Court Opinion

ID: 9883815
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:20:57.584577+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:31.713934
License: Public Domain

FOLEY, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion states the pivotal issue to be that relator seeks to “bump” other teachers for a non-existent position. I disagree. It is my view that the issue is whether the school district should rearrange and realign its schedule and teachers to accommodate, if reasonable and practical, the senior contract rights of Brown. See Strand v. Special School District No. 1, 392 N.W.2d 881 (Minn.1986). In Strand, the supreme court held that
where reassignment or realignment and reassignment is practical and reasonable, a school district is required to reassign teaching duties in a manner designed to continue the employment of senior teachers and that because reassignment was both practical and reasonable in this case, termination of Strand’s services for discontinuance of position was violative of her rights under the Teacher Tenure Act.
Id. at 886.
Brown is a continuing contract teacher and is licensed to teach Title I. At present, two half-time Title I positions exist at the school where Brown teaches. Both classes are taught in the morning. The teacher in the other position, Carol Hanson, is less senior to Brown. It was conceded at oral argument by the District’s counsel that one of the courses could be moved to the afternoon. If this were done, Brown would then be able to teach both morning and afternoon, thus protecting her full contract rights. If the holding of Strand is to be given its full meaning that every effort be made to accommodate the contract rights of the tenured teacher, where reasonable and practical, then this is such a case.
It is clear from the testimony of the principal and Title I director, Robert Pecha, that scheduling the Title I courses only in the morning is a preference, but is not essential for the health and well-being of the pupils. The testimony of the principal is enlightening. He agreed that it was possible to schedule Title I in the afternoon, but that he preferred not to do so.
Q. * * * Is it possible to switch reading and math to the afternoon?
[[Image here]]
A. I would say that it would be possible, but again, if I would be allowed to express my preference—
[[Image here]]
*86What is it about teaching reading or math in the morning that’s better than teaching it in the afternoon? O*
A. I would answer that it is my belief * * * that I think during the course of the day I think there are some times during the day that people would be more able and it would be a better environment. * * *
That’s your personal opinion? £>
That is again an opinion that I would say * is based upon experience Í»
Even if it could be soundly argued that the school district has discretion in the areas of scheduling and realignment of teachers, if moving one Title I course to the afternoon has no adverse effect on the students, then that course of action should be taken to protect the contract rights of Brown. There is not a scintilla of evidence in this record to reflect any adverse effect on the students if one Title I course were moved to the afternoon. Unless rescheduling occurs, less senior and probationary teachers will be given more recognition than either the statute or case law permits and thus elevated to a superior position over Brown, a senior tenured teacher, whose rights it is the duty of the district to protect.