Teacher files lawsuit over nonrenewal of contract

A teacher's contract was nonrenewed following a hearing before the district's board of trustees. She filed a lawsuit, alleging that the nonrenewal of her contract was illegal. The district court dismissed the lawsuit and she filed an appeal.

The court of appeals reviewed the factual background of the lawsuit. The teacher was employed as chief of special education. The district's superintendent notified her in writing of a reassignment and salary reduction for the upcoming school year. Two weeks later, her supervisor notified her she was recommending her for a contract for the upcoming school year. The teacher believed that the board of trustees had approved her contract when other teacher contracts were approved. A couple of weeks later, however, she was placed on administrative leave based on "a recent parent complaint to the Texas Education Agency" regarding a matter in which she denied any involvement. She was locked out of her computer and never received a contract to sign.

The teacher emailed a formal acceptance of employment for the upcoming school year to the district. Counsel for the district notified her that the acceptance was ineffective because no contract had been offered. In response, the teacher's attorney asked the district to confirm or deny whether her contract had been approved. The district did not respond.

At its next meeting, the board proposed the nonrenewal of the teacher's contract. The teacher alleged that the board could not do this because her contract had already been renewed. The board notified the teacher about the proposed nonrenewal, and she requested a hearing "in accordance with the notice letter." The board's notice stated her proposed nonrenewal was based on the TEA complaint, as well as "alleged violations of purchasing procedures."

Three days before the hearing, the teacher's attorney informed the district she would not appear at the hearing. Instead, the teacher filed a "special appearance/position statement" on the day of the hearing, raising her objections. The board nonrenewed her contract effective at the end of the school year.

The teacher argued in her lawsuit that the board could not nonrenew her contract because she had been offered and had accepted a contract for the upcoming school year. She argued she was not required to request a nonrenewal hearing because she was challenging the district's authority and jurisdiction to conduct a nonrenewal hearing. She requested a permanent injunction compelling the district to reinstate her and pay lost wages. The district responded by arguing that the teacher failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, since the proper way to contest the proposed nonrenewal of her contract was to request a hearing and then appeal the results of that hearing to the commissioner of education if she disagreed with the outcome.

The court of appeals agreed with the district.

Generally speaking, when a person has a dispute with a state agency, it must follow the specific procedures that the agency has adopted to attempt to resolve that dispute before moving forward with a lawsuit. In this case, the procedures to be followed are to request a nonrenewal hearing and then appeal to the commissioner of education, if necessary. 

There are exceptions to this rule, but they are narrow and the court determined that none of them applied here. 

Since the teacher failed to appear at the nonrenewal hearing and therefore failed to take advantage of the hearing process provided for by law, the court of appeals agreed that dismissal of the lawsuit was appropriate and upheld the decision of the district court.