794 N.W.2d 454
N.D.2011Background
- Bismarck Public School District employs teachers across three high schools (Bismarck, Century, and South Central).
- South Central teachers taught two 150-minute blocks (300 minutes daily, 1,500 minutes weekly) during 2009-10, while Bismarck and Century used five periods plus a tutorial and a prep period, totaling 1,500 minutes weekly.
- Rule GBRB-R sets 1,500 minutes of weekly teaching time as a baseline and provides for extra compensation only for secondary teachers with time beyond the normal five periods; it counts tutorial time toward teaching time for Bismarck/Century.
- A district-elected committee initially found a violation of GBRB-R and recommended additional compensation for South Central teachers; the superintendent, Dr. Johnson, disagreed, stating no extra compensation was due and that South Central fulfilled the rule via their schedule.
- The teachers sought mandamus to compel the district to issue 2010-11 contracts reflecting additional compensation; the district court initially granted and later rescinded mandamus after a hearing, concluding no entitlement to extra pay.
- The district court’s decision was appealed, and the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding South Central teachers are fulfilling the 1,500-minute weekly requirement and are not entitled to additional compensation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is an available remedy. | Kalvoda argues mandamus is available to compel contract with extra pay. | BPS argues mandamus is not an adequate remedy where contracts are not owed. | Mandamus is available to compel compliant contracts; no adequate legal remedy exists here. |
| Whether GBRB-R entitles South Central teachers to extra compensation. | South Central teachers contend normal five equals 1,250 minutes plus tutorial; they teach 1,500 minutes, warrant extra pay. | Rule GBRB-R baseline is 1,500 minutes; South Central meets it; no extra pay. | Plain language and contract read as a whole show 1,500 minutes weekly is the baseline; no additional compensation due. |
| Whether the district abused its discretion in rescinding the writ of mandamus. | District misread GBRB-R and improperly rescinded mandamus. | District acted within discretion based on proper interpretation of GBRB-R and schedules. | District did not abuse discretion; rescission was reasonable given interpretation of the rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mootz v. Belyea, 60 N.D. 741, 236 N.W. 358 (N.D. 1931) (adequate remedy at law; mandamus unavailable when contract exists)
- Wenman v. The Center Bd. of Valley City Multi-Dist. Vocational Ctr., 471 N.W.2d 461 (N.D. 1991) (mandamus procedures in school district renewal context)
- Coles v. Glenburn Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 26, 436 N.W.2d 262 (N.D. 1989) (mandamus available when district fails to follow renewal procedures)
- Nagel v. City of Bismarck, 2004 ND 9, 673 N.W.2d 267 (N.D. 2004) (requires clear legal right and lack of adequate remedy for mandamus)
- Frank v. Traynor, 1999 ND 183, 600 N.W.2d 516 (N.D. 1999) (mandamus review of district court discretion)