Reed v. Board of Education of Monterey Union High School District

California Court of Appeal Sep 12, 1932 No. Docket No. 8496.Published

Before: Nourse

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a school board's failure to provide written notice of non-reemployment to a probationary teacher via personal delivery or registered mail by the statutory deadline of June 10th results in the teacher's automatic re-election.

Issues

Whether the school board's failure to provide notice by registered mail or personal delivery by June 10th resulted in the teacher's automatic re-election under the School Code.
Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence regarding the teacher's qualifications and performance.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Two things must occur: the notice must be in writing and must be delivered to the teacher or deposited in the registered mail prior to June 10th.”

“Failure in either respect is an insufficient notice under the statute which automatically re-elects the teacher for the ensuing year.”

“The single issue before the trial court was whether the respondent had been re-elected automatically by reason of the statute.”

NOURSE, P. J.

Plaintiff sued for

mandamus

to compel the defendants to reassign her to duty in the Monterey High School. She had judgment and defendants appeal upon typewritten transcripts.

The trial court found that plaintiff had been employed as a teacher for three consecutive school years prior to June 11, 1931, and that on June 15, 1931, she received a letter from the clerk of the Board of Education by ordinary unregistered mail declaring her position vacant. The conceded facts are that prior to June 6, 1931, the respondent had numerous conversations with the superintendent of schools and with the principal of the high school in which she was informed that the board appeared unfavorable to re-electing her for the ensuing term. The superintendent suggested that she resign. She refused. He suggested that her work as a teacher was unsatisfactory; but no charges were filed and no intimation was given by the board that her work was not satisfactory. She obtained from the superintendent and from the principal flattering recommendations of her character and ability as a teacher. These were given with the knowledge that they were to be used publicly in seeking similar employment in the schools of this state. She notified the superintendent that she would attend the summer session at the University of California in Berkeley and left for that purpose on June 9th. On

[716]

June 6th the Board of Education passed a resolution purporting to declare her position vacant. A copy of this resolution was mailed without registration to respondent at her old address on June 8th. It was forwarded to Berkeley and received by respondent on June 15th. No other notice was sent or received.

The statute applicable to this proceeding (School Code, secs. 5.681, 5.682) provided that

“on or before the tenth day of June

in any year the governing board may give

notice in writing

to a probationary employee that his services will not be required for the ensuing year ”. “ Such notice shall be

Reed v. Board of Education of Monterey Union High School District

AI Brief

NOURSE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief