Vasquez v. Happy Valley Union School District
Filed February 1, 2008, Third District
Cite as 2008 SOS 797

Decision on Termination Due to Classification Affirmed

Plaintiff Patricia Vasquez began working as a substitute teacher for Happy Valley Union School District (Happy Valley) on October 8, 2003. Since then, she had been teaching a reading class for two and half hours per day.

On November 6, 2003, Happy Valley employed plaintiff as a temporary teacher on a month-to-month basis teaching the same class. Plaintiff was timely notified of her classification as a temporary teacher.

The following year, Happy Valley informed Plaintiff by written notice that she would not be employed by the former and instead she would be employed during the 2004-2005 school year. However, came 2004-2005 school year, Happy Valley did not employ the Plaintiff.

On October 1, 2004, Plaintiff signed a substitute verification form validating the fact that she would be retained as a substitute teacher. She was asked to continue teaching on October 4, 5, and 6 to check her capability as a temporary teacher for the remainder of the year.

On October 6, 2004, Happy Valley reclassified plaintiff and retained her as a temporary employee. Plaintiff acknowledged her temporary classification in writing and agreed that she could be dismissed by Happy Valley at its pleasure prior to her serving one year.

Then again, Happy Valley chose not to employ plaintiff for the following school year. Plaintiff was unemployed beginning school year 2005-2006. However, she remained listed on the County’s substitute teacher call list.

When one regular second grade teacher took a leave of absence, plaintiff filled the position as a day-to-day substitute. Eventually, Happy Valley terminated her employment when she refused to sign an acknowledgment for temporary teaching.

As a consequence, Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of mandate. She argued that the:

• classification was wrongfully made because she was not employed to fill in for a regular teacher but to teach a new class caused by categorically funded class-size reduction rules;


• Happy Valley failed to notify her on time of her correct classification as a probationary teacher on the first day of her employment in October 2004. Due to such failure, she was deemed a probationary employee for the 2004-2005 school year under section 44916 of the Education Code;


• As a probationary employee in 2004-2005 school year, her employment in the 2003-2004 school year as a temporary teacher for at least 75 percent of that year was be considered a full year of probationary employment under sections 44908 and 44918; and


• Happy Valley could not legally terminate her employment in December 2005 without cause. Hence, the former had to reinstate her as a permanent employee.

The trial court denied the petition holding that Happy Valley could lawfully classify her as a substitute teacher for the first four days of her employment during school year 2004-2005 based on the following grounds:

• no law restricting such classification;


• such classification was made in order to determine whether to hire plaintiff as a temporary teacher to teach the new class as directed by class-size reduction rules for the remainder of the year; and


• the purpose of such reclassification was not arbitrarily or capriciously made to circumvent plaintiff’s security of tenure.

On appeal, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision but on a different ground by holding that:

• plaintiff was not entitled to security of tenure because she was terminated prior to completion of following school year;


• the phrase “currently employed” contained in the letter given to the plaintiff must be understood in its context. Hence, it would have been effective only upon Happy Valley presenting the letter to plaintiff and the latter signing and dating the letter as of the day she received it;


• Plaintiff misunderstood the Education Code’s automatic grant of permanent status. Under the Code, to become a permanent employee, one must also be “reelected for the next succeeding school year”; and


• in the case of Horner v. Board of Trustees, the court ruled that where a school district timely informs a probationary teacher that she is not being retained for the next succeeding school year, there can be no reelection.

Therefore, trial court’s judgment was affirmed.