168.126. Probationary teachers, how terminated — notice, contents — reemployed, how. — 1. A board of education at a regular or special meeting may contract with and employ by a majority vote legally qualified probationary teachers for the school district. The contract shall be made by order of the board; shall specify the number of months school is to be taught and the wages per month to be paid; shall be signed by the probationary teacher and the president of the board, or a facsimile signature of the president may be affixed at his discretion; and the contract shall be attested by the secretary of the board by signature or facsimile. The board shall not employ one of its members as a teacher; nor shall any person be employed as a teacher who is related within the fourth degree to any board member, either by consanguinity or affinity, where the vote of the board member is necessary to the selection of the person.
2. If in the opinion of the board of education any probationary teacher has been doing unsatisfactory work, the board of education, through its authorized administrative representative, shall provide the teacher with a written statement definitely setting forth his alleged incompetency and specifying the nature thereof, in order to furnish the teacher an opportunity to correct his fault and overcome his incompetency. If improvement satisfactory to the board of education has not been made within ninety days of the receipt of the notification, the board of education may terminate the employment of the probationary teacher immediately or at the end of the school year. Any motion to terminate the employment of a probationary teacher shall include only one person and must be approved by a majority of the members of the board of education. A tie vote thereon constitutes termination. On or before the fifteenth day of April in each school year, the board of education shall notify in writing a probationary teacher who will not be retained by the school district of the termination of his employment. Upon request, the notice shall contain a concise statement of the reason or reasons the employment of the probationary teacher is being terminated. If the reason for the termination is due to a decrease in pupil enrollment, school district reorganization, or the financial condition of the school district, then the district shall in all cases issue notice to the teacher expressly declaring such as the reason for such termination. Nothing contained in this section shall give rise to a cause of action not currently cognizant at law by a probationary teacher for any reason given in said writing so long as the board issues the letter in good faith without malice, but an action for actual damages may be maintained by any person for the deprivation of a right conferred by this act.
3. Any probationary teacher who is not notified of the termination of his employment shall be deemed to have been appointed for the next school year, under the terms of the contract for the preceding year. A probationary teacher who is informed of reemployment by written notice shall be tendered a contract on or before the fifteenth day of May, and shall within fifteen days thereafter present to the employing board of education a written acceptance or rejection of the employment tendered, and failure of such teachers to present the acceptance within such time constitutes a rejection of the board's offer. A contract between a probationary teacher and a board of education may be terminated or modified at any time by the mutual consent of the parties thereto.
Notes of Decisions
Smith v. King City Sch. Dist. R-1 of Gentry Cnty., 990 S.W.2d 643 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 28× “Smith argues the trial court erred in dismissing his claim for damages under Section 168.126(2), RSMol994, because the School District failed to act in good faith and without malice in issuing him a letter stating the reasons why it chose not to renew his probationary teaching…”
Birdwell v. Hazelwood Sch. Dist., 352 F. Supp. 613 (E.D. Mo. 1972).
· cites it 27× “Count III alleged that plaintiff was dismissed without being provided with a written statement of reasons and without being given the ninety days' notice required by Section 168.126, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S. Count III is not based upon an independent jurisdictional allegation.”
Am. Fed'n of Teachers v. Ledbetter, 387 S.W.3d 360 (Mo. 2012).
· cites it 5× “For instance, section 168.126, RSMo, provides that public schools must notify any public school teacher who will not be retained of his or her termination by April 15th.”
McCormack v. Maplewood-Richmond Heights Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 935 S.W.2d 703 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 11× “In their motion for summary judgment on these counts, defendants argued that under the undisputed facts they were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because McCormack’s termination comported with procedural due process and she was not entitled to the additional…”
Valter v. Orchard Farm Sch. Dist., 541 S.W.2d 550 (Mo. 1976).
· cites it 4× “) as they relate to a midterm dismissal of a nontenured teacher under the provisions of § 168.126, 2 a question not previously decided in this state.”
Hudson v. Sch. Dist. of Kansas City, 578 S.W.2d 301 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 3× “In support of the contention, they argue that the word “hiring” relates only to the original employment and that “reemployment” or “reappointment” are not within the meaning of the term.”
Kish v. Chilhowee R-IV Sch. Dist., 814 S.W.2d 649 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 4× “Section 168.126, RSMo 1986. Those rights include being furnished “a written statement definitely setting forth [her] alleged incompetency and specifying the nature thereof, in order to furnish the teacher an opportunity to correct [her] fault and overcome [her] incompetency.”
White v. Scott Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. R-V, 503 S.W.2d 35 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973).
· cites it 8× “R-V, commenced this action in reliance on her interpretation of § 168.126 of the Teacher Tenure Act. §§ 168.”
C.F.S. v. Mahan, 934 S.W.2d 615 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 5× “That case *619 holds that § 168.126, RSMo 1994, dealing with the termination of probationary teachers, does not list all the situations in which termination might be in order, and that there is inherent authority to terminate a probationary teacher for cause.”
Revelle v. Mehlville Sch. Dist. R-9, 562 S.W.2d 175 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 4× “” 4 This portion of the policies is essentially the same as § 168.126 subdivision 2. 5 *179 Policy 4119 provides that separation from the professional staff shall be in accordance with the Teacher Tenure Act, §§ 168.”
Johnson v. Francis Howell R-3 Bd. of Educ., 868 S.W.2d 191 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 5× “While in Birdwell the definition was declared relative to consideration of [termination of a probationary teacher,] § 168.126, this court perceives no reason why the same definition is not applicable to any proceeding regarding a tenured teacher wherein the question of…”
Mauzy v. Mexico Sch. Dist. No. 59, 878 F. Supp. 153 (E.D. Mo. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Here, defendants admit that the Board had the final authority to terminate plaintiff pursuant to Mo.Rev.Stat. § 168.126. As such, the School District may be liable to plaintiff if the Board possessed the discretionary, final policymaking authority necessary to hold the School…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 168.126(2) — 5 cases
Smith v. King City Sch. Dist. R-1 of Gentry Cnty., 990 S.W.2d 643 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
“Smith argues the trial court erred in dismissing his claim for damages under Section 168.126(2), RSMol994, because the School District failed to act in good faith and without malice in issuing him a letter stating the reasons why it chose not to renew his probationary teaching…”
Birdwell v. Hazelwood Sch. Dist., 352 F. Supp. 613 (E.D. Mo. 1972).
“Count III alleged that plaintiff was dismissed without being provided with a written statement of reasons and without being given the ninety days' notice required by Section 168.126, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S. Count III is not based upon an independent jurisdictional allegation.”
Valter v. Orchard Farm Sch. Dist., 541 S.W.2d 550 (Mo. 1976).
“) as they relate to a midterm dismissal of a nontenured teacher under the provisions of § 168.126, 2 a question not previously decided in this state.”
Johnson v. Francis Howell R-3 Bd. of Educ., 868 S.W.2d 191 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
“While in Birdwell the definition was declared relative to consideration of [termination of a probationary teacher,] § 168.126, this court perceives no reason why the same definition is not applicable to any proceeding regarding a tenured teacher wherein the question of…”
Revelle v. Mehlville Sch. Dist. R-9, 562 S.W.2d 175 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).
“” 4 This portion of the policies is essentially the same as § 168.126 subdivision 2. 5 *179 Policy 4119 provides that separation from the professional staff shall be in accordance with the Teacher Tenure Act, §§ 168.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 168.126(3) — 1 case
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.