ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

The district appealed to the state superintendent who, upon review, affirmed the findings
of the county hearing and denied the district’s request to offer new--highly questionable--
evidence. The district then appealed to the district court whereby the superintendent’s ruling was
affirmed but his order for back pay was modified by the court. All appealed.
Issues: (1) Should additional evidence have been admitted? (2) Was Youngquist’s back
pay award correctly modified? (3) Should Youngquist have been awarded attorney fees?
point of law.
Holding: The Supreme Court of Montana held that the trial court accurately ruled on each
Reasoning: The court was right to not admit new evidence that the appellants had not
been made aware of prior to its presentation as the court had ruled in Yanzick v. School District
No. 23 (Mont. 1982). Furthermore, the court showed prudence and discretion in not accepting
evidence that looked haphazardly collected and/or created.
The court also held that Youngquist and the state superintendent erred in asserting that he
would be rewarded back pay through the end of appeal process. To award Youngquist his salary
was to assume that he was going to be offered another contract, which was obviously not the
case. Back pay awards correctly administered were for the remainder of the 1982-1983 school
year as the district court determined.
Finally, the state superintendent denied Youngquist’s claims for attorney fees, which he
never appealed. Moreover, he never appealed it at the district level, so the court did not consider
it.
Wash. App.).
Disposition: The district court ruling was affirmed.
Citation: Benson v. Bellevue School District, 41 Wn. App. 730; 707 P.2d 137 (1985
83