Date: 10-21-2022

Case Style:

Danna Braaksma v. Board of Diectors of the Sibley Ocheyedan Community School District

Case Number: 21-0067

Judge: McDermott

Court: In the Supreme Court of Iowa on appeal from the District Court for Osceola County

Plaintiff's Attorney: Christy A.A. hickman, Iowa State Education Association, Des Moines, Iowa

Defendant's Attorney: Stephen F. Avery

Description: Kissimmee, Iowa employment law lawyer represented Plaintiff who sued Defendant on wrongful termination theory.

Administrators at the Sibley-Ocheyedan Community School District raised concerns about the performance of one of the district’s high school teachers and required her to participate in an “intensive assistance program” described in Iowa Code chapter 284. Under the school district’s own policy implementing chapter 284, teachers required to participate in an intensive assistance program have at minimum six months, and at most twelve months, to complete the program. If, following a teacher’s participation in the program, the teacher has not successfully completed the program or continues to fail to meet performance standards, then the school district has the power (among other options) to immediately terminate the teacher’s employment.

In this case, the school district fired the teacher, Danna Braaksma, before she’d been afforded six months to carry out her intensive assistance program. The school district argues that, under Iowa Code section 279.27, it possessed the power to terminate Braaksma at any time during the contract year for “just cause” regardless of any ongoing intensive assistance program. Braaksma, for her part, argues that she was denied her contractual and statutory right to complete the intensive assistance program before the school district fired her and that, in any event, the school district had insufficient evidence of any performance problems to establish just cause for her firing.

Braaksma appealed the school board’s decision to terminate her teaching contract to the district court, which in turn affirmed the school board’s decision. Braaksma then appealed to this court. We transferred the case to the court of
appeals. The court of appeals reversed the district court’s ruling and the school board’s termination decision. The school board sought further review, which we granted.

Outcome: “The court shall reverse, modify, or grant any other appropriate equitable or legal relief from the board decision . . . if substantial rights of the petitioner
have been prejudiced because the action” violates “statutory provisions” or “a board rule or policy or contract.” Id. § 279.18(2)(a), (c). We thus reverse the school board’s decision and the district court’s ruling, affirm the opinion of the court of appeals, order Braaksma reinstated to her former position under the terms of her teaching contract, and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: