Sharon Hanson v. Vermillion School District #13-1 and Board of Education

[1.] On March 22, 2004, the Vermillion School District Board of Education (Board) voted to non-renew Sharon Hanson's professional employee contract with the Vermillion School District (District). The Vermillion Education Association (Association) filed a grievance on her behalf with the District that was rejected by the Board. The Association appealed the Board's decision to the South Dakota Department of Labor, Division of Labor and Management (DOL). An administrative law judge (ALJ) heard the appeal and affirmed the District's decision to non-renew Sharon Hanson's contract. The Association then filed an appeal with the South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit, which reversed. The District and Board now appeal. We reverse.

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

[2.] Due to a revenue shortfall and the voters' subsequent rejection of an opt-out proposal, the District eliminated several staff positions for the 2004 – 2005 term. The District applied its reduction-in-force (RIF) policy to determine which positions to eliminate. The RIF policy was part of the overall Negotiated Agreement for 2003 – 2004 (Agreement)1 between the District and the Association, the collective bargaining group on behalf of teachers working for the District.

[3.] Among the positions the Board voted to eliminate at its March 8, 2004 meeting was high school computer education. This position was held by Cheryl Lessmann (Lessmann). Lessmann had taught for the District for over 30 years. At the time, she taught four sections of high school computer classes. The District determined that Lessmann met the RIF policy requirements necessary to invoke seniority, thus enabling her to "bump" into the position of a teacher with less seniority. See note 1 supra (setting out two requirements in paragraph three that must be met to invoke seniority). In order to allow her an opportunity to exercise the prerogative, the District delayed action to non-renew Lessmann's contract until March 22, 2004.

[4.] The District reached its determination that Lessmann was eligible to use seniority based on her certification2 and the courses she had taught during the preceding seven years. Though Lessmann was certified to teach in subject areas other than computer science, she had not taught under these certifications during the preceding seven years. Therefore, Lessmann could only use her seniority to "bump" into another computer science position.

[5.] Besides Lessmann, the District employed three other individuals who taught computer courses. Sharon Hanson (Hanson) had taught for the District for 17 years. At the time, she was the elementary and middle school computer teacher.3 Marlys Larson (Larson) had taught for the District for 10 years. At the time, she was a part-time high school business teacher and part-time elementary computer teacher, who also taught a middle school computer class during the second semester of the 2003 – 2004 term.4 Erik Van Laecken (Van Laecken) was in his first year of teaching with the District. He was a part-time elementary computer teacher, part-time middle school science and technology modules instructor, middle school technology coordinator and head cross-country track coach. In addition to these duties Van Laecken also performed middle school Website work.5

[6.] The District determined that Lessmann could not "bump" either Larson or Van Laecken. Lessmann would have been able to "bump" in to teach Larson's middle school and elementary computer courses, but she could not "bump" into Larson's high school, business oriented courses. Although Lessmann had the certification required for teaching marketing & business and accounting by virtue of her business education teaching major, she had not taught in the high school business curriculum during the preceding seven years. Therefore with respect to the business courses in Larson's schedule, Lessmann satisfied the first RIF policy requirement to invoke seniority - certification. However, she could not satisfy the second requirement - recent teaching experience at the corresponding grade level under the applicable certification.

[7.] Lessmann was not able to satisfy either of the seniority requirements with respect to Van Laecken's position. The technology modules taught by Van Laecken were heavily weighted on math and science.6 Lessmann had neither the certification nor the teaching experience, in math or science, for her to exercise seniority under the RIF policy to "bump" into a position teaching those disciplines. Neither did Lessmann have any coaching experience or qualifications. Therefore, she was unable to "bump" into Van Laecken's cross-country coaching duties.

[8.] Lessmann was able to "bump" into Hanson's position because she was able to satisfy both of the RIF policy seniority requirements with respect to Hanson's schedule. Hanson taught computer science courses exclusively.
Lessmann was certified to teach those courses, thereby satisfying the first requirement. She had also taught courses under the computer science certification, within the grade span taught by Hanson, during the last seven years. This satisfied the second requirement. Lessmann notified the District that she intended to exercise her seniority to "bump" into Hanson's position. On March 23, 2004, the District gave Hanson notice that her contract would be non-renewed for the 2004 – 2005 term.

[9.] On April 12, 2004, the Association filed a grievance with the District on Hanson's behalf. The Association requested that Hanson's contract be renewed because she too should have been able to exercise seniority to "bump" into a different position. The Association argued that Hanson's certification7 and seniority qualified her to "bump" into either Larson's or Van Laecken's position.

This argument was based in part on the claim that Hanson, Lessmann, Larson & Van Laecken all possessed the same experience because they all had been teaching computers within the K – 12 grade span during the past seven years and had served on computer or technology committees. The Association also argued that no special qualifications were required to teach Van Laecken's technology modules and that the RIF policy was not being followed in the manner previously applied.

[10.] On April 14, 2004, the District formally rejected Hanson's grievance. The District pointed out several factors in making its determination. The vast majority of Van Laecken's responsibilities comprised teaching technology modules for which Hanson lacked sufficient qualifications. Hanson was not certified to take over Van Laecken's coaching duties. Though Hanson was certified to take over Larson's middle school computer and high school business courses, she had not taught business courses within the last seven years. Consequently, the District determined that Hanson could not satisfy the seniority requirements of the RIF policy.

