Leonard v. Board of Education

California Court of Appeal Jan 17, 1940 No. Civ. 10945Published

Before: Sturtevant

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff's position was properly abolished and that she waived her right to statutory notice of dismissal by requesting that the Board of Education refrain from serving formal written notice.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff was a probationary employee entitled to statutory notice of dismissal under the School Code.
Whether the plaintiff waived her right to receive formal written notice of the discontinuation of her services.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Section 5.681 was enacted solely for the benefit of probationary employees. Anyone may waive the advantage ‘ of a law intended solely for his benefit.”

“She clearly waived the service of the written notice mentioned in said statute.”

[596]

STURTEVANT, J.

The plaintiff applied to the trial court for a writ of

mandamus

commanding the defendants to reinstate her as vice-president and dean of women of the San Francisco Junior College and to pay her $416.66, the amount of her compensation for the month of July, 1937. The trial court denied the application. From its judgment the plaintiff has appealed.

The plaintiff contends that she was a probationary employee and that the defendants attempted to discharge her without giving her due notice. The defendants controvert both propositions. The trial court made findings that were very full and complete. They are as follows:

“I. It is true as alleged in paragraph I of the amended petition that the petitioner was regularly employed by the Board of Education of the San Francisco Unified School District and the City and County of San Francisco, State of California as an employee in the position of vice president and dean of women at the San Francisco Junior College, and in such capacity properly and efficiently performed each and every duty required of her.

“It is not true as alleged in paragraph I of the amended petition that she was employed as a probationary employee.

“II. It is true as alleged in paragraph II of the amended petition that the respondents C. Harold Caulfield, Mrs. Edwin R. Sheldon, Philip Lee Bush, Charles A. Derry, Richard E. Doyle, Mrs. Lloyd W. Dinkelspiel and William F. Benedict are the duly appointed, elected, qualified and acting commissioners and members of the Board of Education of the San Francisco Unified School District of the State of California and as such constitute the Board of Education of the San Francisco Unified School District.

‘ ‘ III. It is true as alleged in paragraph III of the amended petition that during all of the times therein mentioned, petitioner has been and now is the holder of legal certificates, towit: Certificate of administration and a general secondary certificate in full force and effect and on file in the office of the Superintendent of Schools in the County of San Francisco by virtue of which petitioner was appointed to the position of vice president and dean of women of the San Francisco Junior College in July, 1935, and has served in said capacity until June 30, 1937; and that during said time said

Leonard v. Board of Education

AI Brief

STURTEVANT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief