Court looks at terms of employment contract in case involving reduction of salary
The terms of the employment contract between the Caddo Mills Independent School District and one of its employees allowed it to reassign him to another role, as supported by substantial evidence, the Texas Court of Appeals recently said.
During the 2017-18 school year, the school district hired the petitioner under a term contract and assigned him as its athletic director. Before the end of that school year, in February 2018, the district offered to renew his contract. He accepted. They executed a new contract for the school years 2018-19 and 2019-20.
The district assigned the petitioner to the same role for 2018-19. In January 2019, the superintendent notified him that his assignment was changed to a teacher at the district’s Disciplinary Alternative Education Center (DAEC). His salary would remain at its previous amount of $93,966 for the rest of 2018-19 but would be commensurate with his assignment as a DAEC teacher for 2019-20.
Read more: Teacher accused of failing to prepare lesson plans, paperwork
The petitioner challenged the reassignment through the district’s three-level grievance procedure. The superintendent and the district’s board of trustees ruled against him. At the third level, the commissioner of education dismissed his appeal. The commissioner found no violation by the district of either the state’s school laws or of any provision of the employment contract.
The petitioner asked the trial court to review the commissioner’s decision. He alleged that his reassignment breached his contract of employment as a certified administrator. The trial court reversed the commissioner’s order and ruled in the petitioner’s favor.
In the case of Caddo Mills Independent School District and Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education v. Steven Sumrow, the Texas Court of Appeals for the Third District at Austin reversed the judgment of the trial court and affirmed the commissioner’s order.
The commissioner’s findings that the district did not violate the employment contract’s terms or the state’s school laws was not arbitrary or capricious and was supported by substantial evidence, the appellate court decided.
First, the appellate court found no violation of section 21.206 of the Texas Education Code. The district did not breach its duty to notify the petitioner about the nonrenewal of his term contract before its expiry because the district did renew it for 2018-19, the appellate court said.
The requirement in section 21.206(b) to employ a teacher in the “same professional capacity” for the following school year was only applicable if the district failed to give the petitioner timely notice of nonrenewal of the contract that was about to expire, the appellate court explained.
Second, the appellate court found no violation of the petitioner’s employment contract, which provided no restrictions to the district’s right to reassign him, made no specifications about his position or salary, and permitted reassignment to a new position even if the salary was lower.
At the time of the reassignment in January 2019, the superintendent notified the petitioner that his salary for 2019-20 would be commensurate with his assignment as a DAEC teacher, the appellate court said. This notice was sufficient, timely, and not violative of any school laws or the contract, the appellate court concluded.
