Norma Scheelhaase v. Woodbury Central Community School District
488 F.2d 237
8th Cir.
1974
Check Treatment

*1 237 responsi- argu- the diminished had considered gest considered the court bility did The district court defense.1 From on that issue. relevant ment to be guilt degree of Judge in not discover forth quotation Nix set re- the diminished majority opinion, had considered this court sponsibility 15 of footnote The state court defense.2 opening has been omitted. sentence considered discloses that record you “Judge are wast- I think Nix: rejected only extent that it was (tr. discussing . .” it. . time pre- Thus, squarely we are irrelevant. 327). pe- whether with the issue sented appears: page the next this On guilty plea was induced titioner’s do Porta: . . [W]e “Mr. Della evidence misstatement counsel Alikakos; do have Dr. we Dr. have responsibility would be taken diminished say time at that who will determining degree Strauss into consideration act, under this irresistible he was guilt. 2254(d) and 28 U.S.C. § ability had impulse his that time Sain, supra, mandate an ev-. Townsend v. identiary hearing right from know diminished to I would issue. wrong. hearing. and remand for reverse Della Mr. LAGAKOS: JUDGE suggesting seriously Porta, you in this case exists that there

the Court rec- sufficient constitute

facts which ognized part legal provocation on his at that need his hold MR. DELLA reasoning is that of all the moment? [*] the mind was powers. [*] PORTA: circumstances before [*] And we take [*] All that deprived of if [*] we WOODBURY Norma SCHOOL Defendants-Appellants. SCHEELHAASE,Plaintiff- CENTRAL COMMUNITY Appellee, DISTRICT et al., happened No. 73-1067. —. enough.” That is not NIX: JUDGE Appeals, Court United States (tr. 328-29). Eighth Circuit 11, Sept. Submitted contains no statement The record judges, either evi- while one of three 28, Decided Nov. during being taken, dence was closing arguments, they or at the time Rehearing Denied En Banc Rehearing and degree finding (tr. their first announced 30, 1974. Jan. 347-48) ever considered the responsibility to guilt. evidence diminished determining degree relevant only record indi- statements

The they considered themselves

cate that by the Ahearn rule.

bound Pennsylvania courts which petitioner’s case did not

considered the guilt degree of court that the discover (per curiam) ; Hearing Moorhead United Pennsylvania Post Conviction 1. The 1972) States, (3d ; 456 F.2d 992 Cir. United Alabama, Boykin v. court held that Act Yeager, 453 F.2d ex rel. Davis v. 1709, States 238, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 89 S.Ct. U.S. (3d 1971). Cir. beyond precluded inquiry (1969), the on- plea. guilty colloquy merely approved the-record district States, findings Pennsylvania v. United Fontaine is otherwise. Post Conviction law Hearing Act court. 36 L.Ed.2d 93 S.Ct. U.S. *2 City, Iowa, Harry Smith, Sioux H. plaintiff-appellee. Gottesman, Washington, H.

