From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Woodrum v. Rolling Hills Board of Education

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jun 3, 1981
66 Ohio St. 2d 284 (Ohio 1981)

Opinion

No. 80-1047

Decided June 3, 1981.

Schools — Teachers — Continuing contract — Eligibility therefor — Board of education — Notice of teacher's possession of valid professional certificate — Sufficiently given, when.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Guernsey County.

Between 1972 and 1977, Constance Woodrum, appellant herein, was employed by the appellee Rolling Hills Local Board of Education as a guidance counselor pursuant to a series of unqualified limited contracts.

In her application for a position with the district in 1972, she notified the board that she held an eight-year professional certificate in high school "english, health and physical education" which expired in 1973, and a four-year provisional certificate in "pupil personnel."

Shortly after joining the district, Woodrum applied for and received a renewal of her professional certificate. The county superintendent of schools signed her renewal request at that time. Woodrum did not then file the renewed certificate with the board.

In April 1977, the board decided not to renew Woodrum's contract and sent her notice of the decision. Subsequent thereto, Woodrum filed her renewed professional certificate with the board.

In September 1977, Woodrum brought an action in the Court of Common Pleas of Guernsey County seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the board to issue her a continuing contract and seeking back pay and privileges.

The cause was submitted to the court on the pleadings, interrogatories and answers thereto, agreed stipulation of fact, and Woodrum's deposition. The court found in favor of respondents, thus denying the writ. The court held that Woodrum did not qualify for a continuing contract under R.C. 3319.11 because her teaching had been in an area of provisional certification.

The Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court held that Woodrum was not entitled to a continuing contract because her professional certificate was not in guidance counseling and because she had failed to file or advise the board of her renewed professional certificate prior to her termination.

The cause is now before this court upon the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

Green, Schiavoni, Murphy, Haines Sgambati Co., L.P.A., and Mr. Frederick G. Cloppert, Jr., for appellant.

Means, Bichimer, Burkholder Baker Co., L.P.A., and Mr. John C. Burkholder, for appellees.


R.C. 3319.11 states, in part:

"Teachers eligible for continuing service status in any school district shall be those teachers qualified as to certification, who within the last five years have taught for at least three years in the district * * *."

R.C. 3319.08 states, in part:

"Contracts for the employment of teachers shall be of two types, limited contracts and continuing contracts. * * *

"A continuing contract is a contract which shall remain in effect until the teacher resigns, elects to retire, or is retired pursuant to section 3307.37 of the Revised Code, or until it is terminated or suspended and shall be granted only to teachers holding professional, permanent, or life certificates. * * *"

In State, ex rel. Voss, v. Bd. of Edn. (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 274, this court determined that a teacher is eligible for a continuing contract if he has taught in the district for three of the past five years and holds a professional, permanent, or life certificate in any area of teaching. The Court of Appeals herein erred in holding that appellant's contract must be to reach in an area of professional, permanent, or life certification.

In Voss, we reversed a judgment denying a teacher a writ of mandamus. That teacher, like appellant in the instant cause, was eligible for a continuing contract and had been issued an unconditional limited contract.

In mandamus actions, however, not only must respondent be under a clear legal duty to perform the requested act, but relator must also have a clear legal right to the relief sought. State, ex rel. Heller, v. Miller (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 6. The Court of Appeals held that appellant did not have a right to the relief prayed for due to her failure to file her renewed professional certificate with the board.

There is no specific filing requirement contained in R.C. 3319.11. In State, ex rel. Gandy, v. Bd. of Edn. (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 115, a board of education did not have a qualifying teacher's certificate on file. In affirming a decision granting the teacher a continuing contract, this court stated in the second paragraph of the syllabus:

"Where the record cards in the offices of the local and county superintendents of schools indicate that a teacher has a professional certificate, such records provide sufficient notice to those officials that the teacher is eligible for a continuing contract."

It is not the filing of the certificate, but rather the sufficiency of the notice, which is important. If a teacher is eligible for a continuing contract, R.C. 3319.11 directs the school board to alternatively issue that teacher a continuing contract, a qualified limited contract, or a notice of termination. Issuance of an unqualified limited contract, ordinarily, is the equivalent of issuance of a continuing contract. Boards of education cannot be expected to make such decisions if they are unaware that a teacher is so eligible.

In the case at bar, appellant's employment application notified the board that she held a professional certificate, and it is clear that the superintendent signed her application for a renewal of the same. Under the facts of this case, the board had sufficient notice of appellant's possession of a valid professional certificate at the time she became eligible for a continuing contract.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded for a determination of appellant's claims for backpay and other relief.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, P. BROWN, LOCHER and C. BROWN, JJ., concur.

CORRIGAN and HOLMES, JJ., concur on the basis of the concurring opinion of HOLMES, J., in State, ex rel. Voss, v. Bd. of Edn. (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 274, 279.

CORRIGAN, J., of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting for SWEENEY, J.


Summaries of

Woodrum v. Rolling Hills Board of Education

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jun 3, 1981
66 Ohio St. 2d 284 (Ohio 1981)
Case details for

Woodrum v. Rolling Hills Board of Education

Case Details

Full title:WOODRUM, APPELLANT, v. ROLLING HILLS BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL., APPELLEES

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Jun 3, 1981

Citations

66 Ohio St. 2d 284 (Ohio 1981)
421 N.E.2d 859

Citing Cases

State, ex Rel. Fraysier, v. Bexley Sch. Dist

Relator's argument is not well taken, since relator had not obtained his professional certificate by April…

Silavent v. Buckeye Central Local School District Board of Education

Not only is the written contract in the case sub judice not silent or ambiguous as to the teaching field…