In the case of Jones v. Kent City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2023-Ohio-265, an appellate court held that a teacher’s employment contract was improperly nonrenewed by a school board as the teacher’s absence did not excuse the board from conducting one of the three formal observations mandated by R.C. 3319.111(E) as the teacher was simply on leave for approximately fourteen (14) school days.
In this case, the school board argued that the collective bargaining agreement and memorandum of understanding with the union created an exemption to the three formal observations mandate and, in any event, the teacher was properly evaluated when the teacher was on leave. In response, the teacher argued that R.C. 3319.111(H) prohibits either the collective bargaining agreement or memorandum of understanding from superseding the evaluation procedures set forth in R.C. 3319.111 and, in any event, while observations are often conducted when lessons are more “student-centered rather than teacher-centered,” this differs from the teacher being entirely absent. The appellate court agreed with the teacher.
In support of its decision in favor of the teacher, the appellate court explained that the formal observations mandated in R.C. 3319.111 require more than the “observation solely of the students.” 2023-Ohio-265 ¶ 34. The appellate court also explained that, “[w]hile it may not have been possible to observe [the teacher] teaching a class or conduct the conferences before the evaluation deadline because he was out on medical leave from May 11 to June 1, 2020, this does not alleviate compliance with the requirements of R.C. 3319.111.” Id. at ¶ 36. And, finally, the appellate court explained that, “[w]here a school board has failed to comply with the statutory teacher observation requirements, it has been held that this failure ‘constitutes a ground upon which a court reverses the board’s decision not to re-employ’ the teacher.” Id. at ¶ 38.
WARNING: The outcome of this case would have been much different had the teacher been on leave for fifty percent or more of the school year as R.C. 3319.111(C)(2)(d)(i) provides for a statutory exemption from the evaluation mandates in such situations.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.