Johnson v. School District No. 1 in the City and County of Denver
2018 CO 17
Colo.2018Background
- Plaintiff Linda (Lisa) Johnson, a long‑time nonprobationary teacher in Denver School District No. 1, was assigned to successive one‑year positions after an attempted dismissal procedurally failed; in 2012 she failed to obtain a mutual‑consent placement and the District placed her on indefinite unpaid leave under § 22‑63‑202(2)(c.5).
- SB 191 (2010) amended the Teacher Employment, Compensation, and Dismissal Act (TECDA) to adopt a mutual‑consent hiring regime: principals (with input from faculty) must consent to assignments; nonprobationary teachers who cannot secure mutual‑consent placements enter a priority hiring pool and, if unsuccessful after 12 months or two hiring cycles, may be placed on unpaid leave.
- Paragraph (c.5)(VII) lists specific displacement causes (drop in enrollment, turnaround, phase‑out, reduction in program, reduction in building/closure/consolidation/reconstitution) and states that paragraph (c.5) “shall apply” to teachers displaced for those reasons.
- Johnson sued, alleging TECDA breach/due‑process deprivation; the federal district court dismissed, holding placement on unpaid leave is authorized and does not deprive her of a property interest; the Tenth Circuit certified two questions to the Colorado Supreme Court.
- The Colorado Supreme Court answered: (1) § 22‑63‑202(2)(c.5) applies to all displaced nonprobationary teachers unable to secure mutual‑consent placements (not limited to the subsection (VII) reasons); and (2) nonprobationary teachers placed on unpaid leave under (c.5)(IV) have no vested state property interest in salary and benefits and thus suffer no state‑law property deprivation requiring due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of § 22‑63‑202(2)(c.5): whether (c.5) applies only to teachers displaced for the subsection (VII) enumerated reasons or to all displaced nonprobationary teachers unable to obtain mutual‑consent placements | Johnson: (c.5)(VII) is an exhaustive list; expressio unius means (c.5) applies only when displacement is for the listed enrollment/program reasons | District: (c.5) creates a mutual‑consent regime that governs all placements/displacements; (VII) describes examples to which the paragraph applies | Court: (c.5) applies to all displaced nonprobationary teachers; (VII) does not limit the paragraph to only those enumerated reasons; read in context, (c.5) governs all displaced teachers unable to secure mutual‑consent assignments |
| Property interest in salary/benefits for nonprobationary teachers placed on unpaid leave under (c.5)(IV) | Johnson: nonprobationary status confers a property interest akin to tenure; placement on unpaid leave effectively deprives salary/benefits and triggers due process protections | District: TECDA eliminated tenure/durational entitlement language; unpaid leave is authorized and does not create a vested property interest | Court: TECDA removed "tenure" and entitlement/durational language from prior statute; nonprobationary teachers have no vested state property interest in salary/benefits when placed on unpaid leave, so no state property deprivation occurs |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (statutory entitlement to continued employment can create a protected property interest requiring due process)
- Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155 (1980) (property interests for due‑process purposes are defined by state law, not by the Constitution itself)
- Howell v. Woodlin Sch. Dist. R‑104, 596 P.2d 56 (Colo. 1979) (tenure creates a reasonable expectancy of continued employment)
- Beeghly v. Mack, 20 P.3d 610 (Colo. 2001) (discussion of expressio unius canon in statutory interpretation)
- Frazier v. People, 90 P.3d 807 (Colo. 2004) (avoid statutory interpretations that lead to illogical or absurd results)