Andreadis v. Board of Trustees

• Decision Date: 22 June 1976
• Citation: 59 Cal.App.3d 344,130 Cal.Rptr. 652
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Harriette ANDERADIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TRUSTEES OF the CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGES et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 37146.

Page 652

130 Cal.Rptr. 652

59 Cal.App.3d 344

Harriette ANDERADIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TRUSTEES OF the CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGES et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Civ. 37146.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.

June 22, 1976.

Greene, Kelley & Halloran, Greene, Kelley, Halloran & Tobriner, John P. Kelley, San Francisco, for plaintiff and appellant.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Robert L. Leberman, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, for defendants and respondents.

ELKINGTON, Associate Justice.

The issue of this appeal is correctly stated in plaintiff and appellant Harriette Andreadis' brief as: '(Whether) the trial court erred in finding that the Layoff provisions of title V, article 7 of the California Administrative Code (relating to faculty members of state universities and colleges) do not apply to Non-retention decisions of probationary faculty who are non-retained because of overstaffing or decline in enrollment.' (Emphasis ours.)

Plaintiff was appointed to a one-year probationary faculty position at California State University, Hayward, as an assistant professor in the English department. She was, and is, 'a specialist in Renaissance literature and bibliography.' She was reappointed for a second year on a continued probationary basis. But student interest and enrollment in the courses of her specialties were declining; the English department 'had to cut a number of Renaissance courses from the Fall and Winter schedules and to offer Bibliography and Methods only once during the regular year.'

The problem continued, and the department chairman reported to the university's authorities: 'The decline in student enrollment in both our under-graduate and graduate programs has continued, and at a greater rate than even the most pessimistic among us ventured to predict. Even after the resignation of two regular members and the decision not to retain two others, the Department, according to University staffing criteria, is over-staffed by 2.5 prositions. Professor Andreadis is, unfortunately, not a specialist in language and linguistics, an area in which--as the result of the loss of two department members--we are understaffed, but a specialist in bibliography and Renaissance literature, an area in which we have three senior and two junior faculty members. The unhappy situation is this: given declining enrollments we are over-staffed in her area and seriously under-staffed in another. I therefore recommend that the academic year 1973--74 (plaintiff's third probationary year) be a terminal year for Professor Andreadis.'

As a result the university's authorities made a 'non-retention' decision, and plaintiff's employment was ended in accordance with the recommendation.

The English department nevertheless continued the employment, in specialty areas other than 'Renaissance literature and bibliography,' of 'student assistants' and 'persons employed on a temporary basis.' Plaintiff had expressed a willingness to teach the subjects being taught by those persons.

The rationale of the 'non-retention' procedure used in plaintiff's case was explained at the trial by the school's vice president for academic affairs. He stated:

'Declining student enrollments create a wide variety of problems in the planning and administration of effective academic programs. Among these is the fact that all disciplines and areas of specialization are not affected equally. Thus, the specialization offered by some faculty members may continue to be in steady or increasing demand (enrollment in the Nursing program, for example, increased by 155.8% Between 1971--72 and 1972--73, during the same period when the campus overall FTE (full time equivalent) declined) while student interest in the specialty areas of others drops sharply. ( ) In order to ensure that the campus is able to offer an effective academic program on a continuing basis it is necessary to anticipate such shifts in interest and demand, and to make the sort of decision regarding faculty hiring, retention and tenure which will best enable the campus to be responsive to student interest and requirements. Thus, when it appears that an individual faculty member, because of his or her area of specialization, has relatively less to contribute to the campus's overall program than other faculty members, sound academic management requires that retention and tenure decisions be made accordingly. ( ) Specifically, this means that when two untenured faculty members of equal competence are being considered for an additional probationary year, and one faculty member possesses an academic specialty in relatively low demand--either due to declining enrollments or shifts in student interest--while the second faculty member has a specialization in high demand, proper administration requires that (the) latter be favored over the former in the award of an additional probationary year. To do otherwise would result in a situation where individuals who have relatively little to offer the campus's program would be allowed to proceed toward, and eventually acquire, tenure. Because every campus budget is necessarily limited, the eventual result would be a faculty 'tenured in' with individuals having areas of specialization inconsistent with the present needs of the student body and the academic program. ( ) Traditionally, shifts in student interest from one area to another, resulting in the need to make negative personnel decisions in the cases of those untenured faculty with low demand specialties, have not been considered a 'lack of work' requiring the recourse to formal lay-off procedures. Rather, it is the necessary exercise of discretion by a campus administration, essential to the proper performance of any university's primary educational functions. Without the minimum discretion to make such responsive personnel decisions, a campus would very quickly become excessively rigid in its program offerings, retaining many faculty which would have the security of life time tenure, but which would have relatively little to offer in terms of the current interests and needs of students.'

Plaintiff sought reinstatement of her employment by application to the superior court 'for writ of mandate and injunctive and declaratory relief.' She appeals from an adverse judgment thereafter entered.

We have concluded that the appeal is without merit and that the judgment of the superior court must be affirmed. Our reasons follow.

It seems proper to state at this point that plaintiff makes no contention that the chairman of the English department, or the vice president for academic affairs, inaccurately evaluated the problems under discussion. Nor is it contended that her 'non-retention' decision was made in bad faith or as retaliation for an exercise of constitutional, or other, rights. And she appears to agree that the defendant Trustees of the California State University and Colleges (hereafter Trustees) could legally have enacted a regulation authorizing the 'non-retention' procedure under which she was terminated. Her contention is simply that the Trustees had adopted a contrary regulation which forbade such procedure, at least as it was followed in her case.

The Trustees' regulation, upon which plaintiff relies, is section 43202 of article 7 of title 5 of the California Administrative Code. It provides:

'Order of Layoff. (a) Whenever a determination has been made that there is a lack of funds or lack of work, employees in a class or teaching service area to be reduced shall be laid off in the following order:

'(1) The Chancellor or president may at his discretion, without regard to the class or teaching service area to be reduced, separate from service any student assistant, instructor for extension service, person employed on a temporary...