiana

Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Date: 1975-01-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
306 So. 2d 679 (1975) Julius P. PALONE et al. v. JEFFERSON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD. No. 55105. Supreme Court of Louisiana. January 20, 1975. *680 Nathan Greenberg, Greenberg & Dallam, Gretna, for plaintiffs-applicants. John Dale Powers, Charles S. McCowan, Jr., Sanders, Miller, Downing & Kean, Baton Rouge, for amicus curiae. Jack A. Grant, Gretna, for defendant-respondent. SANDERS, Chief Justice. Four teachers, Julius P. Palone, Gerard Heslin, Mildred Heard, and Frank Dalferes, brought this action to be reinstated in their positions as assistant principals in the Jefferson Parish public school system. The district court rendered judgment reinstating the petitioners, and the Jefferson Parish School Board appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and dismissed the suit. La.App., 297 So. 2d 208. We granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeal. La., 299 So. 2d 798. The facts are clear. During the summer of 1970, Palone, Heslin, and Heard, tenured teachers in the Jefferson Parish school system, were appointed as assistant principals. During the summer of 1972. Dalferes was likewise appointed assistant principal. Subsequent to these promotions, the Jefferson Parish School Board experienced financial difficulties. At the beginning of the fiscal year on July 1, 1972, the Board had an accumulated deficit of over five million dollars. During the fiscal year, the deficit was substantially reduced but still exceeded two million dollars. Because of the continuing deficit, the Board undertook a reorganization program, abolishing certain professional and non-professional positions. On June 13, 1973, the Board adopted a resolution abolishing the position of second assistant principal in each high school and in each platoon session. The Superintendent of Schools made no recommendation to the Board concerning the resolution. It is clear, however, that it was an economy measure, designed to reduce expenditures an estimated $52,191.00. On June 14, using seniority as the only criterion, the Executive Assistant Superintendent in charge of personnel determined that the petitioners were included among those who would be affected by the abolition of positions. He held a meeting with petitioners on the same day. The petitioners met with the Superintendent the following day. On June 20, 1973, the Executive Assistant Superintendent notified the petitioners in writing that their positions had been abolished. At the meeting of the Jefferson Parish School Board on July 18, 1973, Palone was assigned to a position as teacher. On August 30, 1973, he was transferred to the position of Head Coach, his prior tenured position. At the meeting of the Board on August 1, 1973, Heslin was transferred to the position of teacher, his prior tenured position. On August 23, 1973, he was promoted to Discipline Coordinator. *681 At the same meeting, the Board transferred Mildred Heard, a tenured teacher, to the position of elementary school principal and Dalferes to the position of discipline Coordinator. The petitioners contend that the Court of Appeal erred in upholding their demotion, asserting that it was made without compliance with the statutory procedures for demotion of probationary teachers. LSA-R.S. 17:442 provides in pertinent part: LSA-R.S. 17:444 further provides: The Court of Appeal held that the statutory provisions applied only to the removal or demotion of an individual teacher and were inapplicable when a group of probationary teachers are transferred as a result of the abolition of their positions. We disagree. A parish school board has broad responsibilities in administering the public schools. Included is the power, when acting in good faith, to consolidate positions or to abolish them. LSA-R.S. 17:81; Dugas v. Ascension Parish School Board, 228 La. 80, 81 So. 2d 817 (1955). Thus, in the present case, the Jefferson Parish School Board had the authority to abolish the position of second assistant principal. Although petitioners assert that the Board acted in bad faith, we find no evidence to support the assertion. The power to dismiss or demote teachers is distinct from the power to establish positions and fix organizational structure. The discontinuance of a position does not automatically remove or demote the teacher. See Dugas v. Ascension Parish School Board, supra. The removal or demotion of a teacher is governed by the Teacher Tenure Act, LSA-R.S. 17:441 et seq. *682 The Teacher Tenure Act is designed to protect the job security of teachers in the best interest of the public school system. That Act applies whether the action taken affects only one teacher or several teachers. LSA-R.S. 17:444 expressly provides that when a tenured teacher is promoted to a position of higher salary that during the probationary period he cannot be demoted to the former position without compliance with Section 442. Section 442 provides that the School Board may take such action only upon the written recommendation of the superintendent, accompanied by valid reasons therefor. Hence, the Superintendent's written recommendation, accompanied by valid reasons, was required here in order for the parish school board to demote, or reduce the salary, of the probationary teachers. See State v. Vernon Parish School Board, 222 La. 91, 62 So. 2d 111 (1952); State v. Bienville Parish School Board, 198 La. 688, 4 So. 2d 649 (1941). In State v. Vernon Parish School Board, supra, this Court held: The School Board apparently argues, however, that the school authorities ultimately complied with the statute when the Superintendent recommended the transfer of each of the assistant principals to his former position or one of equal status, and the Board formally approved. From our review of the record, we find that the School Board made the transfers after reviewing assignment rosters signed only by the Executive Assistant Superintendent. These rosters included numerous teachers other than petitioners, subject to routine assignment. It is true that the words, "Superintendent's Recommendations," appear in the caption of the rosters, but no reasons for any of the transfers are given. Moreover, by the time the assignment rosters were submitted and approved, three of the petitioners, Palone, Heard, and Heslin, had already attained permanent status as assistant principals by virtue of three years service in those positions. See LSA-R.S. 17:444. We conclude that the action taken does not comply with the statute, requiring the written recommendation of the Superintendent, accompanied by valid reasons. Since the demotion of petitioners did not comply with the Teacher Tenure Act, it has no legal effect. We hold, as did the trial judge, that petitioners are entitled to be reinstated in their positions as assistant principals. For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed, and the judgment of the district court is reinstated and made the judgment of this Court.