Case Name: LIPKA v. BROWN CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOLS (ON REHEARING)
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1977-05-02
Citations: 403 Mich. 554
Docket Number: Docket Nos. 56795, 56796
Parties: LIPKA v BROWN CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOLS (ON REHEARING)
Judges: Levin, Coleman, and Ryan, JJ., concurred with Kavanagh, C.J.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 403
Pages: 554–567

Head Matter:
LIPKA v BROWN CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOLS (ON REHEARING)
Docket Nos. 56795, 56796.
Argued January 8, 1976
(Calendar No. 10).
Decided May 2, 1977.
Rehearing granted 400 Mich 984.
Argued on rehearing January 3, 1978
(Calendar No. 2).
Decided November 20, 1978.
Matthew Lipka and Sharon Beebee appealed to the State Tenure Commission the decision of defendant Brown City Community Schools to discontinue their employment as probationary teachers. Both teachers were advised by timely notice that they would not be rehired for the following school year because their work had been "unsatisfactory”, but the notice did not state why the school board found their work unsatisfactory. The commission ordered the teachers reinstated with tenure and back pay. The Sanilac Circuit Court, Arthur M. Bach, J., affirmed. The Court of Appeals, Danhof, P.J., and Bashara and Allen, JJ., affirmed the result in the circuit court, holding that the State Tenure Commission did not have jurisdiction, and remanded to the circuit court for a determination of lost wages as mitigated by wages earned by the plaintiffs (Docket No. 20727). The parties appeal. Held:
1. The provision of the teacher tenure act that the school board give written notice to probationary teachers of unsatisfactory work does not include a mandate that a statement of reasons accompany that notice. It is unnecessary to read a "reason” requirement into the provision in order to effect the act’s policy.
2. A probationary period is provided in the act and distin guished from tenure to afford a trial period during which the controlling school board may make a subjective determination of whether a certain teacher satisfies that school district’s particular needs and policy. It should not be required that such a procedure meet an objective standard applicable to all school districts. The fact that the act provides a procedure for hearing and review by the State Tenure Commission where the issue is the discharge of a tenured teacher but does not provide such a procedure for a determination whether a period of probation was completed satisfactorily indicates that it was not intended to provide a review of such a decision by the State Tenure Commission.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1] 68 Am Jur 2d, Schools § 190.
[2] 68 Am Jur 2d, Schools § 169.
Right to dismiss public school teacher on ground that services are no longer needed. 100 ALR2d 1141.
[3, 4] 68 Am Jur 2d, Schools § 187.
Sufficiency of notice of intention to discharge teacher, or not to renew contract, under statutes requiring such notice. 92 ALR2d 751.
[5] 68 Am Jur 2d, Schools § 204.
[6] 68 Am Jur 2d, Schools § 188.
3. Adoption of an impermissible policy contrary to the teacher tenure act is not demonstrated by showing that an arguably incorrect determination was made in a particular case. The State Tenure Commission may not assay a school board’s reason for concluding that a probationary teacher’s work was unsatisfactory. The act is followed when the notice of unsatisfactory work is timely given whether based on good, bad, or unstated reasons. If timely notice of unsatisfactory work is given, no entitlement to tenure arises, and therefore the Due Process Clause does not require a hearing.
4. If a teacher claims tenure as a result of satisfactory completion of probation, the determination of timeliness or legal effect of a notice of unsatisfactory work is always within the jurisdiction of the State Tenure Commission.
5. The defendant school board’s notice was effective. These teachers did not satisfactorily complete their probationary period so as to be entitled to tenure. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, the order of reinstatement set aside, and the matter remanded to the State Tenure Commission with instructions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ appeal.
Reversed.
Justice Blair Moody, Jr., joined by Justices Williams and Fitzgerald, dissented. He wrote that, for the reasons given by Chief Justice Kavanagh in his first opinion in this case:
1. A teacher who alleges that the controlling school board failed to provide him with proper notification whether his work was unsatisfactory and that his services would be discontinued at least 60 days before the close of the last school year of his probationary period achieves tenure status for the limited purpose of allowing him to appeal the school board’s action to the State Tenure Commission. Therefore, the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the State Tenure Commission did not have jurisdiction is erroneous.
2. A board of education must set forth in the statement delivered to a probationary teacher at least 60 days before the close of the school year the reasons for its determination that the probationary teacher’s work is unsatisfactory. The notices given the plaintiffs in this case were insufficient because they did not give reasons.
3. Because of the general uncertainty of the law in this area and the specific uncertainty engendered by the original disposition, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals by an equally divided Court, the holding as to jurisdiction of the State Tenure Commission should be given prospective application from the date of this decision, and the holding as to the sufficiency of notice should be given prospective application from the date of the original disposition, May 2, 1977.
59 Mich App 175; 224 NW2d 362 (1975) reversed.
Opinion of the Court
1. Schools and School Districts — Teacher Tenure Act — Probationary Teachers.
The teacher tenure act does not require that a statement of reasons accompany the written notice to a probationary teacher of discontinuance of services for unsatisfactory work (MCL 38.83; MSA 15.1983).
2. Schools and School Districts — Teacher Tenure Act — Probationary Teachers.
A probationary period is provided in the teacher tenure act and distinguished from tenure to afford a trial period during which a controlling school board may make a subjective determination whether a certain teacher satisfies that school district’s particular needs and policy (MCL 38.83; MSA 15.1983).
