CopyCited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 29, 2024
...for teacher contracts because it was missing terms and contained
blanks. Therefore, Tibbetts contended, the contract offered did not
operate as a valid offer, and his employment contract for the prior
school year was renewed by operation of law pursuant to OCGA §
20-2-211 (b), which prescribes the manner of annually renewing or
not renewing the employment contracts of teachers and other
certificated professional personnel.
The District moved for summary judgment, arguing, among
other things, that sovereign immunity barred Tibbetts’s breach of
contract action....
...sovereign immunity under the ex contractu clause of the
Constitution of the State of Georgia, Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I, Sec.
II, Par. IX (c). In granting the District’s motion, the trial court found
that the District offered Tibbetts a contract that complied with
OCGA §
20-2-211 (b), but that Tibbetts did not timely accept that
offer....
...246
(885 SE2d 291) (2023), the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court.
2
It determined that the contract the District offered Tibbetts for the
upcoming school year failed to comply with the requirements of
OCGA §
20-2-211 (b); therefore, Tibbetts’s contract for the previous
school year was renewed by operation of law pursuant to OCGA §
20-2-211 (b) and constituted a contract in writing as required by
OCGA §
20-2-211 (a). Tibbetts,
367 Ga. App. at 248-250 (2)-(4); see
id. at 249 (4) (“The literal language of OCGA §
20-2-211 [(a)] requires
all teachers to have written employment contracts[.]” (emphasis in
original))....
...The case was
docketed to the term beginning in December 2023 and orally argued on March
21, 2024.
3
contract the District offered to Tibbetts for the 2019-2020 school
year complied with the requirements of OCGA §
20-2-211 (b) and, if
it did not, whether Tibbetts’s existing written employment contract
for the previous school year was renewed by operation of law, such
that sovereign immunity is waived for Tibbetts’s breach of contract
claim.2 As expl...
...etts’s claim for breach of a
2 We asked the parties to address these questions:
(1) Did the employment renewal contract that was offered to
[Tibbetts] for the 2019-2020 school year comply with the
requirement in OCGA §
20-2-211 (b) that “[s]uch contracts ....
...of 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Par. IX
(c), based on the following argument.
Tibbetts argued that the employment contract offered to him
12
by the District for the 2019-2020 school year failed to comply with
OCGA §
20-2-211 (b) because the contract contained blanks and was
missing terms, like his salary amount, such that his written contract
from the previous year was automatically renewed under OCGA §
20-2-211 (b).5 The Court of Appeals agreed, characterizing the
5 OCGA §
20-2-211 (b) provides:
Any other provisions of this article or any other laws to the
contrary notwithstanding, each local governing board shall, by
not later than May 15 of the current school year, tender a new
contra...
...offer at all. See id. at 249 (3). Because the District offered Tibbetts a
nonconforming contract that he was not required to accept, the
Court of Appeals reasoned, Tibbetts’s previous year’s written
contract was renewed by operation of law under OCGA §
20-2-211
(b) and “the renewed contract remained a contract in writing.”
Tibbetts, 367 Ga....
...d
employee elects not to accept such employment by notifying the
local governing board or executive officer in writing not later than
June 1.
14
Tibbetts a nonconforming contract.
OCGA §
20-2-211 (b) provides, in pertinent part, that the
contract tendered to each teacher “shall be complete in all terms and
conditions of the contract, including the amount of compensation to
be paid to such teacher ....
...Although the Court of Appeals
did not address whether the presence of blanks in Tibbetts’s
employment contract would render it nonconforming, we asked the
15
parties to address whether the contract offered for the 2019-2020
school year complied with the requirement of OCGA §
20-2-211 (b)
because it contained blanks and omitted Tibbetts’s salary amount.6
The contract did not specify a specific dollar amount for
Tibbetts’s salary, and it contained blanks for Tibbetts’s Social
Security Number, his signature, and the date he signed the contract.
As explained below, Tibbetts’s salary amount was stated with
sufficient specificity and the blanks do not represent missing terms
and conditions of a contract for employment under OCGA §
20-2-211
(b)....
...tion must also be for an
exact amount or based upon a ‘formula or method for determining
the exact amount’ ” (citations and emphasis omitted)). Tibbetts’s
contention that the rule in Arby’s must yield to the “specific rule” in
OCGA §
20-2-211 (b) has no merit. There is nothing in OCGA § 20-
2-211 (b) that rejects the use of a salary schedule; it only requires
the contract to set forth the “amount of compensation.” Moreover,
construing OCGA §
20-2-211 (b) in light of OCGA §
20-2-212 (a),7
which requires the annual funding and publishing of a mandatory
State Salary Schedule for teacher compensation, the District had no
choice but to express Tibbetts’s salary with reference to the...
... supervisor’s discretion was not a sufficiently definite promise of
future compensation to be enforceable). For this reason, the Court of
Appeals erred in finding that Tibbetts’s contract for the ensuing
school years failed to conform with OCGA §
20-2-211 (b) because it
referenced the State Salary Schedule....
...See Tibbetts,
367 Ga. App. at
248 (3).
Second, the “blanks” on the contract the District offered
Tibbetts for the upcoming school year — spaces for Tibbetts’s Social
Security Number, signature, and the date of his acceptance — did
not violate OCGA §
20-2-211 (b) because those blanks did not
represent a missing term or condition of the contract....
...times that the meaning of a sentence may be more than that of the
separate words, as a melody is more than the notes.” (Citation and
punctuation omitted.) Busch v. State,
271 Ga. 591, 592 (523 SE2d
21) (1999).
20
OCGA §
20-2-211 (b) provides, in pertinent part:
Such contracts when tendered to each teacher or
other professional employee shall be complete in all terms
and conditions of the contract, including the amount of
compensation to...
...signature and the date he signed indicate when he accepted the
contract. The date and signature blanks are blanks provided for
Tibbetts to denote his acceptance, and it would make no sense for
the contract to fail under the plain language of OCGA §
20-2-211 (b)
because it contained such blanks when the District tendered it to
Tibbetts....
...umber)
and then sign and date the contract to indicate the party’s
acceptance. For these reasons, the blanks left on the contract for
Tibbetts’s Social Security Number, signature, and date did not
render the contract nonconforming under OCGA §
20-2-211 (b).
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the District’s
“nonconforming contract” offer for the upcoming school year
triggered the “automatic renewal provision” of OCGA §
20-2-211 (b),
resulting in a written contract....
...o “the ex
23
contractu clause of our state Constitution, Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I,
Sec. II, Par. IX (c).” Id. However, as explained above, the District’s
contract offer satisfied the requirements of OCGA §
20-2-211 (b)....
Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 29, 2024
...for teacher contracts because it was missing terms and contained
blanks. Therefore, Tibbetts contended, the contract offered did not
operate as a valid offer, and his employment contract for the prior
school year was renewed by operation of law pursuant to OCGA §
20-2-211 (b), which prescribes the manner of annually renewing or
not renewing the employment contracts of teachers and other
certificated professional personnel.
The District moved for summary judgment, arguing, among
other things, that sovereign immunity barred Tibbetts’s breach of
contract action....
...sovereign immunity under the ex contractu clause of the
Constitution of the State of Georgia, Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I, Sec.
II, Par. IX (c). In granting the District’s motion, the trial court found
that the District offered Tibbetts a contract that complied with
OCGA §
20-2-211 (b), but that Tibbetts did not timely accept that
offer....
...Worth County School District,
367 Ga. App. 246
(885 SE2d 291) (2023), the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court.
It determined that the contract the District offered Tibbetts for the
upcoming school year failed to comply with the requirements of
OCGA §
20-2-211 (b); therefore, Tibbetts’s contract for the previous
school year was renewed by operation of law pursuant to OCGA §
20-2-211 (b) and constituted a contract in writing as required by
OCGA §
20-2-211 (a). Tibbetts,
367 Ga. App. at 248-250 (2)-(4); see
id. at 249 (4) (“The literal language of OCGA §
20-2-211 [(a)] requires
all teachers to have written employment contracts[.]” (emphasis in
original))....
...The District then petitioned this Court for a writ of
3
certiorari to the Court of Appeals, and we granted it. 1
We asked the parties to address whether the employment
contract the District offered to Tibbetts for the 2019-2020 school
year complied with the requirements of OCGA §
20-2-211 (b) and, if
it did not, whether Tibbetts’s existing written employment contract
for the previous school year was renewed by operation of law, such
that sovereign immunity is waived for Tibbetts’s breach of contract
claim....
...The case was
docketed to the term beginning in December 2023 and orally argued on March
21, 2024.
2 We asked the parties to address these questions:
(1) Did the employment renewal contract that was offered to
[Tibbetts] for the 2019-2020 school year comply with the
requirement in OCGA §
20-2-211 (b) that “[s]uch contracts ....
...of 1983, Art. I,
Sec. II, Par. IX (c), based on the following argument.
12
Tibbetts argued that the employment contract offered to him
by the District for the 2019-2020 school year failed to comply with
OCGA §
20-2-211 (b) because the contract contained blanks and was
missing terms, like his salary amount, such that his written contract
from the previous year was automatically renewed under OCGA §
20-2-211 (b).5 The Court of Appeals agreed, characterizing the
5 OCGA §
20-2-211 (b) provides:
Any other provisions of this article or any other laws to the
contrary notwithstanding, each local governing board shall, by
not later than May 15 of the current school year, tender a new
contract fo...
...offer at all. See id. at 249 (2). Because the District offered Tibbetts a
nonconforming contract that he was not required to accept, the
Court of Appeals reasoned, Tibbetts’s previous year’s written
contract was renewed by operation of law under OCGA §
20-2-211
(b) and “the renewed contract remained a contract in writing.”
Tibbetts, at 250 (4)....
...fying the
local governing board or executive officer in writing not later than
June 1.
14
faulty assumption that the District offered Tibbetts a
nonconforming contract.
Code Section
20-2-211 (b) provides, in pertinent part, that the
contract tendered to each teacher “shall be complete in all terms and
conditions of the contract ....
...Although the Court of Appeals
did not address whether the presence of blanks in Tibbetts’s
15
employment contract would render it nonconforming, we asked the
parties to address whether the contract offered for the 2019-2020
school year complied with the requirement of OCGA §
20-2-211 (b)
because it contained blanks and omitted Tibbetts’s salary amount.6
The contract did not specify a specific dollar amount for
Tibbetts’s salary, and it contained blanks for Tibbetts’s Social
Security Number, his signatur...
...must also be for an
exact amount or based upon a ‘formula or method for determining
the exact amount’ ” (citations and emphasis omitted)). Tibbetts’s
contention that the rule in Arby’s must yield to the “specific rule”
rule in OCGA §
20-2-211 (b) has no merit. There is nothing in OCGA
§
20-2-211 (b) that rejects the use of a salary schedule; it only
requires the contract to set forth the “amount of compensation.”
Moreover, construing OCGA §
20-2-211 (b) in light of OCGA § 20-2-
212 (a),7 which requires the annual funding and publishing of a
mandatory State Salary Schedule for teacher compensation, the
District had no choice but to express Tibbetts’s salary with reference
to th...
...supervisor’s discretion was not a sufficiently definite promise of
future compensation to be enforceable). For this reason, the Court of
Appeals erred in finding that Tibbetts’s contract for the ensuing
school years failed to conform with OCGA §
20-2-211 (b) because it
referenced the State Salary Schedule....
...See Tibbetts, 367 Ga. App at.
248 (3).
Second, the “blanks” on the contract the District offered
Tibbetts for the upcoming school year – spaces for Tibbetts’s Social
Security Number, signature, and the date of his acceptance – did not
violate OCGA §
20-2-211 (b) because those blanks did not represent
a missing term or condition of the contract....
...times that the meaning of a sentence may be more than that of the
separate words, as a melody is more than the notes.” (Footnote
omitted.) Busch v. State,
271 Ga. 591, 592 (523 SE2d 21) (1999).
20
Code Section §
20-2-211 (b) provides, in pertinent part:
Such contracts when tendered to each teacher or other
professional employee shall be complete in all terms and
conditions of the contract, including the amount of
compensation to be pa...
...signature and the date he signed indicate when he accepted the
contract. The date and signature blanks are blanks provided for
Tibbetts to denote his acceptance, and it would make no sense for
the contract to fail under the plain language of OCGA §
20-2-211 (b)
because it contained such blanks when the District tendered it to
Tibbetts....
...umber)
and then sign and date the contract to indicate the party’s
acceptance. For these reasons, the blanks left on the contract for
Tibbetts’s Social Security Number, signature, and date did not
render the contract nonconforming under OCGA §
20-2-211 (b).
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the District’s
“nonconforming contract” offer for the upcoming school year
triggered the “automatic renewal provision” of OCGA §
20-2-211 (b),
resulting in a written contract....
...o “the ex
23
contractu clause of our state Constitution, Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I,
Sec. II, Par. IX (c).” Id. However, as explained above, the District’s
contract offer satisfied the requirements of OCGA §
20-2-211 (b)....