Michael C.,D. amicus. BRIGHT,

Before Circuit GIBSON Judges, SMITH, and TALBOT Senior Judge.* District SMITH, District TALBOT Senior Judge. issue before us is one Federal jurisdiction respect contin- ued of a non-tenured teach- er under Iowa law. Her by not the Board of renewed Education. ju- She before us “invok[ing] comes pursuant risdiction this Court I and Amendments XIV Constitu- tion of the United and 42 States U.S.C. 1983,”1 asserting § that her non-renewal “involves an issue of substantive due process.” present picture The facts of internal and local dissension. On the one hand (then) recently we have appointed Superintendent district, of the defendant Devine, Mr. and the defendant School Board. On the other we have a dis- charged (the appellee herein), having years had some ten of school em- ployment, and her supporters. background of the situation illuminates presented.- Superintendent issues Devine is a relative newcomer to the dis- trict, though teaching not to profes- sion, having been since 1937 having Superintendent been in vari- ous Iowa schools since 1940. When interviewed, testified, first he was informed “that -the scholastic program at school been had criti- cized Examining the North Central they Committee and that were on the Kindig unapproved Lowell C. and Maurice B. Nie- Department list of the Iowa land, City, Iowa, Sioux for defendants- Public Instruction and were crit- appellants. icized the North Central Associa- Smith, Honorable Talbot § United Sen- S.C. States 1343 and 42 § U.S.C. 1983. The Judge, ior District Eastern District of Mich- First Amendment claim has briefed igan, sitting designation. argu- to us and we were informed on oral being ment claim thereunder as- jurisdiction trial found of the serted. The trial court its based determina- parties subject and the matter under 28 U. tion on the Fourteenth Amendment. re- standing, not been November her contract had Under date of tion.”2 asserts, reasons, Department Public Instruc- For these newed. appellants’ notified to renew failure State year “you ground allegedly have one “vio- district low test scores correct Amendment action to from the date of Board lated Fourteenth rights.” removed the indicated deficiencies or *3 3 Up- approved from the list of schools.” hand, in- appellants, the other on assumption Superintendent on Devine’s in did reveal fact that the tests sisted steps, various remedial of duties took pupils, the tests that for her low scores unnecessary re- to record here. With employed, and properly had in been fact Scheelhaase, a spect appellee, the Mrs. to mea- as a the scores of ITBS that “use re- was reached to decision tentative competence stood as sure of teacher in- so and she was new her contract4 adminis- of and valid exercise reasonable statutory formed, as her well of as addition, appel- In trative discretion.” hearing. rights private public to jurisdic- argue a of federal lants lack but, point her These were held from appellee tion, no constitu- in that had avail, the view, no for it was ultimate to renewal, tionally protected the her contract of the Board that decision nonrenewal of matter of renewal action followed. not be renewed.5 This being entrusted the contract teacher’s applicable to the discre- state statutes appellee the contended At the trial tion of the local Board. discharged solely that had be- been showing finding her students of the trial court cause of the It the was given competence them, professional the that such use tests that teacher’s solely support ba- the tests education- could not determined the “finds be addition, policy,” that, appel- on the al students’ achievements the sis Skills) interpret (Iowa had failed to the of Basic lants tests ITBS Test properly, and, moreover, (Iowa Devel- that the tests ITED Tests of Educational being actually specific opment), her students to mak- the reason showed given Yet, termination,6 progress. normal notwith- for 11, April App. April 8, 5. dated Letters 1970, as follows: P., App. By 3. Defendant’s let- Ex. 165-168. your con- “This is official notification that 21, Superintendent 1969, ter dated October the tract has been terminated effective was Devine notified the school would be year. This is in end the 1969-70 school approved list, having continued on the action compliance with 279.139 the Code Section previously noted taken “to correct , complete Iowa. board attend- commending “you [Superintend- deficiencies” ance and the vote was unanimous for termi- your ent board of Devine] education nation.” W. H. Devine. /s/ response meeting minimum stand- compliance of the “In with Section 279.13 ards.” Iowa, following given Code your 4. Letter dated March 1970 addressed termination. Woodbury accomplishment average from Mrs. Scheelhaase Central scholastic “Below Community signed by your respon- your D.W. School District in the area of students Superintendent Schools, Devine, Arts.) sibility. (Language as states follows: in' sent “Our records show that letters Woodbury you “The board Central School the reason 13 and March 23 March considering terminating your copies writing. you contract at file Our conclusion current 1969-70 show this fact.” Lewis Foster. /%/ termination, namely, reasons for Additional section 279.13 of the Code of “Under following materials, you private request lack of a rote text con- congenial relationship between board. This must be done ference poor preparation, pupil, receipt days and indications within five of the of this notice. sought presented request as