Wood v. Los Angeles City School District

California Court of Appeal Apr 23, 1935 No. Civ. 9585Published

Before: Crail

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a teacher employed as a substitute on a day-to-day basis does not accrue the necessary service time to qualify for permanent classification, and that the petitioner failed to meet the statutory requirement of two complete consecutive school years of service.

Issues

Whether a teacher employed as a substitute on a day-to-day basis is entitled to permanent classification under the School Code.
Whether the petitioner satisfied the requirement of being successfully employed for two complete consecutive school years.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is our opinion that a teacher in the substitute class, through her teaching as a substitute merely, does not become entitled to permanent classification.”

“The term employed as used in the California school laws implies and requires services rendered or to be rendered for compensation upon a written contract”

CRAIL, J.

This is an appeal by petitioner from an order of the superior court denying her a writ of mandate. The petitioner contends that she was entitled to a judgment classifying her as a permanent teacher of the respondent school district and to a writ directing respondents to classify her as such and to pay her compensation as such from July

[402]

1, 1932, on the ground that she had been successfully employed by the district for two complete consecutive school years in positions requiring certification qualifications during the three years commencing July 1, 1928. Respondents contend that she had not been so employed.

There are three classifications of such employment under the school laws of California—permanent employment, probationary employment and substitute employment.

(Saxton

Board of Education,

206 Cal. 758, at 761 [276 Pac. 998];

Grigsby

King,

202 Cal. 299 [260 Pac. 789].) Subdivision (e) of section 1609 of the School Code during the period involved read as follows: “Boards of school trustees and city . . . boards of education shall have power, and it shall be their duty; to classify as permanent employees all persons . . . who shall have been successfully employed by the district for two or three complete consecutive school years in positions requiring certification qualifications.” (Respondent district had adopted the two-year probationary period.) This section marks clearly the distinction between permanent employees and probationary employees. Section 5.520 defines substitute employees as ‘those person employed . . .

from day to day for less than one school year,

to fill positions of regularly employed persons absent from service”, etc. The right of a teacher to glassification both as a probationary and substitute employee depends upon her contract of employment; and her right to classification as a permanent employee depends upon her contract and her compliance with the provisions of subdivision (e) of section 1609. Our courts have frequently held that a position of teacher in the public school is created by contract.

Wood v. Los Angeles City School District

AI Brief

CRAIL, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief