WALDO TAYLOR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE DEL NORTE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents.
S.F. No. 24689
Supreme Court of California
July 26, 1984
36 Cal.3d 500
Diane Ross, Kirsten L. Zerger, Raymond L. Hansen and Ramon E. Romero for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Lawrence B. Trygstad and Roberta D. Coyl as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
Thomas S. Owen and Schafer, Cochran, Follett & Owen for Defendants and Respondents.
Roger D. Wolfertz as Amicus Curiae, upon the request of the Supreme Court.
OPINION
GRODIN, J.—Waldo Taylor, a teacher, appeals from a judgment denying his petition for a writ of mandate to compel the Board of Trustees of the Del Norte County Unified School District (the District) et al., to employ him as a probationary certificated employee (i.e., a probationary teacher) and to pay him back salary and benefits. The main issue raised by this case is whether the preferential reemployment rights granted to certain substitute and temporary teachers under
Waldo Taylor holds a masters degree in education and a valid teaching credential authorizing multiple subject instruction in preschool, grades kindergarten through 12, and adult classes. During the 1979-1980 school year, he was employed by the District as a substitute teacher and part-time coach. During this school year, he performed the duties of a certificated teacher less than 60 percent of the time.
Taylor worked as a day-to-day on-call substitute until October 15 of the 1980-1981 school year. On that day, a permanent employee of the District
For the 1981-1982 school year, the District had seven vacant probationary positions.3 Among these was a position teaching seventh and eighth grade language arts at Crescent Elk Junior High. Other positions included teaching fifth grade at Crescent Elk, sixth grade at Crescent Elk, and positions teaching lower grades at other schools in the District. Taylor possessed the appropriate teaching credential to teach in any of the seven vacant positions. In every case, however, the District hired another candidate. The District admitted that, in filling the vacant positions, it gave no preferential hiring right to Taylor, but rather hired whom it felt to be the most qualified applicant for each position.
Taylor sought a writ of mandate to compel the board of trustees of the District to employ him as a probationary teacher and to pay him various back salary benefits. His contention is that he should have been reemployed as a teacher because he was granted preferential reemployment rights under
The
In 1961, the Legislature amended former section 13336 to provide that any substitute teacher “who teaches during one school year for at least 75 percent of the number of days the regular schools of the district were maintained in such school year any class or classes which would have been taught by one person absent from service, shall be deemed to have been a probationary employee during the entire school year in which he so teaches, with the rights and duties of other probationary employees of the district, and shall be deemed to have served a complete school year as a probationary employee.” (Stats. 1961, ch. 1103, § 1, p. 2832, italics added.)
This provision has since been significantly amended a number of times and, in 1976, the entire
The effect of this statutory provision was clear. In the event that a teacher classified as a substitute actually replaced an absent teacher for 75 percent or more of the school year, the “substitute” was automatically transformed into a probationary employee, regardless of the district‘s failure to classify him as such. Section 13336.5 (Stats. 1963, ch. 1964, § 1, p. 4043) reenacted this provision in substantially identical language. In Centinela Valley Secondary Teachers Assn. v. Centinela Valley Union High Sch. Dist. (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 35, 38, the court observed: “The obvious purpose of [section 13336.5] is to prevent school boards and administrators from abusing their discretion in hiring substitute teachers so as to circumvent the tenure rights of teachers.”
But implicit in the provisions of section 13336.5 was a significant problem. This problem was alluded to in Centinela, supra, 37 Cal.App.3d 35 at pages 41-42. When a substitute replaced an absent teacher for 75 percent or more of the school year, the substitute became a probationary employee and was automatically entitled to reemployment. But presuming that the absent teacher was absent for legally permissible reasons, that teacher had the right to return to his or her position. Thus, the school district could easily be faced with the necessity of employing two teachers where only one position was available. To avoid this dilemma, school districts would have to fill long-term vacancies on a day-to-day basis with various substitute teachers. As the court in Centinela pointed out, this approach could well prove detrimental to the welfare of the students. (Id., at pp. 40-41.) Perhaps
This provision allowed school districts to replace employees absent due to long-term illness or on long-term leave with teachers classified as temporaries. As temporary employees, such teachers would not be affected by the 75-percent provision contained in section 13336.5, applicable only to substitutes. To make this distinction even clearer, the Legislature explicitly excluded section 13337.3 temporary teachers from the benefits of section 13336.5 by providing that the former statute operated “[n]otwithstanding the provisions of” the latter.
In 1973, however, the Legislature amended both statutes. These amendments effected significant changes in the operation of section 13336.5 and it is therefore appropriate to consider the section‘s legislative history in some detail. As originally introduced, Senate Bill No. 368, 1973-1974 Regular Session, merely extended the 75-percent provision of section 13336.5 to apply to all school certificated employees, rather than only to teachers. The bill was amended several times prior to passage, however, and these amendments are highly relevant to the present controversy.
The first amendment (Sen. Amend. to Sen. Bill No. 368 (1973-1974 Reg. Sess.) May 21, 1973) added temporary employees to the coverage of the statute, and at the same time deleted the language providing automatic probationary status. Instead, the amended bill provided that “[a]ny such [substitute or temporary] employee shall be reemployed for the following school year to fill any vacant positions in the school district for which the employee is certified.” (Italics added.) “Vacant position” was defined to mean “a position in which the employee is qualified to serve and which is not filled by a permanent or probationary employee. It shall not include a position which would be filled by a permanent or probationary employee except for the fact that such employee is on leave.”
The final preenactment revision of Senate Bill No. 368 occurred in the Assembly on June 28, 1973. On that date, an amended version of section 13337.3 was added to the bill as section 1.5. The single change this amendment made in the language of section 13337.3 was to eliminate the reference to section 13336.5 in the introductory clause, “Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 13336, 13336.5, and 13337.”
Senate Bill No. 368 was enacted in the Statutes of 1973, chapter 279, pages 674-676. As the foregoing legislative history makes abundantly clear, the Legislature intended that the provisions of the amended section 13336.5 should apply to section 13337.3 temporary teachers. In the 1976 reorganization of the
Generally, for a writ of mandate to issue, two basic requirements are essential, namely, a clear, present and usually ministerial duty on the part of the defendant and a clear, present and beneficial right in plaintiff to performance of that duty. (
Reemployment of temporary employees eligible under the terms of
As the District correctly points out, prior to 1975 the operative language of section 13336.5 (the predecessor statute to
As defined by the statute, “qualified to serve” means “the possession of an appropriate credential, plus completion of appropriate academic preparation or experience in the subject matter in which the vacant position occurs.” The District argues that the inclusion of this language in the 1975 amendment indicated a legislative intent to endow school districts with “discretion to select the individuals who will best serve the needs of the students for appropriate vacancies.” (Italics added.) This contention is simply wrong.
As originally introduced, Assembly Bill No. 555 would have abolished the right of a substitute or temporary employee to be reemployed as a probationary employee as provided by section 13336.5 altogether. Instead, the bill would have provided only that eligible 75 percent employees who had not been reemployed as probationary employees would be reemployed as substitutes or temporaries. The bill was amended twice prior to passage, however, and this original feature was quickly eradicated. Rather, the Assembly inserted the “qualified to serve” language. It is noteworthy that, initially, the definition of “qualified to serve” required “possession of an appropriate credential plus completion of appropriate academic preparation and experience in the subject matter in which the vacant position occurs.” (Assem. Amend. to Assem. Bill No. 555 (1975-1976 Reg. Sess.) Apr. 17, 1975, italics added.) Prior to enactment, though, the definition was amended to substitute ”or experience in the subject matter. . . .” (Assem. Amend. to Assem. Bill No. 555 (1975-1976 Reg. Sess.) Apr. 29, 1975.)
In light of these legislative amendments, the District‘s argument that it has complete discretion to choose the best among qualified candidates, regardless of the reemployment rights assured by
Since Taylor possessed the appropriate credential to teach in any of the vacant positions, the District could be released from its statutory obligation to reemploy him only if he lacked both appropriate academic preparation and experience in the subject matter for all of the available vacancies.
The District contends that this interpretation of the statute deprives school authorities of the discretion necessary to improve educational quality by selecting the most qualified teachers. The teacher organizations supporting Taylor‘s position contend that, on the contrary, this interpretation operates to provide an incentive to qualified teachers to make themselves available for temporary appointments, in the hope of obtaining permanent positions. We are not called upon to resolve this policy debate. It is apparent that the
The judgment of the trial court is therefore reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Kaus, J., Reynoso, J., and Lucas, J., concurred.
BIRD, C. J., Concurring and Dissenting. — I agree with the majority‘s conclusion that Taylor was entitled to a reemployment preference under
Taylor has demonstrated his right to employment as a probationary certified employee. Therefore, I would issue the writ.
MOSK, J.—I dissent. Both parties agree that it is difficult to reconcile sections of the
As between the opinion of the majority and the contrary views of the Court of Appeal, I find the latter preferable. When the school board is able to select the best qualified teacher for a class assignment, rather than be compelled to accept one who merely possesses a qualifying credential, the educational interests of the pupils are better served. That should be the test.
Though written more than four decades ago, the following word of caution applies equally today: “The whole system of legislation regulating the educational machinery is based upon the consideration of the welfare and best interests of the children. . . . [T]enure in office and other rights of teachers were also properly considered and regulated, but the fundamental purpose and primary object of the legislature was the consideration of the welfare of the children. This fundamental purpose must not be lost sight of by courts in the construction of legislation dealing with our educational system.” (Knickerbocker v. Redlands H. Sch. Dist. (1942) 49 Cal.App.2d 722, 727.)
To that end, I adopt as my dissent the Court of Appeal opinion prepared by Presiding Justice Kline and signed by Justices Miller and Smith. The opinion follows in full:
Waldo Taylor, a teacher, appeals from a judgment denying his petition for a writ of mandate to compel the Board of Trustees of Del Norte County Unified School District (District), et al., to employ him as a probationary certificated employee (i.e., probationary teacher)¹ and to pay him various back salary benefits. Taylor‘s contention, in essence, is that he should have been employed as a teacher because he was granted preferential employment rights by
The relevant facts are set out in a “Stipulation Regarding Facts” which states that Taylor worked for the District as a “temporary” teacher for 75 percent of the 1980-1981 school year. “Taylor was classified as a temporary employee because he was replacing a certificated employee who was on leave of absence.” The District had seven vacant probationary teacher positions for the 1981-1982 school year. Taylor applied for the positions and possessed the “appropriate credential.” He was not hired. In filling the positions “the District gave no preferential hiring right to . . . Taylor, but rather hired whom it felt to be the most qualified applicant for each position.”
In addition, it is undisputed that during the 1980-1981 school year the number of “temporary” teachers in the District did not exceed the number of teachers who were on leave of absence or extended sick leave.
The various general categories of teachers and the relative job security status of each was described by the Supreme Court in Balen v. Peralta Junior College Dist. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 821, 826, as follows: “The essence of the statutory classification system is that continuity of service restricts the power to terminate employment which the institution‘s governing body would normally possess. Thus, the Legislature has prevented the arbitrary dismissal of employees with positions of a settled and continuing nature, i.e., permanent and probationary teachers, by requiring notice and hearing before termination. Substitute and temporary teachers, on the other hand, fill the short range needs of a school district, and may be summarily released absent an infringement of constitutional or contractual rights. Because the substitute and temporary classifications are not guaranteed procedural due process by statute, they are narrowly defined by the Legislature, and should be strictly interpreted.” (Citations and fns. omitted.)
The narrow definition of the substitute and temporary classifications called for by Balen is further compelled because the
It then states: “Any such employee shall be reemployed for the following school year to fill any vacant positions in the school district for which the employee is certified and qualified to serve.”
Utilizing language identical to that set forth in
In the present case it is undisputed that Taylor qualifies as a temporary teacher under
It is a basic rule of statutory construction that a court “should ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law.” (Select Base Materials v. Board of Equalization (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 645, as quoted in Moyer v. Worker‘s Compensation Appeals Board (1973) 10 Cal.3d 222, 230.) A literal construction will not prevail over one which accords with the obvious purpose of the statute. (In re Kernan (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 488, 499.) Moreover, “Once a particular legislative intent has been ascertained, it must be given effect ‘“even though it may not be consistent with the strict letter of the statute.“‘” (Dickey v. Raisin Proration Zone No. 1 (1944) 24 Cal.2d 796, 802, quoted in Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259.) Additionally, “the various parts of a statutory enactment must be harmonized by considering the particular clause or section in the context of the statutory framework as a whole.” (Select Base Materials, supra, 51 Cal.2d 640, as quoted in Moyer v. Worker‘s Compensation Appeals Board, supra, 10 Cal.3d at pp. 230-231.)
In determining the Legislature‘s intent we must also keep in mind that “‘[w]here a statute, with reference to one subject contains a given provision, the omission of such provision from a similar statute concerning a related subject is significant to show that a different intention existed.‘” (City of Port Hueneme v. City of Oxnard (1959) 52 Cal.2d 385, 395.) Specific provisions are paramount over general ones. (
Applying the foregoing rules we hold that
Taylor has misconstrued the relevant
For the foregoing reasons, and giving credence to every word of each section and meaning to the omission of certain words from the various sections,² we conclude that the system intended by the Legislature is as follows.
Extrinsic factors additionally persuade us that the Legislature intended the interpretation we adopt. The first such factor is that such interpretation is both reasonable and practical. (See Stewart v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 172, 179 and cases there cited.) In the situation regulated by
Further, our holding evenly balances two of the policies sought to be advanced by the statutes in question: “[T]he general policy of the teacher classification system to afford teachers some measure of employment security. . . . [and] the policy of the law authorizing temporary employment of teachers to permit flexibility in teacher assignments and to prevent overstaffing.” (Kalina v. San Mateo Community College District (1982) 132 Cal.App.3d 48, 54.) Teachers who fill a permanently vacant position for a long term are provided a rehiring preference without material prejudice to the ability of school districts to flexibly select among all applicants for other positions. Our construction of the statutory scheme thus gives effect to all relevant provisions, “leaving no part superfluous or inoperative, void or insignificant and so that one section will not destroy another.” (Stewart v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance, supra, 80 Cal.App.3d at p. 179.)
Moreover, we have also been mindful that, as noted in Centinela Valley Secondary Teachers Assn. v. Centinela Valley Union High School Dist. (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 35, 42, “. . . in construing legislation dealing with the educational systems, courts must not lose sight of the welfare of the children which is the fundamental purpose of such legislation.” Centinela, which involved the predecessor statutes to
The result we achieve is, in our view, entirely consistent with decisional law to the effect that
The judgment should be affirmed.
Broussard, J., concurred.
Notes
“Any such employee shall be reemployed for the following school year to fill any vacant positions in the school district for which the employee is certified and qualified to serve.
“For purposes of this section, ‘qualified to serve’ shall be defined to mean the possession of an appropriate credential plus completion of appropriate academic preparation or experience in the subject matter in which the vacant position occurs.
“For purposes of this section, ‘vacant position’ means a position in which the employee is qualified to serve and which is not filled by a permanent or probationary employee. It shall not include a position which would be filled by a permanent or probationary employee except for the fact that such employee is on leave.
“Any employee classified as a substitute or temporary employee who has rendered the service required to qualify under this section but who has not been reemployed due to a lack of a vacant position shall be reemployed as a substitute or temporary employee for the following school year.
“In any district in which appointments are made from eligible lists established by examination, special eligible lists shall be established at the end of each school year which consist of the names of those employees who met the requirements of this section. Such lists shall be in rank order based on the final scores established by examination. Such lists shall be valid for at least two school years. Offers for appointments to probationary status during the ensuing school year shall be made from such special eligible lists established by examination; provided, however, permanent or probationary employees terminated during the preceding 39 months pursuant to Section 44955, shall be given priority in employment over persons on such special eligible lists.
“Those employees classified as substitutes, and who are employed to serve in an on-call status to replace absent regular employees on a day-to-day basis shall not be entitled to the benefits of this section.
“Permanent and probationary employees subjected to a reduction in force pursuant to Section 44955 shall, during the period of preferred right to reappointment, have prior rights to any vacant position in which they are qualified to serve superior to those rights hereunder afforded to temporary and substitute personnel who have become probationary employees pursuant to the provisions of this section.
“This section shall not apply to any school district in which the average daily attendance is in excess of 400,000.”
“Any person employed for one complete school year as a temporary employee shall, if reemployed for the following school year in a vacant position requiring certification qualifications, be classified by the governing board as a probationary employee and the previous year‘s employment as a temporary employee shall be deemed one year‘s employment as a probationary employee for purposes of acquiring permanent status.
“For purposes of this section ‘vacant position’ means a position in which the employee is qualified to serve and which is not filled by a permanent or probationary employee. It shall not include a position which would be filled by a permanent or probationary employee except for the fact that such employee is on leave.”
“Any person employed for one complete school year as a temporary employee shall, if reemployed for the following school year in a position requiring certification qualifications, be classified by the governing board as a probationary employee and the previous year‘s employment as a temporary employee shall be deemed one year‘s employment as a probationary employee for purposes of acquiring permanent status.”