the trial to be also were You a written statement. justifications rejected you further but were it will scholas- [sic] case low having accomplishment Basic the Court as not been asserted tic as indicated proceedings. administrative Skills and I.T.E.D. tests.” Miner v. case of in her con- was made clear “property interest” had a District, Independent and, Lovilia employment, “that tract wherein de- 234 N.W. 817 not be thereof to renewal held the contract and process court examined law” which due nied without for termina- follows: the reasons demanded capri- “may not be is af- It noted that this section will be in fact.” must have a basis cious but mandatory firmatively than rather granted ordered reinstated She was prohibitive. requires con- It damages. D.C., F.Supp. 988. be, in writ- tract shall be whatever us is a nonrenewal charge expressed unless the Board at covered had in this case.7 a 1971 Code of Iowa. The notice provides, basis. od that a Law, could not extend for a each through Rather Iowa law teachers issue before Federal sy. The reason public hearing, Thus the bare terminate. any review on or before than the willWe it would be for they time The the in the teacher-contract cause.) another ensuing year proceed are pertinent is entitled to a us, during for ensuing In such contract hired on a bones the automatically renewed contract, of Education decided both of (Discharge for cause do not situation, not statute, these directly one-year the jurisdiction event, school of the controver- statute can school April matter facts. Under enjoy year which were under Sec. longer peri- private and thus extend to the basic the limitation year, is provides 15th year statute to statute 279.24, subject tenure. before put a Iowa year only but is mate selection terms of single term of the coming whereby the outgoing notorious lar feature as between ed in Prior to the for not exceed saying single disability, ability upon except er. acted for the be covered ing. It is manner purpose of [******] part of There is protecting argued many parts It disability school board years their own specifies board were teachers and nefarious abridged. therein. one contracting parties, enactment of this the term it that quite outgoing protection of the teach- the of teachers and this was done circumventing year. contained the the this statute was statute, contracting certain as incumbency. The enacted selected the state much reason employed in their school *4 Subject imposes no school service shall practice in there exist- of during the subjects primarily contract, by particu- district. the quite parties to this boards legiti- for is sec- for the for in- en- in a a * * * teacher inform the shall board must be in writ- “Contracts with teachers considering * * * (1) writing ter- ing, is in the Board other and shall state such the may agreed may and that upon, said contract mination of matters as which private exceeding employment to a have the teacher shall include a term not for * * teacher ensuing year if the the board conference with the *. Said * * request *. therefor remain in for files a contract shall force and effect protest period the have the teacher shall the and there- stated the contract hearing automatically thereon and to action of the board after shall be continued * * * shall equivalent periods, board event the which force effect for * protest * * public hearing on such hold until as hereinafter terminated * * * * Upon April the provided conclusion *. or before *. On ques- hearing, year, shall determine the Board file his 15th of each the teacher * * * or discontinuance resignation of continuance tion written * * *. majority may by vote a roll call of the elected contract board vote foregoing provisions termination membership board, said con- cause power the board of not affect shall written notifica- tract to be terminated * * * discharge provided, for cause directors termination provisions days prior 279.24 however, Sec. under least ten ” * * * 279.13, termination, Iowa. mailing any Code Sec. notice Independent stop prac- teachers, Driver v. ment of effective tion was City, supra. respects the con- District of In all other Sioux tice. performance deter- of its are to be duties tents agree- writing by empowered mutual is to act in accordance with mined contracting parties possible its best discretion. ment for cause As to Section ** method of -X- n « cause. every provisions. The case ment These gether. preted Nor strained even sented thereto should either though [*] two sections must This section, Neither of we any provision of the other. to eliminate of Driver v. discharging emphasized to the (234 find that the teacher statute in his 279.24, teacher’s the Court N.W. of them be contract. them should be at a teacher applicable to had not con- 819.) provides the Independent of its own held that: discharge read to- impair- inter- wisdom. to have been exercised with Rehmann v. are the discretion of a Board to those more nerable “right”. the exercise of its discretion are not vul- *5 honestly ty complaining when the officers and in They may judge wrongly, 960.) “wrong”, court or to our the line of what 215 N.W. 957 As the their other sustainable City generously endowed, the Board’s correction duty. Iowa tribunal, can have no action of Des act (1927): only merely may, (215 Moines, decisions but the and so good if put N.W. they think is lack of if times, seem faith they par- at City, appellee’s argument 224 Iowa But the of thrust of District Sioux School signifi- goes