Harrah Independent School District v. Martin

Harrah Independent School District v. Martin, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on February 26, 1979, ruled (9–0) that an Oklahoma school board did not deny a teacher her Fourteenth Amendment due process or equal protection rights when it fired her for refusing to take continuing-education courses.

Mary Jane Martin was hired by the Harrah (Oklahoma) Independent School District in 1969, and she subsequently refused to comply with the school board’s continuing-education policy to obtain five hours of college credit every three years; failure to do so would result in a forfeiture of salary increases. After Martin’s contract was renewed for the 1973–74 school year, the Oklahoma legislature mandated salary increases for teachers regardless of whether they fulfilled the continuing-education requirements. Not able to withhold salary increases as a penalty, the school board then required Martin to obtain the five hours of college credit in a seven-month period, or her contract for 1974–75 would not be renewed. Oklahoma statutes at that time required renewal of a tenured contract unless the teacher was guilty of willful neglect of duty, among other grounds. After Martin stated that she would not comply with the continuing-education requirements, the school board voted against renewing her contract, citing willful neglect of duty. Martin requested a hearing, but the proceeding failed to change the board’s decision.

Martin then filed suit, alleging that she had been denied protected liberty and property interests without due process and equal protection, all in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was originally handled in state courts, but, after failing to find relief, Martin brought action in federal court. The school district prevailed in a district court. However, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in favour of Martin. It held that the school board’s action was “arbitrary and capricious,” and it “violated Fourteenth Amendment notions of fairness embodied in the Due Process Clause generally and the Equal Protection Clause particularly.”

Discover how ordinary objects work, and expand your understanding of the familiar.

SIGN UP

" height="20" alt="HEW Logo">

Thank you for signing up!"

Back to homepage

By clicking "Sign Up", you consent to the Britannica Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Britannica Quiz

All-American History Quiz

The case then moved to the U.S. Supreme Court. It found that Martin had received procedural due process. She had been told that her contract would not be renewed, and she had been granted a hearing, at which she was represented by an attorney. In addition, the court held that Martin had not been denied substantive due process. The court found that the board’s decision not to renew the contract—after providing Martin the opportunity to fulfill the requirement—was reasonable once the Oklahoma legislature removed the penalty of salary-increase denial.

Consistent with previous rulings, the court also rejected Martin’s equal protection claim. It found that the sanction of not renewing her contract was rationally related to the board’s objective of enforcing the continuing-education requirement. The court was satisfied that the board’s enforcement of its policy was consistent, not selective. Further, the court recognized that school officials obviously have a legitimate interest in teacher qualifications. The court thus concluded that school boards can easily justify continuing-education requirements to ensure that teachers stay current with the latest research and techniques in education. The Tenth Circuit’s decision was reversed.