Obermeyer v. School Board, Independent School District No. 282
This text of 247 N.W.2d 919 (Obermeyer v. School Board, Independent School District No. 282) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.
On July 8, 1975, appellant, a teacher in respondent school board’s district, requested a leave of absence pursuant to Minn. St. 125.12, subd. 7, to obtain treatment for alcoholism. On July 14 he pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, taking indecent liberties with a minor male student in the preceding month. On July 29 the school board passed a resolution proposing to discharge appellant immediately pursuant to § 125.12, subd. 8, based on this conviction and on immoral conduct. The resolution provided that appellant be given notice of the proposed discharge and of the facts that he was entitled to request a hearing and that, if requested, it would be held August 20, 1975. Upon appellant’s request the hearing was held on that date. On August 22 the board discharged appellant for immoral conduct and at the same time determined that his request for a leave of absence was moot because he was no longer an employee of the district.
Appellant, contending that this discharge hearing was void, applied for a writ of mandamus to compel the board to conduct a hearing to determine the existence of a statutory disability, as set forth in Minn. St. 125.12, subd. 7, prior to conducting a hearing on discharge. After a hearing, the district court denied the application, and this appeal followed.
The problem arises out of the interpretation of Minn. St. 125.12, subds. 7 and 8.1 Appellant contends that the statute im[234]*234poses a clear and affirmative duty on the school board to conduct a hearing for the purpose of determining whether or not appellant is statutorily disabled and to conduct that hearing prior to [235]*235holding a discharge hearing. A mere reading of the statute makes clear that appellant is reading into it something which it does not provide. Subd. 7 does not provide that suspension and leave of absence must be granted upon request of the teacher. The language used clearly shows that the intent of the legislature was to prevent a school board from discharging a teacher solely on the ground of serious mental or physical disability until a period of 12 months elapsed. The statute does not prevent a school board from discharging a teacher for other grounds set forth in subd. 8. That subdivision provides that a school board may discharge a teacher immediately on any grounds set forth therein. Subd. 8(a) provides for discharge for immoral conduct. Continuous physical and mental disabilities, subsequent to 12 months’ leave of absence, subd. 8(f), is merely another ground for discharge. The statute, particularly subd. 7, does not create a right, or a duty which the teacher can compel the school board to perform. The statute is very clear that subd. 7 in no manner limits a discharge pursuant to subds. 8(a) to 8(e).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
247 N.W.2d 919, 311 Minn. 232, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obermeyer-v-school-board-independent-school-district-no-282-minn-1976.