beyond is also mere error in 276 N.W. the exercise alleged (and of law of discretion. It in a consideration the cant was powers found) respecting of the Board to be action the so in unwarranted employment premises the Here a in of teachers. as to be the and ca- brought discharged pricious, a mandamus an abuse of teacher the Board’s discre- is, against compel district to re-em- tion. And action to thus this back- ground respect charges, hearings, ploy With as a teacher. administra- her a'ction, rulings us the Court held: tive and trial before that we issue jurisdiction question reach our in holding in court was correct trial premises. employment matter that wholly within the discre teachers lies question not to us and we new power tionary in board of vested In Free need not reexamine detail. This conclusion is borne directors. Special District man Gould School following out of the Sec Ark., authorities: County, Lincoln 405 F.2d 12441, Code, 1935; pages 38 C.J. (8th 1969), the case we considered Cir. 695; 689, 691, Di Neilan Board of contracts of six teachers whose rectors, 506; 860, 205 200 Iowa N.W. their termination. were not renewed District, Drew 146 Iowa v. School Arkansas, the law does as * * * (276 system, N.W. 815 N.W. provide but for a tenure not 39.) employed an an rather teachers are renewal automatic nual contract with quoted from It is clear the cases contrary is written notice unless cited that the function the Board prescribed time. within applicable under law of Education Iowa) (unlike not law did Arkansas Iowa is to further the best interests of although hearing, provide one was for a segment that educational state’s given. of the teachers It the claim was system care, entrusted to its Neilan v. to rehire not Board’s decision that Independent Board of Directors them, of a recommendation on the basis supra, City, in School District Sioux eapri- arbitrary, cluding employ- principal, within such function the argument, “failing puts it, unreasonable, thereby as she is that cious, and violat- protection process equal rea- renew a teacher’s the due lacking Amendment. son basis fact results of [the of the Fourteenth clauses holding (q.v.) given] especially repul- held It was our the tests stands We not. process where, sive to due fairness tenure statute a as the absence legitimate here, enjoys local school board has the to decline the teacher ex- re-employ any pectation re-employment.” employ would any long years or for no reason as as follow service spe- such a decision is not of a with the school in her violative district vested right. “property,” job cific constitutional As we there such a in her theretofore unlimited discretion of the said: longer obtained, no sup- of the cases cited Almost all being invested, thus as we noted position port plaintiffs’ [teachers’] Freeman, status, despite with a tenure either concerned with racial contrary wording of the statute. of a con- or an invasion crimination argues applied that as priv- stitutionally protected authority situation of Freeman ilege regulation. by way of a statute or is eroded our later case Fisher v. agree pro- We teachers are 1973). Snyder, (8th 476 F.2d 375 Cir. Equal Protection tected under regard We do not so Fisher it. involved Clause from discrimination on ac- the situation of a religion female teacher who count of race or or in their discharged specious and unwar- constitutionally protected assertion of grounds ranted rights, sexual misconduct. by plaintiffs but cited finding We affirmed gone the district court’s say had so far that all ac- although legiti- government a school board tions of board or mately inquire agency into the in- character and cases must ac- tegrity teachers, of its process arbi- cord the individual due under trarily discharge capriciously the Fourteenth Amendment so as to *6 unsupported right teacher based on provide conclu- tenure a to retain inquiries, sions drawn from position, except And view cause. defamatory of the charges presupposes right “for nature cause” to of the a hearing, Many principle made. The notice, appeal. here involved is government pushed employees beyond not to be pa- are under civil its narrow upon theory rameters any service and some under tenure. Ab- missal, particularly degree security provisions pub- for a sent these of in- a competence, may degree employee right impair lic to some has no to continued professional standing. may, or it public employment, except insofar as may not, depending on the circum- not be or to dismissed failed stances, not, but whether or what we impermissible rehired for consti- upon. in essentially ruled Fisher was a reasons, race, religion, tutional such as charge immorality, a slanderous as- guaranteed rights or the assertion of upon rectitude, simply sault moral not (405 or law F. Constitution. alleged impairment professional an 1159.) 2d at discharge. standing by This holding equally applicable clear, here. does not invoke the Fisher Stripped to its doctrine.8 essentials Regents Roth, other where the Board nonrenewal is based “on a v. 408 U.S. Cf. charge, example, guilty 564, 2701, 92 that he had been S.Ct. 33 L.Ed.2d 548 dishonesty immorality.” or wherein the Court that situa- differentiated two situa tion, Court, One, State, declining commented the tions : which a “this would a to 573, teacher, charge against different case.” 408 rehire U.S. at S.Ct. at made no might seriously damage him “that his stand community,” and associations in his contract, right observe, has, guaran- turn,

Finally, we are constrained multiplicity of “civil teed the Fourteenth Amendment in view of being brought rights” prior into some now form of administrative or actions non-racial, hearing non- academic on courts the cause for the Federal grounds, specific Thus, nonrenewal constitutional his contract. particular par- whether a teacher in a right every de- civil is a Not ticular context has to such by the or secured Constitution rived * * hearing hinges administrative on a *. States the United laws question of state law. The Court’s rights, privileges Only those opinion very point sharp- makes this by the that are secured immunities ly: of the States Constitution United * * * Congress ‘Property are within the some Act of interests protection courts. federal created their are de- dimensions by existing Rights, privileges and immunities not fined rules or under- standings derived from the federal Constitution that stem from an inde- exclusively pendent thereby or secured are left source such state law * * protection Regents states. [1 *.’ Holtzoff, Roth, ante, 577, Practice Barron & Federal 408 U.S. at 92 S.Ct. Procedure, 37.] § Significant, also, only availability not re with Because the Four- spect caveat, prior above but as well teenth Amendment respect many involving hearing cases administrative turns in each discharge coming question law, of teachers now the is- state rights before the Federal as civil courts sue abstention will arise in future actions,9 concurring contesting particular are the observations cases whether a Burger hearing prior Chief Justice in Board of Re is entitled to a gents Roth, supra, Perry to nonrenewal of v. Sin his contract. If rel- dermann, unclear, 408 U.S. evant state contract S.Ct. law is (1972): should, my view, L.Ed.2d 570 federal court ab- deciding stain from whether he is con- I judgments concur in the Court’s stitutionally prior entitled to a hear- opinions Perry and Roth but there ing, and the teacher should be left point is one central in both decisions questions resort to state courts on the I would like to underscore since arising under state law. have been obscured the com- prehensive discussion pass the cases. We need the na *7 point relationship That is that be- ture the interest of the teacher re tween quired state institution one demand as of essentially its hearing upon teachers termination, is a matter of Perry her state concern Sindermann, supra,10 and state law. for here the today only governing Court provided holds that a state- statute for a hear employed ing, holding teacher who has a which she had. is our re-employment law, under state aris- the administration of the internal express implied from either an affairs of the school district before us (1971), 9. Brief of amicus comments in 49 National N.C.L.Rev. 302 19 Education Asso eighty ciation cites to us some 44 cases in U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 1052 N.Y.U. this See, also, comprehensive (1969). and related areas. L.Rev. 836 Gould, supra, review of cases in Freeman v. property “Proof of such interest would Trinter, (6th and Orr v. 444 F.2d 128 Cir. not, course, entitle him to reinstatement. 1971), and cases therein cited. Law review proof obligate college would offi studies, prior Regents, written to Board of grant hearing request, cials at his Perry, supra, numerous, leading are grounds where be he could informed of the comments, articles with discussions of challenge for his nonretention their suf principles ficiency.” involved will be found recent 92 U.S. S.Ct. at 2700. English judicial passed by class and observed her fiat from has lodged relationship board, her classroom it stat- methods and local where was Following ute, matters students. this visitation to the Federal court. Such with competence teachers, and the that her work as the he advised unsatisfactory. not, measurement are standards of its more, of constitutional without matters 13, 1970, On March he wrote Mrs. appro- They peculiarly dimensions. Scheelhaase: priate to state and local administration. Woodbury Central School board no violation In this case we find considering terminating your con- rights, nor a Federal civil tract at the conclusion of the current process short, held due issue. In as we 1969-70 school (8th Ulett, Harnett v. F.2d 113 Under Section 279.13 the Code Gould, su 1972), citing Freeman v. Cir. Iowa, you request have the pra, private board. conference Roth [supra] and Sindermann [su- days This must done within five pra] principle to the that ab- adhere receipt You this notice. legislative contractual, sent or consti- request also a written In statement. provision subject, tutional on the you case will low scho- [sic] power of removal is incident accomplishment lastic as indicated govern- power appointment, Basic Skills and I.T.E.D. tests. ment revoked at can be given by notice termination appointing will officer. the Board reiterated: F.2d at [466 117.] compliance In with Section 279.13 In the view we taken of the case following Code of we do not rule the additional issues your reason is for ter- presented. mination. The decision of the District Court average Below reversed and scholastic accom- the case is remanded with plishment your complaint. instructions dismiss students the area your responsibility. (Language Arts) BRIGHT, Judge, concurring. Circuit My concurrence trial, Superintendent is limited to the re- At Devine light sult. of our recent decisions testified that had recommended Inlow, Strickland 485 F.2d the Board not renew her contract be- (8th Cir., Aug. 1973) filed displayed cause students low scholas- Snyder, (8th Fisher v. performance language 476 F.2d 375 tic in the arts 1973), say Cir. I think it is fair to area and that one the indications of concept process of substantive due low achievement was the current wholly is not alien to the administra- Basic tests. Mrs. Skills Seheelhaase’s public tion of schools. all witnesses testified that im- proper to use these test scores as a basis spell We need not out the dimensions evaluating performance. a teacher’s here, limitations of that doctrine *8 specifically The district found in I am appel- satisfied on this record that regard: this lee has not shown action of Board to arbitrary capri- have been and specific plain- 4. The cious. profes- tiff for termination was her The record in this incompetence shows that Su- sional as indicated perintendent W. Devine came accomplishment B. to the the low scholastic

