U.S. District Court Grants Summary Judgment for District on Teacher’s Breach of Contract Claim That Her Termination Violated Just Cause Limitation in CBA

On August 28, 2024 the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a decision in Rossman v. Nashoba Regional School District (Civil No. 3:21-cv-40042-KAR). That decision granted a school district’s motion for summary judgment on a claim brought by a teacher without professional teacher status. The teacher asserted that her dismissal breached the alleged contract entered into by the district because it violated the “just cause” provision in the teachers’ collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”), even though she was not a member of that bargaining unit. The Court concluded that a reasonable factfinder could not find that the district’s words and actions demonstrated that the teacher’s one-year employment contract included the just cause protections of the CBA.

The teacher was hired by the district to fill the position of “Grade 7 Science Teacher (Full Year Long Term Sub).” In her letter of appointment, the district indicated that she would be paid in accordance with Master’s Step 13 of the CBA between the district and the teachers’ bargaining unit. In addition, although the teacher was not a member of the bargaining unit, the district applied the evaluation process called for by the CBA and afforded her the number of sick and personal days allotted under the CBA. While employed by the district, the teacher suffered from an ailment that resulted in the use of sick time. The district terminated her employment in December 2020, before she had completed 90 calendar days of employment.

In its motion for summary judgment, the district argued that the teacher failed to proffer any basis for her assertion that the “just cause for termination” limitation contained in the CBA applied to her employment. The teacher pointed to the parties’ communications and conduct, including (1) the statement that she would be paid in accordance with Master’s step 13 of the CBA; (2) the fact that she was provided health, dental, pension, and life insurance benefits that are not available to per diem substitutes not covered by the CBA; and (3) the fact that her evaluations were in accordance with the process set forth in Article V of the CBA. Considering these facts in the light most favorable to the teacher as required in a summary judgment motion, the Court nevertheless concluded that none of the district’s words or actions could be viewed by a reasonable factfinder as establishing that it intended to be bound by the unmentioned just cause provision in the CBA.

The Court explained that to create an enforceable contract, there must be agreement between the parties on the material terms and the parties must have a present intention to be bound by those terms. That, in turn, depends on the totality of all such expressions and deeds given the attendant circumstances and the objectives that the parties are attempting to attain. The Court concluded that the mere fact that the district offered the teacher salary, sick leave, and health and dental benefits that mirrored those set forth in the CBA did not mean that its offer of employment incorporated every other unmentioned provision in the CBA.

The teacher argued, in the alternative that she should receive reliance damages because she took the job and took days off based on the district’s representation concerning sick day availability. The Court rejected this argument, as well, explaining that she had not identified a subsidiary promise that the district failed to honor or any expenses that she incurred in reliance on an unfilled promise.

It bears noting that the Court found it undisputed that the teacher had not attained professional teacher status (“PTS”) in accordance with G.L. c. 71, § 42 when she was dismissed. Under § 42 a teacher without PTS is by law an “at will” employee who is entitled only to a procedure before dismissal. Moreover, a teacher without PTS who has served less than 90 calendar days is not even entitled to that procedure under § 42. Curiously, however, the Court made no reference to these statutory barriers in its decision.

This decision illustrates that school districts should proceed with caution when establishing the terms and conditions of employment for personnel to ensure that parties are clear on the material terms of an employment contract. In particular, any references to provisions in an inapplicable CBA should be avoided.

We represent school districts in all aspects of employment and labor law. If you have any questions regarding the content of this update, please contact any of our attorneys.

This update is provided for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice.