Forker v. Board of Trustees

Citations: 160 Cal. App. 3d 13; 206 Cal. Rptr. 303; 1984 Cal. App. LEXIS 2516Docket: B001626

Court: California Court of Appeal; September 14, 1984; California; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court of Appeals of California affirmed a judgment compelling the Board of Trustees of the Whittier Union High School District to reinstate Imogene Forker as a school librarian. Forker, who had been employed since 1959 and obtained permanent status in 1962, was initially notified in March 1981 that she would not be reemployed for the 1981-1982 school year due to a proposed reduction in librarian services. After the district restored librarian services in August 1981, Forker was informed of her non-rehire based on alleged incompetence, supported by a list of 73 instances dating back to 1977.

Forker petitioned for a writ of mandate after the board denied her a hearing regarding her dismissal. The court ruled that the board abused its discretion, ordering Forker’s reinstatement and awarding her $1,500 in attorney's fees. The board appealed, and Forker cross-appealed the limited fee recovery.

Forker contended that the board violated section 44956, which grants laid-off permanent employees a preferential right to rehire based on seniority when services are restored, without imposing additional requirements not applied to other employees. The law stipulates that a permanent employee can only be dismissed for specific causes, including incompetence, and must receive written notice and the opportunity to correct deficiencies within 90 days, along with a hearing before a Commission on Professional Competence. Forker argued that her dismissal was executed without this required hearing, thus subjecting her to unfair treatment compared to other employees.

The board asserts its discretion under section 44956 to evaluate Forker's past work performance when determining her competence for rehire, citing Martin v. Kentfield School Dist. (1983). In Martin, a laid-off elementary teacher was denied a middle school position despite having seniority, due to her lack of relevant experience and qualifications. The California Supreme Court ruled that while the board could consider qualifications and experience to assess competence, it could not impose new requirements not previously applied to continuing employees when the position was first offered. The court remanded the case for factual clarification. Although the board is permitted to determine that a laid-off employee must be 'certificated and competent' to be preferentially rehired, the interpretation of 'competent' does not equate to past work performance. Instead, it refers to specific qualifications necessary for the position, as established in prior cases. Section 44956 protects laid-off employees' permanent status for 39 months, ensuring they retain the employment rights they had prior to the lay-off. Therefore, Forker could only be dismissed for incompetence following proper procedures had she not been laid off.

The board's denial of Forker's request for an evidentiary hearing on incompetence allegations, which she was entitled to if she had remained in service, imposed a burden on her not required of other employees, violating her employment rights under section 44956. This action circumvented the protections afforded to laid-off employees. As a permanent employee, Forker had a vested right to her position and could only be deprived of it through due process, which the board denied her. The board also argued that Forker was barred from reinstatement under the doctrine of laches due to her six-month delay in filing suit. However, the trial court implicitly found that this delay was justified by Forker's financial inability to pursue the case without assistance from the California Teachers Association (CTA), and she did not acquiesce to the board’s refusal to reinstate her. Consequently, the laches defense was deemed inapplicable. Forker's attorney requested $4,912.50 in fees based on 39.3 hours of work at $125 per hour, but the trial court awarded only $1,500. The reasoning behind this award is unclear, as it might be based on a determination of reasonableness or a limit imposed by Government Code section 800, which caps attorney fees at $1,500 in cases of arbitrary or capricious administrative actions.

The excerpt clarifies that the section in question does not apply to the dismissal of certificated employees by a school district; instead, Education Code section 44944, subdivision (e) governs attorney fees in such cases. This provision mandates that if a governing board decides not to dismiss an employee, it must cover all hearing expenses, including reasonable attorney fees for the employee. Although the statute does not explicitly mention attorney fees related to judicial reviews of administrative dismissals, it is interpreted to allow such fees when the employee prevails and receives a writ of mandate for reinstatement. The statute's applicability extends to appellate proceedings as well.

Furthermore, the school district is responsible for attorney fees even if they are incurred by the California Teachers' Association rather than the employee directly. The trial court's award of $1,500 in attorney fees is remanded for clarification on whether this amount was deemed reasonable or if it was mistakenly limited by the belief that Government Code section 800 applied. The judgment is affirmed, and Forker is to receive fees and costs on appeal, with the trial court tasked with determining the reasonable attorney fees incurred by Forker in prior proceedings and on appeal.