California School Employees Assn. v. Governing Board, S033224

Decision Date02 September 1994
Docket NumberNo. S033224,S033224
Citation33 Cal.Rptr.2d 109,878 P.2d 1321,8 Cal.4th 333
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 878 P.2d 1321, 94 Ed. Law Rep. 508 CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. GOVERNING BOARD OF the MARIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, Defendant and Appellant.

School and College Legal Services, Robert J. Henry, Santa Rosa, Joseph C. Kinkade, Healdsburg, and Patrick K. Rafferty, Costa Mesa, for defendant and appellant.

Janet G. McCormick, Sacramento, Fekete, Carton, Hartsell, Grass, Ronich, Peters & Inman, Frank J. Fekete, Bakersfield, Liebert, Cassidy & Frierson, Larry J. Frierson, Peter J. Brown, Los Angeles, Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo and Warren S. Kinsler, Cerritos, as amici curiae on behalf of defendant and appellant.

Margie Valdez and Madalyn J. Frazzini, San Jose, for plaintiffs and respondents.

Thomas F. Casey III, County Counsel (San Mateo), Lillian Lee Port, Chief Deputy County Counsel, Terri A. Tucker, Santa Fe Springs, Beverly Tucker, Burlingame LUCAS, Chief Justice.

[878 P.2d 1324] Charles R. Gustafson, Rosalind D. Wolf, Robert E. Lindquist, Santa Fe Springs, Carroll, Burdick & McDonough, Christopher D. Burdick and Alison Berry-Wilkinson, San Francisco, as amici curiae on behalf of plaintiffs and respondents.

Classified employees of the state's community colleges are entitled to the paid holidays enumerated in Education Code section 88203, including "every day appointed by the President, or the Governor of this state ... for a public fast, thanksgiving or holiday...." We must decide whether President George Bush "appointed" days of thanksgiving, within the meaning of the Education Code, when, at the conclusion of the Persian Gulf War, he proclaimed April 5, 6, and 7, 1991, as "National Days of Thanksgiving." As we explain, we conclude that the President's proclamation did not entitle community college classified employees to holiday compensation for those days. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

I.

Following the end of hostilities in the Persian Gulf region, President Bush issued Presidential Proclamation No. 6257, entitled, "For National Days of Thanksgiving, April 5-7, 1991." (Pres.Proc. No. 6257, 56 Fed.Reg. 10353 (Mar. 7, 1991), 1991 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, p. A26 [hereafter Proclamation 6257].) In relevant part, the proclamation states: "... I, GEORGE BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim April 5-7, 1991, as National Days of Thanksgiving. I ask that Americans gather in homes and places of worship to give thanks to Almighty God for the liberation of Kuwait, for the blessings of peace and liberty, for our troops, our families, and our Nation. In addition, I direct that the flag of the United States be flown on all government buildings, I urge all Americans to display the flag, and I ask that bells across the country be set ringing at 3:00 p.m. (eastern daylight savings time) on April 7, 1991, in celebration of the liberation of Kuwait and the end of hostilities in the Persian Gulf." (Id. at p. A27.)

Respondent California School Employees Association (hereafter CSEA) is the exclusive representative of a bargaining unit of classified personnel employed by appellant Governing Board of the Marin Community College District (hereafter the District). CSEA sent the District a letter dated April 4, 1991, calling on the District to recognize April 5, 6, and 7, 1991, as paid holidays for the classified employees represented by CSEA, and to compensate the employees accordingly. The District denied CSEA's demand by letter dated April 5, 1991.

After the District's refusal to comply with CSEA's demand for holiday compensation, CSEA successfully petitioned in the Marin County Superior Court for a writ of mandate. The court ordered the District to recognize the thanksgiving days designated in Proclamation 6257 as paid holidays pursuant to Education Code section 88203, 1 and to compensate classified employees accordingly. 2

The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, reasoning that, for purposes of the holiday statute, the President's "proclaiming" days of thanksgiving was the functional equivalent of his "appointing" them. The court thus concluded that the issuance of Proclamation 6257, designating April 5, 6, and 7 as "National Days of Thanksgiving," resulted in paid holidays for the college's classified employees.

We granted review of this issue. 3 As will appear, we disagree with the Court of Appeal's analysis.

II.

Section 88203 entitles classified employees 4 of the community colleges 5 to holiday compensation on nine specified annual holidays. Section 79020 provides that the community colleges shall close on the same nine designated holidays, with the addition of "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day." (§ 79020, subd. (a).) Although the President has no authority to declare a paid holiday for the state's public school employees, or to order the closure of the state's public schools, the Legislature has mandated that legal significance shall attach to the designation of certain special, nonrecurring days by the federal executive. Thus, in addition to the recurring paid holidays, sections 88203 and 79020 also provide for holiday compensation and college closure, respectively, on any days "appointed" by the President (or the Governor) for a public fast, thanksgiving or holiday. (§§ 88203, 79020, subds. (c) & (d).) To decide whether, by issuing Proclamation 6257, the President "appointed" days of thanksgiving entitling classified employees to paid holidays, we must first determine the nature of the presidential action necessary to trigger the applicable statutory provisions.

