*1 (oral findings of fact at 703 record. court). open if recorded
are sufficient court erred fail-
Consequently, findings concerning do-
ing to make Nothing pre- in our opinion
mestic abuse. seeking another
vents Eva Andrasko order should the need
temporary protection
arise.
DECISION by issuing protec- erred trial court order the evidence was insuffi- 518B.01 where order;
cient issuance of to warrant by denying a its discretion abused
continuance; the court failed to make
findings regarding domestic abuse.
Reversed. DOKMO, Respondent,
Kristine
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 11, ANOKA-HENNEPIN,
NO.
Minnesota, Appellant.
No. C2-89-190. Appeals of
Court of Minnesota.
Aug. 27, 1989. Sept. Granted
Review *2 Department
the State of Education. One form included provi- terms similar to the sions of Minn.Stat. 6a (1988). The form stated: * * * If I accept a part-time full-time or position as a teacher in another Minneso ta School District while on extended absence, leave District iden Williams, Jr., Hvass, Weis- Richard A. herein obligated tified is not to reinstate Minneapolis, respondent. for King, man & me position to a for I which am licensed * * Further, *. I I may understand that Roszak, Krisnik, Anne M. F. Rat- John employed as a substitute teacher wik, Roszak, Bartel, Bergstrom, Maloney & leave;* * *. during district the extended P.A., Minneapolis, appellant. Heard, considered, and decided At the time Dokmo her took PARKER, P.J., and KALITOWSKI and absence, part-time she was also a illustra- THOREEN,* JJ. Edu-Systems, tor at an educational soft- developеr. ware expand She wanted to her
OPINION position Edu-Systems during with her absence. KALITOWSKI, Judge. husband, In December Dokmo’s an After School Dis- appellant minister, resigned ordained from his Twin (Anoka-Hennepin trict School Dis- No. congregation accept Cities to work with a trict) respondent Kris- refused to reinstate congregation bеginning in LeSueur in Feb- voluntary tine Dokmo from her extended ruary 1983. in Dokmo remained the Twin absence, leave of Dokmo commenced a de- year. Cities the school
claratory judgment seeking action a decla- LeSueur, ration that she was a substitute teacher arriving After Dokmo was leave, during requesting and accepted gifted reinstate- in the program education at ment, benefits, damages. ap- lost University, On Mankato State but decided peal partial judgment summary against enrolling because of the curric- favor, the District investigated that the ulum. possibility She also subject jurisdic- lacked part-time teaching court matter оf a position at Gusta- finding Adolphus College. and erred that Dokmo vus worked as a substitute. We affirm. Eventually, Dokmo was hired as a long substitute art teacher in the LeSueur
FACTS incumbent, School District. The Maureen Gunderson, began teaching Kristine Dokmo in the maternity leave for a Anoka-Hennepin signed School District in the fall “long-term Dokmo a substi- of 1970. teaching She was a contract tute” contract with the district for teacher with the District until her termi- the 1983-84 school nation. year, Before the next school Gunderson
In again leave, Dokmo first maternity November ex- elected to take pressed an in an signed interest extended leave Dokmo long-tеrm a second substi to Minn.Stat. subd. 3 tute At contract. the end of the 1984-85 (1988) pursue employ- free lance art or years, and 1985-86 school Gunderson con post high setting. ment in leave, school In signed tinued her and Dokmo two January granted long school board more term substitute contracts. Each Dokmo an extended leave of аbsence to contract contained a waiver of Dokmo’s July signed commence 1983. rights She in the LeSueur necessary forms approval receive from District. When Gunderson decided to re * Const, Acting judge VI, Appeals by ap- pointment pursuant as of the Court of to Minn. art. 2. Condominium, Wayzata the LeSu year, for the 1987-88 turn (Minn.1979); Minn.R.Civ.P. 56.03. A Dokmo. eur District terminated reviewing overturn a school requested rein- Dokmo January if decision the decision is fraudu- board’s Anoka-Hennepin District. statement lent, arbitrary, or unsup- unreasonable a letter from Dokmo received evidence, ported by substantial not within July setting her return date *3 jurisdiction, or based on an errоr of its law. later, the Dis- Approximately one month Independent Foesch v. District No. School ineligible for Dokmo she was trict informed 646, 478, 485, 371, 300 Minn. 223 N.W.2d employment of her reinstatement because (1974) (citations omitted). 375 during her leave and that she as a teacher having submitted her deemed as had been Subject jurisdiction. 1. matter At voluntаry resignation. the school Minnesota courts have stated that meeting, Per- 13 April board’s proper path appealing recommended that sonnel Administrator by decisions is writ of certiorari. Strand min- The board’s Dokmo be terminated. 1, Special v. School District No. 392 reflect what action was taken utes do not 881, (Minn.1986); 883 Roseville Ed N.W.2d Apparently, there on the recommendation. Independent ucation Association v. discussion, recorded no vote and no was no 623, 846, 391 N.W.2d School District No. meeting. at the action taken (Minn.1986); Independent 849 Grinolds v. from Dokmo later received a letter Su- 123, 597, 346 District No. N.W.2d School stating Finch that perintendent Lewis W. I); (Minn.1984) (Grinоlds 128 Collins v. resignation accepted her had the board 745, Independent 416 School District No. The letter upon of her leave. termination 174, (Minn.Ct.App.1987). 177 N.W.2d part: read appeal District of school board you previous certiorari, cor- by As was indicated of only decisions writ respondence, you therefore, are deemed to have appeal must be dis your rights to reinstatement as a lacked waived missed the trial court sub because Anoka-Hennepin in the School ject jurisdiction. matter your extend- upon completion of District certainty in their Decisions have varied (career change) leave of absence. ed school board decisions will be as to whether declaratory judg- only. by Dokmo commenced a of certiorari Two reviewed writ The trial appeal in the district court. must be ment action cases seem to indicate that I, had worked as a 346 at court found that Dokmo N.W.2d writ. See Grinolds 128; Collins, rathеr than full-time teacher 416 at 177. substitute N.W.2d re- The court ordered her reinstatement. I, the court held that al In Grinolds damages. of served the issue complete juris though do not have courts execu the administrative and
diction over ISSUES boards, they of school have tive decisions jurisdiction certiorari. 346 limited properly exеrcise 1. Did the trial court Ging (quoting 128 ex rel. N.W.2d at State jurisdiction? 550, Education, 213 Minn. v. Board of respondent to reinstate- 2. Was entitled 544, (1942), 570-71, 556 over 7 N.W.2d ment by Foesch v. Inde grounds on other ruled (1988)? 3 646, 300 District No. pendent School (1974)). 478, 371 In addi 223 N.W.2d Minn. ANALYSIS tion, this court has stated “[c]ertiorari challenging school of is the correct method Review Standard of Collins, 416 at N.W.2d district аctions.” Summary judgment will be affirmed appeal genuine if there is no issue of cases, always di- although not fact, In other material and the trial court did not err issue, addressing jurisdictional application rectly in its of the law. Betlach v. 234 appeals by begin
Minnesota courts have reviewed
running
60-day
period for
challеnging
teachers
terminated
who were
Dokmo to file a
of
writ
certiorari.
See,
school board decisions without a writ.
designed
Writs
certiorari are
to review
Independent
e.g.,
v.
Walter
Dis
the final determinations of “inferior tribu-
457,
(Minn.1982);
refuse to reinstate the teacher. statement from an extended ab hearing, sence without a teacher Here, learning after of Dokmo’s work as seek review of the decision a de LeSueur, a teacher in person- District’s claratory judgment aсtion in the district nel department informed her that it would court. recommend the accept board her “volun-
tary” resignation. Dokmo never submitted 2. Reinstatement. resignation, her nor did she oppor- have an tunity 125.60, present (1988) to case before the subd. 6a board. provides: Furthermore, the absence of findings, a
recorded vote or written record of the No school obligated board shall be to purported action of the school board at the reinstate a teacher who takes a full-time April meeting, coupled with the Dis- part-time position as a teacher in an- trict’s “resigned,” contention that Dokmo other Minnеsota school district while makes it if impossible difficult even to an extended leave of absence to identify a decision of the school board to this section. This subdivision shall not eligible continuing employed as a contract is became teacher who apply to a signed rights in LeSueur and then the sec- tеacher. substitute contract, automatically she was con- ond argues the trial court erred The District to a teacher with con- verted of law Dokmo as a matter was finding that rights and full-time status. We dis- tract a substitute teacher. employed as agree. statutory Although no or case law defini- originally agreed ex- Dokmo and LeSueur the term “substitute teacher” tion of (1988)pro- ists, subd. 5 that she would teach for one each Minn.Stat. § however, deciding years, a guidance subsequent whether three some vides Section unforeseeably is full time or a substitute. chose to extend teacher Gunderson provides: understanding subdivision her leave of absеnce. The only Dokmo a teacher substitute employ The shall Subd. 5. board change, is did not as evidenced necessary qualified teach- contract with contract con- subsequent contracts. Each discharge the same cause. ers continuing contract tained a waiver of not hire a substitute shall rights. contаined Had the contracts not except: waiver, could a Dokmo have become (a) of time of less than For a duration teacher after her first regular replace one school to, however, agreed her contracts As absent; or is teacher who specifically eliminated that with LeSueur (b) equal time For a duration of *5 ar- possibility. The contracts cannot be year to re- than one school greater or automatically full-time sta- gued to confer regular teacher on a leave place a of tus. absence. pursu- teacher is hired 125.60, If a substitute to section subdivision Pursuant (b), year full schоol ant to clause each 6a, voluntary on extended leave teachers during employed by the teacher is which may accept position as a substi- absence pursuant to that clause shall be a district eligible still for rein- tute teacher and be proba- deemed one of the teacher’s statement. employment pursuant tionary period of 125.12, 3, subdivision to either section DECISION 125.17, The teacher shall subdivision finding in was correct The trial court eligible for contract status be Dokmo worked as a substitute 125.12, pursuant to section subdivision during leave of absence and her extended pursuant to section 125.- or tenure status reinstatement. is thus entitled to completion the after subdivision Affirmed. probationary period. applicable added). Minn.Stat.
(Emphasis Under THOREEN, J., dissents. (1988), 3 a teacher’s initial subd. period is three consecutive probationary THOREEN, dissenting. Judge, single school district. also years in a I This is a teacher respectfully dissent. (1988). There- Minn.Stat. terminatiоn case. after, probationary period the teacher’s district is one another majority, there pointed As out the 125.12, subd. 3. where have a number of instances been sought review employed teachers have and obtained she had been for at Because in the district complaint summons and years consecutive the Anoka- least three cases, question District, the probationary court. most of these Hennepin declaratory judgment was writ in LeSueur was one She of versus period Furthermore, the cre- not before taught beyond probationary period and raised. no appeals, there was 123.35 subdivision became ation of the court under section However, at the forum. eligible rights. question as to case, Thus, this Dokmo time of the termination that when findings teacher’s exclusive avenue for review make de novo was of fact and that by writ of certiorari to this court. what had to be reviewed was the action of the school board. The “record” judicial Special In Strand v. School District No. must the proceedings review or actions (1986), a termination of the board. supreme court, case, the after acknowl- edging previously the state of the law case, In this the material facts are not unsettled, generally was stated: disputed аnd the “record” that would have Now, however, opportunity this we take come to this court to a writ would to conclude that it the intention of have been the same as that furnished the legislature and this court its rule- upon trial court and he which based his making capacity juris- to vest certiorari finding partial summary order fоr diction for cases of this nature in the judgment. party Neither claims appeals. court of adequate “record” support was not Id. at 883. findings. those Previously, Independent in Grinolds v. It should be noted that the did 597, 366 N.W.2d 667 expressly not jurisdiction ques- rule (Minn. (Minn.Ct.App.1985), cert. denied tion and it was briefed for the first time on 18, 1985), case, Jan. a termination this аppeal to this court. court stated: analyze point see no
We need to this appeals
further. Jurisdiction to hear
from school actions lies with the appeals
court of district
courts. (emphasis added); at 668 see Collins v.
Independent School District No.
(Minn.Ct.App.1987).
N.W.2d 174
GORECKI, Respondent,
B.
Steven
In Jenson v.
Joint
*6
(Minn.Ct.
District No.
App.1987), permit this court did a civil ac HENNEPIN, DEPT. OF OF COUNTY a teacher in district court. The al., WORKS, Appellants. et PUBLIC acknowledged Grinolds’rule, but exception, an stating: made No. C1-89-391. practiсalities The present circum- Appeals of Minnesota. Court of stances show that review certiorari * * inadequate remedy was an *. Aug. at 207. practicalities No such are 27, 1989. Sept. Review Denied present here. majority argues exception The that an
should be made in this case because the do specifically provide
statutes for a
hearing when a teacher is terminated while that, therefore,
on authorized leave and may proceed
teacher in district court to
make a “record” review. This is con
trary supreme to the ruling court’s in Gri
nolds v.
(1984). There,
school district and the (superintend
ent) stipulated to resolve a termination dis
pute in the district court. supreme
court held that the trial court could not