ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

from the statute. The trial court, however, asserted that because they had provided demotion
hearings the board had “waived” its right to claim that § 125.17 did not apply to Haak et al. The
appellate court did not agree. Having provided the appellants with a demotion hearing did not
bind the board to affording the appellants all provisions of the statute. For the appellants to
receive protection, it had to be shown that they were “teachers” as codified by § 125.17. Upon
review, the court determined that Hinshaw and Holzworth’s former positions were definitely not
pedagogical in nature. Therefore, they were not eligible for protections from § 125.17. As to
Haak and Cummings, the court deemed that more information about their prior jobs was
necessary to determine whether or not their former positions classified under § 125.17.
Hinshaw and Holzworth’s claims appeared to be at an end; however, they also claimed
protection under collective bargaining carried out by ACAP. Once again, the court was
compelled for further evidence to rule on this point.
The Appellants claimed entitlement to the new administrative positions was assumptive
in nature based on their tenure status. Not surprisingly, the court held that more information was
needed to rule. That being said, the court did offer that if the positions were in fact promotional
then the appellants’ tenure status held no bearing and were thus not afforded a reassignment to
those positions.
Finally, the appellants’ claim that the trial court erred is off the mark. As the appellate
court demonstrated, the trial court did not have the proper information to move forward. Clearly,
these issues needed remediation at the school board level.
Disposition: The case was affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.
Citation: Sweeney v. Special School District, 368 N.W.2d 288, (1985 Minn. App.).
79