Indiana court preliminarily enjoins state department of education from requiring school districts to use teacher contract form
Indiana State Teachers Ass’n v. Indiana Dep’t of Educ., No. 49D03-1107-028585 (Super. Ct. Ind. Aug. 17,2011)
Abstract: A Marion County Superior Court has granted a preliminary injunction barring the Indiana Department of Education (IDE) from requiring local school districts to use its new form when executing employment contracts with teachers. The court concluded that the plaintiff, the Indiana State Teachers Association (ISTA), was likely to succeed on the merits of its claims. It found that the form “violates Indiana’s common law principles governing employment contracts and is illusory,” and that the form converts a teacher’s employment with a school district to an at-will employment relationship in contravention of state law.
Facts/Issues: In July 2011, IDE issued a memorandum to the superintendents of local school districts instructing them that they were required to use the new regular teacher contract form provided by IDE for all teacher contracts for the 2011-12 school year, pursuant to state law. The form states that school districts must recreate the form verbatim and without amendment. All teachers, including members of ISTA, were required to agree to and execute the contract form. State law requires school districts to use a uniform teacher’s contract.
ISTA filed suit in Superior Court against IDE and Tony Bennett, Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction, who drafted the form. The suit challenged the form on the grounds that it violates both common law principles governing contracts generally and statutory principles governing employment contracts specifically. ISTA sought a preliminary injunction barring IDE from requiring school districts to use the form until a decision on the merits of its claims.
Ruling/Rationale: The Superior Court granted ISTA’s motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its claims that IDE’s regular teacher contract form contravenes common law and statutory principles governing employment contracts. It rejected IDE’s argument that state law or the newly enacted statutes gave Bennett authority to contravene well-established general principles of contract law and well-established state law.
The court found that the form drafted by Bennett fails to satisfy general principles of contract law and employment contract law because it includes a provision giving school districts authority to change unilaterally a teacher’s number of hours and work days. It concluded that, because of this provision, the “contract fails to state a specific duration or ascertainable term of employment,” and, thus is “unenforceable and illusory.” ” The regular teacher’s contract form … converts a teacher’s employment with a school [district] to an at-will employment relationship which is impermissible under Indiana law.”
The court also found that the form violates the Indiana law that requires a teacher’s contract to state the number of hours per day that a teacher is expected to work. In addition, the court determined that the form is unconscionable because it gives school districts the authority unilaterally to modify the number of days and hours a teacher must work, but does not require school districts to compensate teachers for the additional labor through pay or other consideration. Lastly, the court concluded that the terms and conditions set forth in the form “are contradictory and vague, and therefore preclude a true meeting of the minds” between the parties.
Indiana State Teachers Ass’n v. Indiana Dep’t of Educ., No. 49D03-1107-028585 (Super. Ct. Ind. Aug. 17,2011)
[Editor's Note: As noted above, on July 21 2011, Dr. Bennett sent a memorandum to the superintendents of all the school districts in the state on the subject of the new regular teacher contract form, which included the form itself.
In an August 17, 2011 Indianapolis Star article by Vic Ryckaert discussing the Superior Court's ruling, Bennett expressed disagreement with the court, but said IDE respected the ruling. He said, "Already, we are working on a new contract for Indiana's schools, and we are committed to providing our school leaders what they were promised in this law -- the flexibility they need to innovate and prepare all students for success."
After this preliminary ruling, the case will go on absent a settlement between the parties.]
