Griffin v. Los Angeles City High School District

California Court of Appeal Jul 9, 1942 No. Civ. 13701Published

Before: Wood (W. J.)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that school principals do not possess tenure under state law and that the district's internal rules regarding hearings for certificated employees do not apply to principals.

Issues

Whether a school principal is entitled to tenure under the California School Code.
Whether the Board of Education's rules regarding hearings for certificated employees apply to school principals.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It has been held that tenure was not given to principals by the state-wide tenure law.”

“The action of the board of education in adopting a rule providing for hearings of charges against certificated employees cannot be construed as giving tenure to principals, who are not accorded tenure by the general law.”

“There is nothing in the rule which gives a principal, who has not been accorded tenure, a right to demand a hearing before any committee referred to in the rule.”

WOOD (W. J.), J.

In this proceeding petitioner asked the lower court to issue a writ of mandate commanding respondent high school district and the Board of Education of the city of Los Angeles to reinstate her as principal in one of the high schools of respondent district. The trial court sustained a demurrer to her petition without leave to amend and petitioner has appealed from the ensuing judgment.

It is alleged in the petition that petitioner for more than 20 years was successfully employed as a principal in the high schools of the respondent district, her last work in that capacity having been performed throughout the school year 1940-41 and that during this entire period her work was not criticized

[351]

by any superior; that on or about May 2, 1941, the respondent board of education took action by which it proceeded to “demote” her to the position of a high school teacher; that her salary as principal for the school year 1940-41 was $5,100 per year and that other high school principals are being paid the same salaries for the school year 1941-42 as for the school year 1940-41. In addition to asking restoration to her position as principal, petitioner asked for payment of her salary as such principal for the months of the school year 1941-42. She attached to her petition a copy of a rule of the board of education which she claims afforded her the right of a hearing before her assignment to the position of high school teacher and contends that she was improperly denied a hearing before action was taken by the board.

It is conceded that petitioner has not held a city certificate and that her petition does not come within the ruling of

Kennedy

Board of Education,

82 Cal. 483 [22 Pac. 1042]. In 1921 the Legislature enacted a state-wide teachers’ tenure law, which was so amended in 1927 as to provide that “no person employed in an administrative or supervisory position requiring certification qualifications shall be classified as a permanent employee other than as a classroom teacher.” It has been held that tenure was not given to principals by the state-wide tenure law.

Griffin v. Los Angeles City High School District

AI Brief

WOOD (W. J.), J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief