Court Opinion

ID: 9606864
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:53:42.688491+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:36.022022
License: Public Domain

Utter, J.
James Gaylord was dismissed from his position as a teacher in Tacoma School District No. 10 when the district learned he was a homosexual. He appealed the district’s action to superior court pursuant to RCW 28A.58.480, and also filed a complaint for damages and reinstatement. The court upheld the action of the school district and declined to reinstate him. He appeals.
One of the pivotal issues at the trial of this case was whether appellant was discharged for “sufficient cause” pursuant to RCW 28A.58.100, which provides in part: “Every board of directors, unless otherwise specially provided by law, shall: (1) Employ for not more than one year, and for sufficient cause discharge all certificated and noncertificated employees . . .” The term “sufficient cause” was early defined as conduct which would affect the teacher’s efficiency. Browne v. Gear, 21 Wash. 147, 57 P. 359 (1899); Denton v. South Kitsap School Dist. 402, 10 Wn. App. 69, 516 P.2d 1080 (1973).
Mr. Gaylord contends he was an excellent teacher up until the day he was discharged despite the alleged public knowledge of his status as a homosexual. He stresses the trial court’s finding of fact that “There is no allegation or evidence that James Gaylord has ever committed any overt acts of homosexuality. The sole basis for his discharge is James Gaylord’s status as a homosexual.” He argues to this court that expert testimony showed overwhelmingly that, even if knowledge of his status as a homosexual became public, he would be able to function efficiently as a teacher without risk of harm to the school or to the pupils. The school district, on the other hand, presented testimony at trial by its administrative staff that when knowledge of appellant’s status as a homosexual became known to the students and their parents, the resulting complaints would *350affect appellant’s teaching efficiency and injure the school.
This crucial question of fact was resolved in favor of the school district by the trial judge. He found the public knowledge of Gaylord’s status would “impair the optimum learning atmosphere in the classroom.” This finding, however, was based on conclusion of law No 3, in which the judge held he had to give special emphasis to the school administrators’ testimony inasmuch as “[pjursuant to RCW 28A.58.1011, this court is required to give the highest consideration to the judgment of the qualified, certified educators regarding conditions necessary to maintain the optimum learning atmosphere.” The court’s oral opinion reflects the significance of this holding: “In the court’s opinion under the evidence, and taking the evidence of the people who have to live with this, who seek under the statute to create the optimum learning atmosphere, the Court is going to rule for the Respondent. I feel I have no choice. I can say this, that I expect and I hope that this matter is taken further and that we have a clarification under our own state law on this one question. I don’t think it’s open and shut, and I think this would be a good vehicle for having that question tested.”
 The burden of proof in this case should be placed upon the district. Its decision to discharge must be based “solely upon the cause or causes for discharge specified in the notice of probable cause . . . and established by a preponderance of evidence at the hearing . . .” RCW 28A.58.450. The interpretation of RCW 28A.58.101(1) made by the trial court would lessen the burden of proof required of the district by law. The language of RCW 28A.58.101 (1) does not support the interpretation urged by respondent and made by the trial court. RCW 28A.58.101 provides:
Every board of directors, unless otherwise specifically provided by law, shall:
(1) Enforce the rules and regulations prescribed by the superintendent of public instruction' and the state board of education for the government of schools, pupils, and certificated employees.
*351(2) Adopt and make available to each pupil and parent in the district reasonable written rules and regulations regarding pupil conduct, discipline, and rights. Such rules and regulations shall not be inconsistent with law or the rules and regulations of the superintendent of public instruction or the state board of education and shall include such substantive and procedural due process guarantees as prescribed by the state board of education . . .
(3) Suspend, expel, or discipline pupils in accordance with RCW 28A.04.132.
RCW 28A.58.1011 in turn provides:
The rules adopted pursuant to RCW 28A.58.101 shall be interpreted to insure that the optimum learning atmosphere of the classroom is maintained, and that the. highest consideration is given to the judgment of qualified certificated educators regarding conditions necessary to maintain the optimum learning atmosphere.
By its own terms RCW 28A.58.1011 only applies to those situations where rules are adopted pursuant to RCW 28A.58.101. The only portion of the latter statute requiring adoption of rules is subsection (2), relating to pupil conduct, discipline and rights. Subsection (1), regarding rules and regulations governing certificated employees, deals with the enforcement of those rules and regulations enacted by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. The rules dealing with certificated personnel, such as appellant, are not adopted pursuant to RCW 28A.58.101, and the trial court’s application of the mandate of RCW 28A.58.101 regarding weight to be given the testimony of qualified certificated educators was therefore inappropriate.
This case is remanded to the trial court to enter findings of fact based upon the application of the proper statutory burden of proof of the district.
Wright, Brachtenbach, and Horowitz, JJ., concur.