Opinion ID: 880431
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: district court claim of damages

Text: Mr. Thompson argues extensively that he has a right to recover all damages which he has suffered in all of these proceedings, including references to the idea of reinstatement, and most important, to monetary damages. As Mr. Thompson summarized in his own brief, he claims he is entitled to damages for the breach by the School District of his contract. We conclude that he does not have such a right under the facts of this case. As previously outlined, Mr. Thompson had the opportunity of grieving the sufficiency of the notice itself under the grievance procedures. He chose not to go to binding arbitration. As a result, he no longer had a right to contend in the District Court action that the notice itself was insufficient. In a similar way, if Mr. Thompson believed that he properly should have been retained as a nontenure teacher, the procedure to be followed was that previously outlined under Part II of this opinion. As he failed to follow the appropriate administrative procedure, he is barred from making the same contentions in the present proceedings before the District Court. We therefore hold that there were no further remedies available to Mr. Thompson under the complaint which he filed in the District Court; and conclude that the District Court properly granted summary judgment on the various theories requested by the School District. We vacate the remand by the District Court to the School District as there is no requirement for such further consideration by the School District under the union contract. With that exception we affirm the District Court. TURNAGE, C.J., and HARRISON, GULBRANDSON, HUNT and McDONOUGH, JJ., concur. SHEEHY, J., did not participate in this decision.