Johnson v. School District No. 1 ( 2018 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 28, 2018
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
LISA M. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 14-1410
(D.C. No. 1:12-CV-02950-MSK-MEH)
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 IN THE (D. Colo.)
COUNTY OF DENVER AND STATE OF
COLORADO; BOARD OF EDUCATION
OF SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 IN THE
COUNTY OF DENVER AND STATE OF
COLORADO,
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before LUCERO, MATHESON, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Following the district court’s dismissal of Lisa Johnson’s complaint, we
certified two questions to the Colorado Supreme Court under Tenth Circuit Rule 27.1
and Colorado Appellate Rule 21.1:
(1) Do the provisions of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 22-63-202(2)(c.5) apply to
all nonprobationary teachers who are not employed in a “mutual
consent” placement, or does subsection (c.5) govern only those
nonprobationary teachers who are displaced for the reasons stated in
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 22-63-202(2)(c.5)(VII)?
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines
of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for
its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
(2) Is a nonprobationary teacher, not dismissed but instead placed on
unpaid leave under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 22-63-202(2)(c.5)(IV), deprived
of a state property interest in salary and benefits?
Johnson v. Sch. Dist. No. 1 in the Cty. of Denver & Colorado, 630 F. App’x
768, 769 (10th Cir. 2015) (unpublished).
The Colorado Supreme Court has now issued an opinion concluding:
(1) subsection (c.5) applies to all nonprobationary teachers who are not employed in
a mutual consent placement; and (2) nonprobationary teachers on unpaid leave do not
possess a state property interest in salary and benefits. Johnson v. Sch. Dist. No. 1 in
the Cty. of Denver, No. 15SA281, 2018 WL 1247086, at * 2, ___ P.3d ___ (Colo.
Mar. 12, 2018). These answers resolve the appeal. See O’Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S.
524, 531 (1974) (interpretation of a state statute by highest state court is binding on
federal courts); Teigen v. Renfrow, 511 F.3d 1072, 1078-79 (10th Cir. 2007) (state
law generally creates property interests protected by the Due Process Clause).
Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM the district
court’s dismissal of Johnson’s complaint.
Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-2-