Title: Baker v. Minot Public School Dist. No. 1
Citation: 253 N.W.2d 444
Docket Number: 9287
State: north-dakota
Issuer: north-dakota Supreme Court
Date: May 13, 1977

253 N.W.2d 444 (1977) Edward BAKER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MINOT PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, a Public Corporation, Defendant-Appellant. Civ. No. 9287. Supreme Court of North Dakota. May 13, 1977. *446 McGee, Hankla, Backes &amp; Wheeler, Ltd., Minot, for defendant-appellant; argued by Walfrid B. Hankla, Minot. Daniel J. Chapman, Bismarck, for plaintiff-appellee. PAULSON, Justice. This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court of Ward County, dated August 26, 1976, which judgment held that the defendant, Minot Public School District No. 1 [hereinafter the Board], failed to comply with the law regarding nonrenewal of a teacher's contract in that the Board acted unreasonably and arbitrarily and abused its discretion, because the reasons given by the Board for such nonrenewal were not sufficient to justify the nonrenewal of the teaching contract of the plaintiff, Edward Baker [hereinafter Mr. Baker]. The district court found that the Board had failed to give maximum consideration to basic fairness and decency and that the Board had not acted in good faith. Because a new school year had not yet commenced and because a position for which Mr. Baker qualified was open in the Board's school system, the district court ordered that the Board offer such position to Mr. Baker. The judgment appealed from is based upon the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment: The Board seeks reversal of the judgment of the district court for three reasons: Our review of the Board's first contention, that the district court clearly erred in determining that the Board acted frivolously or arbitrarily in deciding not to renew Mr. Baker's teaching contract, is restricted by application of Rule 52(a) of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure. The findings of the district court will not be disturbed unless "clearly erroneous". Subsections 1 and 5 of § 15-47-38 of the North Dakota Century Code, as amended, provide: Section 15-47-38, N.D.C.C., was substantially amended by the Legislature in 1975, subsequent to our decision in Dathe v. Wildrose School District No. 91, 217 N.W.2d 781 (N.D.1974). In Dathe, supra, this court noted that § 15-47-38, N.D.C.C., as it then provided, did not require that the reasons given for the nonrenewal of a teaching contract justify the action taken by a school board. However, this court did assert in Dathe that the reasons for such nonrenewal had to relate to the ability, competence, or qualifications of a teacher, as a teacher, and should not be irrelevant to teaching, and that the reasons given should be capable of being articulated. Beyond such restriction, this court noted that the school board had free range to terminate a teacher's employment by following the statutory nonrenewal procedure. A comparison of the former provisions of § 15-47-38 with its present provisions reveals the following differences: (1) in subsection 1 of § 15-47-38, the 1975 Legislature changed the precatory nature of the admonition that the school boards consider the professional stature and reputation of teachers into a mandatory requirement; (2) subsection 5 of § 15-47-38 was amended to *450 add the requirement that the reasons for nonrenewal had to be furnished to a teacher in writing; (3) in subsection 5 of § 15-47-38 the requirement was added that the reasons "shall be sufficient to justify the contemplated action of the board"; (4) in subsection 5 of § 15-47-38, the requirement was added that the reasons should not be frivolous or arbitrary, but should be related to the ability, competence, or qualifications of the teacher as a teacher, or the necessities of the school district such as lack of funds; and (5) in subsection 5 of § 15-47-38, the requirement was added that the school board be required to furnish an explanation and discuss and confirm the reasons for its contemplated nonrenewal of a teaching contract. We note that the changes in the new law require that a school board give serious consideration to the effect the board's action will have upon the professional stature and reputation of a teacher, requiring that such action be taken with maximum consideration to basic fairness and decency. We disagree with the Board's characterization of the 1975 amendments of § 15-47-38, N.D.C.C., as merely a codification of our decision in Dathe, supra. The Board asserts that because the Board's actions were based upon Mr. Baker's conduct in his capacity as a teacher, such action was not grounded upon frivolous or arbitrary reasons. Such an interpretation would allow contract nonrenewal based upon any complaint grounded upon actions taken by a teacher in his capacity as a teacher, regardless of the complaint's significance. We find such interpretation to be contrary to our Legislature's intent. When the Legislature amended § 15-47-38, N.D.C.C., it changed the "pious hopes and exhortations" contained therein into a statutory mandate that a school board give serious consideration to damage that can result to the professional stature and reputation of a teacher as a consequence of a board's decision not to renew a teacher's contract. Further, the amended statute requires that the reasons for nonrenewal of a teacher's contract be sufficient to justify nonrenewal and shall not be frivolous or arbitrary, and shall be related to the ability, competence, or qualifications of a teacher in his capacity as a