JOHNSON v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO IN COUNTY OF DENVER AND COLORADO (2018)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

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)?

(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 of Denver & Colorado, 630 Fed.Appx. 768, 769 (10th Cir. 2015) (unpublished).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, 413 P.3d 711, 713-14 (Colo. Mar. 12, 2018). These answers resolve the appeal. See O’Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524, 531, 94 S.Ct. 740, 38 L.Ed.2d 702 (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.

Carlos F. Lucero, Circuit Judge