This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A16-1063

A16-1064

In re Resolutions Relating to the Termination and 

Non-Renewal of the Teaching Contracts of 

Carol Grzybowski and Heather Mignone, Probationary Teachers.

Filed February 21, 2017

Affirmed

Bjorkman, Judge

Independent School District No. 276

Justin Cummins, Brendan D. Cummins, Cummins & Cummins, LLP, Minneapolis, 

Minnesota (for relators Carol Grzybowski and Heather Mignone)

Gregory S. Madsen, Adam C. Wattenbarger, Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Minneapolis, 

Minnesota (for respondent Independent School District No. 276)

Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and 

Bjorkman, Judge. 

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

BJORKMAN, Judge

By certiorari appeal, relators challenge respondent’s decisions to not renew their 

teaching contracts. We affirm.

FACTS

Respondent Independent School District No. 276 hired relators Carol Grzybowski 

and Heather Mignone as probationary teachers for the 2014-15 school year. Grzybowski 
2

worked as a guidance counselor at Minnetonka High School and Mignone was a special 

education teacher at Minnewashta Elementary School. Relators previously worked for 

more than three years in other districts and achieved continuing-contract status.1 Before 

the end of the school year, relators’ respective principals inquired whether they were 

willing to continue their probationary contracts for the 2015-16 school year. Both 

Grzybowski and Mignone responded affirmatively, and confirmed their agreements in 

April 2015 via e-mails to their principals. The Minnetonka Teacher’s Association 

president and a school district representative signed agreements extending relators’ 

probationary periods for a second year. 

At its May 5, 2016 meeting, the school board passed a resolution to terminate and 

not renew the contracts of relators and three other probationary teachers. Prior to the 

meeting, counsel for relators provided written argument and copies of relators’ e-mail 

communications in opposition to the school board’s proposed action. On May 6, the school 

district informed Grzybowski and Mignone of the board’s action. Relators each appealed,

and this court consolidated their appeals.

D E C I S I O N

We review school-board teacher non-renewal decisions by writ of certiorari. 

Dokmo v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 11, 459 N.W.2d 671, 673-74 (Minn. 1990). Under this 

deferential review, we will only reverse a school board’s determination if “it is fraudulent, 

arbitrary, unreasonable, unsupported by substantial evidence, not within its jurisdiction, or 

 

1

In Independent School District No. 276, continuing-contract status is equivalent to tenure.
3

based on an error of law.” Id. at 675. “Substantial evidence is: 1. Such relevant evidence 

as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; 2. More than a 

scintilla of evidence; 3. More than some evidence; 4. More than any evidence; and 5. 

Evidence considered in its entirety.” Kelly v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 623, 380 N.W.2d 833, 

836 (Minn. App. 1986) (quotation omitted). Determination of a teacher’s employment 

status under the applicable statutes is a question of law that we review de novo. Flaherty 

v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 2144, 577 N.W.2d 229, 233 (Minn. App. 1998), review denied

(Minn. June 17, 1998).

Minn. Stat. § 122A.40 (2016) governs the terms and conditions of teaching 

contracts. The first three consecutive years of a teacher’s first teaching position (or the 

first year of a teacher’s subsequent employment) is a probationary period of employment. 

Minn. Stat. § 122A.40, subd. 5(a). During this period, a school board has discretion to

renew or not renew the teacher’s annual contract. Id. But a “teacher who has completed a 

probationary period in any district, and who has not been discharged or advised of a refusal 

to renew the teacher’s contract under subdivision 5” is entitled to a continuing contract. 

Minn. Stat. § 122A.40, subd. 7(a). A teacher may waive her right to a continuing contract 

so long as the waiver is intentional and voluntary. Lucio v. Sch. Bd. of Indep. Sch. Dist. 

No. 625, 574 N.W.2d 737, 742 (Minn. App. 1998), review denied (Minn. Apr. 30, 1998). 

Intent need not be express; it may be inferred from conduct. Flaherty, 577 N.W.2d at 232. 

Relators argue that they did not waive their rights to continuing contracts by asking 

the principals to extend their probationary status and that the school district’s 2016 

nonrenewal decision violated section 122A.40. We address each argument in turn.
4

I. Relators waived their rights to continuing contracts by asking their principals

to extend their probationary status for a second year.

Relators first argue that their written requests to extend their probationary period for 

the 2015-16 school year do not evince the intent to waive their rights to continuing 

contracts. We are not persuaded. Grzybowski’s e-mail to her principal stated, “I would 

like to ask for a second year of probationary status for the 2015-16 school year to continue 

my growth.” The subject line of the e-mail—“Tenure status”—demonstrates 

Grzybowski’s knowledge that her request would impact her right to a continuing contract. 

Mignone’s initial e-mail communication did not mention her probationary status. But, at 

human resources’ request, Mignone sent a second e-mail clarifying that she wished “to 

extend [her] probation for an additional year.” As experienced teachers who had 

previously achieved continuing-contract status in other school districts, relators understood 

that their actions would extend their probationary contracts for another year.2 And neither

questioned why she was treated as a probationary teacher in evaluations throughout the 

2015-16 school year. Substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that Grzybowski and 

Mignone intended to waive their anticipated continuing-contract rights when they

requested a second year of probationary status.

Next, relators contend that their requests for second probationary contracts were not 

voluntary because their alternative was losing their employment with the district altogether. 

We disagree. Because relators had not, in April 2015, completed their probationary period, 

 

2 Relators acknowledge that teachers and school districts may agree to extend a 

probationary contract without violating section 122A.40. 
5

the school district was not required to renew their teaching contracts. Minn. Stat. 

§ 122A.40, subd. 5(a). The fact that the school district offered relators a chance for another 

year of probation, rather than not renewing their contracts, does not evidence coercion or 

compromise the purpose behind the statute. This case is not like Perry v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 

No. 696, 297 Minn. 197, 207, 210 N.W.2d 283, 290 (1973), on which relators rely. Perry

agreed to teach on a substitute basis for a second year until the school district found a more 

“suitable” candidate. The school district told Perry that it did not offer regular contracts to 

married women. The supreme court declined to construe Perry’s agreement as a valid 

waiver of her continuing-contract right, stating that the district “appears to have utilized 

this device solely to avoid giving tenure to married women in circumvention of Minn. St. 

125.12.” Perry, 297 Minn. at 207, 210 N.W.2d at 290. While relators may not have liked 

the choice with which they were presented—teach under a second probationary contract or 

leave the district—it does not follow that the school district coerced their agreement. And, 

as noted above, agreements to extend a probationary term do not violate section 122A.40. 

On this record, we conclude that ample evidence establishes that relators voluntarily 

waived their rights to continuing contracts. 

II. The school district did not violate Minn. Stat. § 122A.40.

On May 5, 2016, the school board elected to not renew relators’ contracts. At that 

point in time, relators had not completed their second probationary period. The school 

district had discretion to renew or not renew relators’ contracts. Minn. Stat. § 122A.40, 

subd. 5(a). Accordingly, the school district’s nonrenewal decisions did not violate section 

122A.40. 
6

In summary, substantial evidence supports the school district’s implicit finding that 

relators were probationary teachers in May 2016. Because relators did not have 

continuing-contract rights, the school district did not err or act in an arbitrary fashion when 

it declined to renew their contracts.

Affirmed.