In examining sections 88203 and 79020 for this purpose, we are guided by the well-established principle that our function is to "ascertain the intent of the lawmakers so as to effectuate the purpose of the law." (People v. Pieters (1991) 52 Cal.3d 894, 898, 276 Cal.Rptr. 918, 802 P.2d 420, citing People v. Craft (1986) 41 Cal.3d 554, 559, 224 Cal.Rptr. 626, 715 P.2d 585.) We determine such intent by first focusing on the words used by the Legislature, giving them their ordinary meaning. (Mercer v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1991) 53 Cal.3d 753, 763, 280 Cal.Rptr. 745, 809 P.2d 404.) This is because "it is the language of the statute itself that has successfully braved the legislative gauntlet." (Halbert's Lumber, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1238, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 298.)

The term "appointed" in sections 88203 and 79020 is not defined in the Education Code, and there are no California cases construing it. As it is used in the statutes here, the term "appoint" is commonly understood as meaning "to fix by a decree, order, command, resolve, decision, or mutual agreement; ... to fix the time and place of." (Webster's New Internat. Dict. (3d ed. 1981) p. 105.)

The District argues that, as used in the statutes at issue here, the term "appoint" is uncertain and therefore in need of judicial construction to determine its meaning. This is so, according to the District, because the statutes give legal significance not only to "every day appointed by the President for a public fast, thanksgiving or holiday" but also to "that Thursday in November proclaimed by the President as 'Thanksgiving Day.' " (§ 88203, italics added.) In the District's view, the Legislature intended a meaningful distinction between the type of presidential action necessary to trigger an entitlement to holiday compensation for Thanksgiving Day, i.e., the issuance of a presidential proclamation, and that required for a presidentially appointed day of thanksgiving.

We discern no ambiguity in the Legislature's use of the word "appoint." Like the term "proclaim," the ordinary meaning of which is "to declare solemnly, officially or formally" (see Webster's New Internat. Dict., supra, at p. 1808), the use of the word "appoint" emphasizes the solemnity and formality of the presidential action necessary to create a holiday.

Under the plain language of section 88203, a presidential decree designating a certain day or days as "day[s]" of "thanksgiving" would trigger an entitlement to a paid holiday for community college employees. A review of the presidential proclamations issued over the past 50 years reveals that relatively few have actually designated thanksgiving days. Of these proclamations, the overwhelming majority were ceremoniously issued by the President in connection with the annual Thanksgiving Day holiday, a holiday fixed as the fourth Thursday in November by congressional directive on December 26, 1941. (See Stokes & Pfeffer, Church and State in the United States (rev. 1st ed. 1964) at p. 503.) There have been four presidential proclamations naming "day[s]" of "thanksgiving" that bore no relation to the annual Thanksgiving Day holiday, including the proclamation at issue here. 6

Likewise, a literal interpretation of the statute would give no entitlement to holiday pay for those days designated by the President as something other than a day of thanksgiving. Thus, a "National Day of Prayer" proclaimed in Presidential Proclamation No. 6409 in which President Bush "urge[d] ... Americans to ... pray ... in thanksgiving" (Pres.Proc. No. 6409, 57 Fed.Reg. 8395 (Mar. 5, 1992), 1992 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, p. A18) would not result in a paid holiday, falling outside the literal language of section 88203 because it designated a "day of prayer" rather than a "day of thanksgiving." (See also "D-Day Remembrance Day," Pres.Proc. No. 6697, 59 Fed.Reg. 28463 (May 30, 1994), 1994 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, p. A68 [a " 'grateful Nation remembers' "].)

The statute, literally interpreted, provides holiday pay entitlement only when the President happens to choose the word "thanksgiving" rather than one of the other words sometimes used to express the same presidential directive, such as prayer or remembrance. It is doubtful,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
131 cases
  • People v. Valencia
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • July 3, 2017
    ...Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 979, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 588, 209 P.3d 923 ; accord, California School Employees Assn. v. Governing Board (1994) 8 Cal.4th 333, 340, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 109, 878 P.2d 1321.) This last exception to general statutory interpretation principles appears to animate the......
  • Siry Inv., L.P. v. Farkhondehpour
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • July 21, 2022
    ...results." ( Switzer , supra , 35 Cal.App.5th at p. 129, 247 Cal.Rptr.3d 114, citing California School Employees Assn. v. Governing Board (1994) 8 Cal.4th 333, 340, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 109, 878 P.2d 1321.) And yet, the court observed, this limited exception "requires much more than showing that t......
  • Jasmon O., In re
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • September 2, 1994
    ... ... No. S030556 ... Supreme Court of California, ... Sept. 2, 1994 ... Rehearing Denied Oct ... ...
  • Benson v. Kwikset Corp.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 10, 2005
    ...(People v. Anzalone (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1074, 1079, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 315, 969 P.2d 160; California School Employees Assn. v. Governing Board (1994) 8 Cal.4th 333, 340, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 109, 878 P.2d 1321; Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325, 1334, fn. 7, 283 Cal.Rptr. 893, 81......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Joyce L. Kennard: an independent streak on California's highest court.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 65 No. 4, June - June 2002
    • June 22, 2002
    ...for back pay. Id. (Kennard, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). (102) See Cal. School Employees Ass'n v. Governing Bd., 878 P.2d 1321, 1331 (Cal. 1994) (Kennard, J., In taking away from community college workers the holidays granted them by the Legislature, the majority does not......

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