teacher. The findings of the district court are adequately supported by the record in the instant case. The transcript of the proceedings before the Board is void of any testimony or evidence to show that the Board had given serious consideration to the effect the nonrenewal of Mr. Baker's teaching contract would have upon his professional stature and reputation; it also appears from the transcript that one, if not two, of the Board members based their decision on the school administrator's recommendation, rather than upon the evidence before the Board, as is required by law; and, finally, it appears that the reaction of the Board to Mr. Baker's commission of a breach of the rules contained in the Teachers' Handbook (1975-1976) of the Minot High School as reported to the Boardwhen compared with his seven years of dedicated, enthusiastic, and cooperative teaching in the Minot public school system as the record disclosesis unduly harsh. We therefore affirm the findings of the district court that the Board acted unreasonably and arbitrarily and abused its discretion, and that the reasons given by the Board were not sufficient to justify the nonrenewal of Mr. Baker's teaching contract. The Board contends that the district court erred in overriding the discretionary act of the Board in not renewing Mr. Baker's teaching contract. The Board asserts that the exercise of its discretion is not subject to review by the courts, except in a case of clear or gross abuse of discretion, clear violation of law, fraud, bad faith, or the transcending of the Board's legal authority. We disagree. The 1975 Legislative Assembly, by its amendments of § 15-47-38, N.D.C.C., has placed upon the courts of this State the responsibility of reviewing the decision of a school board when an appeal is taken by a teacher whose contract has not been renewed. Section 15-47-38, N.D.C.C., as *451 amended, requires more than mere procedural compliance. A school board's decision to renew or not to renew a teacher's contract is no longer purely a discretionary act, but, rather is an act subject to the procedural and substantive requirements set forth in § 15-47-38, N.D.C.C. In the instant case, the district court properly reviewed the action of the Board to determine if its action conformed to the procedural and substantive requirements set forth in § 15-47-38, N.D.C.C., and, as indicated in Part I herein, the district court properly found the Board's reasons for nonrenewal to be insufficient to justify the action of the Board. Finally, the Board contends that the district court erred in employing an improper remedy when it required the Board to offer a teaching position to Mr. Baker, and argues that if relief were to be granted, it should have been in the form of compensatory damages. The Board's contention is premised on the rule that personal service contracts are generally not specifically enforceable affirmatively. Section 32-04-12, N.D.C.C.; Henley v. Fingal Public School District No. 54, 219 N.W.2d 106, 108 (N.D. 1974); 11 Williston on Contracts § 1423, p. 783 (3d ed. 1968). But, we held in Henley, supra, 219 N.W.2d at 110, that in cases where the continuing contract of a teacher has not been legally terminated, a writ of mandamus would be available in cases where factual circumstances permit. In the instant case, the nonrenewal of Mr. Baker's contract was just as improper and as legally ineffective to terminate his "continuing contract" as was the case in Henley, supra. Equity is not inflexible and the power of a court of equity to grant such a remedy depends upon the factual situation involved and the need for a given remedy in a particular case. See 11 Williston on Contracts, supra § 1424, at 786. A shift away from the traditional rule is mandated in the instant case by the social policy expressed by our Legislature in § 15-47-38(1), N.D. C.C., wherein it requires school boards to A lack of precedent is no obstacle to equitable relief which may be appropriate in a particular factual setting. In the instant case, to limit Mr. Baker's remedy to a recovery of compensatory damages (which are difficult to ascertain because of the indefinite duration of a teaching contract and because it is difficult to appraise the value of lost stature and reputation) would thwart the protection of the very interests our Legislature has sought to protect. We recognize that there will be instances in which the traditional rationale supporting the refusal of courts of equity to enforce personal service contracts will exist, and the forcing of a school board to rehire a teacher or to renew the contract of a teacher would not be for the best interests of a school district; but, in the instant case, where the school year has not yet commenced, where a position is open within the school board's school system for which position a wrongfully dismissed teacher is qualified, where the school district is one that is large enough to absorb the dismissed teacher into its system without creating a disruptive situation, where there is no showing that friction exists between the wrongfully dismissed teacher and his administrators, and where the wrongfully dismissed teacher has a good record as a teacherit is proper for the district court to require a school board to offer a teaching position to the wrongfully dismissed teacher *452 in cases in which the district court determines that it would be in the best interests of the wrongfully dismissed teacher and the school district. Although we affirm the judgment of the district court at the time it was rendered, subsequent developments related to this Court by counsel