Thomas v. Newark City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

**** SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING ****

The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of Ohio
are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 1992,
pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice Thomas
J. Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative
Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. Your
comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised to
check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions. The
advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume and
page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

Thomas, Appellant, v. Board of Education of the Newark City
School District, Appellee.
[Cite as Thomas v. Newark City School Dist. Bd. of Edn.
(1994), Ohio St.3d .]
Schools -- Teachers -- Evaluation of teachers under limited
contract -- Evaluator complies with R.C. 3319.111(B)(3),
when.
(No. 93-256 -- Submitted November 2, 1994 -- Decided
December 20, 1994.)
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Licking County, No.
92-CA-53.
Appellee, Newark City School District Board of Education,
employed appellant Richard Thomas as a high school English
teacher under a written limited contract for the 1990-1991 school
year. On November 16, 1990, Larry Roberts, the assistant
principal for the Newark City School District, observed Thomas
during one of Thomas' classes. Roberts also observed Thomas
while teaching a different class on November 27, 1990.
Following these two observations, Roberts and Thomas each
completed a performance checklist. The performance checklists
listed the abilities and characteristics essential to effective
teaching, listed the strengths and weaknesses of Thomas as a
teacher, and outlined goals for the remaining portion of the
school year. On his performance checklist, Roberts indicated
that Thomas needed to make some improvements, which included the
following: "exhibit greater facility with content and facts,"
have "higher expectations for students," and "provide sufficient
relevant activities to fill allotted class time." Roberts also
indicated on the checklist that Thomas assigned students
"seatwork" to "compensate for poor planning." On December 3,
1990, both Roberts and Thomas signed each performance checklist.
Roberts next completed a written evaluation of Thomas. This
initial evaluation described in detail Roberts' November 16 and
November 27 observations of Thomas. The evaluation also stated:
"In review I would like for you to address the following

problems:
"1. Construct more detailed lesson plans which include
topics to be taught, objectives for the day, and any homework
assigned.
"2. Spend time each day teaching techniques of Mystery and
College Writing.
"3. Assign some of the work now being done in class as
homework so you have time to cover the topics during class.
"4. Review the college writing and mystery curriculum in the
graded course of study, availabel [sic] course outlines, and in
discussion with your department chairman."
On December 10, 1990, Roberts met with Thomas and discussed the
evaluation, which Roberts and Thomas signed.
Roberts again observed Thomas during one of Thomas' classes
on March 1, 1991 and on March 11, 1991. Based upon these
observations, Roberts completed a second evaluation of Thomas.
This second evaluation discussed the two classes that Roberts had
observed and then stated:
"In the performance checklist that I gave you in December, I
indicated several concerns. I also made several specific
suggestions in the [first evaluation] at the same time. I do not
feel that you have made enough improvement for me to recommend
that your contract be renewed."
On March 15, 1991, Roberts met with Thomas and discussed this
second evaluation, which Roberts and Thomas signed.
Based on Thomas' evaluations, Leslie Johnson, the
superintendent of Newark City Schools, recommended that the board
not renew Thomas' limited teaching contract. On April 8, 1991,
the board gave notice that it intended not to renew Thomas'
limited contract. On April 12, 1991, Thomas received notice from
the interim treasurer of the board that the board had not renewed
his contract. After the board provided Thomas with a hearing,
the board held a special meeting on June 5, 1991 and adopted a
resolution affirming its intention not to reemploy Thomas.
Asserting statutory and contract violations, Thomas appealed
the board's decision to the common pleas court. Finding that the
board had complied with the statutory requirements concerning the
nonrenewal of Thomas' limited contract, the trial court dismissed
Thomas' complaint and entered judgment in favor of the board.
Thomas filed an appeal with the court of appeals, asserting
that the trial court had erred in dismissing his complaint,
because the board had failed to comply with the evaluation
procedures set forth in R.C. 3319.111. The court of appeals
affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Concluding that R.C.
3319.11(G)(7)1 limited its review to determining whether the
board had complied with the procedural requirements expressly
listed under 3319.111(A),2 the court of appeals refused to
determine whether the evaluations of Thomas met the requirements
of R.C. 3319.111(B).
The cause is now before this court upon the allowance of a
motion to certify the record.

Cloppert, Portman, Sauter, Lataznik & Foley and Susan
Kozlowski, for appellant.
Baker & Hostetler, Ronald G. Linville and Ellen J. Garling
for appellee.
Means, Bichimer, Burkholder & Baker Co., L.P.A., Kimball H.

Carey, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Ohio School Boards
Association.

