Jeremy VanDerKern, a cinematography teacher at Burr and Burton Academy, an independent school in Vermont, sued the School’s Board of Trustees after it chose not to renew his contract for a second year. VanDerKern was hired for the 2022-23 school year under a one-year agreement that incorporated the School’s collective “Master Agreement” with its teachers and stated that all employment conditions would be governed by that agreement and as required by law.
Under the Master Agreement, teachers in their first three years are considered “transitional teachers.” Those teachers are not eligible for the grievance and arbitration process available to more senior teachers, but the agreement stated that a transitional teacher “may appeal a non-renewal of contract under the provisions of Title 16, V.S.A., Section 1752 b.” Section 1752 is a Vermont statute that applies only to public school teachers and sets out detailed procedures for notice, hearings, and appeals when a public school teacher’s contract is not renewed.
At the end of the school year, Burr and Burton informed VanDerKern that his contract would not be renewed due to a “precipitous decline in interest” in the cinematography program. Believing he was entitled to a hearing under §
1752, he filed a grievance and requested a hearing, which the School denied. The headmaster explained that the grievance procedure did not apply to transitional teachers and that §1752 applied only to public schools. VanDerKern then attempted to pursue arbitration, but the arbitrator ruled that he had no right to arbitrate under the Master Agreement. Afterward, VanDerKern brought suit in state court, alleging that the School violated §1752 and breached his contract by failing to follow proper procedures and by lacking just cause for nonrenewal.
On the statutory claim, the Court agreed with the School that the statute itself does not apply to Burr and Burton as a private school. The Vermont nonrenewal statute governs teachers in public schools, not independent schools, and references procedures and roles that exist only in public school districts. However, the Court noted that by including §1752 in its Master Agreement, the School may have promised to use those same procedures as a matter of contract. Because a private employer can voluntarily agree to follow a statutory framework even if it is not legally required to do so, the Court found that Mr. VanDerKern’s claim was plausible enough to move forward. It allowed him to amend his complaint to clarify that his right to a hearing arose from the contract’s reference to the statute, not from the statute itself.
The Court also allowed Mr. VanDerKern’s breach of contract claim to proceed. The Master Agreement stated that contracts could not be denied renewal except for “just and sufficient cause,” listing examples such as incompetence, misconduct, failure to perform duties, or reduction in staff. Burr and Burton’s stated reason was declining student interest in the cinematography program, which did not clearly fall under any of those categories. The Court noted that the School quickly advertised and filled the cinematography position after letting Mr. VanDerKern go, and therefore its decision could not reasonably be viewed as a “reduction in staff.” If the reason was unrelated to performance or staffing, a jury could conclude that it did not meet the cause standard required by the contract.
The court invited Mr. VanDerKern to amend his pleadings and proceed to discovery.
VanDerKern v. Bd. of Trs. of Burr & Burton Acad., 2025 Vt. Super. LEXIS 250; 2025 LX 448698.
Note: This case serves as a cautionary tale that private schools should carefully review the language in their employment agreements and handbooks. By incorporating public school laws or detailed procedural promises, a school can unintentionally create new contractual rights for employees that go beyond what the law requires.