finding that, for the plaintiff to have “a legitimate claim of entitlement to the renewal of his [employment] contract, he must show that the [statute] [did] not leave ‘considerable discretion’ in the hands of the School Board”
How later courts described this case
- finding that, for the plaintiff to have “a legitimate claim of entitlement to the renewal of his [employment] contract, he must show that the [statute] [did] not leave ‘considerable discretion’ in the hands of the School Board”
- in turn citing Jennings v. Lombardi, 70 F.3d 994, 995-96 (8th Cir. 1995)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
COLLOTON, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment.
I do not join the court’s reliance on Stevenson v. Blytheville School District # 5, 800 F.3d 955 (8th Cir. 2015), but otherwise agree with the opinion. Even this court’s broadest recognition of a constitutionally protected property interest .in the employment context, Rogers v. Masem, 788 F.2d 1288 (8th Cir. 1985), involved a state statute with criteria that “significantly guide[d] decisionmakers’ discretion.” Id. at 1294 . The Minnesota statute at issue here does not significantly guide or constrain the school board’s discretion. Indeed, although a school board is forbidden to decline renewal of a coaching contract based solely on the existence of parental complaints, it may act based on the substance of those complaints, Thiel v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 803, No. A16-0753, 2017 WL 74390 , at *4 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2017), or for any other reason."State law therefore does not grant Mr. McGuire a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment.