Opinion ID: 590349
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: School Board Policy

Text: 20 The appellants also argue that school board policies give rise to a property interest in continued employment. An individual who has held his position for a number of years[ ] might be able to show from the circumstances of this service--and from other relevant facts--that he has a legitimate claim of entitlement to job tenure. Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 602, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 2700, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972). However, a mere subjective 'expectancy'  is not enough. Id. at 603, 92 S.Ct. at 2700; see also Roth, 408 U.S. at 577, 92 S.Ct. at 2709 (To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.). 21 In this case, the appellants rely on school board policies as enunciated in a policy handbook. Specifically, the section on separation states: 22 The continuation of employment shall be based on the quality of work, ethical conduct, necessity of the work and the availability of district funds. Unless the continued presence of a person on a job is highly detrimental to the school system, two weeks notice shall be given before dismissal. 23 Likewise, employees shall give two weeks notice of resignation. 24 App. to Appellants' Br. in Chief, Tab 3. 25 We recognize that in Oklahoma [t]he provisions of an employee handbook can constitute a contract between the employer and employee. Vinyard v. King, 728 F.2d 428, 432 (10th Cir.1984). However, in this case, we do not believe that the provision of the policy manual cited creates a property right to renewal of the appellants' annual contracts, particularly in light of the explicit provision in the appellants' contracts that the term expired at the end of the school fiscal year and continued in no event ... beyond June 30, 1989. The provision in the policy manual does little more than restate the requirements for termination, suspension, and demotion contained in section 6-101.40: cause, lack of funds, and lack of work. Given the use of the words dismissal and resignation, neither of which applies upon expiration of a contract, we interpret the provision to refer to termination of an existing contract rather than to a failure to renew a contract.