Opinion ID: 1805028
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: insubordination: failure to submit lesson plans

Text: We first turn to the issue of whether Drain's failure to submit lesson plans for the substitute teacher's use beginning December 11, 1989, constituted insubordination. A school district policy entitled Teacher Absence provides that [d]iscretionary leaves which are known in advance ... require advance notice to the principal and preparation of detailed plans for the substitute [teacher]. (Emphasis supplied.) By contrast, the policy states that [e]mergency leaves (e.g. for illness) require notification of the principal by 7:15 a.m. so that a substitute may be hired. Do not ... fail to report for work without contacting your principal. The policy makes no mention of a lesson plan requirement for teachers on emergency leave. It is undisputed that Drain submitted the lesson plans required by the teacher absence policy for her first 2 weeks of absence, or approximately until the time of her mother's death on December 1. It is clear that Drain's leave converted to emergency leave upon her mother's death and that she was not required by the teacher absence policy to prepare lesson plans for that period of time. It is less than clear how long Drain's absence from the classroom continued to be emergency leave, or whether at some point it converted back to discretionary leave. However, Drain's leave status from that point forward is irrelevant for the purpose of whether Drain was required to submit lesson plans to her substitute teacher. The substitute teacher who taught Drain's class in her absence testified that she had a discussion about the lesson plans with Drain and told Drain that she would be more comfortable preparing the lesson plans herself on a day-to-day basis. The evidence before the Board fails to reflect that even had Drain prepared the lesson plans, they would have been used by the substitute teacher. The law does not require the doing of a useless act. See, Chiles, Heider & Co. v. Pawnee Meadows, 217 Neb. 315, 350 N.W.2d 1 (1984); Fink v. Denbeck, 206 Neb. 462, 293 N.W.2d 398 (1980); Otteman v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., Inc., 172 Neb. 574, 111 N.W.2d 97 (1961). After Drain had been told by her substitute that the substitute preferred to prepare her own lesson plans, it would have been a mere formality and a useless act for Drain to have prepared lesson plans. Therefore, under the facts of this case, Drain was not required to prepare and submit the lesson plans, and her failure to do so was not insubordination.