Court Opinion

ID: 9537330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:16:01.950552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:26.880660
License: Public Domain

*1366ERWIN, Justice,
with whom RABINO-WITZ, Chief Justice and BOOCHEVER, Justice, join, concurring.
While we generally agree with the holding reached in Justice Connor’s opinion for the court, we would go further and require that except in certain extraordinary situations, the hearing necessary to satisfy the requirements of the due process clause of the Alaska Constitution1 must be held prior to the mid-term suspension or discharge of a non-tenured teacher.2
There may be certain exceptional instances in which the conduct of a teacher would present a serious and imminent threat to the physical or psychological well-being of the students. In such cases, the immediate removal of the teacher from the classroom would be justified. The requirements of due process would be met by a procedure which provided for the suspension of the teacher with pay pending the prompt convening of a full hearing. Absent such extraordinary circumstances, however, a hearing must be afforded a nontenured teacher before suspension or discharge.
The suspension or discharge of a nontenured teacher prior to the expiration of the term of his or her contract is a very serious matter and may cause substantial injury. Specifically, such suspension or discharge may cause economic hardship, create a stigma of incompetence and blemish the teacher’s professional reputation, decrease the possibility of other educational employment opportunities, deny the teacher the opportunity to pursue a chosen professional activity, and disrupt an existing educational relationship between teacher and students. As the Eighth Circuit recently observed in Cooley v. Board of Education of Forest City School District,3
Given the ensuing economic hardship of a summary deprivation of the source of one’s livelihood, and in view of the awesome and potentially stigmatizing effect of mid-year termination, such a case as this assuredly presents one of the clearest instances where the rule of procedural Due Process, properly applied, must operate to interdict injurious and reckless governmental treatment.4
In view of the potentially serious injury which would result from an unjustifiable, arbitrary discharge or suspension of a nontenured teacher, we would employ higher standards of procedural due process and would require the holding of a hearing prior to any suspension or discharge.

. Alaska Const., Art. I, § 7; see also K & L Distributors v. Murkowski, 486 P.2d 351, 356-358 (Alaska 1971).

. Cf. Lafferty v. Carter, 310 F.Supp. 465 (W.D.Wis.1970) ; for discussions of whether due process requires a hearing before a teacher may be terminated or his contract not renewed see generally W. A. Alatyne, The Constitutional Eights of Teachers and Professors, 1970 Duke L. J. 841 (1970) ; Comment, Due Process Restrictions on the Employment Power and the Teaching Profession, 50 Neb.L. Rev. 655 (1970-71) ; Comment, Constitutional Problems in the Nonretention of Probationary Teachers, 1971 U.Ill.L.For. 508 (1972) ; Note, Non-Tenured Teachers and Due Process: The Right to a Hearing and Statement of Reasons, 29 Wash. & Lee L.Rcv. 100 (1972) ; Note, Constitutional Law-Due Process-Fairness of a Hearing Before a School Board on Non-renewal of a Teacher’s Contract, 296 Wisc.L.Rev. 354 (1971) ; Article, The Fourteenth Amendment, Fundamental Fairness, The Probationary Instructor, and the University of California — An Incompatible Foursome?, 5 UCD L.Rev. 608 (1972-73) ; Note, Probationary Public School Teachers and Procedural Due Process: Is a Hearing Useful — Drown v. Portsmouth School District, 1971 Utah L. Rev. 573 (1971) ; Note, Constitutional Law-Due Process-Arbitrary and Capricious Abuse of Discretion in Non-Renewal of Teacher’s Contract, 8 Wake Forest L. Rev. 131 (1971) ; Comment, Non-Tenure Teachers: Procedural Rights Upon Dismissal, 3 Loy.U.L.J. 114 (1972).

. 453 F.2d 282 (8th Cir. 1972).

. Id. at 286.