Griggs v. Board of Trustees of Merced Union High School District

• Decision Date: 03 July 1963
• Citation: 32 Cal.Rptr. 355
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Alberta Lowrey GRIGGS, Petitioner and Respondent, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MERCED UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Respondents and Appellants. Civ. 194.

Page 355

32 Cal.Rptr. 355

Alberta Lowrey GRIGGS, Petitioner and Respondent, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MERCED UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Respondents and Appellants.

Civ. 194.

District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California.

July 3, 1963.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 1, 1963.

For Opinion on Hearing, see 37 Cal.Rptr. 194, 389 P.2d 722.

Willard B. Treadwell, County Counsel, C. Ray Robinson and Jonathon H. Rowell, Merced, for appellants.

Ben Curry, Merced, for respondent.

Irving G. Breyer, Gen. Counsel, Calif. School Boards Ass'n, San Francisco, amicus curiae.

RALPH M. BROWN, Justice.

Petitioner, a teacher in the Merced Union High School District, was completing her third year, and if rehired for the ensuing year 1962-63, she would have acquired tenure.

On March 30, 1962, petitioner was served with an accusation relating to her dismissal, as follows:

'Evident unfitness for service in the following items:

'1. Lack of proper self-control in the discipline of pupils or in the presence of pupils.

'2. Lack of courtesy in contacts with pupils and co-workers.

'3. Poor judgment in handling pupil problems.'

Attached to the accusation was a notice that it was the intention of the board of trustees to dismiss petitioner effective June 30, 1962, unless she delivered or mailed a notice of defense within 5 days.

Petitioner did file such a notice, requested a hearing in said proceedings, objected to the accusation on the grounds that it did not state acts or omissions, and to the form of the accusation as being indefinite or uncertain. She requested a written statement of the reasons for the intended dismissal, appointment of a hearing officer, the preparation of subpoenas, reporting of the proceedings by a court reporter, and gave notice of her intention to demand reimbursement for attorney's fees.

The board replied, attached a summary of teacher evaluation reports signed by the principal, advised that the governing board itself would conduct the hearing without a hearing officer pursuant to Education Code, section 13444, that subpoenas would be issued and the proceedings would be reported. To petitioner's request for answers to certain interrogatories pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 2030, the board furnished petitioner the names and addresses of the principal and vice-principal, and also referred her to the summary of evaluation reports for other answers to her interrogatories.

A writ of prohibition was issued in the trial court as a result of petitioner's petition to advise her of the acts and omissions requested by her and to give her an opportunity to prepare her defense and hold discovery proceedings. In compliance with the order on the above writ, petitioner received an elaboration of the acts covering the 3 subdivisions listed in the accusation under 'Evident unfitness for service' consisting of 19 instances entitled 'Areas of Concern Specific.' (See Addendum.)

The trial court, by its Order for Writ of Prohibition, prohibited the offering of any evidence in support of item Nos. 8 and 15. There was no appeal from this order.

The hearing before the school board began on May 11, 1962. Petitioner's objection to the introduction of the teacher evaluation reports as being hearsay was overruled. These reports were on a form entitled 'Teacher Evaluation Report Merced Union High School District' setting forth the teacher's name, number of years employed in the school, number of classroom visitations and the period of time in which the visits took place, number of conferences, ratings in the areas of personal attributes (3 subdivisions), relationships (5 subdivisions), teaching techniques (3 subdivisions), professional attributes (4 subdivisions), and overall ratings of satisfactory, needs improvement, or unsatisfactory; points meriting commendation, suggestions for improvement, recommendation for reappointment in present assignment, and at the bottom of the form, space for the acknowledgment by the teacher that the evaluation has been discussed with her and the In the first evaluation report for the period September 8, 1959, to December 18, 1959, petitioner received the highest rating, satisfactory, in all areas; the second period, January 4, 1960, to March 18, 1960, showed a satisfactory rating in all areas except in the areas of 'Emotional Stability' under 'Personal Attributes,' and in 'Teacher-Pupil Relationships' she received a rating of 'Needs Improvement'; her overall rating was 'Needs Improvement.' The report of September 6, 1960, to December 16, 1960, shows satisfactory in all items except that she needed improvement in emotional stability under 'Personal Attributes,' in teacher-pupil relationships, and in classroom procedure under 'Teaching Techniques'; her overall rating was 'Needs Improvement,' with the notation under 'Suggestions for improvement' being that she should modify her tone of voice which had a tendency to solicit impudence, should correct tendency to lose temper in class, and should adjust classroom attitude; reappointment was recommenced if an effort was made to modify the above suggestions. In the report for the period ending March 16, 1961, she received a satisfactory rating in all items except a need for improvement in emotional stability, in teacher-pupil and teacher-parent relationships, and in classroom procedure. The overall rating shows a need for improvement. She was commended for doing an excellent job with the National Forensic League and for being congenial, but suggestions for improvement were: tendency to use tone of voice which invites insolence, speaks abruptly, lacks discretion in person-to-person relationships. She was recommended for reappointment with the understanding that considerable change in personal attitude take place if tenure was to be recommended. In the report ending December 14, 1961, the needs for improvement were still the same, and the overall rating was the same. She was commended for doing a fine job with extra-curricular activities. In suggestions for improvement, 'Abruptness of speech has improved somewhat; still question use of discretion with students and parents, although incidents have decreased. Indicates, from time-to-time, a lack of judgment in relations with people.' She was recommended for reappointment 'contingent upon improvement in above areas.' The petitioner, in signing this evaluation report, stated that she did not understand the checks nor the comments which were vague and not specific and that she is physically and emotionally sound.

date, and similar space for the principal's signature and date.

In the last report for the period ending March 7, 1962, she received a satisfactory rating in all items except that she needed improvement in emotional stability and personality under 'Personal Attributes,' in teacher-pupil, teacher-teacher, and teacher-administrator relationships, and the over-all rating was 'Needs improvement'; still merited commendation for doing a good job with the National Forensic League, but in suggestions for improvement it was stated that she lacked discretion in dealings with teachers and pupils, accepted criticism with slight grace, indicated that no one was qualified to comment on her teaching or relations with others and when informed of likelihood of dismissal, criticized all administrators involved. This report did not recommend reappointment; it was signed by the principal, but was apparently not discussed with the teacher as it was not signed by her.

After the introduction of these reports the board proceeded to receive evidence on the specific instances under 'Areas of Concern Specific.' Testimony was given by Mr. Sherlock, the principal, that he had made visits to the classroom and had made observations, that petitioner 'generated hostility' in her students which 'interfered with the learning process.' Mr. Vinckel, the vice-principal, testified regarding specific complaints concerning self-control in the discipline of students, loud and angry reprimands of the class, poor judgment in handling pupil-parent problems. Mr. Guthrie In due course, petitioner put on her defense in which she denied all of the events set forth in the areas of concern and made her explanations as to what had taken place.

the music teacher, testified with regard to items in the areas of concern regarding incidents involving petitioner's angrily criticizing and admonishing him in the presence of students, that petitioner involved herself in student discipline problems and precipitated clashes with teachers and parents during parent conferences. Mrs. DeWing testified as to the criticism of her daughter by petitioner in a telephone call to the parent.

During the hearing the board dismissed various items under 'Areas of Concern Specific' being Item Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 12 and 18.

After the testimony was all concluded, the board retired to a private room to consider its decision. The court reporter was not present during this session, but the board took in with it for a short time before making its decision Mr. Hopkins, the superintendent who is the person who made the original accusation, his secretary, and an attorney, George Murphy, County Counsel.

The board found that the teacher evaluation reports were true and correct and were corroborated by evidence at the hearing, that item Nos. 1, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 17 of the document entitled 'Areas of Concern Specific' were true; that the last charge, item No. 19, was true in that petitioner used persistent sarcastic criticism of a student to a parent in a telephone conversation; that item No. 16 was true in that petitioner interfered with administrative procedure resulting in parent protest; found that from the evidence petitioner has shown lack of proper self-control in the discipline of pupils and in the presence of pupils; that from the evidence she has shown lack of courtesy in contacts with co-workers; that from the evidence she has shown poor judgment in...