589 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

-CL- 

-- 

Dr. Jae. G. Ulmr, Prrsldont 

Boar4 of Ragcurt 

State TMahara Collegrs of Tsras 

Drimkill Hot.1 

Aurtla, Texas 

Dear sir: Gpfnlon 80. O-1735 

r 16 smmarily hislability, If any, of 

ln8truotor*r 6alary 

e ash001 year remaina 

cuetom Ln th5.s rupposltitiou8 

presidents of the rerious 0aubloas undekr the juriedfcrtlon 0r 

snts to nominate th6ir houltf 

at a regular Board mesting, ana the 

tiona. 

aooeptr or rejrot8 their mmlnaThere lm no writtsn contraat onterm into batiwn the institution and thr instruotora 

however, ft ir nndsrrtood thst the iastqaotor is 

being ragloyed for the ourront school ya~.~ 

~sbfoh 261.7 or the ~arilrsP civil 8tabutar o? 1929 

proridorr the authority and flrar Ohs &atlas of the Board Of 
590 

Dr. Jas. C. W.mer, page 2 

Pegants of the state teachers' colleges of Texas. 

This artlole empowers tke Board of Regents to employ and discharge presidents, prinoipals and 

taaohars, and to fix the salaries of persons so 

employed. The statutes relating to state tenchars' 

colleges make no other provisions relative to the 

emploment of teaohers, the details of employment 

being left to the discretion of the Board of Regents. 

It follows that the Board has the incidental and laplied 'power to enter into contracts with teachers or 

instructors, subjeot to the rules of law governing 

contracts generally. 

An oral contract for the employment of the 

teacher from September, 1939, through June 10, 1940, 

inclusive, Is valid and occxlplea the saae status as 

a written contract in so far as its validity under 

substantive rules of law Is oonoerned. The fact that 

the statutes give the Board of Regents the power to 

employ and disohargs teachers does not Indicate that 

the Board has the authority to discharge sumaerlly 

a teacher with \rhom they have contracted for a given 

period of time. Under general rules of law relating 

to personal service oontraots. en employer sag not 

discharge his eaployee during the period of employment agreed upon, except for good cause or with the 

consent of eaployea. See 29 Tex. Juris. 28, and 

authorities cited in note 10. 

Grounds for dismissal of an employee which 

constitute "good cause* are listed at page 30 of 

Vol. 29 of Tezes Jurlsprudenoe, and the authorities 

therein cited illustrate that eaoh case is judged 

largely from the standpoint of the fndividual fact 

situation presented. If an instructor or teaoher 

Is found guilty of disloyalty to the advAnistrative 

head of the institution in whloh he is teaching, and 

if the disloyalty is such as rill amount to good 

cause for dismissal, the State vaxld be under no 

liability for his salary for whaterer balance of 

the school year remained at the time his employlaent 

was tsrvninated. The question of whether or not the 

instruotor'a disloyalty or misconduct is such as 

will constitute a good cause for dismirsal depends 
Dr. Jas. G.‘Ulzer, pace 3 

upon each individual oese 

which we oannot undertake 

end presents an Issue 

to pass upon. We mentlon in passlug that there Is considerable dlfferenoa between disloyalty to the admInistrative 

head of the institution in whloh the instructor is 

teeohlng, end disloyalty to the Board of Regents, 

with whioh the oootreot of employment Is entered 

into. Questions thus arlsing properly come within 

the jurlsalotlon of the Board of Regents of the 

state teaohers' colleges, providing the action on 

the part of the lnstruotor or teaoher is such as 

till justify his lmneddate dismissal and the refusal 

on the part of the board to perform further the oontract made. 

RC:jm 

Yours vary truly