 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Malone v. Special School District No. 112/6/2005
Appellant, a teacher, challenges the summary judgment entered in favor of his former employer, respondent Minneapolis Special School District No. 1, on his claim that the school district negligently failed to provide him with an environment free of harassing student behavior. Because the district court correctly determined that the school district had immunity from this negligence action under Minn. Stat. § 466.12, subd. 3a (2002); discretionary immunity under Minn. Stat. § 466.03, subd. 6 (2002); and no legal duty pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 121A.03, we affirm.
FACTS
On August 28, 2000, appellant George M. Malone started his employment at Franklin Middle School in respondent Minneapolis School District as a science teacher. During his three academic years of employment at Franklin, appellant reported many incidents of bad behavior by students. Appellant, at all relevant times a probationary teacher, was put on administrative leave after an incident on April 20, 2003, and his job was terminated on June 12, 2003.
At the end of July 2003, appellant filed this action against the school district, claiming that a teacher has a right to be free of any abuse or harassment in the school environment under Minn. Stat. § 121A.03 and the school district's own policies. He also claimed that the school district knew "of the harassment of the [appellant] by school children, but did not take any disciplinary action against the school children, nor took any remedial action to prevent future harassing conduct."
The school district moved for summary judgment, contending that it was immune from the negligence action and owed no actionable duty to appellant. The district court agreed and, on October 18, 2004, granted summary judgment for the school district.
DECISION
I.
Appellant argues that the school district tort immunity statute, Minn. Stat. § 466.12, subd. 3a (2002), is unconstitutional. The school district argues, among other things, that appellant failed (1) to raise the constitutional issue in the district court; (2) to produce sufficient evidence to sustain a constitutional challenge; and (3) to notify the attorney general.
Considering the procedural posture of this case, we decline to reach appellant's constitutional argument on this appeal. First, we see no basis for this court to decide this matter based on or stay this appeal pending a decision in other actions challenging the constitutionality of Minn. Stat. § 466.12, subd. 3a. Appellant relies on a district court decision in consolidated negligence cases against the same Minneapolis special school district concluding that subdivision 3a is unconstitutional on its face. Granville v. Minneapolis Sch. Dist., 2005 WL 1413322 (Minn. Dist. Ct. May 13, 2005); Johnson v. Minneapolis Sch. Dist., 2005 WL 1413333 (Minn. Dist. Ct. May 13, 2005). The school district's appeals from those decisions are now consolidated and pending in the court of appeals. Granville v. Minneapolis School Dist., Nos. A05-1377 & A05-1378 (Minn. App. July 13, 2005).
In contrast to appellant, the plaintiff in Granville specifically alleged in district court that subdivision 3a "deprives the minor child . . . of a fundamental right and violates the equal protection clauses of both the Minnesota and United States Constitutions." Granville, 2005 WL 1413322, at *1. Because appellant failed to raise or articulate any constitutional issue in the district court and failed to properly and timely notify the attorney general that he was challenging the constitutionality of the statute in the district court or on appeal, he waived his right to raise the constitutional issue in Granville
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Minnesota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|