State ex rel. Midlam v. Greenville City School District Board of Education

Citation: 161 Ohio App. 3d 696Docket: No. 1648

Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; June 17, 2005; Ohio; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Ginger Midlam is appealing the dismissal of her complaint against the Greenville City School District Board of Education regarding the non-renewal of her contract as an elementary school principal. Midlam was employed for a two-year term beginning August 1, 2002, after 15 years of teaching experience. During her first evaluation in June 2003, she received high ratings (ones and twos) and positive feedback from Superintendent Dr. Mark Weedy, who noted areas for improvement. However, her second evaluation in December 2003 showed a decline in performance, resulting in ratings of twos and threes, and comments indicating she struggled in her role.

In her final evaluation on February 26, 2004, Midlam received threes, fours, and fives, with Dr. Weedy stating that she had significant challenges in leadership and communication. He recommended non-renewal of her contract. Following discussions with the board, her contract was officially not renewed on March 30, 2004. Midlam then requested continuing-contract status as a teacher, which was denied because she was not re-employed under a new contract. After filing a complaint and seeking a preliminary injunction and writ of mandamus, the trial court dismissed her case, concluding that the evaluations and non-renewal process adhered to legal requirements set forth in R.C. 3319.02(D). The court found that all procedures, including evaluations and notices, were timely and properly conducted.

Midlam was denied re-employment as a teacher under a continuing contract by the trial court, which ruled that such contracts are not automatically renewed and that R.C. 3319.11(B) requires specific procedural safeguards before continuing employment is granted. The court found that the school board had properly notified Midlam of its decision not to re-employ her and had complied with the evaluation requirements set forth in R.C. 3319.111(A). Midlam appealed this judgment, raising two assignments of error: first, claiming the trial court erred in not ordering her re-employment based on her continuing contract status; second, asserting that the trial court incorrectly failed to renew her two-year administrative contract due to the board's alleged failure to conduct a proper evaluation.

Midlam contends that her continuing contract status was automatically reestablished upon completing two years of service as an administrator, arguing that R.C. 3319.11(B) does not require the board to take further action for her re-employment. She cites the Ohio Supreme Court case State ex rel. Kelley v. Clearcreek Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., which established that teachers with continuing service status in one district who serve two years as administrators in another are entitled to a continuing contract if the administrative contract is not renewed. The court acknowledged that the school board has a one-year grace period to evaluate the administrator's performance before making a final decision regarding the teacher's continuing status.

Midlam, a certified teacher with continuing-service status in Tri-County North School District, previously served over two years as an administrator in Greenville City School District, where her administrative contract was not renewed. Citing the Ohio Supreme Court's Kelley case, it was determined that certified teachers with continuing service status and at least two years of administrative experience in a second district are entitled to a continuing-service contract if their administrative contract is not renewed. The board's argument that the Kelley case was distinguishable due to a longer service period was rejected, as the relevant criterion was the two years served. Additionally, the board claimed Midlam was not entitled to a continuing contract because she had not served two full years at the time of nonrenewal; however, since she ultimately completed the two years, this argument was deemed invalid. The board also contended that continuing-contract status required further action for employment extension, which contradicts Kelley’s holding. As a result, the court found that the trial court erred in denying Midlam continuing-contract status in Greenville City School District, sustaining her first assignment of error.

In her second assignment of error, Midlam asserted that the trial court wrongly concluded she was not entitled to reemployment as an administrator, arguing that her evaluation did not comply with R.C. 3319.02(D). She claimed she was not informed of deficiencies nor given the opportunity to improve, which she argued violated the evaluation procedure required by R.C. 3319.02(D). This statute mandates that evaluations must occur during non-expiration years of contracts and that employees receive written evaluations by the end of their contract year, ensuring they have the chance to demonstrate improvement.

In any school year when an employee's contract is set to expire, the employee must receive a preliminary evaluation at least sixty days before the board's action on the contract, along with a final evaluation that includes the superintendent’s recommendation. The final evaluation must be provided at least five days prior to the board's decision. While R.C. 3319.02(D)(5) states that the evaluation procedure does not create an expectation of continued employment, failure to provide evaluations or required meetings can result in automatic reemployment for one year, or two years if the employee has served three or more years in their role.

The evaluations of employee Midlam revealed performance deficiencies. In June 2003, her first evaluation included suggestions for improvement, such as increasing classroom visits and communication with other principals. The second evaluation in December 2003 noted struggles in her role and provided specific areas for improvement, including management skills and relationship building. By February 2004, the third evaluation indicated ongoing difficulties in leadership and communication, stating that Midlam had not initiated necessary conversations despite mentorship. Consequently, the superintendent recommended non-renewal of her contract.

Midlam's performance evaluations revealed deficiencies, with Dr. Weedy providing suggestions for improvement in both the first and second evaluations. The first evaluation occurred nearly eight months before Dr. Weedy recommended nonrenewal, while the second evaluation was over two months prior to that recommendation. Sufficient time was allowed for Midlam to address these deficiencies as required by R.C. 3319.02(D)(2)(c). Subsequent evaluations indicated that Midlam did not rectify some of the previously identified issues. The board conducted evaluations in compliance with statutory requirements, including a June 2003 evaluation and a preliminary evaluation on December 8, 2003, which occurred within 60 days of the board's nonrenewal decision on March 30, 2004. Dr. Weedy's final evaluation, dated February 26, 2004, included a nonrenewal recommendation, which Midlam received on March 4, 2004. Midlam requested and was granted a meeting with the board to discuss her nonrenewal on March 23, 2004. The board officially decided not to renew her contract on March 30, 2004, with written notice provided to Midlam that same day. The trial court concluded that Midlam was not entitled to automatic reemployment as an administrator due to proper evaluations under R.C. 3319.02(D). As a result, Midlam's second assignment of error was overruled, and while her first assignment was sustained, the trial court's judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part, with the case remanded for further proceedings. Wolff and Grady, JJ., concurred, with Frederick N. Young, J., retired, sitting by assignment.