Court Opinion

ID: 9698830
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:00:53.118794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:43.567169
License: Public Domain

White, J.
This is an appeal from a breach of contract action brought by plaintiff-appellant, Dale Neal, against the School District of York, Nebraska. At issue is the appellant’s contract for the 1976-77 school year. The matter was tried to the District Court for York County, at the conclusion of which the court entered judgment for the defendant. We affirm.
Dale Neal held a teaching-employment contract with the School District of York for the school years 1973-74, 1974-75, and 1975-76. The contracts for teaching included coaching duties for added compensation. On March 19, 1976, the School District notified Neal the 1976-77 teaching contract would be amended to separate the coaching assignment or to terminate it. That letter set forth reasons supporting the amendment and further advised the plaintiff that he had a right to request a hearing before the board of education of the defendant School District.
At the hearing before the defendant School Dis*559trict, the hoard voted to amend the plaintiffs contract by offering a separate contract for the basketball coaching assignment. Two separate contracts were presented to the plaintiff, one for teaching and one for the basketball coaching assignment. The plaintiff signed and returned the contract for teaching employment but returned unsigned the other contract for employment. The plaintiff objected to language in the coaching contract which provided: “The continuing contractual provision in Nebraska School Law 79-1254 shall not apply and this provision is expressly waived. This one (1) year Contract in noway establishes any future expectations for coaching by Dale Neal at York High School. In this regard, due process procedures and just cause shall not be required to terminate this Contract prior to the filling of the head basketball coaching position for the 1977-78 school year.” The board of education voted to reissue the contract for the basketball coaching assignment and required Neal to sign it and return it by noon, May 14, 1976, or the position would be declared open. Thereafter, Neal filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska for an order restraining the defendant from offering Neal a contract in the form presented. Judge Warren K. Urbom issued an injunction enjoining the School District from requiring Neal to make an agreement for coaching duties in the precise words proposed by the School District. In response to the order, the board of education met and voted to reissue to the plaintiff a reworded contract for the basketball assignment. Neal did not execute this contract. On August 9, 1976, the School District hired another person to be basketball coach for the 1976-77 school year. Neal claims the School District was contractually obligated, pursuant to his contract of employment, to pay him the sum of $1,458 for his services as varsity head basketball coach for the 1976-77 school year.
*560Plaintiff contends: (1) That a contract to coach is a contract subject to the procedural and substantive requirements of section 79-1254, R. R. S. 1943, and (2) that the School District failed to comply with the provisions of section 79-1254, R. R. S. 1943.
The threshold issue before this court is whether section 79-1254, R. R. S. 1943, applies to a coaching contract. Whether a particular teacher is entitled to the procedural safeguards of section 79-1254, R. R. S. 1943, is a matter of state concern. While several federal cases have recognized that tenured state teachers have interests in continued employment that are safeguarded by due process, Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564, 92 S. Ct. 2701, 33 L. Ed. 2d 548; Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593, 92 S. Ct. 2694, 33 L. Ed. 2d 570; Slochower v. Board of Education, 350 U. S. 551, 76 S. Ct. 637, 100 L. Ed. 692; Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183, 73 S. Ct. 215, 97 L. Ed. 216, we are not bound by a federal court’s interpretation of a state question. Chief Justice Burger underscores this point in his concurrence in Perry v. Sindermann, supra, and Board of Regents v. Roth, supra: “The Court holds today only that a state-employed teacher who has a right to re-employment under state law, arising from either an express or implied contract, has, in turn, a right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to some form of prior administrative or academic hearing on the cause for nonrenewal of his contract. Thus, whether a particular teacher in a particular context has any right to such administrative hearing hinges on a question of state law.”
