Atwater v. Commissioner of Education, 957 N.E.2d 1060

Background

Atwater, a teacher with professional teacher status, was dismissed for conduct unbecoming a teacher following an investigation by the district’s superintendent.
G. L. c. 71, § 42, fourth par. and fifth par. required arbitration of wrongful dismissal claims by teachers with professional status; arbitration is followed by limited judicial review under G. L. c. 150C, § 11.
The arbitration proceeded with AAA-selected arbitrators; the district bore the burden of proof and the arbitrator must consider the best interests of students and the elevation of performance standards.
The arbitrator, after five days of hearing, found most of the district’s grounds for dismissal proved and concluded dismissal was not an excessive penalty; she found two factual determinations not proven.
Atwater attempted to vacate the award under G. L. c. 150C, § 11, alleging excess of authority, misconduct, bias, and finally constitutional attack under art. 30; the Superior Court denied relief and affirmed the award.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the statute’s arbitration scheme provides meaningful judicial review and does not violate art. 30.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is G. L. c. 71, § 42, constitutional under art. 30?	Atwater contends it impermissibly delegates judicial power to an arbitrator.	The statute delegates dismissal decision to principals/supervisors, not arbitrators; review is meaningful.	No constitutional violation; arbitration scheme provides meaningful judicial review.
Does the limited judicial review under G. L. c. 150C, § 11 defeat meaningful review?	The review is too narrow and does not protect due process.	Review is designed to be limited but adequate, including grounds like corruption, excess of powers, and public policy.	Review is meaningful and constitutional.
Did the arbitrator exceed authority or misstate the law regarding grounds for dismissal?	Arbitrator framed the issue improperly and used an incorrect standard.	Arbitrator applied the statute’s standard, examined the investigation, and considered best interests.	No excess of authority or manifest disregard; record supports proper application of the statute.
Was there misconduct or bias by the arbitrator related to settlement discussions or recusal?	Arbitrator engaged in improper mediation and failed to recuse, prejudicing Atwater.	Private meeting was not mediation; no required recusal; no bias shown.	No vacatur; no demonstrated misconduct or bias.
Is Atwater’s as-applied constitutional challenge to § 42 preserved or waived?	Articulated as applied challenge to the statute.	Challenge treated as waived or not sufficiently argued.	Waived; no ruling on as-applied challenge.

Key Cases Cited

First Justice of the Bristol Div. of the Juvenile Court Dep’t v. Clerk-Magistrate of the Bristol Div. of the Juvenile Court Dep’t, 404 Mass. 53 (1989) (art. 30 limits on judicial powers in interbranch actions; core functions must not be unduly restricted)
Getter, School Dist. of Beverly v. Getter, 435 Mass. 223 (2001) (nondelegation and limits on judicial review in teacher dismissal context)
Geller, School Dist. of Beverly v. Geller, 435 Mass. 223 (2001) (discussion of teacher dismissal process and statute’s structural changes)
Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co., 473 U.S. 568 (1985) (permissible creation of remedies and review processes; cannot encroach on judicial functions)
Lawrence v. Falzarano, 380 Mass. 18 (1980) (arbitration and public policy considerations in review)
Harrell, 118 N.M. 470 (1994) (statute mandating arbitration limited review found unconstitutional in that context)
Demoulas v. Demoulas Super Mkts., Inc., 428 Mass. 543 (1998) (guidance on judicial review of arbitration and bias considerations)
Haddad v. Gonzalez, 410 Mass. 855 (1991) (bias/impartiality assessment in judicial-review context)
Ballantine Books, Inc. v. Capital Distrib. Co., 302 F.2d 17 (2d Cir. 1962) (illustrates bias considerations in arbitral proceedings)