Woodbury system prior her students on the Iowa Tests Ba- 1969-1970 school He (ITBS) testified as sic Skills Tests and Iowa upgrade his sys- efforts Development (ITED) the school of Educational In February, tem. appellee’s visited [footnote omitted]. weighing judgment compe- or in the evidence professional A teacher’s 5. violation solely does not demonstrate determined cannot be

tence process. achievement substantive due of her students’ the basis ITED, especially and on the ITBS Superintendent and the Board for maintain normal the students where Community Woodbury, Central growth rates. educational possessed District School evaluating responsibility its testimony of But neither personnel, evaluations, and such where field nor the experts in educational evidence, finding even are based some to establish suffices trial court’s though erroneous, possibly Superintend- will not serve the actions subject capricious. make those determinations ent Devine as unconstitutionally judicial ar- review as possesses a Appellant-Devine Masters capricious. bitrary Degree and has attained in his field degree. He has credit toward Ph.D. superintendent teacher and served as a years. In than 14 for more of schools study of the he has made a his work MANN, Thomas Richard Petitioner- of Educa- of Basie Skills Iowa Tests Appellant, dispute, Developments. Without tional disclosed be- students Mrs. Scheelhaase’s SMITH, Stewart C. Chief Probation Of accomplishment low-average in her sub- ficer, County, San Bernardino concluding jects. superintendent, in Lathrop, Attorney, E. Lowell District experience test results that these on his County, Respondents- San Bernardino adversely upon the reflected Appellees. Scheelhaase, competence of Mrs. No. 71-1932. the conclusion but have erroneous Appeals, United States Court of one, and that unreasoned was not an Ninth Circuit. the test. July 9, 1973. rely upon entitled Board was Rehearing Denied Nov. conclusions the recommendation notwithstanding the Superintendent, its Certiorari Denied Feb. contrary to strong opinions existence of See 94 S.Ct. regarding use of the ITBS his for teacher evalua- as a tool ITED tests experts, a choice between tion. Given rely upon its Board was entitled case, district court

own. that, professional teacher’s

found competence “[a] solely determined cannot be achieve- students’

on the basis of her ITED, especially ment on the ITBS and ed- maintain normal

where students growth rates.” We

ucational disagreement a statement. District, Woodbury training, education

based his contrary Superintendent at a arrived relating to students determination deci- Thus its class.

Mrs. Scheelhaase’s ap- though premised upon an sion, even “expert opinion,”

parently erroneous *9 capri- be faulted as

cannot mistake mere The Board’s

cious.