In the case of Burnell v. Cleveland Metro. School Dist., 2016-Ohio-7406, an Ohio appellate court reiterated its previous holding that a “trial court has jurisdiction to determine whether [a] teacher[] received an adequate hearing but lacks jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision not to renew the teachers’ contracts.” Burnell at ¶ 9.
The case involved 12 teachers who were employed under limited contracts by the Cleveland Metropolitan School District Board of Education (“Board”). After receiving written notification that the Board intended to non-renew their employment at the end of the school year, the teachers requested a written explanation as to why their contracts were not being renewed. The Board scheduled a hearing at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting in accordance with R.C. 3311.81 which provides that “[a]ny teacher receiving written notice of the intention of the board not to re-employ such teacher [* * *] may request a hearing before the board.”
At that hearing, the Board permitted each teacher and his or her representative 20 minutes to present an oral argument. Each of the teachers’ principals or other administrators who recommended that his or her limited contract not be renewed were present at the meeting, but the teachers and their representatives were not permitted to question them.
After the hearing, the teachers filed an action in common pleas court contending that they were not afforded a hearing because they were not permitted to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, or respond to the evidence and arguments made against them. The Board filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
The state appellate court reiterated its holding from a prior appeal that “[a]lthough R.C. 3311.81(C) states that a school board’s [non-renewal] decision is final and not subject to appeal, nothing prevents aggrieved limited contract teachers from bringing an action to enforce their right to a hearing under R.C. 3311.81(B).” Burnell at ¶ 8. The appellate court further found that the “court has jurisdiction to determine whether the teachers received an adequate hearing.” Burnell at ¶ 9. The appellate court sent the case back to the trial court to determine whether the Board complied with the hearing requirements for the non-renewal of limited contract teachers.
To read this case, please click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and Patrick Vrobel
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.