2017 COA 2
Colo. Ct. App.2017Background
- Parties: Denver Classroom Teachers Association (DCTA) sued Denver School District No. 1 (the District) for breach of multiple collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) and extensions covering 2005–2015 over pay for English Language Acquisition (ELA) training.
- Practice change: District paid teachers for ELA training through 2006-07, stopped paying starting 2007-08, and offered a one-time $500 stipend to some teachers who had started training.
- Administrative step: DCTA filed a grievance under the 2005–08 CBA, received a nonbinding arbitration decision in its favor, but the school board rejected the recommendation.
- Litigation: DCTA sued (complaint filed Oct. 24, 2013). The trial court bifurcated liability and damages; a jury found the District breached the CBAs but answered special interrogatories that some teachers under the ProComp system were not entitled to extra pay.
- Appeals: District appealed liability and damages (arguing contract unambiguity, later CBAs/individual contracts excluded pay, statute of limitations, and failure to exhaust remedies). DCTA cross-appealed the ProComp interrogatories. Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCTA) | Defendant's Argument (District) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CBAs unambiguously exclude pay for ELA training | CBAs (esp. articles on workweek/workyear and Article 32) can be read to require pay for work beyond the contract year/week, including ELA training | Management-rights clause and omission of explicit ELA-pay language mean District retained right not to pay | CBAs are ambiguous on ELA pay; ambiguity is fact issue for jury, so verdict for DCTA affirmed |
| Whether individual employment ‘‘special condition’’ clauses or later CBAs unambiguously shift ELA training cost to teachers | DCTA: the repeated practice of paying and arbitrator decision show the CBAs entitled teachers to pay; the ‘‘special condition’’ language does not negate that | District: teacher contracts made ELA training the teacher’s sole cost (a special condition), and later CBAs/changes show an intent not to pay | Court: ‘‘special condition’’ status ambiguous; later CBAs do not unambiguously preclude extra pay; jury question properly submitted |
| Statute of limitations for damages (six-year rule) | DCTA: damages for Fall 2007 semester are recoverable because no actionable injury accrued before semester end | District: damages before Oct 24, 2007 are time-barred (six years before suit) | Court: no evidence of payments or accrual before end of Fall 2007 semester; awarding full Fall 2007 damages not barred |
| Failure to exhaust administrative remedies for post-2008 years | DCTA: original grievance and arbitration in 2008, plus unchanged contract language and parties, made further grievances futile | District: DCTA should have filed a new grievance each CBA year; exhaustion is jurisdictional | Court: factual finding of futility (arbitration decision rejected by board and circumstances unchanged) — exhaustion requirement excused |
| ProComp teachers: whether ProComp agreements exempt teachers from ELA pay entitlement | DCTA: ProComp language does not unambiguously deprive teachers of paid in-service ELA pay | District: ProComp provisions distinguishing paid in-service and required coursework indicate ELA was not a paid in-service for ProComp teachers | Court: competent evidence supported submitting the ProComp-exemption question to the jury; special interrogatories proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Fisher, 292 P.3d 934 (Colo. 2013) (contract interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Dorman v. Petrol Aspen, Inc., 914 P.2d 909 (Colo. 1996) (ambiguity rule and use of extrinsic evidence to interpret ambiguous contracts)
- City & County of Denver v. Denver Firefighters Local No. 858, 320 P.3d 354 (Colo. 2014) (management-rights clause can grant broad authority when contract language is unambiguous)
- Salazar v. Butterball, 644 F.3d 1130 (10th Cir. 2011) (acquiescence by failing to bargain over an existing practice can convert practice into contract term)
- Thomas v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 255 P.3d 1073 (Colo. 2011) (exhaustion doctrine and futility exception)