THE REVISED SCHOOL CODE
Act 451 of 1976
380.1236 Substitute teachers; leave time, salary, and privileges; applicability of subsections (1) and (2); contract; “day” defined.
Sec. 1236.
(1) Subject to subsection (3), if a teacher is employed as a substitute teacher with an assignment to 1 specific teaching position, then after 60 days of service in that assignment the teacher shall be granted for the duration of that assignment leave time and other privileges granted to regular teachers by the school district, including a salary not less than the minimum salary on the current salary schedule for that district.
(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), a teacher employed as a substitute teacher for 150 days or more during a legal school year of not less than 180 days, or employed as a substitute teacher for 180 days or more by an intermediate school district that operates any program for 220 days or more as required by administrative rule, shall be given during the balance of the school year or during the next succeeding legal school year only the first opportunity to accept or reject a contract for which the substitute teacher is certified, after all other teachers of the school district are reemployed in conformance with the terms of a master contract of an authorized bargaining unit and the employer.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a substitute teacher who is contracted or employed by a person or entity that contracts with a school district or intermediate school district pursuant to section 1236a.
(4) Subsection (2) does not apply to a substitute teacher who is fulfilling the teaching duties of a teacher who is unable to teach due to a terminal illness.
(5) As used in this section, "day" means the working day of the regular, full-time teacher for whom the substitute teacher substitutes. A quarter-day, half-day, or other fractional day of substitute service shall be counted only as that fraction. However, a fraction of a day that is acknowledged by the school district and paid as a full day shall be counted as a full day for purposes of this section.
History: 1976, Act 451, Imd. Eff. Jan. 13, 1977 ;-- Am. 1986, Act 72, Imd. Eff. Apr. 7, 1986 ;-- Am. 1995, Act 289, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 735, Eff. Mar. 31, 2003
PopularName Notes:
Act 451
Notes of Decisions
Wolfe v. Wayne-Westland Cmty. Schs., 703 N.W.2d 480 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 14× “116(0(10) with respect to liability and, specifically, (1) whether ISS employees are substitute teachers within the meaning of MCL 380.1236 and (2) whether defendant had a purposeful practice of moving ISS employees between buildings before sixty days elapsed to avoid paying…”
Lansing Schs. Educ. Ass'n v. Lansing Bd. of Educ., 487 Mich. 349 (Mich. 2010).
· cites it 2× “In Roek, the Court resolved the parties’ dispute over language in MCL 380.1236(2), concluding on the basis of undisputed facts that the plaintiff qualified, as a matter of law, as a teacher employed as a substitute teacher for 120 days or more during a school year and thus had…”
Roek v. Chippewa Valley Bd. of Educ., 422 N.W.2d 680 (Mich. 1988).
· cites it 2× “MCL 380.1236(2); MSA 15,41236(2) provides that a school district shall offer a substitute teacher regular employment if certain conditions are met.”
Morgan v. Taylor Sch. Dist., 466 N.W.2d 322 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
“Plaintiff appeals from a June 2, 1989, opinion and order granting defendant school district’s motion for summary disposition in this suit concerning the application of § 1236 of the School Code, MCL 380.1236; MSA 15.41236, which grants substitute teachers who work at least 120…”
Roek v. Chippewa Valley Sch. Dist., 329 N.W.2d 539 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff, Michael Roek, commenced this action on September 29, 1980, against defendant, Board of Education of the Chippewa Valley School District, alleging that defendant had failed to offer him a teaching contract for the 1980-1981 school year in violation of MCL 380.1236(2);…”
Taylor Fed'n of Teachers v. Taylor Bd. of Educ., 423 N.W.2d 44 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
“They receive no fringe benefits except that, in *479 accordance with MCL 380.1236; MSA 15.41236, if they spend more than sixty days in one specific teaching assignment, they are granted leave time and other privileges granted to the regular teachers.”
Waits v. Ann Arbor Pub. Schs., 561 N.W.2d 851 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).
“Because the trial court properly awarded plaintiff employment pursuant to article II, § 3 of the teacher tenure act, we need not address plaintiffs rights under § 1236 of the Revised School Code, MCL 380.1236; MSA 15.41236, which would entitle plaintiff to only “the first…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 380.1236(1) — 1 case
Wolfe v. Wayne-Westland Cmty. Schs., 703 N.W.2d 480 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
“116(0(10) with respect to liability and, specifically, (1) whether ISS employees are substitute teachers within the meaning of MCL 380.1236 and (2) whether defendant had a purposeful practice of moving ISS employees between buildings before sixty days elapsed to avoid paying…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 380.1236(2) — 3 cases
Lansing Schs. Educ. Ass'n v. Lansing Bd. of Educ., 487 Mich. 349 (Mich. 2010).
“In Roek, the Court resolved the parties’ dispute over language in MCL 380.1236(2), concluding on the basis of undisputed facts that the plaintiff qualified, as a matter of law, as a teacher employed as a substitute teacher for 120 days or more during a school year and thus had…”
Roek v. Chippewa Valley Bd. of Educ., 422 N.W.2d 680 (Mich. 1988).
“MCL 380.1236(2); MSA 15,41236(2) provides that a school district shall offer a substitute teacher regular employment if certain conditions are met.”
Roek v. Chippewa Valley Sch. Dist., 329 N.W.2d 539 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
“Plaintiff, Michael Roek, commenced this action on September 29, 1980, against defendant, Board of Education of the Chippewa Valley School District, alleging that defendant had failed to offer him a teaching contract for the 1980-1981 school year in violation of MCL 380.1236(2);…”
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.