Could a South Carolina school district require a returning teacher to accept a contract before April 25?

Plain-English summary

The state education department had received questions about school districts asking teachers to sign next year's contracts months before the statutory April 25 date. The Attorney General concluded in 2008 that a district could not move the acceptance deadline forward for a teacher offered reemployment. The board had to allow the teacher until April 25 to give written acceptance under the statute then in force.

The opinion treated the statutory date as fixed by the legislature. It found no authority for districts to adopt conflicting teacher-employment rules. Its conclusion concerned reemployment contracts governed by the cited provision, rather than every kind of school employment contract.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2008. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a district demand a returning teacher's signature before the statutory date? A: The AG said no. The district had to allow acceptance through April 25 under the 2008 statute.

Q: Did the teacher still need to notify the board in writing? A: Yes. The statute quoted in the opinion required written notice of acceptance to the board by April 25.

Q: What did the statute say if the teacher did not accept by that date? A: It treated failure to notify the board within the time limit as conclusive evidence of rejection.

Background and statutory framework

The request asked whether local districts could impose an earlier deadline than the date in South Carolina's teacher reemployment statute. The AG read the statutory text and decisions treating dates fixed by law as binding. He concluded districts could not shorten the teacher's acceptance period.

Citations and references

Statute: Section 59-25-420.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/may-8-2008/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/rex-j-os-8592-5-8-08-teacher-employment-contract.pdf

Original opinion text

May 8, 2008

The Honorable Jim Rex
State Superintendent of Education
1429 Senate Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Dear Superintendent Rex:
We received your letter addressed to Attorney General Henry McMaster requesting an opinion of this Office concerning “whether a school district is allowed to require a teacher to accept an employment contract prior to April 25.” You state: “the South Carolina Department of Education (Department) has received numerous inquiries from the public questioning the legality of some school districts in South Carolina requiring teachers to execute employment contracts several months prior to the statutory deadline of April 25.” Law/Analysis Section 59-25-420 of the South Carolina Code (2004) is located among the provisions of the Code governing teacher employment and dismissal. As referenced in your letter, section 59-25-420, entitled “Teacher required to notify board of acceptance; opportunity for hearing if not reemployed,” provides: Any teacher who is reemployed by written notification pursuant to § 59-25- 410 shall by April twenty-fifth first notify the board of trustees in writing of his acceptance of the contract. Failure on the part of the teacher to notify the board of acceptance within the specified time limit shall be conclusive evidence of the teacher's rejection of the contract. Any teacher, receiving a notice that he will not be reemployed for the ensuing year, shall have the same notice and opportunity for a hearing provided in subsequent sections for teachers dismissed for cause during the school year. Based on this statute, you ask whether or not individual districts may adopt an earlier deadline than the April 25 date provided in this provision.

The Honorable Jim Rex
Page 2
May 8, 2008

“The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature.” State v. Pittman, 373 S.C. 527, 561, 647 S.E.2d 144, 161 (2007). Furthermore, according to our Supreme Court, “[w]here the language is plain and unambiguous, and conveys a clear and definite meaning, the rules of statutory interpretation are not needed and the Court has no right to impose another meaning.” Pee Dee Reg’l Transp. v. S.C. Second Injury Fund, 375 S.C. 60, 62, 650 S.E.2d 464, 465 (2007). In the case of section 59-25-420, this statute clearly provides that teachers must notify the board of trustees of their acceptance of reemployment. Although this provision appears to place a mandate on teachers, we do not find any provision among those in chapter 25 of title 59 allowing school districts to veer outside of these provision and establish their own conflicting regulations governing teacher employment. Furthermore, our courts, when presented with situations in which a statute provides a date, have held that the courts do not have the authority to change a date fixed by statute. See Infinger v. Edwards, 268 S.C. 375, 234 S.E.2d 214 (1977) (holding the statutory deadline provided for choosing a form of county government as provided in the Home Rule Act is mandatory and cannot be judicially extended); State v. Williams, 157 S.C. 290, 295, 154 S.E. 164, 166 (1930) (holding courts cannot change the dated of an election, which is fixed by statute). See also, Op. S.C. Atty. Gen., April 11, 2006 (finding the date by which local governments must adopt a specific version of the Vested Rights Act binding on local governments). Thus, we are of the opinion that not only must teachers notify their respective board of trustees of their acceptance of reemployment by April 25, but boards of trustees must allow teachers to accept a reemployment contract until April 25. Accordingly, we do not believe a school district may require a teacher to accept an employment contract prior to April 25. Very truly yours, Henry McMaster Attorney General

By:

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

______
Robert D. Cook
Deputy Attorney General

Cydney M. Milling
Assistant Attorney General