 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dagg v. Spokane Public School Dist. No. 814/5/2005
Four tutors filed a declaratory judgment action concerning their continuing contract rights with the school district. The trial court granted summary dismissal, holding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction given that the tutors did not appeal the school district's decision on their contract rights within 30 days as required by RCW 28A.645.010. The tutors appeal, claiming the statute does not apply to them; but even if it does, they substantially complied with it. In the alternative, they argue that the 30-day statute is unconstitutional. We disagree and affirm.
FACTS
Mike Bradley, Stuart Dagg, Norma Egger, and Laurel Reilly (the tutors) were hired as tutors by Spokane Public School District No. 81 (the school district) between February 1989 and November 2000. Although each had a teaching certificate, they were not offered continuing contracts. At the start of the 2001-02 school year, the tutors sought to be represented by a union in bargaining the terms of their employment with the school district. Because the tutor position required a teaching certificate, the tutors were accepted into the Spokane Education Association (SEA), a bargaining unit for certificated teachers. Thereafter, SEA representative Caroline McDowell negotiated the terms of the tutors' employment with the school district's assistant superintendent for human resources, Barb Wright.
Ms. Wright informed Ms. McDowell in April 2003 that she had designated the tutors as leave replacement employees who would not be entitled to continuing contracts. According to Ms. Wright, on April 2, 2003, during and as part of the collective bargaining process, she notified each of the four tutors that they would be issued one-year-only, noncontinuing contracts due to their leave replacement status. On April 22, three of the four tutors met with counsel for the Washington Education Association (WEA) and were advised that the WEA would not pursue continuing contracts for them.
On May 16, the SEA submitted a proposal to the school district on behalf of the tutors. The proposal included one-year, noncontinuing contracts for each of the tutors as well as other terms and benefits. The parties ultimately agreed to terms for one-year leave replacement contracts for the school year 2002-03, but at higher pay and with greater benefits than the tutors had previously received. The contracts were approved and signed by the school district's board. Each tutor signed a one-year, noncontinuing contract on June 9, 2003. Three signed supplemental contracts; the earliest on July 11 and the latest on August 2.
The tutors filed a declaratory judgment action on July 11. They alleged that the school district violated RCW 28A.405.210 by failing to treat the tutors as employees entitled by state law to written contracts of employment subject to the continuing contact statutes that protect teachers in Washington. They also alleged an action under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983. They filed their motion for declaratory judgment on October 15. The trial court ordered additional briefing.
During the supplemental briefing period, the school district filed a motion for summary judgment. It argued that the trial court was deprived of subject matter jurisdiction by operation of RCW 28A.645.010. The court summarily dismissed the action in that the tutors were aggrieving the decision of a school official and failed to challenge that decision within 30 days as required by RCW 28A.645.010. The tutors' motion for reconsideration was also denied. The tutors appeal.
DISCUSSION
a. Summary Dismissal
We review summary dismissal of an appeal under RCW 28A.645.010 de novo, making the same inqu
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|