[11.] Hanson appealed the District's decision to the DOL. On September 14, 2004 an ALJ heard the appeal. Hanson took the position that Van Laecken's position should have been "reduced-in-force" or "RIFed." Hanson supplemented her previous arguments in regard to "bumping" into Van Laecken's position by calling his coaching duties a "non-issue" since coaching certifications were no longer administered by the DOE.8

[12.] Hanson argued in the alternative that she should be able to partially "bump" into the positions of both Larson and Van Laecken. Hanson reasoned that if she could not teach Larson's business courses and was unqualified to teach Van Laecken's technology modules, she should be able to "bump" into the rest of their respective schedules. The District's policy was not to allow "partial bumping." The District asserted that Hanson could not "cherry-pick" classes she was qualified to teach because the responsibilities within a position were not severable. The District further noted that the purpose of the RIF was to save money by reducing staff. If "partial bumping" was allowed, optimum savings could not be achieved.

[13.] The ALJ issued a memorandum decision on April 20, 2005, affirming the District's decision to non-renew Hanson's contract. On May 18, 2005 the ALJ issued an order, together with findings of fact and conclusions of law, incorporating the earlier memorandum decision. The order dismissed Hanson's grievance with prejudice. The ALJ found that Hanson had not taught high school business courses during the previous seven years and therefore could not "bump" into Larson's position. The ALJ also found that the technology modules taught by Van Laecken and his coaching duties precluded Hanson from "bumping" into his position.

[14.] The ALJ found Van Laecken's 671 K – 12 educational technology teaching major, coupled with his 5 – 8 middle level science qualifications and K – 8 elementary education endorsement (qualifying Van Laecken to teach elementary
math), certified him to teach technology modules. See note 6 supra. Conversely, the ALJ found that Hanson was not certified to teach technology modules because she only possessed a 6700 computer science certification and did not possess math or science qualifications. The ALJ noted the parties stipulated that coaching requirements still exist, albeit through SDHSAA rather than DECA. Since Hanson possessed no coaching credentials, the ALJ found she could not assume Van Laecken's coaching duties.

[15.] With regard to Hanson's alternative "partial bumping" proposal, the ALJ concluded that the District's RIF policy was clear and unambiguous and did not address that possibility. The ALJ also concluded that "partial bumping" was not permitted because teaching contracts are not severable and "all teaching contracts are an equal part and parcel of an entire contract." In addition, the ALJ concluded that the dollar saving objective of the RIF could not be accomplished by "partial bumping."

[16.] Hanson appealed the ALJ decision to the South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit, where on December 7, 2005, the circuit court heard oral arguments. At the conclusion of argument, the circuit court reversed the ALJ. On January 5, 2006, the circuit court issued its order with findings of fact and conclusions of law. The order directed the District to reinstate Hanson's contract for the 2004 – 2005 term. Agreeing with the District, the circuit court concluded there was no provision in the RIF policy for "partial bumping" and that it should not otherwise be allowed. However, the circuit court discovered a new interpretation of the seniority provisions of the RIF policy that the court concluded "clearly and unambiguously" enabled Hanson to "bump" Van Laecken from his position.

[17.] The circuit court determined that the term "necessary certification," as it was used in the first part of the RIF policy seniority requirement, applied to the position that was RIFed rather than the position that a teacher was attempting to "bump" into. Based on this interpretation, no other certifications were relevant for satisfying the first requirement.9

[18.] The circuit court also had a different interpretation for the second requirement of the RIF policy. It determined that the list referenced in this requirement was exclusive. See note 1 supra (referencing a parenthetical list in paragraph 3 that includes certifications (K – 12 art, K – 12, K – 12 computer, etc.) in regard to the second requirement to invoke seniority - experience teaching course within a certification during the preceding seven years). The circuit court's determination was based on the fact that the list was preceded by the abbreviation "i.e." or "that is." The circuit court decided that to satisfy the second seniority requirement a teacher had to have taught within one or more of the certifications listed during the preceding seven years.10

[19.] Contrary to the District's contention, the circuit court also found there had been a past practice of RIFing on a departmental basis. In the circuit court's view, the District's past practice had been to RIF within a certification without specifying the position to be RIFed. The RIF would then be applied to eliminate the position of the lowest seniority person within a group of like certified persons.

[20.] The circuit court reasoned that Hanson's reinstatement was justified because the District had not correctly applied its RIF policy. Under the circuit court's interpretation of the RIF policy, Hanson had satisfied the first requirement of the seniority provision. By this interpretation, K – 12 computer science was the only certification relevant since the RIFed position was Lessmann's computer science course. The circuit court also concluded that under its interpretation, Hanson also satisfied the second seniority requirement because she had taught a course within the preceding seven years under a certification that was among those included on the "exclusive list," K – 12 computer science.

[21.] The District asserted that the middle school technology modules taught by Van Laecken were not computer science courses. Rather, they were math
and science technology courses that integrated technology for instructional purposes.11 The circuit court dismissed the District's position. It found that there was no difference between Van Laecken's K – 12 education technology endorsement and Hanson's K – 12 computer science endorsement. The circuit court then concluded that the technology modules were merely another form of "computer science/technology department" course that Hanson was certified to teach given her K – 12 computer science endorsement.

[22.] The District had also averred that Hanson could not "bump" into Van Laecken's position because she lacked the requisite coaching credentials required for her to take over Van Laecken's entire contract. The circuit court in dismissing the relevance of the coaching duties cited the District's RIF policy that gave priority to academic areas over extracurricular when making staff reduction decisions. See note 1 supra, paragraph 2(B). The circuit court also disagreed with the District in finding that Hanson was qualified to perform Van Laecken's middle school technology coordinator and Website maintenance duties. In reversing the decision of the ALJ, the circuit court determined that Hanson could invoke her seniority to "bump" into Van Laecken's position, concluding it was a computer science/technology department position.

[23.] The District raises two issues on appeal:

1. Whether the circuit court erred by its interpretation of the District's RIF policy.

2. Whether the circuit court erred in determining Hanson could "bump" into Van Laecken's position.

* * *