In response to your question, let’s consider the following hypothetical.  Trudy the Teacher is on a one year probationary contract.  Of course, as we all know, the board can decide to terminate Trudy’s service to the district at the end of the contract term “if in the board’s judgment the best interests of the district will be served by terminating the employment.”  T.E.C. 21.103(a).

Trudy is a Hispanic teacher in a largely Anglo school district.  She has made it known in the teacher’s lounge that she is a non-believer in a community that is overwhelmingly Christian.  She’s 57 years old.  She drives a VW Van from the 60’s to school every day that features two bumper stickers: ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ and FEEL THE BERN.  This is noticeable because the last time a Democrat was seen in this county was shortly after Reagan’s election.  Trudy’s a feisty one.  In just her first year in the district she filed two grievances that went all the way to the board.  Both were denied, 7-0.  Oh, and Trudy just got married to Henrietta, with whom she has lived for several years.

So, as the school year winds down, you deliver the news to Trudy that the board has voted to terminate her service to the district. She asks you why. You say, “Oh….the board just thinks it’s in the best interests of the district.” Trudy presses you: Why do they think that?  And you say: “They just do.”

The law does not require any further explanation, and it does not require that Trudy be given a hearing.  However, Trudy is not without legal options. She can file a grievance. She can file a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights or the EEOC.  In Trudy’s case, there are numerous avenues to explore.

She might allege that this has something to do with her ethnicity. She might allege that it’s discrimination based on religion. Or that it’s about her age. Or her political views. Maybe the board is retaliating against her because of those grievances.  Or maybe this is about her decision to exercise her constitutional right to marry Henrietta.

Now, in any of those instances, Trudy would bear the burden of proof, and it would not be easy for her to win her case. But if she pursues the matter, somewhere along the line the district will be required to answer her original question: But WHY does the board think it’s in the best interests of the district?   “They just do” will not be a sufficient response.

Don’t develop a false sense of security when dealing with a probationary teacher. They do have avenues of legal recourse. The district should have a reason for its decision that is 1) legitimate; 2) job-related; 3) non-discriminatory; 4) non-retaliatory and 5) supported by sufficient documentation to establish its credibility.  Whether you share that reason with the teacher at the time, and how you do that, is a separate question, and we encourage you to consult counsel about that.

DAWG BONE: PROBATIONARY TEACHERS DO HAVE LEGAL RECOURSE.

Dallas ISD informed Leon James that his salary for the 2013-14 school year would be $73,000.  The notice was provided on August 20, 2013, and Mr. James promptly objected.  This salary was a cut from his previous pay, and the notice was provided too close to the start of the school year. He could not resign his position without facing possible penalties.

Dallas backed down.  On September 5, 2013, it sent a second letter to Mr. James. This time, he was told that his salary for the year would be “frozen at $79,988.” The next sentence became the crucial issue in the subsequent litigation: “Your salary will be reduced for 2014-15 to be reflective of assignment.”

In June, 2014, the board adopted a budget and salary schedule.  The ‘Salary Handbook” published by the board showed that middle school assistant principals could range from $59,400 to $76,500.   On September 11, 2014, Mr. James was informed that his salary for the year would be $73,000.

Mr. James appealed this decision to the Commissioner. The legal issue was whether or not the district had provided “formal” and “specific” notice of the salary cut prior to the penalty-free resignation date. Clearly the district had not done that for 2013-14, which is why the district backed down quickly when Mr. James objected. But what about the next year?

Notice that Mr. James was not told his exact salary until September.  However, he was told well in advance that his salary would be “reflective of assignment.” Moreover, the Salary Handbook, which he could look up, showed that even the highest salary for A.P.s at the middle school would involve a cut in pay.

The Commissioner held that DISD had satisfied the requirements of the law.  The standard “does not require that a school district give an educator enough information that the educator can determine exactly what the future salary amount will be.” Rather:

A notice is sufficiently specific if it “would result in a reasonable teacher knowing the amount the salary could be reduced.” [Emphasis added in the DISD case].  The notice does not need to state the salary amount explicitly if the educator can refer to salary schedules published by the school district and determine the amount the salary for the educator’s position could be reduced.

The case of James v. Dallas ISD, Docket No. 028-R10-03-2015, was decided by Commissioner Williams on October 15, 2015.

DAWG BONE: NOTICE OF SALARY REDUCTION MUST BE FORMAL, SPECIFIC, AND PROVIDED BEFORE THE PENALTY-FREE RESIGNATION DATE.  “SPECIFIC” DOES NOT MEAN WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS.

Happy Leap Day, Readers! And in honor of this day that comes only once every four years, we offer a story that comes from a court case that we hope won’t be repeated for at least another four years.

It seems that Tomas Martinez, an assistant principal in United ISD, filed a few grievances against his boss, the principal.  Mr. Martinez was a veteran educator of 21 years, the last 12 as an A.P, but he apparently did not have a great relationship with the principal.  Fortunately, the parties were able to settle all their disagreements in one fell swoop.  On May 9, 2014 the district and Mr. Martinez signed off on a Settlement Agreement that could not have been more clear.  Mr. Martinez would 1) drop all his grievances and 2) resign, effective January 23, 2015.

That settled that. Or so they thought.

However, two weeks later the district offered Mr. Martinez a term contract for the entire 2014-15 school year. Mr. Martinez signed it, as did the board president.

When January rolled around, the HR department contacted Mr. Martinez to discuss his impending departure.  Mr. Martinez informed HR that he was going nowhere. He had a contract for the entire year.

Hmmm. The district did not see it that way.  After all, the man had promised to resign.  The district barred Mr. Martinez from working for the district after January 23, 2015, the date when he had said he would resign.

This matter ended up in the lap of the Commissioner, who ruled in favor of Mr. Martinez. The Commissioner held that the contract amended and overrode the Settlement Agreement.  The Settlement Agreement allowed for modifications of its terms by a written document, signed by both parties. As the Commissioner pointed out, the employment contract was a written document signed by both parties.   Moreover, the employment contract included the standard paragraph about how it was the “entire agreement” between the parties, thus overriding anything they had previously agreed to.

Of course, since United ISD thought that Mr. Martinez was no longer its employee after January 23, 2015, it did not go through the normal procedures to nonrenew his contract as of the end of that year. So guess what? They got him for the next school year as well.  Term contracts that are not properly “nonrenewed” are automatically renewed.  Thus the Commissioner held that Mr. Martinez was entitled to compensation for the remainder of the 2014-15 school year; and he was entitled to a contract for 2015-16.

The case is Martinez v. United ISD, Docket No. 030-R10-03-2015, decided by Commissioner Williams on November 23, 2015.

DAWG BONE: THAT EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT IS USUALLY GOING TO OVERRIDE ANY PRIOR AGREEMENT, EVEN ONE IN WRITING.