ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

agreed that she was not given the required 60-day written notice of her job change. The trial
court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
Issues: (1) Did Sanders’s reassignment to a teaching position constitute a non-renewal
whereby further due process protections were required in accordance with Mich. Comp. Laws §
380.132(2)?
Holding: The court held that the school system was bound to the 60-day written notice
before it could reassign Sanders to a non-administrative position.
Reasoning: Sanders argued that her reassignment to a non-administrative position
constituted a non-renewal. Thus, the school system violated her due process protections set forth
in Mich. Comp. Laws § 380.132(2). The appellate court reversed the trial court’s motion for
summary judgment on the grounds that the procedure followed by the school board allowed the
board discretion to reassign any administrator to a non-administrative position without statute
protections provided by M. C. L. 380.132.
The court did not contend that the plaintiff could not be reassigned but that the plaintiff
could not be reassigned arbitrarily. Sanders, according to the school district, was reassigned, not
“non-renewed.” This meant that no cause had to be shown. In fact, the only reason provided for
the reassignment was “the district’s best interests.” To allow such wanton reassignments without
prior notice was a “subterfuge” to avoiding the policy inherent in M. C. L. 380.132, according to
the appellate court. Therefore, the court deemed the reassignment to be an effective non-
renewal/termination and in violation of the statutory protections provided in M. C. L. 380.132.
Disposition: The Supreme Court of Michigan affirmed the appellate court’s reversal and
remanded to the trial court.
153