TEACHERS' TENURE
Act 4 of 1937 (Ex. Sess.)
38.102 Charges against teacher; filing with controlling board; decision to proceed upon charges; written statement of charges and teacher's rights.
Sec. 2.
All charges against a teacher shall be made in writing, signed by the person making the charges, and filed with the secretary, clerk, or other designated officer of the controlling board, and a copy of the charges shall be provided to the teacher. The charges shall specify a proposed outcome of either discharge or a specific demotion of the teacher. The controlling board shall decide whether or not to proceed upon the charges, or may modify the charges and decide to proceed upon the charges as modified, not later than 10 days after the charges are filed with the controlling board. A decision to proceed upon the charges shall not be made except by a majority vote of the controlling board and shall be reduced to writing. The controlling board, if it decides to proceed upon the charges, shall furnish the teacher not later than 5 days after deciding to proceed upon the charges with the written decision to proceed upon the charges, a written statement of the charges and a statement of the teacher's rights under this article.
History: 1937, Ex. Sess., Act 4, Eff. Sept. 1, 1937 ;-- CL 1948, 38.102 ;-- Am. 1967, Act 216, Imd. Eff. July 10, 1967 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 60, Eff. Oct. 1, 1993
PopularName Notes:
Teachers' Tenure Act
Notes of Decisions
Rockwell v. Crestwood Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 227 N.W.2d 736 (Mich. 1975).
· cites it 3× “” MCLA 38.102; MSA 15.2002. "Any hearing held for the dismissal or demotion of a teacher, as provided in this act, must be concluded by a decision in writing, within 15 days after the termination of the hearing.”
Ferrario v. Escanaba Bd. of Educ., 395 N.W.2d 195 (Mich. 1986).
· cites it 3× “2002 provides:_ *366 All charges against a teacher shall be made in writing, signed by the person making the same, and filed with the secretary, clerk or other designated officer of the controlling board. Charges concerning the character of professional services shall be filed…”
Lakeshore Bd. of Educ. v. Grindstaff, 461 N.W.2d 651 (Mich. 1990).
· cites it 4× “MCL 38.102; MSA 15.2002. Article 4, § 4 of the act provides that the hearing shall be public or private, at the option of the teacher; "[n]o action shall be taken resulting in the demotion or dismissal of a teacher except by a majority vote of the members of the controlling…”
Chester v. Harper Woods Sch. Dist., 273 N.W.2d 916 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “2001, and only after providing a hearing which accords with MCL 38.102; MSA 15.2002 and MCL 38.104; MSA 15.”
Rumph v. Wayne Cmty. Sch. Dist., 188 N.W.2d 71 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).
· cites it 4× “We hold that dismissal of plaintiff was procedurally defective because the defendant failed to comply with MCLA § 38.102 (Stat Ann *563 1968 Rev § 15.”
Widdoes v. Detroit Pub. Schs., 553 N.W.2d 688 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “*289 Second, petitioner claimed that his discharge violated the requirements of MCL 38.102; MSA 15.2002. MCL 38.102; MSA 15.”
Holton Pub. Schs. v. Farmer, 259 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “A tenured teacher who has not been offered the "first vacancy in the school district for which he is certified and qualified" should be afforded the same procedural safeguards as those granted a teacher who faces discharge or demotion for cause.”
Tomiak v. Hamtramck Sch. Dist., 397 N.W.2d 770 (Mich. 1986).
“Accordingly, because there was not a revocation of tenure, the notice and hearing provisions of MCL 38.102; MSA 15.2002 do not apply. The provisions of MCL 38.”
Goodwin v. Bd. of Educ. of Sch. Dist., 267 N.W.2d 142 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
“Such notice and statement of rights, as well as a hearing, are required under MCLA 38.102; MSA 15.2002 upon discharge or demotion of a tenured teacher.”
Sutherby v. Gobles Bd. of Educ., 348 N.W.2d 277 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “See MCL 38.102; MSA 15.2002. Requiring teachers to answer charges concerning events which occurred during a previous school year is not fundamentally unfair.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.