204 Cal. App. 4th 446
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- STA sued on behalf of nine nine section 44909-hired teachers laid off by Stockton Unified at end of 2008-2009 year.
- Issue: whether section 44909 hires are probationary or temporary; termination rules depend on classification.
- Agreements labeled these positions as temporary; term dates end May 29, 2009, under a less-than-full-year term.
- District issued precautionary layoff notices in March 2009 and sought to include temporary employees in layoff proceedings.
- ALJ initially allowed temporary status for layoff purposes; trial court denied writ; on appeal court reversed.
- Court held: if a section 44909 position lasts for the term of the categorically funded project/contract, it may be temporary; otherwise default to probationary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 44909 hires are probationary or temporary | STA asserts 44909 hires are probationary by statute. | District argues 44909 hires are temporary due to contract-written terms. | Temporary only if term matches project/contract; otherwise probationary. |
| Whether 44909 temporary employees may be included in layoff proceedings | Inclusion improper under 44955/44949 for permanent/probationary rights. | ALJ allowed inclusion; notices and hearing procedures apply. | Not supported; 44909 employees not shown to be properly temporary; require probationary/constitutional process. |
| How 44909 impacts termination and reemployment rights | 44918 governs reemployment rights; stricter protections retroactive to 44909 | 44918 references apply; termination at project end mirrors temporary status. | Section 44909 limits termination rights; reemployment and seniority follow temporary/provisional framework when applicable. |
| Whether evidence proved the employees were terminated at end of a categorically funded program | District failed to prove program expiration or applicable categorically funded project. | Evidence suggested QEIA or similar funding; alleged reductions. | No proof; must treat as probationary; reverse judgment and remand for reclassification and damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bakersfield Elementary Teachers Assn. v. Bakersfield City School Dist., 145 Cal.App.4th 1260 (Cal.App.4th 2006) (temporary classification tightly construed; default to probationary otherwise)
- Zalac v. Governing Bd. of Ferndale Unified School Dist., 98 Cal.App.4th 838 (Cal.App.4th 2002) (limits on temporary employment and strict interpretation)
- Hart Federation of Teachers v. William S. Hart Union High Sch. Dist., 73 Cal.App.3d 211 (Cal.App.3d 1977) (expiration of contract or categorically funded project governs termination)
- Haase v. San Diego Community College Dist., 113 Cal.App.3d 913 (Cal.App.3d 1980) (temporary classifications are narrowly defined to protect tenure rights)
- Vasquez v. Happy Valley Union School Dist., 159 Cal.App.4th 969 (Cal.App.4th 2008) (section 44909 default to probationary unless statute authorizes temporary)
- California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of Rialto Unified School Dist., 14 Cal.4th 627 (Cal. 1997) (statutory interpretation of teacher employment classifications)
- California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of Golden Valley Unified School Dist., 98 Cal.App.4th 369 (Cal.App.4th 2002) (probationary vs temporary distinctions within Education Code)