Reeves v. Barlow
251 P.3d 417
Ariz. Ct. App.2011Background
- Classroom site fund and performance-based compensation system required by A.R.S. § 15-977 with 70% eligible-teacher approval.
- In 2008, appellants employed by Window Rock USD: Reeves (PT), Reeves (psychologist), Brutz (speech therapist), John (speech-language pathologist), Legah (nurse); only Brutz holds a teaching certificate.
- Appellants filed mandamus alleging district failed to submit a proposed system and that they are teachers eligible to participate.
- District argued appellants are not teachers eligible to participate and moved for summary judgment; AG op suggested district discretion in defining “teacher.”
- Superior Court granted summary judgment, holding the district may define “teacher” and that appellants were not entitled to participate; appellants appealed.
- Appellants allege district has no discretion to exclude them; court held eligibility depends on teaching certificate and position; Brutz’s case is discretionary for certificate-holders in non-teaching roles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether non-certified employees can be considered teachers under §15-977(C)(9) | Reeves/John/Legah claim they are teachers eligible to participate. | District asserts only those with teaching certificates in qualifying positions may be teachers. | No; non-certified employees cannot participate as teachers. |
| Whether A.R.S. §15-502(B) and §15-977(C)(9) limit the class of eligible teachers | Statute does not expressly limit to certified teachers. | Statutes read together limit eligibility to those with teaching certificates. | Together, they require a teaching certificate for eligibility. |
| Whether Brutz, though certificate-holding, must participate because her position didn’t require certification | Brutz argues mandatory participation if certificate held. | District has discretion to determine eligibility for certificate-holders in non-required roles. | District retains discretion to determine eligibility for certificate-holders not in teaching roles. |
| Whether mandamus lies to compel inclusion in the compensation system | District failed to perform a non-discretionary duty under §15-977. | Participation defined by district discretion; no mandatory inclusion. | Mandamus relief denied; no duty to mandatorily include appellants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Yes On Prop 200 v. Napolitano, 215 Ariz. 458 (Ariz. App. 2007) (mandamus scope and discretionary power limits)
- Sears v. Hull, 192 Ariz. 65 (Ariz. 1998) (discretionary acts not subject to mandamus)
- City of Phoenix v. Geyler, 144 Ariz. 323 (Ariz. 1985) (affirming right to proper legal reasoning even if result correct for other reasons)
- Short v. Dewald, 226 Ariz. 88 (Ariz. 2010) (statutory interpretation aims to reflect legislative intent)