Court Opinion

ID: 9723171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:05:02.405383+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:45.278496
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam.
The plaintiff was suspended from her position as a physical education instructor for failing to report for work for approximately one month. Following a hearing before the defendant school board, the plaintiff was discharged. The teachers’ tenure commission reversed on the grounds that the school board’s refusal to grant the plaintiff’s last-minute request to subpoena a doctor whose report was in evidence constituted a denial of due process and violated MCLA 38.104(g); MSA 15.2004(g). The commission awarded "all salary lost” to the plaintiff. The defendant appealed to the Wayne Circuit Court, which upheld the commission’s decision that the plaintiff was denied due process because of the failure to subpoena the doctor. However, the court found the error correctable and remanded the case to the board to hear testimony from the doctor. Back pay was denied.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of *93remand,1 but reversed the ruling on payment of salary. The Court characterized the plaintiffs status as that of a suspended teacher and held that "[b]y express statutory language, a suspended teacher is entitled to be paid until such time as an entirely legal and proper hearing is held”. 72 Mich App 717, 726-727; 250 NW2d 504 (1976).
We disagree with that interpretation of MCLA 38.103; MSA 15.2003, which provides,
"On the filing of charges in accordance with this section, the controlling board may suspend the accused teacher from active performance of duty until a decision is rendered by the controlling board, but the teacher’s salary shall continue during such suspension: Provided, That if the decision of the controlling board is appealed and the tenure commission reverses the decision of the controlling board, the teacher shall be entitled to all salary lost as a result of such suspension.”
A teacher is entitled to salary during the period of suspension, but the suspension ends when the school board renders a decision. The statute does not address the question whether salary must be paid during the pendency of appeals from board or commission rulings.
We do not impute to the Legislature an intent to award salary to a teacher who has not yet prevailed on the merits and whose discharge was vacated on procedural grounds, subject to correction on remand without a rehearing. Under such a construction of the statute, interlocutory rulings on procedural errors would result in windfalls to teachers who later lose on the merits. Teachers who prevail on the merits are entitled to no more *94than the actual economic loss suffered. Shiffer v Board of Education of Gibraltar School District, 393 Mich 190; 224 NW2d 255 (1974). The awarding of salary to a teacher who has not yet prevailed on the merits and whose discharge was reversed on procedural grounds is at odds with the rule of compensation for actual loss suffered. Moreover, the practice of awarding salary at this stage conflicts with the policy of deferring determination of the amount of back pay until after there has been a definitive ruling on liability. See Shiffer v Gibraltar Schools, supra, 207-209.
The award of salary here was premature. The commission reversed the board decision on procedural grounds and the lower courts have ruled that the record be supplemented. If it is ultimately determined that the discharge was wrongful and the plaintiff is reinstated, she would then be entitled to an award of back pay. Until the discharged teacher prevails on the merits, back pay for the time required for appeals and new hearings on remand may not be awarded.
The application for leave to appeal is considered and, pursuant to GCR 1963, 853.2(4), in lieu of leave to appeal, we affirm the Court of Appeals remand order and reverse its ruling that the plaintiff be paid salary until the ordered hearing is held.
Kavanagh, C. J., and Levin, Coleman, Fitzgerald, and Ryan, JJ., concurred.

 Upon remand, the school board convened a further hearing at which the doctor appeared and testified. The board again decided to terminate plaintiffs employment.