Johnson v. Taft School District

California Court of Appeal Mar 2, 1937 No. Civ. 1733Published

Before: Marks

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a school board's dismissal of a teacher for unprofessional conduct is a matter within its discretion, and that such findings will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. Furthermore, a prior dismissal of charges by the state board of education does not estop a local school district from pursuing its own dismissal proceedings.

Issues

Whether a prior dismissal of charges by the state board of education creates an estoppel against a local school district's dismissal proceedings.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of misconduct barred by the statute of limitations.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the finding of unprofessional conduct and the teacher's dismissal.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Petitioner first urges that the findings and order of the state board of education are a complete adjudication of the - charges involved here and constitute an estoppel against the matters pleaded before the respondent board of education. This contention is without merit.”

“If its findings and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence it would be a poor policy for a court to disturb them.”

“The findings of the trial court are supported by substantial evidence. Under familiar rules governing us they cannot be disturbed on appeal.”

MARKS, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in an action wherein petitioner sought to be reinstated as a permanent teacher in the Taft School District, formerly known as the Conley School District.

On October 26, 1931, petitioner had attained the status of a permanent teacher in the school district. On that day the principal of the school filed a complaint with the state board of education seeking revocation or suspension of petitioner’s junior high school credentials and her elementary life diploma. The complaint was referred to the Kern County board of education, which took evidence, and, although it found petitioner guilty of acts of insubordination and of maintaining an unprofessional attitude in her work, recommended against the revocation or suspension of her credentials and diploma as too severe a penalty to be inflicted upon her. The charges were thereupon dismissed by the state board of education. The only other order that the state board could have made was either to revoke or suspend the credentials and diploma. (Sec. 5.382, School Code.)

About March 9, 1932, the principal filed with the board of trustees of the respondent district a complaint charging petitioner with unprofessional conduct and seeking her dismissal from the schools. A hearing was had and petitioner was dismissed. She brought this action seeking reinstatement. The trial court held against her and this appeal followed. The charges made in the instant case are virtually a copy of some of those filed with the state board of education. Petitioner first urges that the findings and order of the state board of education are a complete adjudication of the - charges involved here and constitute an estoppel against the matters pleaded before the respondent board of education. This contention is without merit.

(Saxton

State Board of Education,

137 Cal. App. 167 [29 Pac. (2d)

873]; Bold

Board of Medical Examiners,

135 Cal. App. 29 [26 Pac. (2d). 707].)

[407]

Johnson v. Taft School District

AI Brief

MARKS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief