206 Cal. App. 4th 170
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- McIntyre, a certificated teacher, worked for the Sonoma Valley Unified School District from 2006 to 2009 in temporary positions.
- For 2006-2007 she was classified as a long-term temporary employee under Education Code §44920, and was nonreelected in March 2007.
- For 2007-2008 she again served as a temporary employee under §44920, with a March 2008 nonreelection notice issued.
- In 2008-2009 she started as temporary, was reclassified to second-year probationary status in October 2008, and was nonreelected for 2009-2010.
- McIntyre argued the District’s classifications violated the statute by exceeding temporary hires and by failing to grant probationary/permanent status, seeking mandamus reinstatement.
- The trial court and appellate court held the District properly classified McIntyre as temporary for all three years, and that she had no right to permanent status based on the statutory scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was McIntyre properly classified as temporary under §44920 in 2006-2007? | McIntyre contends §44920 requires probationary status due to consecutive temporary service. | District complied with §44920, using temporary status to replace a teacher on leave. | Temporary classification proper; no probationary status created. |
| Can McIntyre rely on §44920/§44918/§44917 to convert 2007-2008 service to probationary status? | Two consecutive temporary years should yield probationary credit. | Statutes require a vacant position and other conditions; no vacancy here; §44918/§44917 do not directly grant automatic probationary status. | No automatic probationary status; McIntyre not entitled to probationary designation in 2007-2008. |
| Did the district’s 2008-2009 reclassification to second-year probationary status create a guaranteed reelection right? | Restatement of status should yield permanent/tenured rights. | Second-year probationaries are subject to nonreelection; rights cease if timely nonreelected. | District correctly terminated as a second-year probationary employee upon timely nonreelection. |
| Did the District’s overall use of temporary hires violate §44920 by surpassing leaves, entitling McIntyre to permanent status? | There were more temporaries than leaves, violating §44920. | Record supported District’s compliance; burden on McIntyre to prove violation; contradicting evidence upheld by trial court. | Trial court’s finding that temporary numbers did not exceed leaves was upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School Dist., 29 Cal.4th 911 (Cal. 2003) (probationary/permanent status interact with reelection rights)
- Bakersfield Elementary Teachers Assn. v. Bakersfield City School Dist., 145 Cal.App.4th 1260 (Cal. App. 2006) (classifications and protections for certificated staff)
- Santa Barbara Federation of Teachers v. Santa Barbara High Sch. Dist., 76 Cal.App.3d 223 (Cal. App. 1977) (temporary vs. permanent status in long-term leave replacements)
- Vasquez v. Happy Valley Union School Dist., 159 Cal.App.4th 969 (Cal. App. 2008) (temporary/long-term replacement rules and due process limits)
- California Teachers Assn. v. Mendocino Unified School Dist., 92 Cal.App.4th 522 (Cal. App. 2001) (limits on dismissal and procedural protections for probationary vs permanent)
- Shamblin v. Brattain, 44 Cal.3d 474 (Cal. Supreme Court 1988) (credibility in conflicting evidence; appellate deferential review of trial findings)
- Lungren v. Deukmejian, 45 Cal.3d 727 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 1988) (plain meaning governs statutory interpretation)
- Taylor v. Board of Trustees, 36 Cal.3d 500 (Cal. 1984) (legislative scheme described as a 'crazy-quilt'; judicial caution urged)
- Santa Barbara v. Centinela Valley Secondary Teachers Assn., 37 Cal.App.3d 35 (Cal. App. 1974) (statutory framework for temporary vs permanent status)