## Facts

- Deborah L. Sandoval was a tenured Spanish teacher employed by Unified School District No. 446 in Independence, Kansas, beginning in 2000.
- In February 2008, the high school principal informed Sandoval that he would recommend nonrenewal of her contract for the 2008–2009 school year, with administrative and board support.
- Before and during a March 10, 2008 board meeting, Sandoval’s union representative negotiated with the District about a possible resignation and separation package, relaying proposals between Sandoval and the board.
- Negotiations addressed paid leave, insurance coverage, and a potential lump-sum payment tied to qualification for disability benefits; the District asserted Sandoval accepted the board’s final terms through the union representative, while Sandoval asserted discussions were not final.
- The District had a policy requiring resignations to be submitted in writing, and the board minutes from March 10 did not reflect board action accepting a resignation.
- After the meeting, the superintendent emailed a draft written settlement agreement; the parties exchanged proposed revisions, but Sandoval did not sign and later told the union she wanted to pursue statutory due-process procedures instead.
- The District proceeded with nonrenewal; Sandoval continued teaching through the school year.
- In April 2008, the board adopted a resolution of nonrenewal and reserved the right to enforce the alleged March 10 agreement.
- The District filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that an enforceable oral agreement existed and that Sandoval thereby waived statutory due-process rights.

## Issues

1. Whether the March 10 negotiations constituted an enforceable oral contract for resignation and separation, or were preliminary negotiations contingent on a later written agreement.
2. Whether, if an oral agreement existed, Sandoval waived statutory due-process rights afforded to tenured teachers facing nonrenewal.
3. Whether the objective manifestations of intent (including board policy requiring written resignations and the absence of recorded board action) showed a present intent to be bound before execution of a written document.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the district court and the Court of Appeals.
- The Court held the District failed to prove by substantial competent evidence that the parties formed an enforceable oral contract at the March 10 meeting.
- The Court characterized the communications as preliminary negotiations within a process aimed at producing a written settlement agreement.
- Because no enforceable contract existed, Sandoval did not waive her statutory due-process rights associated with nonrenewal.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s conclusions.

## Legal Principles

- Contract formation requires mutual assent to essential terms and an objective, present intent to be bound.
- When parties contemplate a later written instrument, whether an earlier agreement is binding depends on manifested intent; preliminary negotiations are not enforceable absent agreement on essential terms and intent to be bound immediately.
- A school district’s formal policies and records (including requirements for written resignations and board minutes reflecting official action) are relevant to whether a binding resignation agreement was formed.
- Waiver of statutory due-process rights must be knowing and voluntary and cannot be inferred from negotiations absent a valid, enforceable agreement.

## Conclusion

The Kansas Supreme Court concluded that the District did not establish an enforceable oral resignation and separation contract arising from board-meeting negotiations conducted through a union representative, particularly where the parties proceeded toward a written settlement, district policy required written resignation, and no formal board action was recorded; without a valid contract, the teacher did not waive statutory due-process protections for contract nonrenewal.


Unified Sch. Dist. No. 446, Indep., Kan. v. Sandoval, 295 Kan. 278 (2012)