2015 COA 159
Colo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiffs (seven Denver teachers and the Denver Classroom Teachers Association) sued Denver Public Schools and members of the Colorado State Board of Education after SB 191 amended the Teacher Employment, Compensation, and Dismissal Act (TECDA).
- SB 191 (2010) replaced forced placement of displaced nonprobationary teachers with a mutual-consent placement process and authorized placing displaced nonprobationary teachers on unpaid leave if they do not obtain a mutual-consent position within a year or two hiring cycles.
- Most named teachers had achieved nonprobationary (tenure-like) status under TECDA before SB 191; one achieved it after SB 191 took effect.
- Plaintiffs asserted (1) a Colorado Constitution contract-clause claim (art. II, § 11) arguing TECDA created vested contractual rights that SB 191 substantially impaired, and (2) a Colorado due process claim (art. II, § 25) arguing unpaid leave without a hearing effectively terminates the protected property interest in continued employment.
- The district court granted defendants’ C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) motion and dismissed both claims for failure to state a claim; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TECDA creates contractual/vested rights protected by the Colorado contract clause | TECDA (like prior TEDTA) creates a contract by law between districts and nonprobationary teachers; SB 191 impairs those vested contracts | Legislature did not create enforceable contractual rights by TECDA and its evolution shows intent against creating tenure-like contracts | Court held TEDTA precedent controls; TECDA creates contractual relationship for contract-clause threshold inquiry (reversed dismissal on this ground) |
| Whether SB 191’s mutual-consent/unpaid-leave scheme substantially impairs any contractual rights under the contract clause | SB 191 permits effective removal of nonprobationary protections (unpaid leave = de facto dismissal) and thus substantially impairs contracts | Legislature has plenary power to alter statutory benefits; SB 191 created a statutory subclass with reduced benefits and did not eliminate property rights | Court found plaintiffs plausibly alleged impairment and remanded for trial court to address remaining contract-clause elements and justification issues (no final ruling) |
| Whether nonprobationary teachers have a property interest triggering procedural due process | TECDA’s for-cause dismissal provisions create a protected property interest; placing teachers on unpaid leave without a hearing deprives them of that interest (unpaid leave is an "effective discharge") | Legislature may modify or diminish statutory property interests; unpaid leave is not dismissal and TECDA treats it differently, so no pre-placement hearing is required | Court held nonprobationary teachers have a protected property interest and, under Howell, must be afforded a hearing before being placed on indefinite unpaid leave; dismissal of due process claim reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Julesburg Sch. Dist. No. RE-1 v. Ebke, 562 P.2d 419 (Colo. 1977) (tenure statute creates a contract between school board and teachers)
- Marzec v. Fremont Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 2, 349 P.2d 699 (Colo. 1960) (teacher-tenure law makes a contract by operation of law)
- Maxey v. Jefferson Cty. Sch. Dist. No. R-1, 408 P.2d 970 (Colo. 1965) (tenure act effects contractual relationship between teacher and district)
- Howell v. Woodlin Sch. Dist. R-104, 596 P.2d 56 (Colo. 1979) (tenured teacher entitled to hearing before layoff for decrease in positions; statute unconstitutional as applied without hearing)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (statutory for-cause dismissal supports property right in continued employment requiring due process)
- Feldewerth v. Joint Sch. Dist. 28-J, 3 P.3d 467 (Colo. App. 1999) (for-cause dismissal provisions create constitutionally protected property interest)
- McInerney v. Pub. Emps.' Ret. Ass'n, 976 P.2d 348 (Colo. App. 1998) (legislative adjustment of statutory benefits does not itself trigger procedural due process beyond the legislative process)