Teachers are performing work that is necessary and crucial to developing the children of today into the adults of the future.  As such, there are several different laws in the state of Minnesota specifically applying to teachers and their employment rights.

One of those laws is the Minnesota Continuing Contract Law, which discusses the probationary periods for teachers in Minnesota.  Under the law, after the first three consecutive years of a teacher’s first teaching experience in a single district, a teacher’s contract may only be discontinued by a majority roll call vote of the full membership of the board and a hearing.  Furthermore, after three consecutive years with one district, the probationary period for the teacher when she moves to another district is only one year.

In Resolution Relating to the Termination and Nonrenewal of the Teaching Contract of a Probationary Teacher, the question to be determined was whether a teacher who completes three years of teaching in a single charter school was entitled to a one-year probationary period in subsequent employment with a school district.  The relator, KellyAnn Lockrem, worked as a school counselor for a charter school in Elk River before moving to the Monticello school district.  Prior to the completion of her third year with the district, the district’s school boar voted not to renew her contract.  Lockrem appealed the decision by writ certiorari to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

In reviewing the Continuing Contract Law, the court found that school districts and charter schools were discussed separately, so that charter schools meaning that the legislature meant to consider them to be separate bodies within the educational system.  In addition, the law provides that charter schools are exempt from all statutes and rules applicable to a school, school board, or a school district unless a statute or rule is made specifically applicable to a charter school.  Because charter schools were not referenced in the contract law, it was not considered to be included in the three year statute.  Because of this, the District was found not to have violated Lockrem’s due process.

It is important for employers to stay on top of the laws that specifically govern their employees.  The timing of this decision comes at the same time an amendment to school laws has been proposed.  HF1691 was introduced in early February, and would have a significant impact on the terms and conditions of employment, employee status, and probationary periods of teachers.  It also will affect the rights of labor organizations with regard to access to employee data.  It is essential that all public entities get a chance to review the proposed language and have a say in what is being proposed within the legislature.

We will continue to keep an eye on both court decisions and the decisions of the legislature in upcoming months on these important changes.  If you, or your organization, need assistance in understanding current laws and how they could impact you, contact Wiley Reber Law, for legal advice that works.