2018 CO 18
Colo.2018Background
- In 2010 the Colorado legislature enacted SB 191, which changed teacher transfers by requiring "mutual consent" of receiving principals and added a process that places nonprobationary teachers who fail to secure a new assignment after a specified period on unpaid leave.
- Plaintiffs are Denver Public Schools (DPS) teachers (and the Denver Classroom Teachers Association) who had achieved nonprobationary status but were placed on unpaid leave under SB 191; they sued claiming violations of the Contracts Clause and due process.
- The trial court granted the District’s motion to dismiss; a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, relying on older cases construing the predecessor tenure statutes to find contractual and property interests and concluding due process violations.
- The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether the Teacher Employment, Compensation, and Dismissal Act of 1990 (TECDA) created a legislative contract or vested a property interest in salary/benefits for nonprobationary teachers placed on unpaid leave.
- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals: it held TECDA did not create a contractual relationship and nonprobationary teachers placed on unpaid leave have no state-law property interest in salary and benefits, so no Contracts Clause or due process violation occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TECDA created a legislative contract the legislature may not impair | Masters: TECDA’s repeated use of "contract" and teacher reemployment rules show legislative intent to create enforceable contractual rights | District: TECDA removed tenure/entitlement language from predecessor statute and lacks clear intent to bind legislature | Held: No contract; TECDA lacks durational/entitlement language showing intent to be bound |
| Whether SB 191’s mutual-consent/unpaid-leave scheme impairs any contractual obligation | Masters: SB 191 effectively discharged nonprobationary teachers without cause, impairing vested contractual rights | District: No contractual rights existed under TECDA to be impaired | Held: No impairment because no contractual relationship existed |
| Whether nonprobationary teachers placed on unpaid leave have a property interest in salary/benefits under state law | Masters: Prior tenure-based statutes and precedent create an expectation of continued employment and pay that SB 191 deprived without process | District: TECDA removed tenure language and therefore did not create a property interest in salary/benefits | Held: No property interest — TECDA’s language does not vest salary/benefit rights for unpaid-leave teachers |
| Whether placing nonprobationary teachers on unpaid leave without a hearing violates procedural due process | Masters: Following Howell and other authority, due process requires a hearing before depriving teachers’ employment expectations | District: Because no property interest exists under TECDA, no due-process protection for pay/benefits applies | Held: No due-process violation because no protected property interest existed |
Key Cases Cited
- State of Indiana ex rel. Anderson v. Brand, [citation="303 U.S. 95"] (1938) (tenure statutes using "indefinite contracts" and entitlement language show legislative intent to create binding contractual rights)
- Howell v. Woodlin Sch. Dist., [citation="596 P.2d 56"] (Colo. 1979) (discusses due-process protections for statutory employment expectations)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, [citation="470 U.S. 532"] (1985) (statutory classifications that create an entitlement to retain employment can create a property interest requiring due process)
- Justus v. State, [citation="336 P.3d 202"] (Colo. 2014) (framework for identifying legislative intent to create contractual or vested rights)
- Maxey v. Jefferson County Sch. Dist. No. R-1, [citation="408 P.2d 970"] (Colo. 1965) (interpreting predecessor tenure statute as creating certain protections — distinguished in this case)
- Marzec v. Fremont County Sch. Dist. No. 2, [citation="349 P.2d 699"] (Colo. 1960) (another decision construing earlier tenure statutes relied on by plaintiffs but found inapplicable to TECDA)