(a) A school board may, by reason of a substantial decrease of pupil population within
its school system, suspend teachers in numbers necessitated by the decrease in pupil
population; provided, however, that suspension of teachers shall be in the inverse
order of their employment unless it is necessary to retain certain teachers of technical
subjects whose places cannot be filled by teachers of earlier appointment; and, provided
further, that teachers who are suspended shall be reinstated in the inverse order
of their suspension. No new appointments shall be made while there are available teachers
so suspended.
(b) Notice of suspension under this section and § 16-13-5 shall be given, in writing, by the governing body of schools on or before June 1
notifying the teacher that his or her employment for the ensuing year shall be suspended,
provided however, notice by that date need not be provided in the instance of an emergency
performance-related cause.
Notes of Decisions
Gallison v. Bristol Sch. Comm., 493 A.2d 164 (R.I. 1985).
· cites it 7× “1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 16-13-6 requires that suspensions of teachers on the basis of declining enrollment must be made on a systemwide senority basis.”
Audet v. Bd. of Regents for Elementary & Secondary Educ., 606 F. Supp. 423 (D.R.I. 1985).
· cites it 18× “Audet has not challenged either the validity or the construction of the state statute, R.I.Gen. Laws § 16-13-6, which controls the suspension and recall of public school teachers; 2 nor does he quarrel with Article *428 XXVII of the collective bargaining contract between the…”
Bochner v. Providence Sch. Comm., 490 A.2d 37 (R.I. 1985).
· cites it 4× “3 In his decision, the trial justice agreed with the Board of Regents that (1) group-1 petitioners had been properly suspended under § 16-13-6 owing to the projected (and actual) decline in student population; (2) group-2 petitioners had been properly terminated on account of…”
Providence Teachers Union v. Donilon, 492 F. Supp. 709 (D.R.I. 1980).
· cites it 6× “Parkhurst, however, is clearly distinguishable in that it dealt with suspension of teachers pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-13-6. The section provides as follows: Suspension because of decrease in school population — Seniority—Reinstatement.”
Boyce v. Royal Oak Bd. of Educ., 285 N.W.2d 196 (Mich. 1979).
“…Ariz Rev Stat § 15-257, Colo Rev Stat § 22-63-102(3), Ga Code Ann § 32-2101c(a)(6), Hawaii Rev Stat § 297-11, Burns Ind Stat Ann (1978 Cum Supp), § 20-6.1-4-10.5(a)(5), Minn Stat Ann §125.17(4X5), Mo Ann Stat §168.221(5), Nev Rev Stat § 391.312(g), NJ Stat Ann § 18A28-9, NC…”
Audet v. Bd. of Regents for Elem. & Sec. Educ., 606 F. Supp. 423 (D.R.I. 1985).
· cites it 18× “Audet has not challenged either the validity or the construction of the state statute, R.I.Gen. Laws § 16-13-6, which controls the suspension and recall of public school teachers; [2] nor does he quarrel with Article *428 XXVII of the collective bargaining contract between the…”
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.