Board of Educ. of City of Los Angeles v. Swan

Citation41 Cal.2d 546,261 P.2d 261
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)
Decision Date02 October 1953
PartiesBOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF LOS ANGELES v. SWAN. L. A. 22343.

Owen J. Brady, Alexander H. Schullman and Richard L. Rykoff, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, Los Angeles, Wm. E. Lamoreaux and Clarence H. Langstaff, Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, for respondent.

SPENCE, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment permitting plaintiff to dismiss defendant and to terminate her employment as a permanent teacher of the Los Angeles City School District. Defendant urges these principal points as grounds for reversal: (1) insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings and judgment permitting her dismissal; and (2) error in the trial court's striking of her special defenses relating to alleged improper motives as the basis for plaintiff's institution of the dismissal proceedings. There is no merit to her position in view of the record and the governing statutory law.

For more than twenty-nine years defendant had been employed by the school district as a teacher and principal, and during the period here involved she was serving in the latter capacity for the Wilshire Crest School in Los Angeles. On April 26, 1951, charges were formulated by plaintiff alleging that causes existed for her dismissal. Written notice of plaintiff's intention to dismiss defendant, together with copy of the charges, was served upon her. Defendant thereupon demanded a hearing and plaintiff, as authorized by statute, elected to file this action asking the court to inquire into the charges, determine whether or not they were true, and if so, whether they constituted sufficient grounds for her dismissal. Ed.Code, sec. 13529. The court found the following charges to be true:

(1) About March 13, 1951, before a regularly scheduled meeting of the Wilshire Crest Parent Teachers Association, defendant made derogatory statements concerning the Superintendent of Schools and criticized the Board of Education for bringing him to Los Angeles.

(2) At the same meeting defendant stated that she had been called before the Los Angeles City Board of Education and had 'spit in their faces.'

(3) Defendant failed and refused to report for teaching assignments on April 9, 1951, and April 23, 1951, when instructed to do so by the Superintendent of Schools acting under order of the Board of Education.

(4) During the school year 1949-1950 defendant requested a teacher in her school to join a teachers' union in violation of the school district's rule.

(5) Defendant caused to be paid to the Wilshire Crest Parent Teachers Association the total proceeds received from a carnival jointly presented by it and the student body under a permit providing for an equal division of the proceeds between the two groups; and contrary to established rules and policies, she accepted from the Parent Teachers Association nine phonographs purchased for the school from the carnival proceeds without obtaining the approval of the student body finance section of plaintiff's administrative office.

(6) Defendant failed to attend meetings called by the Superintendent of Schools and his assistants to aid school principals in their work, although such attendance was required under the school district's rules.

(7) During the school year 1950-1951 defendant dismissed each day approximately fifty children of the first and second grades a few minutes before two o'click in the afternoon, although such practice was expressly disapproved by the Assistant Superintendent of Schools and contrary to the stated closing hour of 2:00 p. m. as provided in the prescribed rules.

(8) In February, 1950, defendant issued a written bulletin to the teachers in her school suggesting that they have duplicate classroom keys made to take home with them, in violation of the rule providing that classroom keys should be left in the principal's office.

(9) At the above-mentioned Parent Teachers Association meeting of March 13, 1951, defendant called the Superintendent of Schools and other school administrators 'henchmen' and the Board of Education Office 'The Little Kremlin'; and immediately upon adjournment of the Parent Teachers Association meeting defendant permitted the persons present to assemble in a citizens meeting in her school without the necessary permit as required by plaintiff's rules regulating the holding of public meetings in school buildings.

From such findings the court concluded that there was cause for defendant's dismissal on these grounds: (1) unprofessional conduct; (2) evident unfitness for service; and (3) persistent violation of or refusal to obey the school laws of the state and reasonable regulations prescribed for the government of the public schools by the State Board of Education and by the Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles. Ed.Code, sec. 13521. Accordingly, judgment was entered authorizing defendant's dismissal. Ed.Code, sec. 13552.

As a preliminary matter, defendant contends that it was error to include the same charge under more than one cause for dismissal. For example, plaintiff included the charge of defendant's continued refusal to report for a teaching assignment under each of the three above causes for dismissal. Considering this point here despite defendant's failure to make it a ground of demurrer to the complaint, Ed.Code, sec. 13531, there appears to be nothing in the relevant code provisions which would prohibit such practice in formulating the accusatory pleading. Ed.Code, sec. 13521 et seq. Manifestly, a particular act or omission of a teacher may constitute unprofessional conduct, evident unfitness for service, and a persistent violation of or refusal to obey prescribed rules and regulations. Defendant's citation of Fresno City High School District v. De Caristo, 38 Cal.App.2d 666, 92 P.2d 668, does not strengthen her position. There it was merely said that each of the causes for removal stated in the code refers to 'acts or omissions not necessarily included in the others.' 33 Cal.App.2d at page 672, 92 P.2d at page 671. That is not a statement that the acts or omissions charged may not be included in one or more causes for removal.

No useful purpose would be served in detailing the testimony in the record inasmuch as defendant has conceded that 'there was certain evidence going to substantiate the truth of the respective charges against her.' Briefly, it need only be said that there indisputably appears to have been a long drawn-out course of conduct on the part of defendant which produced serious friction with plaintiff as the result of her insubordination, her refusal to conform to the instructions and requirements of her superiors, and her continued violation of the rules prescribed by the school district. As principal considerations, she made derogatory statements and used undignified language with reference to school administrative officers and in describing her attitude to members of plaintiff board, she continuously disregarded rules requiring her attendance at meetings called to assist principals in their work, she patently suggested to the teachers in her school violation of the rule providing that keys to classrooms be left in the office of the principal, and she refused to accept two teaching assignments. Nevertheless, defendant maintains that giving 'the fullest credibility' to these facts, they are not sufficient cause for her dismissal.

The refusal of a teacher to accept an assignment which the school authorities have the power to make constitutes a violation of school laws as ground for dismissal. 47 Am.Jur. sec. 139, p. 396; Appeal of Ganaposki, 1938, 332 Pa. 550, 2 A.2d 742, 744-745, 119 A.L.R. 815; Commonwealth ex rel. Wesenberg v. School Dist. of City of Bethlehem, 1942, 148 Pa. Super. 250, 24 A.2d 673, 676; Consolidated School Dist. No. 4 Bryan County v. Millis, Okl.Sup., 1943, 139 P.2d 183, 185; Hamberlin v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board, 1946, 210 La. 483, 27 So.2d 307, 309. The wilful refusal of a teacher to obey the reasonable rules and regulations of the employing board of education is insubordination. Harrison v. State Board of Education, 1946, 134 N.J.L. 502, 48 A.2d 579, 580-581; State ex rel. Steele v. Board of Education of Fairfield, 1949, 252 Ala. 254, 40 So.2d 689, 695. A teacher, and more particularly a principal, in the public school system is regarded by the public and pupils in the light of an exemplar, whose words and actions are likely to be followed by the children coming under her care and protection. Voorhees, The Law of Public Schools, sec. 62, p. 136. In this connection the following language used in Johnson v. Taft School District, 19 Cal.App.2d 405, at page 408, 65 P.2d 912, at page 9s3, is pertinent: 'A board of education is intrusted with the conduct of the schools under its jurisdiction, their standards of education, and the moral, mental, and physical welfare of the pupils during school hours. An important part of the education of any child is the instilling of a proper respect for authority and obedience to necessary discipline. Lessons are learned from example as well as from precept. The example of a teacher who is continually insubordinate and who refuses to recognize constituted authority may seriously affect the discipline in a school, impair its efficiency, and teach children lessons they should not learn. Such conduct may unfit a teacher for service in a school even though her other qualifications may be sufficient. 'Book learning' is only a phase of the important lessons a child should learn in a school.' Within these principles, it cannot be said that the charges found to be true do not warrant defendant's dismissal. See Board of Education v. Jewett, 21 Cal.App.2d 64, 72, 68 P.2d 404.

Defendant argues that the court erred in concluding that she was guilty of unprofessional conduct as a ground for dismissal 'where there (was) no evidence introduced as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
88 cases
  • California School Emp. Ass'n v. Personnel Commission of Pajaro Val. Unified School Dist. of Santa Cruz County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 12, 1970
    ...the reasonable rules and regulations of the employing board of education is insubordination. [Citation.]' (Board of Education v. Swan (1953) 41 Cal.2d 546, 552, 261 P.2d 261, 265; and see Coomes v. State Personnel Board (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 770, 775, 30 Cal.Rptr. Thirdly, it is contended t......
  • Drake v. Covington County Board of Education, Civ. A. No. 4144-N.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Alabama
    • January 23, 1974
    ...a teacher's selection and retention." Goldsmith v. Board of Education, 66 Cal. App. 157, 168, 225 P. 783, 787; Board of Education v. Swan, 41 Cal.2d 546, 553-554, 261 P.2d 261. See Moser v. State Board of Education, 22 Cal. App.3d 988, 101 Cal.Rep. Obviously, there is a strong public intere......
  • Morrison v. State Board of Education
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • November 20, 1969
    ...v. Board of Medical Examiners, supra, 68 Cal.2d 67, 73 fn. 6, 64 Cal.Rptr. 785, 790, 435 P.2d 553, 558.) 11 Board of Education v. Swan (1953) 41 Cal.2d 546, 261 P.2d 261, and Board of Trustees v. Owens (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 147, 23 Cal.Rptr. 710, dealt with the term 'unprofessional conduct'......
  • City of San Diego v. American Federation of State etc. Employees
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 28, 1970
    ...638, 651, 178 P.2d 537); and results in the relinquishment of certain rights enjoyed by private employees. (Board of Education v. Swan, 41 Cal.2d 546, 556, 261 P.2d 261; City of Los Angeles etc. Council, Supra, 94 Cal.App.2d 36, 48--49, 210 P.2d 305; Perez v. Board of Police Comm'rs., Supra......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT