California School Employees Ass'n v. Governing Board of East Side Union High School District
122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 799
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Singer, a classified employee in a nonmerit system East Side Union High School District, became permanent in the school-community liaison (SCL) position in May 1990 after a probationary period.
- In March 2008 the District eliminated all SCL positions for lack of funds, notifying Singer of layoff effective June 2008 and placing her on the 39-month reemployment list.
- In August 2008 the District posted eight campus monitor (CM) positions, a lower, 10-month position with duties different from SCL; CM is range 6, SCL was range 18.
- Singer was hired as a CM in September 2008 and was told she would be on a six-month probationary status; in February 2009 she was released from probation in the CM position.
- The petition for mandate sought reinstatement on the theory Singer’s permanent status carried over to the CM position; the District argued she was a probationary employee in CM and had no due process rights.
- The central legal question is whether permanent status in a nonmerit district is tied to a position/class or to the district generally, particularly when an employee is laid off and later reemployed in a different, lower position.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent status transfers when reemployed in a lower position | Singer retains permanent status from the SCL position | Permanent status is attained in a position/class and does not transfer to a new lower position | Permanent status is attained in a position/class and does not transfer to a different lower position; Singer was probationary in CM. |
| Whether the statutory scheme supports reemployment rights but not continuity of permanent status | Statutes imply ongoing permanent status and rights upon reemployment | Statutes tie permanent status to the specific position/class | Statutes support that permanence is in the classification, not in every district-wide term of employment. |
| Whether §45101 definitions contradict the claim of district-wide permanent status | Definition could imply district-wide permanence | Definitions tie permanence to the classification with positions | §45101 defines permanent in terms of the classification and incidents of that classification; it does not support district-wide permanence. |
| Whether Tucker or related cases support reemployment rights over permanence in a new position | Reemployment rights apply to the layoff context | Reemployment rights do not create district-wide permanence in a new position | Tucker concerns reemployment preferences for lower positions and does not establish permanent status transfer. |
Key Cases Cited
- California School Employees Assn. v. King City Union Elementary School Dist., 116 Cal.App.3d 695 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) (addressed laid-off status but not permanence transfer to lower position)
- Tucker v. Grossmont Union High School Dist., 168 Cal.App.4th 640 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (reemployment preference to lower positions; not about permanence transfer)
- California School Employees Assn. v. Governing Bd. of South Orange County Community College Dist., 124 Cal.App.4th 574 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (substitute employees; not decisive on permanence or probation in new position)
- California School Employees Assn. v. Oroville Union High Sch. Dist., 220 Cal.App.3d 289 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (probationary rights of a classified employee)
- California School Employees Assn. v. Compton Unified School Dist., 165 Cal.App.3d 694 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (interpretation of paid service; unrelated to permanence transfer)