21 Cal. App. 5th 735
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Karen Hayes was principal at Margarita Middle School; in March 2015 the District superintendent delivered a signed "Notice of Possible Release and Reassignment" under Educ. Code § 44951 and placed her on paid administrative leave pending investigation.
- The March 11 notice informed Hayes she "may be released" and could be reassigned to teaching for the 2015–2016 year; Hayes signed it.
- The Board voted in closed session on March 17 to adopt the superintendent's recommendation to release and reassign Hayes without cause effective June 30, 2015.
- Hayes sued by writ of mandate seeking reinstatement, arguing (1) the March 11 notice was untimely because the Board had not preapproved it before the March 15 statutory deadline, (2) the reassignment was actually for-cause (entitling her to due process), and (3) the paid administrative leave was unauthorized.
- The trial court denied the writ; on appeal the court accepted the trial court’s factual findings and reviewed statutory interpretation de novo, ultimately affirming.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a § 44951 "March 15" notice must be preapproved by the school board | Hayes: notice invalid because Board did not approve before March 15 | District: statute requires only that employee receive or sign written notice by March 15; superintendent may issue notice | Held: Board preapproval before March 15 not required; notice timely and effective |
| Whether the reassignment was pretextual (i.e., actually "for cause") entitling Hayes to due process | Hayes: District used no-cause procedure as pretext to avoid for-cause hearing and deny due process | District: properly used no-cause reassignment based on loss of confidence; principals hold no protected right to administrative post | Held: substantial evidence supports good-faith no-cause reassignment; no due-process protections for no-cause removal |
| Authority to place Hayes on paid administrative leave and whether leave was unlawful without Board approval | Hayes: superintendent lacked authority and leave was pretextual | District: superintendent has delegated authority; investigation justified leave; Board was aware | Held: superintendent had authority; leave lawful and supported by need to investigate |
| Compliance with personnel-records and transfer statutes (e.g., §§ 44031, 44896) | Hayes: District placed derogatory materials without proper notice/failed to provide statutorily required statements/evaluations | District: provided opportunity to comment; no § 44896 request made; not released for incompetence | Held: District complied with § 44031 notice; Hayes failed to show § 44896 entitlement |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Modesto City High School Dist., 19 Cal.3d 620 (Cal. 1977) (principals have no property interest in continuing administrative assignment)
- Ellerbroek v. Saddleback Valley Unified School Dist., 125 Cal.App.3d 348 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) (interpreting pre-1993 statutory language regarding board authorization of preliminary notices)
- Council of Directors and Supervisors v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., 35 Cal.App.3d 147 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973) (superintendent-authorized preliminary notices upheld)
- Hoyme v. Board of Education, 107 Cal.App.3d 449 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980) (no-cause reassignments do not entitle administrator to a hearing)
- Agosto v. Board of Trustees of Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College Dist., 189 Cal.App.4th 330 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (standard of review for writ proceedings; resolve evidentiary conflicts for prevailing party)