Opinion ID: 2133547
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Obligation to Follow RIF Policy

Text: [¶ 8.] The district contends that it is not bound to follow its RIF policy because SDCL 13-43-6.6 provides that no agreement may limit the district's right to terminate a teacher for the grounds set forth in §§ 13-43-6.1 to 13-43-6.3[.] This is correct, but only when a teacher is discharged or nonrenewed by authority of these statutes. SDCL 13-43-6.3 allows nonrenewal of a nontenured teacher's contract without requiring a reason. Here, Larson was released under the RIF policy, not the nonrenewal statute. The district suggests that this statute allows it somehow to bypass its RIF policy, although the district specifically decided to release a teacher under that RIF policy. [4] This argument is against reason and precedent. [¶ 9.] The district made it clear that its action was a reduction in force and not a decision for contract nonrenewal under SDCL 13-43-6.3. The official letter sent to Larson notified her that it was the judgment of the Gettysburg Board to nonrenew your contract under Article IX of the GTA Negotiated Agreement Reduction in Force Policy[.] Similarly, the board's resolution and its final decision both declare the reduction in force as the sole reason for Larson's release. [¶ 10.] Undoubtedly, the school district released Larson under its RIF policy. A school board's power to nonrenew a teacher's contract without explanation is not at issue here. By acting under the RIF policy, the district must abide by its terms. Wessington Springs Educ. Ass'n v. Wessington Springs School Dist., No. 36-2, 467 N.W.2d 101, 104 (S.D.1991) (citations omitted). [5]