Hayes v. Temecula Valley Unified Sch. Dist.
Decision Date | 28 February 2018 |
Docket Number | D072998 |
Citation | 21 Cal.App.5th 735,230 Cal.Rptr.3d 576 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Karen HAYES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent. |
Wagner & Pelayes, Dennis E. Wagner and Jacob P. Menicucci, Riverside, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Walsh & Associates, Encino, Dennis J. Walsh and Alice Chung, Encino, for Defendant and Respondent.
Karen Hayes appeals a judgment denying her writ of mandate petition seeking an order directing the Temecula Valley School District (District) to reinstate her as a middle school principal. The District removed Hayes as principal and reassigned her to a teaching position for the 2015-2016 school year under its statutory authority to reassign a school principal without cause. ( Ed. Code, § 44951.)1 The District also placed Hayes on paid administrative leave through the end of the 2014-2015 school year.
Hayes primarily challenges her release and reassignment from her school principal position and, to a lesser extent, her placement on paid administrative leave for about three months. She contends the court erred in denying her writ petition because: (1) the District's notice of the no-cause reassignment was untimely as the governing school board (Board) did not approve the notice until two days after the March 15 statutory deadline ( § 44951 ); (2) her removal was in fact "for cause" and therefore she was entitled to a hearing and due process before the removal and reassignment; and (3) her placement on paid administrative leave violated statutes and internal District policies.
On the first issue, we determine the notice was timely because the statutes do not require school board preapproval for a section 44951 March 15 notice to be valid. We conclude the remaining contentions are without merit on the factual record before us. Accordingly, we affirm.
Under the applicable review standard, we summarize the facts accepting the truth of the District's evidence and drawing all reasonable factual inferences favoring the court's ruling.2 (See Agosto v. Board of Trustees of Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College Dist. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 330, 336, 118 Cal.Rptr.3d 300 ( Agosto ).)
Hayes served as a principal at Margarita Middle School beginning in 2002. During the next 12 years, she received positive performance reviews and was viewed favorably by many teachers, parents, and students. In late 2014, a female teacher (JD) at the middle school complained about a male teacher (RF). Hayes was responsible for investigating and resolving the complaint, with the assistance of District's human resource directors Joe Mueller and Tiffany Martinez. After the investigation, Hayes found some of JD's complaints against RF to be substantiated.
In early 2015, RF submitted a Public Records Act request to the District for documents related to the complaint and investigation, including Hayes's emails. While gathering the responsive records, Mueller found that Hayes's email communications showed she had not been objective and impartial in the investigation. He believed the emails were unprofessional, and Hayes had showed favor toward JD and bias against RF.
Mueller immediately showed the emails to Tim Ritter, the District's superintendent (Superintendent). After his evaluation of the emails, the Superintendent decided to provide Hayes with notice of possible release and reassignment to a teaching position for the next year because he had lost confidence in her abilities to serve as principal at the middle school. The next day, on March 11, 2015, the Superintendent and the human resource directors met with Hayes and gave her a reassignment notice, which Hayes signed. The March 11 notice, titled "Notice of Possible Release and Reassignment," stated in relevant part:
The identified statute, section 44951, governs the timing and nature of a preliminary notice (known as a March 15 notice) required before a school district can reassign a school principal for "no-cause."3 As discussed below, this statute requires a school district to provide notice by March 15 that a school administrator "may be released from his or her position for the following school year." ( § 44951.) Without this notice, a no-cause transfer from administrator to a teaching position is invalid, and the principal may continue in his or her position under the same terms and conditions for the next school year. (Ibid. )
At this March 11 meeting, the Superintendent also gave Hayes a letter stating that, "effective today," she was being placed on "paid administrative leave until further notice." The letter said the purpose of the leave was "to allow the District to conduct an investigation into allegations of misconduct." Hayes was also told she had the option to voluntarily resign her principal position before the next scheduled school board meeting (March 17) to allow her to "land softly" if she wanted to apply to a different school district without a public record of removal. Contrary to Hayes's assertions, the record does not support that she was told the District intended to terminate her.
At the end of the March 11 meeting, the Superintendent asked Hayes if she had any personal items she needed from her office between March 11 and the March 17 Board meeting. Later that evening, Mueller met Hayes at the middle school to allow her to retrieve her briefcase, but Hayes began removing all of the items in her office, which surprised Mueller, as the Board had not taken action regarding her possible removal and release.
The next morning, on March 12, Hayes sent an email to the District's human resources department asking for clarification of her choices, including whether she was being terminated. Later that day, a District human resources director sent a lengthy letter to Hayes explaining her options:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Presbyterian Camp & Conference Ctrs., Inc. v. Superior Court of Santa Barbara Cnty.
...particular topic does not necessarily mean the Legislature did not intend to change the law." ( Hayes v. Temecula Valley Unified School Dist. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 735, 753, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 576 ; see also ibid. ["The objective manifestation of the legislative intent (the words of the amende......
- L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Paul D. (In re E.D.)
-
Kracke v. City of Santa Barbara
...748.) On questions of law, including statutory interpretation, we apply the de novo standard. ( Hayes v. Temecula Valley Unified School Dist. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 735, 746, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 576.)The City Lacked Authority to Unilaterally Ban STVRs in the Coastal Zone The Coastal Act is desig......
-
Hayes v. Temecula Valley Unified Sch. Dist.
...administrator by March 15 of a no-cause reassignment for the following school year. (See Hayes v. Temecula Valley Unified School Dist. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 735, 739-740, 747-748 (Hayes I).) A no-cause reassignment after this deadline is invalid. (Ed. Code, § 44951.) At this March 11 meetin......