Section 79-1254, R. R. S. 1943, provides: “The original contract of employment with an administrator or a teacher and a board of education * * * shall require the sanction of a majority of the members of the board. Except for the first two years of employment under any contract entered into after February 26, 1975, any contract of employment be*561tween an administrator or a teacher who holds a certificate which is valid for a term of more than one year and a Class I, II, III, or VI district shall be deemed renewed and shall remain in full force and effect until a majority of the members of the board vote on or before May 15 to amend or to terminate the contract for just cause at the close of the contract period.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Nothing in the statutory language or legislative history indicates the Legislature intended the position of coach to be within the applicable statutory definition of teacher or administrator entitled to protection. The introductory words to the státute speak of contracts with administrators or teachers. We do not find any reference to “coach” in the tenure statutes nor do the statutes containing the duties of a teacher in the school system list coaching among those recognized. § 79-101, R. R. S. 1943. The defendant argues that if coaches were found to be entitled to the protection of section 79-1254, R. R. S. 1943, for any reassignment or termination, then all extracurricular assignments would be included. Such a construction would interfere with the right of school authorities to make reasonable assignments and reassignments of a teacher’s extracurricular duties. See, Richards v. Board of Education, 58 Wis. 2d 444, 206 N. W. 2d 597 (1973); Enstad v. N. Cent. of Barnes Pub. Sch., etc., 268 N. W. 2d 126 (N. D., 1978); Board of Education, Tucson H. S. Dist. No. 1 v. Williams, 1 Ariz. App. 389, 403 P. 2d 324 (1965); Pease, Aplnt., v. Millcreek Twp. Sch. Dist., 412 Pa. 378, 195 A. 2d 104 (1963). A limitation of that magnitude is a decision for the Legislature.
There is no applicable case law in Nebraska considering the issue in this appeal, but some decisions from other state courts are helpful. In Chiodo v. Board of Educ. of Special School Dist. No. 1, 298 Minn. 380, 215 N. W. 2d 806 (1974), the Minnesota court denied continuing contract protection to the *562school coaching assignments to regularly employed teachers. Stang v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 191, 256 N. W. 2d 82 (Minn., 1977), involved essentially the same factual pattern except the court used the statutory definition of “teacher” applicable to first-class cities and reached the same conclusion. As a later Minnesota case points out: “[B]oth decisions bifurcated the teachers’ contracts between regular and ‘extra duty’ assignments and held that the position of ‘coach’ was not within the applicable statutory definition of ‘teacher’ entitled to protection.” Rochester Ed. Ass’n v. Independent Sch. Dist., 271 N. W. 2d 311 (Minn., 1978).
In State v. Smith, 142 So. 2d 767 (Fla. App., 1962), after 3 years of service as both a teacher and coach, appellant was assigned as a full-time teacher but was relieved of further duties as coach of the football team. Although the appellant had been assigned the duty of serving as both teacher and coach, the court noted appellant’s contract did not specifically include any services appellant rendered in connection with coaching. In holding that appellant was not entitled under his continuing contract of employment to continue in his position as football coach, the court said: “It is our conclusion that appellant’s rights of tenure apply only to his employment as a teacher for which he held a certificate issued by the State Department of Education. Such tenure under the continuing contract of employment held by appellant does not extend to the right of reemployment as a coach or athletic director.”
Goodwin v. Bennett Co. Ind. Sch. Dist., 88 S. D. 639, 226 N. W. 2d 166 (1975), further supports our holding. There, a high school teacher brought an action against the school district to require the district to grant employment as both a teacher and coach. The school board offered the teacher a contract for the ensuing school year which did not include the basketball coaching assignment. Holding *563that the contract offer satisfied the teacher’s reemployment rights under the South Dakota Continuing Teacher Contract Law, the court stated: “While Goodwin was entitled to an automatic renewal of his contract to teach, he is nevertheless subject to the authority of the school board under its general powers to direct and manage the schools of the district and the employees employed therein.
“A teacher, in acquiring a permanent status, does not thereby acquire a vested right to teach any certain class or in any certain school. The tenure laws do not interfere with the general power and right of school authorities to assign teachers to particular classes and to particular schools in accordance with their judgment and desire reasonably exercised.”
In reviewing these cases, we find the analysis of the Chiodo court persuasive: “While all these decisions can be distinguished on their facts, or on differences in the tenure acts or certification requirements, they are significant in their unanimity in denying tenure to coaches and other similar positions.” Chiodo v. Board of Educ. of Special School Dist. No. 1, supra.
Having determined the statute does not apply in this case, it is unnecessary for us to consider the second issue.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Affirmed.