observing that, ordinarily, state law validates an unwritten school employment understanding where “the employee performs his or her duties as though a written contract were present”
How later courts described this case
- observing that, ordinarily, state law validates an unwritten school employment understanding where “the employee performs his or her duties as though a written contract were present”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Wright, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part. I respectfully dissent from the court’s opinion in Parts I and II for the reasons I have stated previously in my dissents in State ex rel. Brennan v. Vinton Cty. Local Bd. of Edn. (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 208, 210 , 18 OBR 271, 273, 480 N.E.2d 476, 478 , and State ex rel. Luckey v. Etheridge (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 404, 407 , 583 N.E.2d 960, 963 . Relators received adequate notice and an opportunity to discuss the reasons for nonrenewal at the board meeting. This is sufficient to comply with R.C. 3319.02.
I concur in Part III of the majority’s opinion.
Moyer, C.J., and Holmes, J., concur in the foregoing opinion.