State Ex. Rel. Ginger Midlam V. Greenville City School District Board Of Education

Headnotes

H1: Education Law > Administration & Operation > Elementary & Secondary School Boards > Authority of School Boards

Ohio R.C. 3319.11(B) provides that teachers who are eligible for continuing service in any school district must have worked at least two years in the district and attained continuing contract status elsewhere.

H2:  Education Law > Administration & Operation > Elementary & Secondary School Boards > Authority of School Boards

Under Ohio R.C 3319.02, a teacher with continuing service status becomes an assistant superintendent, principal, assistant principal, or other administrator with the district with which she holds continuing service status, retains the status in any non-administrative position as provided in O.R.C 3319.08 and 3319.09

Summary of Case

Procedural Posture: The relator has come before the court asking for a preliminary injunction pursuant to the Notice she received regarding her termination. Relator argues that she was not properly terminated as a building principal and, even if she was properly terminated, she was still entitled to be employed as a classroom teacher.

Overview: Relator Ginger Midlam filed this appeal against the Greenville City School Board of Education after her employment as an elementary building principal was not renewed. Relator was a certified teacher in Ohio for 15 years and taught the past 13 years at Tri-County North School District, where she was awarded a “continuing contract” under R.C 3319.08.

Relator had a two-year contract with Greenville City School Board of Education to be an elementary building principal. In the spring preceding her contract expiring, Relator underwent three evaluations by the Board to determine if the Board would renew her contract as principal. The Board ultimately voted to not renew and not to employ Relator as a classroom teacher, pursuant to R.C. 3319.11(B).

Outcome: The relator’s motion for a preliminary injunction and request for a writ of mandamus is denied, as the relevant state states and case law indicate that the Board did not act out of their authority.

On appeal, the case was affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Ohio Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal on the appellate decision. The appellate decision may be read here.