Fraser v. Regents of University of Cal.
| Decision Date | 17 October 1952 |
| Citation | 249 P.2d 283,39 Cal.2d 717 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | FRASER v. REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA et al. S. F. 18428. |
Wirin, Rissman & Okrand, A. L. Wirin, Fred Okrand, Los Angeles, and Nanette Dembitz, New York City, for petitioner.
Calkins, Hall, Conard & Johnson, Jno. U. Calkins, Jr., A. H. Conard and John E. Landon, San Francisco, for respondents.
Petitioner brought this original proceeding in mandamus to compel respondents to reinstate him to the position of instructor at the University of California and to pay him compensation in accordance with the terms of his contract of employment. Respondents' return to the alternative writ was by demurrer and answer. Inasmuch as we have concluded that the demurrer must be sustained, it is unnecessary to give any consideration to the issues of fact raised by the answer.
Petitioner alleges that he was discharged from his position as instructor because of his failure to execute the oath required by sections 3100-3109 of the Government Code, known commonly as the Levering Act. Stats.1951, 3rd Ex.Sess.1950, ch. 7, p. 15. At the time of his appointment for the academic year July 1, 1950, to June 30, 1951, petitioner, as required by section 18150 et seq. of the Government Code, took an oath identical to that prescribed in section 3 of article XX of the state Constitution. In addition, he signed the regents' declaration relating to loyalty which has been held invalid in Tolman v. Underhill, Cal.Sup., 249 P.2d 280. After the effective date of the Levering Act, October 3, 1950, petitioner refused to take the oath prescribed therein for all public employees, and he alleges that he was discharged on December 31, 1950.
The constitutionality of the Levering Act was sustained in Pockman v. Leonard, Cal.Sup., 249 P.2d 267. With reference to the applicability of such legislation to university employees, we held in Tolman v. Underhill, Cal.Sup., 249 P.2d 280, that the loyalty of teachers at the university is a matter of general statewide concern, and that section 18150 et seq. of the Government Code, requiring all state employees to take an oath identical with that prescribed by our state Constitution, applied to members of the faculty of the university. The Levering Act in effect supersedes section 18150 et seq. and expressly provides that compliance with its terms shall, as to state employees, be deemed full compliance with those sections. Gov.Code, § 3106. Accordingly, there can be no question that the act is applicable to university...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steinmetz v. California State Bd. of Ed.
...v. Underhill, 39 Cal.2d 708, 249 P.2d 280; Bowen v. County of Los Angeles, 39 Cal.2d 714, 249 P.2d 285; and Fraser v. Regents of University of California, 39 Cal.2d 717, 249 P.2d 283. I did not, at that time, believe that those cases were properly decided. I still believe that they are wron......
-
Ex parte Lane
... Page 857 ... 22 Cal.Rptr. 857 ... 58 Cal.2d 99, 372 P.2d 897 ... In re Carol LANE on ... P.2d 280, 283, where we held that loyalty oaths prescribed by the regents of the University of California for faculty members were invalid because ... ...
-
San Francisco Labor Council v. University of California
...jurisdiction of the State Personnel Board. (S.B.No.394, § 3; fn. 1, ante.) Relying principally upon the holding in Tolman v. Underhill (1952) 39 Cal.2d 708, 249 P.2d 280, appellants contend that as a law enacted under the general police power of the Legislature pertaining to a matter of sta......
-
Newmarker v. Regents of University of Cal.
...38 Cal.App.2d 698, 102 P.2d 533; Webster v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Calif., 163 Cal. 705, 126 P. 974; Fraser v. Regents of Univ. of Calif., 39 Cal.2d 717, 249 P.2d 283; Hamilton v. Regents of Univ. of Calif., 293 U.S. 245, 55 S.Ct. 197, 79 L.Ed. 343; In re Estate of Munson, 54 Cal.App.......