Grzeskowiak v. Board of Trustees

California Court of Appeal Sep 20, 1976 No. Civ. No. 2501Published

Before: Brown

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a school district's failure to meet the statutory May 15 deadline for notifying probationary teachers of nonreemployment does not deprive the district of authority to proceed when the delay is caused by the teachers' own actions, such as obtaining a court-ordered stay of proceedings. Such actions constitute a waiver of the statutory time limits and trigger an extension of time under Education Code section 13443, subdivision (i).

Issues

Whether a school district is divested of authority to hold nonreemployment hearings if the May 15 statutory deadline is missed due to a court-ordered stay of proceedings initiated by the employees.
Whether probationary employees may waive the statutory time limits for nonreemployment notice by requesting a continuance or procuring a stay of proceedings.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is also apparent that since the time limits in section 13443 are for the protection and benefit of the appellants, they may be waived by them.”

“After requesting the continuance, appellants cannot be heard to say that the time limit must be complied with.”

Opinion

BROWN (G. A.), P. J. Appellants, Andrew Grzeskowiak, Karen Dull, Roy De La Rosa and Linda Malmgren, were probationary certified teachers employed by the respondent, Board of Trustees of the Lamont School District (hereinafter “District”). They appeal from a judgment denying a peremptory writ of prohibition by which they sought to prevent the District from proceeding to hold a hearing to determine whether they should be reemployed for the school year 1974-1975.

Essentially the basis of their position is that the District, having failed to give the written notice of nonreemployment by May 15, 1974, as required by Education Code1 section 13443, subdivisions (e) and (h),2 was deprived of authority to proceed with hearings after that date.

The parties are in substantial agreement on the facts. It appears that on March 14, 1974, in compliance with section 13443, subdivision (a),3 appellants received written notice that their services would not be required for the school year 1974-1975. The reasons stated were reduction in average daily attendance (§ 13447) and cancellation of a federally funded program.

Appellants requested a hearing pursuant to section 13443, subdivisions (b) and (c).

[134]On April 8, 1974, the District notified appellants that a hearing would be had upon the charge of nonreemployment on May 1, 1974.

On March 29, 1974, pursuant to Government Code section 11507.6, appellants made a demand for discovery on the District. The demand was honored in part and denied in part.

On April 23, 1974, pursuant to Government Code section 11507.7, appellants filed in the superior court a petition to compel discovery, pursuant to which and on April 24, 1974, the District was ordered to show cause on May 8, 1974, why discovery should not be granted. The petition also asked for and the court granted a stay of all proceedings before the hearing officer appointed to conduct the hearings until resolution of all proceedings to compel discovery.

On May 22, 1974, the court granted the petition for discovery and the District complied with the order. The stay order was thereupon terminated.

On June 7, 1974, the District noticed a further hearing, to be held on June 25, 1974.

Grzeskowiak v. Board of Trustees

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief