This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn . Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (201 6 ). 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 r elators Carol Grzybowski and Heather Mignone as probationary teachers for the 2014

- 15 school year

. Grzybowski2

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 stat us. 1 Before the end of the school year , relators’ respective principals inquire d whether they were willing to continue their probationary contracts for the 2015

- 16 school year . Both Grzybowski and Mignone responded affirmatively, and confirmed their agre ement s in April 2015 via e - mails to their principals

. The Minnetonka Teacher’s Association president and a school district representative signed agreement s extending relators’ probationary periods for a second year

. At its May 5 , 2016 mee ting, the school boar d passed a resolution to terminate and
not renew the contracts of relators and thr ee other probationary teachers. Prior to the meeting, counsel for relators provided written argument and copies of relators’ e

- mail communications in opposition to the schoo l 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 decision s 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 e vidence, 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 applicabl e stat utes 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 co nditions of teaching
contracts. T he first three consecutive years of a teacher’s first teaching position (or the first year of a teacher’s subsequent employment) is a pro bationary period of employment. Min n. Stat. § 122A.40, subd. 5(a). During this period, a school board has discretion to renew or not renew the teacher’s an nual 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 ent itled to a c ontinuing contract. Minn. Stat. § 122A. 40, subd. 7(a). A teacher may waive her right to a continuing contract so long as the waive r is intentional and voluntary. Lucio v. Sch. Bd. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 625 , 574 N.W.2 d 737, 742 (Minn. App. 1998) , revi ew 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 right s to continuing contract s 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 right s to continuing contract s by asking the ir principals to extend their probationary status for a second year. Relators first argue that t heir written requests to extend their probationary period for the 2015

- 16 school year do not evince the intent to waive their right s to continuing
contract s . We are not pe rsuaded. 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

. ” T he subject line of th e e - mail

— “Tenure status”

— demonstrates Grzybowski ’s knowledge th a t 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 experience d teachers who had previously achieved continuing

- contract status in other school districts, relators understood that their actions would extend their probationary contract s for another year. 2 A nd neither
q uestion ed why she was treated as a probationar y teacher in evaluations throughout the 2015

- 16 school year. S ubstantial evidence in the record demonstrates that Grzybowski and Mignone intended to waive their anticipated continuing

- contract right s when they requested a second year of probationary status. Next, relators contend that their request s for second probationary contract s were not voluntary because their alternative was losing their employment with the district altogether. We disagree. Because rela tors had not, in April 2015, completed their probation ary period,

2 Relators acknowledge that teachers and school districts may agree to extend a probationary contract without violating section 122A.40.5

t he 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 p robation , rather than not renew ing their contracts , does not evidence coercion or compromise the purpose behind the statute

. This case i s not like Perry v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 696 , 297 Minn. 197, 20 7 , 210 N.W.2d 283, 290 (1973), on which relators rely. Perry agreed to teach o n 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 Pe rry’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 20 7 , 210 N.W.2d a t 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 ex tend a probationary term do not violate section 122A.40. On this record, w e conclude that ample evidence establishes that relators voluntarily waived their right s to continuing contract s . II. The school district did not violate Minn. Stat. § 122A.40. O n 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, s ubstantial 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.