Onnen v. Sioux Falls Independent School District 49-5
2011 SD 45
| S.D. | 2011Background
- Onnen was STI registrar for Sioux Falls School District under annual contracts since 2003.
- In 2007 STI uncovered widespread degree errors: 12 previously issued degrees, plus 28 total improperly conferred, and many others unverified.
- Onnen admitted knowledge of some errors and that he issued several incorrect degrees; he did not inform superiors of the errors.
- STI terminated Onnen on August 30, 2007; the Sioux Falls School Board affirmed on September 10, 2007.
- Onnen challenged the termination in circuit court as arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion and alleged procedural flaws.
- Judge Srstka ruled for the District on all issues; Onnen appealed alleging bias and improper procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the termination was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion | Onnen argues termination lacked cause and was arbitrary. | District asserts just cause based on widespread errors and Onnen's conduct. | District had cause; decision not arbitrary or an abuse of discretion. |
| Whether Onnen was entitled to 60 days’ notice under SDCL 13-39-65 | SDCL 13-39-65 requires 60 days’ notice for termination of postsecondary technical institute employees. | Statute applies to teachers; not to STI employees; thus no 60-day notice required. | SDCL 13-39-65 does not apply; even if applicable, no reinstatement relief granted. |
| Whether denial of a new trial based on alleged bias was an abuse of discretion | Facebook birthday post and relative employment created potential bias; new trial should be granted. | No improper ex parte influence; no disqualifying bias; trial fair. | No abuse of discretion; denial of new trial upheld. |
| Whether Judge Srstka should have recused himself due to related interests | Two relatives of the District were employed; possible partiality. | Judge adequately addressed concerns; no de minimis interest; no recusal required. | No grounds requiring disqualification; no evident partiality. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hicks v. Gayville-Volin Sch. Dist., 668 N.W.2d 69 (S.D. 2003) (two-prong review of school board decisions; deference to board decisions)
- Blondo v. Bristol School District #18-1, 727 N.W.2d 306 (S.D. 2007) (deference in de novo review of school board decisions)
- Wuest v. Winner Sch. Dist. 59-2, 607 N.W.2d 912 (S.D. 2000) (limits on trial de novo review of school board actions)
- Jager v. Ramona Bd. of Educ., 444 N.W.2d 21 (S.D. 1989) (standard of review for school board decisions)
- Loesch v. City of Huron, 723 N.W.2d 694 (S.D. 2006) (par i materia principle for statutory interpretation)
- State v. Chaney, 261 N.W.2d 674 (S.D. 1978) (statutory interpretation guidance)
- Sherburn v. Patterson Farms, Inc., 593 N.W.2d 414 (S.D. 1999) (discretion in granting new trials)
- State v. Thorsby, 757 N.W.2d 300 (S.D. 2008) (ex parte communications and impact on trials)
- Tri-State Refining v. Apaloosa Co., 452 N.W.2d 104 (S.D. 1990) (context for judicial discretion and evidence use)