Dodge v. Board of Education of Saginaw City School District

Michigan Supreme Court

Dodge v. Board of Education of Saginaw City School District

183 N.W.2d 793, 384 Mich. 346, 1971 Mich. LEXIS 227

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 1, 1971

Docket12 October Term 1970, Docket No. 52,566

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 183 N.W.2d 793 (Dodge v. Board of Education of Saginaw City School District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dodge v. Board of Education of Saginaw City School District, 183 N.W.2d 793, 384 Mich. 346, 1971 Mich. LEXIS 227 (Mich. 1971).

Pincite

Opinions

T. G-. Kavanagh, J.

The explicit language of Art 3, § 1 provides that if the contract of employment of a tenure teacher in the capacity of principal provides that such teacher shall not have tenure in such capacity, the teacher will be deemed to have tenure as a classroom teacher only. It also provides that the failure of the board to so provide in the contract shall be deemed to constitute the employment of the teacher on continuing contract in such capacity and subject to the provisions of the act.

There is no dispute that the plaintiff here was a tenure teacher employed by the defendant board in the capacity of principal.

The only question we are called upon to determine is whether the employment contract provided that the plaintiff would not have tenure as principal.

[348]*348The defendants argue that the striking of the word “tenure” from the printed form is the equivalent of the statutorily required provision that the teacher would not have tenure. We do not agree.

Were it not for the requirement of the statute that the contract make provision for no tenure, in order to avoid it, the absence of provision for tenure might be so construed, but the statute’s requirement was intended to obviate the need for construction.

We are satisfied that the members of the board did not intend to grant the plaintiff tenure in the capacity of principal in the instant contract. We are satisfied from the record that they did not avail themselves of the only means available under the statute to avoid it.

Accordingly the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the plaintiff is ordered restored to her position as an elementary school principal. The plaintiff is also entitled to the difference in compensation between what she received as a classroom teacher and the salary she would have received as principal from February 13, 1967.

Plaintiff may have costs.

T. M. Kavanagh, C. J., and Adams, J., concurred with T. G-. Kavanagh, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

T. G-. Kavanagh, J.

The explicit language of Art 3, § 1 provides that if the contract of employment of a tenure teacher in the capacity of principal provides that such teacher shall not have tenure in such capacity, the teacher will be deemed to have tenure as a classroom teacher only. It also provides that the failure of the board to so provide in the contract shall be deemed to constitute the employment of the teacher on continuing contract in such capacity and subject to the provisions of the act.

There is no dispute that the plaintiff here was a tenure teacher employed by the defendant board in the capacity of principal.

The only question we are called upon to determine is whether the employment contract provided that the plaintiff would not have tenure as principal.

[348]*348The defendants argue that the striking of the word “tenure” from the printed form is the equivalent of the statutorily required provision that the teacher would not have tenure. We do not agree.

Were it not for the requirement of the statute that the contract make provision for no tenure, in order to avoid it, the absence of provision for tenure might be so construed, but the statute’s requirement was intended to obviate the need for construction.

We are satisfied that the members of the board did not intend to grant the plaintiff tenure in the capacity of principal in the instant contract. We are satisfied from the record that they did not avail themselves of the only means available under the statute to avoid it.

Accordingly the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the plaintiff is ordered restored to her position as an elementary school principal. The plaintiff is also entitled to the difference in compensation between what she received as a classroom teacher and the salary she would have received as principal from February 13, 1967.

Plaintiff may have costs.

T. M. Kavanagh, C. J., and Adams, J., concurred with T. G-. Kavanagh, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 N.W.2d 793, 384 Mich. 346, 1971 Mich. LEXIS 227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dodge-v-board-of-education-of-saginaw-city-school-district-mich-1971.

Opinions

T. G-. Kavanagh, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack