If you have a question or concern about special education law, school administration, federal standards, or the overall rights of a student, please feel free to call the expert education law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at (203) 221-3100 .
In the case of Snyder v. Waterbury Board of Education, a school board filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in a lawsuit brought against them by a tenured teacher and principal. The teacher’s lawsuit sought an injunction to prohibit the board and mayor from continuing a termination hearing against him. The teacher had been suspended with pay based on a criminal harassment charge against him. In law, subject-matter jurisdiction is a court’s authority to hear cases of a particular type, or relating to a specific subject matter. A court may only hear issues with which it has the authority and jurisdiction to act on. For example, a criminal court can hear criminal cases, but may not appoint guardianship to a minor in the way a probate court can. an injunction is a court order that keeps a person or organization from beginning or continuing an action threatening or invading the rights of another. An injunction can also be used to compel a party to carry out a specific action.
The teacher claimed that in his suspension letter, sent by the mayor, who was acting as a chairman of the school board, the mayor agreed to refrain from initiating termination proceedings against him until resolution of the criminal charges. In their motion to dismiss, the board and mayor contended that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the teacher failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under the Teacher Tenure Act, which would provide the teacher with remedies without the need to go to court. In the Tenured Teacher Act, tenured teachers have their contracts automatically renewed from year-to-year; can be dismissed only for six statutorily specified reasons; and have the right to (1) bump untenured teachers in positions for which they are qualified if their positions are eliminated, (2) written notice of the reasons for termination, (3) a termination hearing before the board of education or an impartial hearing panel, and (4) appeal the results of the hearing to Superior Court.
The court denied the motion to dismiss because it concluded the Teacher Tenure Act was not applicable to his rights under the letter because they were collateral to his contract for employment. In other words, his rights to remedy had been duly entitled by both statute and his employment contract with he school. The court also denied the teacher's request for an injunction because it found that The Teacher Tenure Act provided an adequate remedy at law and because the teacher failed to sustain his burden of showing, with substantial probability, that he would sustain irreparable harm absent the injunction.
If you have a child with a disability and have questions about special education law, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.
Source: Snyder v. Waterbury Bd. of Educ., 1994 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2185, 1994 WL 494989 (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 30, 1994)
