Board of Ed. of Richmond School Dist. v. Mathews

• Decision Date: 19 March 1957
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the RICHMOND SCHOOL DISTRICT, and M. R. Marcos, Jr., Its President, Warren Brown, Jr., Joseph Perrell, Meredith Morgan, and Marion M. Snodgrass, members of said Board of Education, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Leonice E. MATHEWS, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 17158.

Page 449

308 P.2d 449

149 Cal.App.2d 265

The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the RICHMOND SCHOOL DISTRICT, and M. R. Marcos, Jr., Its President, Warren Brown, Jr., Joseph Perrell, Meredith Morgan, and Marion M. Snodgrass, members of said Board of Education, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Leonice E. MATHEWS, Defendant and Appellant.

Civ. 17158.

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

March 19, 1957.

Wagener, Brailsford & Knox, Oakland, for appellant.

Francis W. Collins, Dist. Atty. of Contra Costa County, John B. Clausen, Charles L. Hemmings, Deputy Dist. Attys., Martinez, for respondents.

KAUFMAN, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Contra Costa County decreeing that respondents may discharge appellant, a teacher employed by the Board of Education of the Richmond School District.

The proceedings herein were instituted under section 13521 of the Education Code which provides that no permanent employee may be dismissed except for one or more of the causes contained in that section. The subsections here involved are '(a) Immoral or unprofessional conduct; * * * (g) Persistent violation of or refusal to obey the school laws of the State or reasonable regulations prescribed for the government of the public schools by the State Board of Education or by the governing board of the school district employing him.'

Appellant, Miss Leonice E. Mathews, was charged in Cause I with persistent violation of or refusal to obey reasonable regulations of the Richmond School District in that she absented herself from her school during school hours for the week of October 12, 1953, and for the week of October 19, 1953, in violation of the rules and regulations of the district as contained in Rule 3.44(e), Administrative Manual of the Richmond Schools, 1951, and absented herself or refused to report for duty on September 7, 1954, and continued to absent herself to date after having been ordered to report on September 7, 1954 by the District Superintendent. Cause II charged her with refusal to obey reasonable regulations in failing to report for duty on September 7, 1954 after having been directed in writing by the District Superintendent, and Cause III charged unprofessional conduct in that she breached her contract by failure or refusal to report on September 7, 1954, after being directed to do so.

Section 3.44(e) of the Administrative Manual of the Richmond Schools provides: '(e) Under no circumstances shall teachers be away from their assigned school during school hours unless permission has previously been obtained from the principal.'

Section 3.45(a) provides that certificated personnel shall be allowed 10 days absence from duty on account of personal illness each school year without loss of salary, and section 3.46(b) reads in part as follows: 'Leaves of absence for permanent employees shall be limited to sabbatical, further study, travel, maternity, or health leaves. Except for maternity or health leaves, the time limit for leaves of absence shall be one year.'

Appellant contends that she had been given prior permission by school authorities, for on October 8 she requested a substitute teacher for Friday, October 9. The Unexcused absences with which she is charged are, however for ten school days in the weeks beginning October 12 and October 19, 1953. The evidence shows that Miss Burkett, the principal, granted appellant permission to be absent on Friday, October 9, 1953, when she complained of a sore throat. There had been no conversation concerning leave for any time during the following two weeks. Leave or permission for that time had not been requested or granted. Dr. Miner, District Superintendent of the Richmond School District, testified that when he called appellant to his office to explain the absence, she told him that it was too cold and nasty and foggy up here and that she had gone south to get warm. Appellant testified that she had left Richmond on Friday morning, October 9, and drove to her home in Los Angeles. She decided to return, shd said, when Miss Burkett telephoned. Appellant said, 'I was so glad to hear her voice, all my interests in Richmond came rushing into my brain and I did feel ashamed I had been gone so long and it dawned then, I had been gone longer than I should have been. I was so glad to hear her voice wanting to know when I would be back and I said I would be back Monday.'

As to the absence beginning with appellant's failure to report for duty at the beginning of the school year, September 7, 1954, the record shows that on or about September 1, 1954, appellant sent Dr. Miner a letter telling him she was not going to return at the beginning of the school year. He replied, directing her to report for duty at a certain school. He then received a telegram from her on September 6, 1953 conveying the information that she had been injured some time in July. This was the first time she informed him of the accident to her leg. She did not consult a doctor from the time of the alleged injury on July 20, 1953 until September 9, 1953. In her correspondence with Dr. Miner in regard to a leave, appellant at no time asked for leave for reasons of health. Her letters were requests for leave to take care of urgent business in Los Angeles. The urgent business was a dispute concerning a boundary encroachment on her home property. She requested Dr. Miner's permission to teach in another district during this time, or to allow her to do substitute teaching, which requests were not granted.

Dr. Groshell, the blind osteopathic physician and surgeon whom she consulted in Los Angeles, testified in his deposition that he was first consulted by Miss Mathews on September 9, 1954. She visited his office eight times in September and October, and only once a month between October 18 and January 11, 1955. The doctor stated that appellant had not been restricted in her movements, that a rubber knee bandage would have probably been of sufficient help to permit her to carry on her duties as teacher, that he supposed she could have used crutches or a cane.

Appellant contends that the evidence does not establish persistent violation of or refusal to obey reasonable regulations of the Richmond School District. The rules and regulations of the district which are in effect at the date of making or renewal of a teacher's contract are, of course, a part of the employment contract of every teacher. Rible v. Hughes, 24 Cal.2d 437, 150 P.2d 455, 154 A.L.R. 137; Kacsur v. Board of Trustees, 18 Cal.2d 586, 116 P.2d 593; Fry v. Board of Education, 17 Cal.2d 753, 112 P.2d 229. In Rible v. Hughes [24 Cal.2d 437, 150 P.2d 458], it is said that the contract of employment of a permanent teacher 'Is automatically renewed from year to year upon the same terms unless, prior to renewal, the school board acts to change such terms.'

Appellant argues that section 3.44(e) is unreasonable in that it does not provide for unforeseen emergencies. It provides that 'under no circumstances' shall teachers be away from their schools unless prior permission has been obtained from the principal. Appellant has not shown that the rule has been unreasonably applied in her case, however. She secured a substitute for one day only, then drove to Los Angeles where she remained two weeks. Each day of that absence without notifying the school authorities as to the necessity therefor, was a violation of the rule. A teacher who was sufficiently able-bodied to drive her car to Los Angeles can certainly not be heard to say that she was physically unable to ask permission for absence...