Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 168.116 (2026)

Termination by board

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

168.116. Termination by board — notice — charges. — 1. The indefinite contract of a permanent teacher may not be terminated by the board of education until after service upon the teacher of written charges specifying with particularity the grounds alleged to exist for termination of such contract, notice of a hearing on charges and a hearing by the board of education on charges if requested by the teacher.

2. At least thirty days before service of notice of charges of incompetency, inefficiency, or insubordination in line of duty, the teacher shall be given by the school board or the superintendent of schools warning in writing, stating specifically the causes which, if not removed, may result in charges. Thereafter, both the superintendent, or his designated representative, and the teacher shall meet and confer in an effort to resolve the matter.

3. Notice of a hearing upon charges, together with a copy of charges, shall be served on the permanent teacher at least twenty days prior to the date of the hearing. The notice and copy of the charges may be served upon the teacher by certified mail with personal delivery addressed to him at his last known address. If the teacher or his agent does not within ten days after receipt of the notice request a hearing on the charges, the board of education may, by a majority vote, order the contract of the teacher terminated. If a hearing is requested by either the teacher or the board of education, it shall take place not less than twenty nor more than thirty days after notice of a hearing has been furnished the permanent teacher.

4. On the filing of charges in accordance with this section, the board of education may suspend the teacher from active performance of duty until a decision is rendered by the board of education but the teacher's salary shall be continued during such suspension. If a decision to terminate a teacher's employment by the board of education is appealed, and the decision is reversed, the teacher shall be paid his salary lost during the pending of the appeal.

--------

(L. 1969 p. 275 § 168.108)

(1973) Held that the true purpose of the thirty-day notice requirement is to provide the teacher an opportunity to cure and remove the cause of the complaint. General charge of "violating school policies" is not specific enough charge on which to base a discharge. Blue Springs Reorganized School Dist. IV v. Landuyt (A.), 499 S.W.2d 33.

(1974) Evidence held sufficient to sustain dismissal of tenured teacher. Merideth v. Board of Ed. Rockwood R-6 Sch. Dist. (A.), 513 S.W.2d 740.

(1977) Held letter purporting to give "warning in writing" was not sufficiently specific to comply with statutory requirement. Dameron v. Board of Education of Lebanon School District R-3 (A.), 549 S.W.2d 671.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 56 cases, 1972–2018 · leading case: O'Connell v. Sch. Dist. of Springfield R-12, 830 S.W.2d 410 (Mo. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

O'Connell v. Sch. Dist. of Springfield R-12, 830 S.W.2d 410 (Mo. 1992). · cites it 14× “Appellant's first point on appeal alleges that the January 31, 1990, letter failed to set forth the deficiencies with sufficient particularity to satisfy the requirements of § 168.116, RSMo 1986, and that, as a consequence, the action taken by the district is void.”

Dameron v. Bd. of Educ. of the Lebanon Sch. Dist. R-3, 549 S.W.2d 671 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 19× “That letter reads: “John Dameron As executive officer of the Lebanon R— III Board of Education, I am giving you this warning in compliance with Section 168.116 RSMo 1970, of unsatisfactory work as a permanent teacher in the Lebanon R-III School system.”

Moore v. Bd. of Educ. of Fulton Pub. Sch. No. 58, 836 S.W.2d 943 (Mo. 1992). · cites it 6× “Pursuant to section 168.116, RSMo 1986, Moore requested a hearing before the Board to contest the charges.”

Smith v. Normandy Sch. Dist., 734 S.W.2d 943 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 14× “We discussed the chronological sequence of the requirements of Section 168.116 RSMo 1978 for termination of a tenured teacher in Iven v.”

Merideth v. Bd. of Educ. of Rockwood R-6 Sch. Dist., 513 S.W.2d 740 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 14× “On November 20, 1972, respondent was served with a notice of hearing and with copies of the charges and their specifications according to Section 168.116, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S. Formal charges, their specifications, and the warning letter were filed with the Board on November 29,…”

Ross v. Robb, 651 S.W.2d 680 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 10× “Pursuant to § 168.116 RSMo 1978, [1] Ross was discharged as a tenured teacher.”

Rafael v. Meramec Valley R-III Bd. of Educ., 569 S.W.2d 309 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 10× “*312 Appellant’s first point is that the trial court erred in affirming the action of the Board because (1) the procedure prescribed by § 168.116 RSMo 1969 was not followed in that (a) the warning letter required by § 168.”

Adkins v. Hazelwood Sch. Dist., 743 S.W.2d 869 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 14× “, issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and affirmed the decision of the Board. Adkins appealed the decision to this court pursuant to Section 168.”

Hellmann v. Union Sch. Dist., 170 S.W.3d 52 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 8× “Hellmann a notice of deficiencies pursuant to Section 168.116 on February 19, 2002. The notice informed Ms.”

Fuller v. North Kansas City Sch. Dist., 629 S.W.2d 404 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 8× “; (6) Fuller did not at any time make a written request of the District for a hearing on the question of his lack of reemployment; (7) no such hearing was held by the District; and (8) it did not comply with § 168.116, RSMo., which provides for procedures to be followed by a…”

Blue Springs Reorganized Sch. Dist. IV v. Landuyt, 499 S.W.2d 33 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 8× “I The issue presented by the first of the above points requires interpretation of § 168.116, which provides in part as follows: “1.”

Iven v. Hazelwood Sch. Dist., 710 S.W.2d 462 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 6× “-104(4) and entitled to the protection of the provisions of § 168.116 regarding the termination of a permanent teacher.”

Show all 56 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 168.116(1) — 1 case

Birdwell v. Hazelwood Sch. Dist., 352 F. Supp. 613 (E.D. Mo. 1972).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 168.116(2) — 6 cases

Moore v. Bd. of Ed. of Sp. Sch. Dist., Etc., 547 S.W.2d 188 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977).

Rafael v. Meramec Valley R-III Bd. of Educ., 569 S.W.2d 309 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978). “*312 Appellant’s first point is that the trial court erred in affirming the action of the Board because (1) the procedure prescribed by § 168.116 RSMo 1969 was not followed in that (a) the warning letter required by § 168.”

Smith v. Normandy Sch. Dist., 734 S.W.2d 943 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987). “We discussed the chronological sequence of the requirements of Section 168.116 RSMo 1978 for termination of a tenured teacher in Iven v.”

Merideth v. Bd. of Educ. of Rockwood R-6 Sch. Dist., 513 S.W.2d 740 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974). “On November 20, 1972, respondent was served with a notice of hearing and with copies of the charges and their specifications according to Section 168.116, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S. Formal charges, their specifications, and the warning letter were filed with the Board on November 29,…”

Newcomb v. Humansville R-IV Sch. Dist., 908 S.W.2d 821 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 168.116(3) — 1 case

Ross v. Robb, 651 S.W.2d 680 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983). “Pursuant to § 168.116 RSMo 1978, [1] Ross was discharged as a tenured teacher.”

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 168.116(4) — 2 cases

Brown v. Weir, 675 S.W.2d 135 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984).

Saunders v. Reorganized Sch. Dist. No. 2 of Osage Cnty., 520 S.W.2d 29 (Mo. 1975).

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.