Braaksma v. Bd. of Dirs. of the Sibley-Ocheyedan Cmty. Sch. Dist.

981 N.W.2d 134

Danna BRAAKSMA, Appellant,

v.BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF the SIBLEY-OCHEYEDAN COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee.

No. 21-0067

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Submitted September 14, 2022

Filed October 21, 2022

Christy A.A. Hickman (argued) of Iowa State Education Association, Des Moines, for appellant.

Stephen F. Avery (argued) of Cornwall, Avery, Bjornstad & Scott, Spencer, for appellee.

McDermott, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all participating justices joined. May, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

McDERMOTT, Justice.

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.

I.

The timeline of events surrounding Braaksma's intensive assistance program falls across two academic years: the 2018–19 school year and the 2019–20 school year. Braaksma had been a full-time Spanish language teacher with the school district since 2001 and had served as a substitute teacher in the district for twenty years before that. In March 2019, the high school's principal, Stan De Zeeuw, conducted an in-class evaluation of Braaksma's teaching as part of her regular evaluation process that takes place every three years. On April 25, De Zeeuw and the school district's then-superintendent Bill Boer informed Braaksma about concerns with her teaching performance. De Zeeuw told Braaksma that his review revealed she was failing to meet six of the eight teaching standards against which Iowa teachers are evaluated (set out in Iowa Code section 284.3(1)(a )–(h ) (2019) ) and that she'd be placed on an intensive assistance program to address the deficiencies. The six standards that he referred to (as quoted from the statute) are as follows:

a. Demonstrates ability to enhance academic performance and support for and implementation of the school district's student achievement goals.

....

c. Demonstrates competence in planning and preparing for instruction.

....

e. Uses a variety of methods to monitor student learning.

f. Demonstrates competence in classroom management.

g. Engages in professional growth.

h. Fulfills professional responsibilities established by the school district.

Iowa Code § 284.3(1).

De Zeeuw read to Braaksma from a document he'd prepared titled "Plan of Assistance—Assistance Phase" that contained a bulleted list of fourteen requirements for Braaksma to meet. These requirements included, for instance, that "[s]tudents will receive timely feedback on assessments and homework," "[s]tudents will have multiple grades entered within each progress period (twice a quarter)," "[g]rades will not be mass entered just before conclusion of said grading period," "[a]ll classroom materials will be prepared before class begins each day," and "[c]lassroom rules will be posted and referred to as needed."

The plan-of-assistance document contained lines for both De Zeeuw and Braaksma to sign and under these signature lines stated: "Signature of the teacher does not indicate that the teacher agrees with the content of the review, only that they have received a copy." Braaksma expressed frustration and confusion with the administrators’ decision that she needed an intensive assistance program and the requirements that the document outlined.

She refused to sign her name but nonetheless received a copy of the document and was told she'd be responsible for carrying out the plan starting immediately. Under the heading of "Proposed Timeline," the document states: "Begin working on in Spring of 2019. Will meet and discuss during 2019–2020 academic year. Satisfactory progress must be achieved to maintain employment in for [sic] 2020 and beyond." Under the heading "Next Meeting Date," the document states: "TBD, 2019 Teacher Check-out, beginning of 2019–2020 academic year."

Braaksma testified that neither De Zeeuw nor Boer discussed the plan with her again during the 2018–19 school year. Boer left the school district over the summer and was replaced as superintendent by James Craig.

On August 21, shortly before students returned to begin the 2019–20 school year, Braaksma, De Zeeuw, and Craig met to discuss the intensive assistance program. During this meeting, De Zeeuw again read from the same fourteen-point plan-of-assistance document presented at the meeting on April 25. Braaksma interrupted at multiple points—either, in the administrators’ view, disparaging or challenging various components of the plan or, in Braaksma's view, seeking clarification or explanation about parts of the plan. Regardless, Craig was agitated by Braaksma's interruptions, at one point saying, "Do I need to ask for your resignation now, or can this meeting continue?" When Braaksma persisted, Craig informed her that the meeting was over and told her to get out of his office. Later that day, Braaksma and Craig met in the hallway. Craig asked Braaksma, "[A]re you going to follow the plan or not?" Braaksma agreed to follow the plan as presented. Braaksma testified that she kept the plan-of-assistance document with her so she'd have it available to refer to.

In early September, De Zeeuw emailed Braaksma about formal evaluations related to her intensive assistance program that would take place on three dates during the 2019–20 school year: October 31, January 31, and March 31. And in an earlier email, De Zeeuw reminded Braaksma that it was the teacher's responsibility to set up a "pre-observation conference" with him before the scheduled observation date. Not long thereafter, Braaksma approached De Zeeuw to set up a meeting. De Zeeuw agreed to meet with her, but he never followed up with a proposed time. Sometime later Braaksma ran into De Zeeuw in the hallway and reminded him of her request to meet. De Zeeuw again acknowledged her request but never got back to her about a meeting date.

Other than on August 21, when De Zeeuw read from the plan-of-assistance document, neither De Zeeuw nor Craig met again with Braaksma to discuss the intensive assistance program, the plan-of-assistance document, or her performance. Braaksma's only knowledge of any efforts to observe her performance after instituting the intensive assistance program involved a few episodes in which De Zeeuw stood outside her classroom door and watched through the glass for perhaps five minutes each time. De Zeeuw, for his part, testified that he informally observed Braaksma eight to ten times but conceded that these observations consisted of watching from outside the door or "brief pop-ins" that lasted five to ten minutes. (His notes reflect only four such observations.) He never communicated with Braaksma what he noticed or concluded from any of these observations.

On Friday, October 11, Braaksma tried to initiate a conversation with De Zeeuw in a supply room about the plan and noted that her evaluation was to happen within the next few weeks. Finding De Zeeuw's response lacking in substance, Braaksma went to Craig's office to try to speak with him. Craig requested that Braaksma meet back at his office at 3:30 p.m. When Braaksma returned at 3:30, Craig directed her to the boardroom, where De Zeeuw was waiting.

Braaksma testified that Craig began by saying, "We've done as much as we can with you." Craig then provided Braaksma with a written separation agreement. Under the proposed agreement, Braaksma would resign from her teaching position with the school district and, in exchange, the district would continue to pay her salary and provide insurance through the end of the school year. She didn't sign the agreement. De Zeeuw testified that Craig told Braaksma, "One way or another you won't be here Monday," and that if she didn't sign the agreement that day, she'd be placed on administrative leave until the offer's expiration in twenty-one days. Braaksma testified that she didn't recall being told that she'd be placed on administrative leave if she didn't sign. She reported for work as usual on the following Monday (October 14), fearing that if she didn't appear for work, it would be held against her. Craig told De Zeeuw to contact the county sheriff's office to have Braaksma removed from the school. Braaksma ultimately left after receiving written confirmation from Craig that she'd been placed on administrative leave.

On November 13, the school district served...