Home -> Law Blog Directory -> State Courts Blogs -> Law Library Letter

State Courts

: Law Library Letter

Summary 2009 WY 63

Summary of Decision issued May 12, 2009

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Luhm v. Board of Trustees of Hot Springs County Sch. Dist. No. 1

Citation: 2009 WY 63

Docket Number: S-07-0227

Appeal from the District Court of Hot Springs County, the Honorable John R. Perry, Judge.

Representing Appellant Luhm: Patrick E. Hacker, Gregory P. Hacker, Erin M. Kendall of Patrick E. Hacker, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee Hot Springs: Tracy J. Copenhaver of Copenhaver, Kath, Kitchen & Kolpitcke, LLC, Powell, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: Luhm worked for the Hot Springs County School District as a guidance counselor. In 2006, Luhm filed a complaint alleging the School District terminated her from her job with the district in a manner that violated law. Luhm claimed her termination was contrary to the spirit and letter of the Wyoming Teacher Employment Law (WTEL). Each year of her employment, Luhm signed a contract titled ?non-teaching contract? with the School District.

Was Luhm a teacher as defined by the WTEL: The Court stated that Luhm was unambiguously not a teacher by contract, so the question was whether she was a teacher by statute. A teacher is defined as any person employed under contract by the board of trustees of a school district as a certified professional employee. Luhm argued she was certificated by the Professional Teaching Standards Board (PTSB) qualifying her as a certified professional employee and therefore making her a de jure teacher. The Court believed that the WTEL required all teachers to be certified professional employees but did not envisage that all certified professional employees be considered teachers. The Court noted their holding in Seyfang v. Board of Trustees of Washakie County Sch. Dist. No. 1 applied to the instant case. The term ?teacher? under the WTEL envisages certified professional employees engaged in the teaching profession. The Court noted that none of Luhm?s responsibilities involved teaching students a specific recognized academic subject. Consequently, it decided there was no question of material fact.

Conclusion: The Court agreed that a guidance counselor was not a teacher but rather a certified professional employee who provided auxiliary professional services. Luhm, certified as a guidance counselor and social worker was not a teacher within the meaning of the WTEL and therefore was not entitled to its protections.

Affirmed.

J. Golden delivered the decision.

J. Hill dissenting, joined by J. Kite: J. Hill stated he did not agree with the majority that the district court was correct in determining there were no genuine issues of material fact in the case. He also did not agree that Luhm was not a ?teacher? as the word is used in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-7-102(a)(vii). The Justices would have reversed the summary judgment and remanded to the district court for full development of a trial record.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/qndw8a .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Full post as published by Law Library Letter on May 12, 2009 (boomark / email).