Southfield Educ. Ass'n v. Bd. of Educ. of the Southfield Pub. Sch.
320 Mich. App. 353
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Smith, a tenured teacher with endorsements in industrial and educational technology, taught an online remedial PLATO course (rated "highly effective" in 2012–13 and 2013–14) and was laid off after the SRAC position was eliminated.
- A part‑time technology position at Birney K–8 school was posted in July 2014; Smith applied (and had previously held that Birney position in 2010–11) but an external candidate was hired instead. The later reposted Birney position actually served grades 6–8.
- Plaintiffs (the Southfield Education Association and Smith) sued under five counts: (I) violation of MCL 380.1248 (recall/hiring priority based on effectiveness); (II) violation of MCL 380.1249 (performance‑evaluation system compliance); (III) Teachers’ Tenure Act (TTA) claim; (IV) due process; and (V) mandamus.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition; the trial court dismissed Counts II–V and later granted judgment for defendants on Count I. Plaintiffs appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: it construed §§ 1248/1249, held no private cause of action under § 1249 alone, rejected a due‑process/TTA recall claim, and found plaintiffs could not show Smith had an effectiveness rating specific to the Birney position.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 380.1248 required rehiring/recall of Smith (retain "effective" teachers) | §1248 requires retaining effective teachers after layoffs; Smith ("highly effective") should have been rehired unless another candidate had equal or higher effectiveness | 2011 legislative changes eliminated a recall right; districts can hire after layoffs and §1248 does not create a recall right | Court: §1248 requires using §1249 effectiveness ratings to guide recall/hiring, but Smith had no §1249 effectiveness rating for the Birney position, so defendants entitled to judgment as a matter of law |
| Whether there's a private cause of action under MCL 380.1249 | §1249 mandates use of a rigorous evaluation system to retain effective teachers; defendants violated that policy | §1249 contains no private right of action and provides administrative enforcement | Court: No standalone private cause of action under §1249; §1249 noncompliance may be alleged as part of a §1248 claim (follow Summer) |
| Whether TTA / due process protect a tenured teacher from layoff/failed recall | Smith retains a TTA "continuous employment" property right; eliminating recall or failing to rehire deprived her of that right without due process | 2011 amendments removed recall provision; layoffs are governed by RSC §§1248/1249, not TTA; layoff is not a TTA discharge/demotion | Court: TTA/due process claims fail—layoffs are not discharges under TTA; no protected recall right; summary disposition appropriate |
| Whether mandamus is available to force reinstatement | Mandamus appropriate because statutory duties under §1248 required rehiring Smith and no other adequate remedy exists | No clear ministerial duty to reinstate; plaintiffs have other remedies (§1248 claim) | Court: Denial of mandamus affirmed—plaintiffs failed to show the clear, ministerial duty required for a writ |
Key Cases Cited
- Summer v. Southfield Bd. of Ed., 310 Mich. App. 660 (no private cause of action under §1249; §1249 noncompliance can be raised within §1248 challenges)
- Baumgartner v. Perry Pub. Sch., 309 Mich. App. 507 (interpreting 2011 RSC amendments; §§1248/1249 govern layoffs/recalls and require evaluation‑based decisions)
- Tomiak v. Hamtramck Sch. Dist., 426 Mich. 678 (TTA protects against discharge/demotion after notice and hearing)
- Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (property interests created by state law trigger due‑process protections)
- Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (state law defines scope of property interests)