§ 79-829 — Permanent certificated employee; contract amendment or termination; reasons

The contract of a permanent certificated employee shall be deemed continuing and shall be renewed and remain in full force and effect unless amended or terminated in accordance with the provisions of sections 79-824 to 79-842 . The school board by a vote of the majority of its members may determine that such permanent certificated employee's contract shall be amended or terminated for any of the following reasons: (1) Just cause as defined in section 79-824 ; (2) reduction in force as set forth in sections 79-846 to 79-849 , or change of leave-of-absence policies; (3) failure of the certificated employee upon written request of the school board or the administrators of the school district to accept employment for the next school year within the time designated in the request, except that the certificated employee shall not be required to signify such acceptance prior to March 15 of each year; or (4) revocation or suspension by the State Board of Education of the certificate of a certificated employee whose duties require such a certificate.

Legislative History

Source: Laws 1982, LB 259, § 6; R.S.1943, (1994), § 79-12,112; Laws 1996, LB 900, § 459; Laws 2003, LB 685, § 18. Annotations: Although this section does not specifically define the phrase "reduction in force" as used in the teacher tenure statutes, it involves terminating a teacher's contract due to a surplus of staff. Miller v. School Dist. No. 18-0011 of Clay Cty., 278 Neb. 1018, 775 N.W.2d 413 (2009). The intent of the tenured teacher statutes is to guarantee a tenured, or permanent certificated, teacher continued employment except where specific statutory grounds for termination of the teacher's contract are demonstrated. Miller v. School Dist. No. 18-0011 of Clay Cty., 278 Neb. 1018, 775 N.W.2d 413 (2009). Pursuant to former sections 79-12,107 to 79-12,121 and sections 79-1254.02 to 79-1254.08, the Legislature has attenuated a school board's discretion to pare its staff in the face of reduced needs and has imposed specific procedures for achieving a reduction in force. Nickel v. Saline Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 163, 251 Neb. 762, 559 N.W.2d 480 (1997).