on oral argument indicate that such judgment may now be impossible to apply in the instant case. We take cognizance that the trial court stayed the judgment pending appeal and another teacher was employed to fill the vacant position. We therefore remand to the district court to determine whether or not changed circumstances render such judgment inappropriate, and, if so, to apply the alternative remedy of damages. ERICKSTAD, C. J., and SAND and VOGEL, JJ., concur. PEDERSON, Justice (dissenting). Obviously, Baker has ability, competence and qualifications to perform admirably the tasks of a teacher. If I were elected to be a member of the school board at Minot, I would vote to forgive him for violating the rule, and I would do that also for violators who have less ability, competence and qualifications, and then I would ask that the Board rewrite its rules so as to distinguish between rules that, when violated, are considered grounds for dismissal or nonrenewal and those that are merely advisory. But I am not an elected Board member and my judgment has nothing to do with this case. I am not even a voter at Minot so I cannot even vote in the next election against Board members with whom I disagree. Decisions of school boards are not appealable but, even in cases that have come to this Court where the review is pursuant to a statute making the administrative determination appealable, we have repeatedly said that courts will not substitute their judgment for that of the administrator. See, for example, § 28-32-21, NDCC, and cases annotated thereunder. In Bank of Hamilton v. State Banking Bd., 236 N.W.2d 921, 925 (N.D.1976), we said that: "This court, however, has indicated its reluctance to substitute its own judgment for that of qualified experts in matters entrusted to administrative agencies." And, in Agnew v. Hjelle, 216 N.W.2d 291 (N.D.1974), we held, in syllabus 3: Admittedly, the Minot School Board does not come within the scope of the Administrative Agencies Practice Act (Chapter 28-32, NDCC), such as the State Banking Board in Bank of Hamilton and the State Highway Commissioner in Agnew. However, Banking Board determinations and Highway Commissioner determinations are specifically made appealable by statute, while School Board determinations, under § 15-47-38(5), NDCC, are not appealable but "* * * if made in good faith shall be final and binding on all parties." The majority opinion treats the case as if it were an appeal and, in fact, calls it an appeal. The complaint filed by Baker prayed for an injunction or, in the alternative, for damages of $20,000.00. Baker did not prove that the Board did not act in good faith but in fact admitted that he violated the rule and that the rule was a good rule. The trial court specifically found "that the school board followed the procedure outlined by law in arriving at its decision not to renew the Plaintiff's contract." Baker seems to suggest that the Board should have used other sanctions against him. Other sanctions would have to have been provided for in the contract and apparently weren't. In seeking the injunctive remedy, Baker knew that he needed to allege that there was no adequate remedy at lawand he did so. Quite obviously, he also knew that he was not entitled to the injunction under either Chapters 32-05 or 32-06, NDCC, so *453 he asked for damages, which then acknowledged the existence of an adequate remedy at law. It is simply a misinterpretation of the record to conclude, as the majority has, that the Board failed to give serious consideration to the effect nonrenewal will have on Baker's professional stature and reputation. Four Board members testified: (1) Huwe, a college instructor and former teacher in the elementary and secondary level, said that he took into account various factors for and against Baker and "* * * weighed very heavily many qualities that I felt spoke for the candidate, and I weighed also the violation * * *." He voted for nonrenewal. (2) Reardon, a dentist, testified that he took into account factors "for" and "against." He voted for nonrenewal. (3) Summers, a businessman and president of the Board, testified that he was a personal friend of Baker and said his decision was made in good faith and upon the basis of the material brought by the administrators and other witnesses. He voted for nonrenewal after the vote was tied two-to-two. (4) Berning, a lawyer, testified that he weighed considerations "for" and "against" and had difficulty arriving at his decision. He voted against nonrenewal. None of the four Board members who testified were cross-examined. The record does not disclose why the fifth Board member did not testify. How the determination can be labeled "frivolous and arbitrary" is beyond me. The testimony was not incredible in any respect. See Tri-County Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Elkin, 224 N.W.2d 785 (N.D.1974), where we indicated that decisions have a rational basis when supported by probative evidence. Rational decisions are not frivolous nor arbitrary. See, also, the recent South Dakota ruling in Mortweet v. Ethan Bd. of Ed., Davison Cty., 241 N.W.2d 580 (S.D.1976), and the recent definitions of "arbitrary" and "frivolous" in Words and Phrases, Volumes 3A and 17A. The majority decision in this case establishes a precedent that we will find difficult in the future and, in effect, overrules numerous decisions involving scope of review of administrative decisions, and opens the door wide to abuses of the injunctive remedy. This case illustrates the principle that hard cases make bad law. The judgment should be reversed.