Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractappeal
contractstatuteappealpleaadoption

Related Cases

Lorisme v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Pitcherskaia v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Santos-Lopez, Matter of
View Case »
Qingyun Li v. Holder
View Case »
Flores-Vega v. Barr
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

R&SL Inc., d/b/a Total Employment and Management ; U.S. v.

Facts

Shawn Jones was hired by the Kent City School District Board of Education to teach during the 2019-2020 school year under a limited contract. He faced disciplinary actions, including an unpaid suspension for leaving work early and an unscheduled absence. The board conducted observations of Jones's teaching, but the third observation did not involve him being present, leading to a dispute over the validity of the nonrenewal of his contract.

Jones was hired by the board to teach during the 2019-2020 school year. Jones had previously taught in Kent City Schools for 20 years. He and the board entered into a limited contract for one school year, and Jones began teaching communications technology at Stanton Middle School in the fall of 2019.

Issue

Did the Kent City School District Board of Education comply with the statutory requirements for teacher evaluations under R.C. 3319.111(E) before deciding not to renew Shawn Jones's contract?

Did the Kent City School District Board of Education comply with the statutory requirements for teacher evaluations under R.C. 3319.111(E) before deciding not to renew Shawn Jones's contract?

Rule

Under R.C. 3319.111(E), a school board must conduct at least three formal observations of a teacher who is under consideration for nonrenewal of a limited contract.

Under R.C. 3319.111(E), a school board 'shall require at least three formal observations' of any teacher employed under a limited contract if the school board is considering nonrenewal of that contract.

Analysis

The court found that the board did not comply with R.C. 3319.111(E) because the third observation did not involve Jones being present or actively teaching. The evaluator's attendance at a virtual meeting with Jones's students did not satisfy the requirement for observing the teacher. The court emphasized that the statutory language mandates actual observation of the teacher.

But it is the language of the statutes that control, not what the parties may have agreed to in the CBA, in the MOU, or by the adoption of the OTES model for teacher evaluations and observations. The plain language of R.C. 3319.111(E) requires three 'observations of [the] teacher who is under consideration for nonrenewal.' And this is without exception.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the Eleventh District Court of Appeals' judgment, concluding that the board's failure to conduct the required observations warranted reinstatement of Jones and remand for back pay calculations.

We agree with the court of appeals that the common pleas court abused its discretion in affirming the board's decision not to renew Jones's limited contract when the board failed to comply with R.C. 3319.111(E)'s requirement that it first conduct three formal observations of Jones as the teacher being considered for nonrenewal.

Who won?

Shawn Jones prevailed in the case because the court determined that the board did not follow the required statutory procedures for nonrenewal, specifically failing to conduct three formal observations as mandated by law.

Shawn Jones prevailed in the case because the court determined that the board did not follow the required statutory procedures for nonrenewal, specifically failing to conduct three formal observations as mandated by law.

You must be