A17-0903

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A17-0788
A17-0903

Shannon Long,
Relator (A17-0788),

vs.

Independent School District No. 332, Mora, Minnesota,
Respondent (A17-0788),

and

Laurie Erickson,
Relator (A17-0903),

vs.

Independent School District No. 12, Centennial, Minnesota,
Respondent (A17-0903).

Filed January 22, 2018
Reversed
Reilly, Judge

Independent School District No. 332
Independent School District No. 12, Centennial

David Aron, Cedrick R. Frazier, Nicole M. Blissenbach, Education Minnesota, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for relators)

Kevin J. Rupp, Kristin C. Nierengarten , Rupp, Anderson, Squires & Waldspurger,
Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondents)

Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Reilly,
Judge.

2
S Y L L A B U S
The unambiguous language of Minn. Stat. § 122A.40, subd. 5 (2016), provides that
a teacher who completes three consecutive years of teaching in a single Minnesota school
district is entitled to a one-year probationary period in each subsequent Minnesota school
district, not in a city of the first class, in which the teacher is later employed.
O P I N I O N
REILLY, Judge
Relators Shannon Long and Laurie Ericks on challenge respondent school districts’
decisions to nonrenew their teaching contracts. Relators argue that their prior completion
of three consecutive years of teaching in a Minnesota school district entitled each of them
to a one-year probationary pe riod in respondent districts. Relators further argue that, by
completing one year of teaching in responde nt districts without adverse action from the
districts, they completed their probationary periods and possessed continuing contracts.
We conclude that Minn. Stat. § 122A.40, subd. 5, unambiguously provides that a teacher
who completes three years teaching in a single Minnesota school district shall have a one-
year probationary period in a subsequent Minnesota school district, not in a city of the first
class, in which the teacher is later employed. 1 Because relators possessed continuing
contracts that were not subject to nonrenewal, we reverse.

1 Two distinct statutes gove rn teacher contracts. Minn. Stat. § 122A.40 (2016) governs
teacher contracts in general. Minn. Stat. § 122A.41 (2016) governs teacher contracts in
cities of the first class. Mi nn. Stat. § 410.01 (201 6) defines the classes of cities and
provides that a first class city is a city havi ng more than 100,000 inhabitants. Minn. Stat.
§ 122A.41 is not at issue in this case.

3
FACTS
Shannon Long’s Teaching History
Relator Shannon Long has been a licensed teacher in Minnesota since 2008. Long
taught in the East Central School District fo r three consecutive years, from 2008 to 2011.
At the end of the 2010-2011 school year, th e East Central School District decided to
nonrenew Long’s contract at the end of her probationary period . Long then taught in the
Cromwell-Wright School District for the 2011-2012 school year and the North Shore
Community School for the 2 012-2013 school year, and wo rked a number of substitute
teaching positions during the 2013-2014 school year.
Long began teaching in res pondent Independent School District No. 332, Mora (the
Mora School District) in 2014. Long tau ght in the Mora School District for three
consecutive years. In the spri ng of 2017, the Mora School District decided not to renew
Long’s contract for a fourth year. As part of its nonrenewal decision, the board for the
Mora School District determined that Long had not obtained a continuing contract while
working for the Mora School District a nd could be nonrenewed under Minn. Stat.
§ 122A.40, subd. 5, as a probationary teache r. The Mora School District did not allow
Long to request a hearing, presumably because the board believed her to be a probationary
teacher, and a probationary teacher does no t have a right to a hearing upon notice of
termination. See Minn. Stat. § 122.40, subd. 5. Long filed this certiorari appeal.
Laurie Erickson’s Teaching History
Relator Laurie Erickson has been a li censed teacher in Minnesota since 1993.
Erickson taught in the Forest Lake School District for three consecutive years, from 1998

4
to 2001. At the end of the 2000-2001 school year, the Forest Lake School District decided
to nonrenew Erickson’s teaching contract. From 2001 to 2 010, Erickson worked for a
private day-treatment program, Human Servic es, Inc., as a special-education teacher.
Erickson then taught in Intermediate School District 287 from 2010 to 2013. In the spring
of 2013, Erickson’s teaching contract with Intermediate School District 287 was
nonrenewed. Erickson then taught in the Cambridge Isanti School District during the 2013-
2014 school year.
Erickson began teaching in respondent Independent School District No. 12,
Centennial (the Centennial School District) in 2014. Erickson taug ht in the Centennial
School District for three consecutive years. In the spring of 2017, the Centennial School
District decided not to renew Erickson’s contract for a fourth year. As part of its decision,
the board for the Centennial Sc hool District determined that Erickson had not obtained a
continuing contract while working for the Centennial School Di strict, and could be
nonrenewed under Minn. Stat. § 122.40, subd. 5, as a probationary teacher. The Centennial
School District did not allow Erickson to make a request for a hearing, presumably because
it believed her to be a probatio nary teacher, and a probationa ry teacher does not have a
right to a hearing upon notice of termination. See Minn. Stat. § 122.40, subd. 5. Erickson
filed this certiorari appeal, and we consolidated the Long and Erickson appeals.
ISSUE
Under Minn. Stat. § 122A.40, subd. 5, is a teacher who completes three years of
teaching for a single Minnesota school distri ct entitled to a one-year probationary period
in subsequent employment with a different school district?

5
ANALYSIS
The Minnesota Court of Appeals’ limited jurisdiction over review of school board
decisions includes determining “whether the order or determination in a particular case was
. . . [decided] under an erroneous theory of the law.” Dokmo v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 11 ,
459 N.W.2d 671, 673 (Minn. 1990) (citations omitted). A writ of certiorari is the proper
method to appeal a school board’s decision. Id. at 673-74. A school district’s interpretation
of a statute is subject to de novo review by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Educ. Minn.-
Chisholm v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 695 , 662 N.W.2d 139, 143 (Minn. 2003). “The court’s
goal in statutory interpretation is to give effect to the intention of the legislature in drafting
the statute.” Id.; see also Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (describing the court’s role in interpreting a
statute). “If the meaning of a statute is unambiguous, we interpre t the statute’s text
according to its plain language. If a statut e is ambiguous, we ap ply other canons of
construction to discern the legislature’s intent.” Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n,
778 N.W.2d 294, 300 (Minn. 2010) (quota tion and citations omitted) . “A statute should
be interpreted, whenever possible, to give effect to all of its provisions; ‘no word, phrase,
or sentence should be deemed superfluous, void, or insignificant.’” Am. Family Ins. Grp.
v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273, 277 (Minn. 2000) (quoting Amaral v. St. Cloud Hosp., 598
N.W.2d 379, 384 (Minn. 1999)).
Relators argue that teaching for three c onsecutive years in a single Minnesota school
district entitles a teacher to a one-year probationary period at a subsequent teaching job in
a Minnesota school district. Respondents argue that only teachers who complete three
consecutive years at a Minnesota school dist rict and then also successfully gain

6
continuing-contract rights at th at school district are entitle d to a one-year probationary
period in a subsequent Minnesota school district.
Minn. Stat. § 122A.40 (2016) is known co lloquially as the Continuing Contract
Law, and it determines how a probationary te acher earns continuing-contract rights in
most2 Minnesota school districts. Whether a teacher has probationary-contract or
continuing-contract rights is significant because of the different procedures for termination
under each. A probationary contract may be terminated by a school board’s sole discretion,
provided it gives “written notice to that effect before July 1.”3 Minn. Stat. § 122A.40, subd.
5(a). The contract of a teacher with continuing-contract rights, on the other hand, may only
be terminated by a “majority roll call vote of the full membership of the board” or by any
criteria listed in subdivisions 10, 11, and 13 of the statute. Id., subds. 7, 10, 11, 13. Also,
prior to contract termination, a teacher w ith continuing-contract rights may request a
hearing before an arbitrator to contest their termination. Id., subd. 7.
Minn. Stat. § 122A.40, subd. 5(a), defi nes teacher probationary periods in the
following way: “The first thre e consecutive years of a teach er’s first teaching experience
in Minnesota in a single district is deemed to be a probationary period of employment, and,
the probationary period in each district in which the teacher is thereafter employed shall be

2 Minn. Stat. § 122A.41, a sister statute to the Continuing Contract Law, determines teacher
tenure rights for “cities of the first class, ” including Minnesota’s four largest cities:
Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Duluth, and Rochester.
3 Minn. Stat. § 122A.40, subd. 5(b), provides an exception to this notice provision. A
school board must discharge a probationary teacher immediately upon notice that the
teacher’s license has been revoked due to a conviction for child abuse or sexual abuse.

7
one year.” It is undisputed that relators each completed three consecutive years teaching
in a single district in their first teaching experiences in Minnesota.
The statute does not contain language requiring teachers to achieve
continuing-contract rights after their three-year probationary period in order to later be
subject to a one-year probationary period. And this court will not “add words to a statute
that [the Legislature] intentiona lly or inadvertently left out.” Great River Energy v.
Swedzinski, 860 N.W.2d 362, 364 (M inn. 2015) (citation om itted). The statute is
unambiguous.
Respondents argue that Minn. Stat. § 122A.40 is ambiguous because it does not
define how the initial three-year probationary period ends. Responde nts then argue that
the language of subdivision 7 indicates th at a teacher must successfully achieve
continuing-contract rights in a Minnesota school district before being granted the privilege
of having a one-year probationary period in a subsequent school district. Though we read
the language of a statute “as a whole” and “in context with” all of its sections, respondents’
argument fails because the language of subd ivision 7 does not suppo rt their argument.
Hans Hagen Homes v. City of Minnetrista , 713 N.W.2d 916, 921 (Minn. App. 2006).
Subdivision 7 describes how a “teacher who has completed a probationary period in any
district, and who has not been discharged or advised of a refusal to renew the teacher’s
contract under subdivision 5, shall elect to have a continuing contract in such district . . . .”
Minn. Stat. § 122A.40, subd. 7 (emphasis added). Subdivision 7 does not contain language
that places conditions on a teacher’s entitlem ent, under subdivision 5, to a one-year

8
probationary period in a subsequent Minnesota school district after completing a three-year
probationary period.
Respondents further ask this court to consider a number of policy arguments, but
we do not consider policy arguments when a statute is unambiguous. See Minn. Stat.
§ 645.16 (“When the words of a law . . . are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of
the law shall not be disregarded under the pret ext of pursuing the spirit.”). Respondents’
“policy arguments do not provide a basis for us to ignore the app lication of the plain
language” of Minn. Stat. § 122A.40, so we will not consider them. City of Brainerd v.
Brainerd Invs. P’ship, 827 N.W.2d 752, 758 (Minn. 2013).
Because relators each previously comple ted three consecutive years in a single
Minnesota school district, they were en titled to one-year proba tionary periods in
respondent school districts. Respondents could have nonrenewed relators’ teaching
contracts after their first year of teaching by “discharg[ing] or advi s[ing] [relators] of a
refusal to renew [their] contracts.” Minn. St at. § 122A.40, subd. 7. Because the districts
did not nonrenew relators’ contra cts after their first year of teaching, relators obtained
continuing contracts that were to “remain in full force and effect” until properly terminated.
Id. Under the statute, a continuing contract c ould only be terminated with a majority roll
call of the full membership of the board or by other statutory criteria. Id., subds. 7, 10, 11,
13. Respondents did not do so and, as a result, relators were denied the opportunity to
request a hearing before an arbitrator. Id., subds. 7, 15. Because relators had continuing
contract rights, their contracts were improperly terminated by respondent districts.

9
D E C I S I O N
Minn. Stat. § 122A.40, subd . 5, unambiguously provides that teachers who complete
three consecutive years of teaching in a singl e Minnesota school district are entitled to a
one-year probationary period in subsequent school district s in which they teach.
Accordingly, we reverse respondent school di stricts’ nonrenewal of relators’ teaching
contracts.
Reversed.