Wright, J. Richard Thomas argues that the trial court
should have ordered the board to reinstate him with back pay,
because the written evaluations of Thomas failed to comply with
R.C. 3319.111(B)(3). That division provides:
"(B) Any board of education evaluating a teacher pursuant to
this section shall adopt evaluation procedures that shall be
applied each time a teacher is evaluated pursuant to this
section. These evaluation procedures shall include, but not be
limited to:
"***
"(3) A written report of the results of the evaluation that
includes specific recommendations regarding any improvements
needed in the performance of the teacher being evaluated and
regarding the means by which the teacher may obtain assistance in
making such improvements."
Since the court of appeals entered its judgment in this
case, this court has held that "the failure of a board of
education to satisfy the requirements of R.C. 3319.111(B)(3)
constitutes a failure to comply with the evaluation requirements
of R.C. 3319.111(A), and such failure will permit a reviewing
court to order the board to reemploy the teacher pursuant to R.C.
3319.11(G)(7)."3 Naylor v. Cardinal Local School Dist. Bd. of
Edn. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 162, 166, 630 N.E.2d 725, 729. See
Farmer v. Kelleys Island Bd. of Edn. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 156,
630 N.E.2d 721, paragraph two of syllabus (stating that a "proper
evaluation under *** R.C. 3319.111[A] contains all the elements
delineated in R.C. 3319.111[B]"). See, also, Farmer v. Kelleys
Island Bd. of Edn. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 1203, 1208, 638 N.E.2d
79, 82. Thus, the only remaining issue in this case is whether
the evaluations of Thomas complied with the requirements under
R.C. 3319.111(B)(3).
We find that the evaluations of Thomas met the requirements
set forth in R.C. 3319.111(B)(3).
The first evaluation of Thomas, dated December 10, 1990,
clearly met the requirements of R.C. 3319.111(B)(3). That
evaluation contained the following specific recommendations
regarding improvements needed in Thomas' performance as a
teacher: (1) "[c]onstruct more detailed lesson plans which
include topics to be taught, objectives for the day, and any
homework assigned"; (2) "[s]pend time each day teaching
techniques of Mystery and College Writing"; and (3) "[a]ssign
some of the work now being done in class as homework so you have
time to cover the topics during class." The first evaluation
also contained the following specific recommendations regarding
the means by which Thomas could obtain assistance in making the
needed improvements: (1) "[r]eview the college writing and
mystery curriculum in the graded course of study"; (2) review
"availabel [sic] course outlines"; and (3) have a "discussion
with your department chairman."
The second evaluation of Thomas, dated March 15, 1991, also
met the requirements of R.C. 3319.111(B)(3). The key paragraph
in the second evaluation states, "In the performance checklist
that I gave you in December, I indicated several concerns. I
also made several specific suggestions in the [first evaluation]

at the same time. I do not feel that you have made enough
improvement for me to recommend that your contract be renewed."
This paragraph expressly incorporated by reference the specific
recommendations regarding Thomas' needed improvements and the
means by which Thomas could obtain assistance in making those
improvements that were listed in the performance checklist and
the first evaluation, both of which Thomas had signed. It is
clear that Roberts' previous concerns and suggestions regarding
Thomas' teaching performance were still at issue in Roberts'
second evaluation of Thomas.
We believe that an evaluator complies with R.C.
3319.111(B)(3) when he incorporates by reference the statutorily
mandated recommendations listed in earlier written reports that
the teacher who is being evaluated has seen. Any other
interpretation of R.C. 3319.111(B)(3) would be unreasonable,
would serve no useful purpose, and would infringe unjustifiably
upon a board of education's decision not to renew a teacher's
contract. Although R.C. 3319.11 and 3319.111 must be construed
liberally in favor of teachers because they are remedial statutes,
a court may not read into a statute a result that the language
does not reasonably imply. See Szekely v. Young (1963), 174 Ohio
St. 213, 22 O.O.2d 214, 188 N.E.2d 424, paragraph two of the
syllabus.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the
court of appeals, albeit for different reasons.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and
Pfeifer, JJ., concur
Douglas, J., concurs in judgment only.
FOOTNOTES:
1 The version of R.C. 3319.11(G)(7) that applies in this
case provided, in pertinent part:
"A teacher may appeal an order affirming the intention of
the board not to re-employ the teacher to the court of common
pleas *** on the grounds that the board has not complied with the
provisions of section 3319.11 or 3319.111 of the Revised Code.
"*** [T]he court in an appeal under this division is limited
to the determination of procedural errors and to ordering the
correction of procedural errors and shall have no jurisdiction to
order a board to re-employ a teacher, except that the court may
order a board to re-employ a teacher *** when the court
determines that evaluation procedures have not been complied with
pursuant to division (A) of section 3319.111 of the Revised Code
***. Otherwise, the determination whether to re-employ or not
re-employ a teacher is solely a board's determination and not a
proper subject of judicial review and, except as provided in this
division, no decision of a board whether to re-employ or not
re-employ a teacher shall be invalidated by the court on any
basis ***." Am.Sub.H.B. No. 330, 142 Ohio Laws, Part II, 3356,
3362.
2 The version of R.C. 3319.111(A) that applies to this case
stated, in pertinent part:
"Any board of education that has entered into any limited
contract or extended limited contract with a teacher pursuant to
section 3319.11 of the Revised Code *** shall evaluate such a
teacher in compliance with the requirements of this section in
any school year in which the board may wish to declare its

intention not to re-employ him ***.
"This evaluation shall be conducted at least twice in the
school year in which the board may wish to declare its intention
not to re-employ the teacher. One evaluation shall be conducted
and completed not later than the first day of February and the
teacher being evaluated shall receive a written report of the
results of this evaluation not later than the tenth day of
February. One evaluation shall be conducted and completed
between the first day of March and the first day of April and the
teacher being evaluated shall receive a written report of the
results of this evaluation not later than the tenth day of
April." Am.Sub.S.B. No. 140, 143 Ohio Laws, Part I, 718, 807.
3 Since the trial court entered its judgment in this case,
R.C. 3319.11(G)(7) and 3319.111(A) have been amended. However,
those amendments do not affect the holdings in Naylor and Farmer
or the analysis in this case.