Emerson v. Board of Independent School District 199, 809 N.W.2d 679

Emerson worked for ISD-199 in Inver Grove Heights as activities director for 3 years and as interim middle school principal for 1 year before his contract was terminated.
He filed a grievance claiming continuing-contract rights under Minn.Stat. § 122A.40 (2010) as a continuing-contract teacher; the district denied, and appeals followed.
MDE licensing rules did not require activities directors to be licensed; the district advertised that a principal license was required or in process of licensure for the activities director position.
The court of appeals affirmed that Emerson was not a continuing-contract employee because the activities director position was not a licensed professional, i.e., not a
under §122A.40, subd. 1, and thus not a teacher.
The supreme court affirmed, holding that the statutory phrase “required to hold a license from the state department” is ambiguous and that the district’s interpretation is more consistent with the legislature’s intent to maintain a uniform system; Emerson was not a teacher under §122A.40, subd. 1.
The dissent argued for the plain-language reading that Emerson was a teacher and therefore entitled to continuing-contract protections.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Meaning of 'required to hold a license from the state department'	Emerson argues the broader reading: any entity authorized to require licensure can trigger the requirement, including the district.	ISD-199 and amici argue the narrower reading: the license must be required by the state licensing authority that issues the license.	Ambiguous; majority adopts narrower interpretation, concluding Emerson is not a teacher.
Whether activities director is a 'professional employee' required to hold a license	Emerson is a professional employee requiring a license for the position.	Only certain positions are subject to licensure; activities director not necessarily licensed by the MDE.	Ambiguity exists; majority concludes activities director is not necessarily a licensed professional under §122A.40.
Effect of prior continuing-contract status from another district	Emerson’s prior status should confer continuing-contract rights for subsequent districts.	Rights depend on being a teacher; the issue is subsumed by the interpretation of 'teacher' in subdivision 1.	Irrelevant to the outcome since Emerson was not deemed a teacher under subdivision 1.
Whether the duties of activities director were enough to treat Emerson as a principal for purposes of §122A.40	Duties resembled principal duties; should count toward continuing-contract rights.	The issue raised too late; not properly before the court.	Not properly before the court; declined to address.

Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, 785 N.W.2d 753 (Minn. 2010) (statutory interpretation factors; silence not enough to create ambiguity unless there is more than one reasonable interpretation)
Downing v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 9, 291 N.W.2d 616 (Minn. 1940) (purpose of continuing-contract statute to end chaotic contract renewals)
Schroedl v. American Family Ins. Group, 616 N.W.2d 273 (Minn. 2000) (use of surrounding provisions to interpret statutes)
Beardsley v. Garcia, 753 N.W.2d 735 (Minn. 2008) (avoid adding words to a statute; interpret in light of text)
Burkstrand v. Burkstrand, 632 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 2001) (ambiguity arising from silence where remedy is missing)
MBNA America Bank, N.A. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 694 N.W.2d 778 (Minn. 2005) (extrinsic evidence cannot create ambiguity where none exists)
Beardsley v. Garcia, 753 N.W.2d 735 (Minn. 2008) (avoid adding words to a statute; interpret in light of text)
Re Welfare of R.S., 805 N.W.2d 44 (Minn. 2011) (extrinsic evidence cannot create ambiguity where statute is clear)