Case Name: DODGE v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE SAGINAW CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1971-03-01
Citations: 384 Mich. 346
Docket Number: Docket No. 52,566
Parties: DODGE v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE SAGINAW CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Judges: T. M. Kavanagh, C. J., and Adams, J., concurred with T. G-. Kavanagh, J.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 384
Pages: 346–353

Head Matter:
DODGE v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE SAGINAW CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Opinion of the Court
1. Schools and School Districts — Teachers—Principals—Tenure —Teachers’ Tenure Act.
Striking of the word “tenure” from a printed form of a contract by which a teacher was employed by a board of education as an elementary school principal was not equivalent to and cannot be construed to meet the statutory requirements regarding not having tenure in such capacity; therefore, as the board did not avail itself of the only means available under the statute to avoid it by making a provision in the contract for no tenure, the teacher should be restored as an elementary school principal (MOLA § 38.91).
Dissenting Opinion
Black and T. E. Brennan, JJ.
2. Schools and School Districts — Teachers—Principals—Tenure —Teachers’ Tenure Act.
Plaintiff acquired no continuing tenure as an elementary school principal under the teachers’ tenure act where she was appointed an elementary school principal hut, under her contract of employment, a school district agreed to hire her and she agreed to serve as a teacher and the word “tenure” at the top of the contract was stricken (MOLA §38.91).
3. Schools and School Districts — Principal—Demotion—Salary —Teachers’ Tenure Act.
School principal’s transfer to he a classroom teacher at the same pay was not a demotion under the teachers’ tenure act as the word “demote” is defined in that act as meaning “to reduce compensation or to transfer to a position carrying a lower salary” (MOLA §38.74).
Reference for Points in Headnotes
[1-3] 47 Am Jur, Schools § 130 et seq.
Appeal from Court of Appeals, Division 3, Lesinski, C. J., and Quinn and Danhof, JJ., affirming Saginaw, Hazen R. Armstrong, J.
Submitted October 8,1970.
(No. 12 October Term 1970,
Docket No. 52,566.)
Decided March 1,1971.
17 Mich App 664 reversed.
Complaint by Eleanor Dodge against the Board of Education of the Saginaw City School District and Charles C. Coulter seeking reinstatement as an elementary school principal and for injunctive relief. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals. Affirmed. Plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
Cook, Nash, Deibel S Borrello, for plaintiff.
Mellinger & Mahlberg, for defendants.

Opinion:
T. G-. Kavanagh, J.
The explicit language of Art 3, § 1 provides that if the contract of employment of a tenure teacher in the capacity of principal provides that such teacher shall not have tenure in such capacity, the teacher will be deemed to have tenure as a classroom teacher only. It also provides that the failure of the board to so provide in the contract shall be deemed to constitute the employment of the teacher on continuing contract in such capacity and subject to the provisions of the act.
There is no dispute that the plaintiff here was a tenure teacher employed by the defendant board in the capacity of principal.
The only question we are called upon to determine is whether the employment contract provided that the plaintiff would not have tenure as principal.
The defendants argue that the striking of the word "tenure" from the printed form is the equivalent of the statutorily required provision that the teacher would not have tenure. We do not agree.
Were it not for the requirement of the statute that the contract make provision for no tenure, in order to avoid it, the absence of provision for tenure might be so construed, but the statute's requirement was intended to obviate the need for construction.
We are satisfied that the members of the board did not intend to grant the plaintiff tenure in the capacity of principal in the instant contract. We are satisfied from the record that they did not avail themselves of the only means available under the statute to avoid it.
Accordingly the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the plaintiff is ordered restored to her position as an elementary school principal. The plaintiff is also entitled to the difference in compensation between what she received as a classroom teacher and the salary she would have received as principal from February 13, 1967.
Plaintiff may have costs.
T. M. Kavanagh, C. J., and Adams, J., concurred with T. G-. Kavanagh, J.
MCLA §38.91 (Stat Ann 1968 Kev § 15.1991).—Reporter.