3. Schools and School Districts — Teacher Tenure Act — Notice — Probationary Teachers —■ Due Process.
No entitlement to tenure arises under the teacher tenure act if timely notice of unsatisfactory work is given to a probationary teacher; therefore the Due Process Clause does not require a hearing on the school board’s decision that the probationary teacher’s work was unsatisfactory (US Const, Am XIV; MCL 38.83; MSA 15.1983).
4. Schools and School Districts — State Tenure Commission — Jurisdiction.
If a teacher claims tenure as a result of satisfactory completion of probation, the determination of timeliness or legal effect of a notice of unsatisfactory work is always within the jurisdiction of the State Tenure Commission (MCL 38.83; MSA 15.1983).
Dissenting Opinion by Blair Moody, Jr., J.
5. Schools and School Districts — Teacher Tenure Act — Probationary Teachers — Notice.
A teacher who alleges that the controlling school board failed to provide him with proper notiñcation that his work was unsatisfactory and that his services would be discontinued at least 60 days before the close of the last school year of his probationary period achieves tenure status for the limited purpose of allowing him to appeal the school board’s action to the State Tenure Commission (MCL 38.71 et seq.; MSA 15.1971 et seq.).
6. Schools and School Districts — Teacher Tenure Act — Probationary Teachers — Notice.
A school board must set forth in the statement delivered to a probationary teacher at the close of the school year the reasons for its determination that the probationary teacher’s work is unsatisfactory (MCL 38.83; MSA 15.1983).
Foster, Swift, Collins & Coey, P.C. (by Lynwood E. Beekman), for plaintiffs.
Thrun, Maatsch & Nordberg (by Thomas J. Nordberg and Harry J. Zeliff) for defendant.
Amici Curiae:
William E. Lobenherz for Michigan Association of School Boards.
Levin, Levin, Garvett & Dill (by Erwin B. Ellmann) for Michigan Education Association.
Fieger, Golden & Cousens for Michigan Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO.

Opinion:
Kavanagh, C.J.
When this case was first submitted, we were evenly divided over the question of whether a school board's written statement that a probationary teacher's work is unsatisfactory must include reasons for that conclusion.
I wrote to answer this question affirmatively, requiring school boards to provide reasons for their action. I was of the opinion that such a policy would prevent arbitrary and capricious school board action. Justices Williams and Fitzgerald joined in that opinion.
Justice Coleman, joined by Justices Levin and Ryan, wrote to answer the question negatively, finding that while definite written notice of satisfactory or unsatisfactory work was mandated by the teachers' tenure act, MCL 38.71 et seq.; MSA 15.1971 et seq., school boards were not required to include reasons for their conclusions.
Because of our even division we ordered the cause resubmitted and Justice Moody has written to adopt the view expressed in my first opinion. With apology for any embarrassment my change of mind may cause, I write to say that I am now convinced that reasons need not be stated.
My confession of error should not be taken as a retreat from the position expressed in my first opinion that the tenure commission was correct in accepting jurisdiction to decide the question here involved.
I
The act's provision, MCL 38.83; MSA 15.1983, that the board give written notice to probationary teachers of unsatisfactory work does not include a mandate that a statement of reasons accompany that notice. I find it unnecessary to read a "reason" requirement into the provision in order to effect the act's policy.
A probationary period is provided in the act and distinguished from tenure to afford a trial period during which a controlling board may make a subjective determination of whether a certain teacher satisfies that district's particular needs and policy. We should not require that such a procedure meet an objective standard applicable to all school districts.
The absence of provision for hearing at the school board level and for review of a board's decision that a probationary teacher's work was unsatisfactory in this act, which provides such a procedure for hearing and a forum for review, the tenure commission, where the issue is the propriety of the discharge of a tenured teacher, indicates that it was not intended that a school board's determination of whether a probationary teacher has completed the period of probation satisfactorily would be subject to review by the tenure commission.
The act identifies arbitrary and capricious policies (Munro v Elk Rapids Schools, 383 Mich 661, 688; 178 NW2d 450 [1970], On Rehearing, 385 Mich 618; 189 NW2d 224 [1971]) at which it is directed. A teacher no longer can be continued in a probationary status indefinitely; after two, and sometimes three, years of employment without timely notice of unsatisfactory work, the teacher obtains tenure and cannot thereafter be discharged except for cause. Notice of non-reappointment must be given within the time stated in the act so that the teacher has adequate time to seek other employment for the next school year.
Adoption of an impermissible policy contrary to the spirit of the act (see, eg, Wilson v Flint Board of Education, 361 Mich 691; 106 NW2d 136 [1960]) is not demonstrated by showing that an arguably "incorrect" determination was made in a particular case.
The tenure commission may not assay a board's reason for concluding the work unsatisfactory. The act is followed when the notice of unsatisfactory work is timely given whether based on good, bad or unstated reasons. If timely notice of unsatisfactory work is given, no entitlement to tenure arises under the act, and therefore the Due Process Clause does not require a hearing. See Board of Regents v Roth, 408 US 564; 92 S Ct 2701; 33 L Ed 2d 548 (1972).
II
For the reasons set forth in my opinion on the earlier submission, the circuit court and Court of Appeals erred in deciding that the tenure commission does not have jurisdiction to decide the question here involved. If a teacher claims tenure as a result of satisfactory completion of probation, the determination of timeliness or legal effect of a notice of unsatisfactory work is always within the jurisdiction of the tenure commission.
The board's notice in this case was effective. The teachers did not satisfactorily complete their probationary period so as to be entitled to tenure.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals is reversed. The order of reinstatement is set aside and the matter remanded to the tenure commission with instructions to dismiss.
No costs. A public question.
Levin, Coleman, and Ryan, JJ., concurred with Kavanagh, C.J.