McGrath v. Burkhard
| Decision Date | 08 March 1955 |
| Citation | 131 Cal.App.2d 367,280 P.2d 864 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Edward G. McGRATH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. William J. BURKHARD, Superintendent of Sacramento City Unified School District and Secretary of the Board of Education of the Sacramento City Unified School District; The Board of Education of the Sacramento City Unified School District; Mrs. J. F. Didion, Mrs. P. D. Bevil, James D. Harvey, Wilbur H. Haines, and John E. Kennedy, as Members thereof; Malcolm P. Murphy, Principal of Sacramento Senior High School, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 8468. |
Charles F. Gray, Jr., Sacramento, for appellant.
J. Francis O'Shea, Dist. Atty., by William A. Green, Asst. Dist. Atty., & John B. Heinrich, Deputy Dist. Atty., Sacramento, for respondents.
Joseph Genser, Richmond, amicus curiae.
Plaintiff, a teacher in the Sacramento Senior High School, commenced an action for declaratory relief against defendant Superintendent of Sacramento City Unified School District, the Board of Education of said district and the individual members of said board, and the principal of the Sacramento Senior High School. Plaintiff sought declaratory relief on the ground that the non-classroom assignments, as hereinafter detailed, did not fall within the scope of his duties as a teacher under the terms of his contract of employment, and that such duties were unprofessional in nature. Plaintiff asked the court to declare the rights and duties under the contract of employment; that the non-classroom work was not within the scope of employment; that plaintiff should not be assigned duties on a teaching day which required more than eight hours per day to perform competently; that if more than eight hours may be assigned the court should declare the number of hours per day plaintiff is obligated to perform under the contract; that no duties be assigned on days for which he is not paid, i. e., Saturdays, holidays and most non-teaching days.
Defendants denied the material allegations of the complaint and following a trial the trial court concluded (1) that the respondent board has the right to assign to appellant any teaching duties within the scope of his credential, provided that such assignment does not reduce the rank and grade of his position below the rank and grade of the position held by him during his probationary service with the Sacramento City Unified School District, (2) that the board has the right to assign appellant to assist in the supervision of athletic and social activities conducted under the name or auspices of the Sacramento Senior High School, provided the assignments are made impartially and without discrimination, and (3) that since appellant's employment is professional in nature the services cannot be arbitrarily measured, but depend upon the reasonable needs of the school program; however, the hours of such services must be reasonable.
Plaintiff has appealed from the judgment entered in accordance with said conclusions. Before discussing the contentions made by plaintiff and appellant we shall summarize the factual situation which is not in substantial dispute.
Appellant is a teacher in the Sacramento Senior High School. From 1942 to 1945 he was employed as a long term substitute teacher; from July, 1945, to July, 1948, he was employed as a probationary teacher and from July, 1948, to the date of this action he was employed as a permanent teacher. He achieved the status of tenure in 1948.
At all times appellant has been employed under a written contract, which incorporates the rules of the respondent Board of Education.
During his course of employment by respondents, appellant and other male teachers have been required to attend certain non-classroom activities and act in a supervisory capacity. The activities are school football and basketball games, which are under the auspices and control of the school authorities. These games may be held at places other than on the school grounds. Six of these athletic assignments are made to each male member of the faculty during each school year, three football games and three basketball games. At the beginning of the school year each male teacher selects the three football games at which he would prefer to supervise; at the end of such season he then selects the three basketball games at which he would prefer to attend in a supervisory capacity. To the extent possible the requests of the teachers are complied with in the scheduling of these assignments, but at times a teacher receives an assignment on a date other than the one he had selected. The teachers are selected impartially and without discrimination. For many years past this administrative practice of assigning the male teachers to supervise at the school athletic contests in football and basketball has been carried out to protect the welfare of the students. The teachers have no authority to act as police officers, but policemen are present at the games to handle any situation in which their authority is needed. Appellant testified that the teacher's duties at these games consisted of maintaining order in the student section of the stands, sitting in the student section, reporting disturbances to the police, preventing spectators from going on the playing field, clearing the way for the band or drill teams, guarding seats saved for the band and drill team members, checking credentials at the press box, patrolling under the bleachers at basketball games, controlling conduct of the students, preventing smoking in the gymnasium by students or adults and preventing spectators from entering the gymnasium with soft drinks, candy or other food. The female teachers of the school are given assignments to supervision of non-classroom activities, but of a different nature, as supervising in the cafeteria, variety shows and dances.
Appellant did not object to these assignments during the time he served as a long term substitute teacher or during the three years he served as a probationary teacher, but after he attained the status of permanent teacher appellant objected to these assignments and failed to cooperate in the performance of such duties. Effective July 1, 1950, the respondent Board of Education transferred appellant from Chairman of the Social Studies Department to a full time teacher of English. In lieu of the non-classroom assignments appellant was assigned an extra class to teach, so that he and an industrial arts teacher are the only ones who teach six class hours per day. This is in accordance with a rule of the school and apparently is the first time in several years that it has been used. Since this time appellant has not received any athletic assignments.
Appellant first contends that he is under no contractual obligation in regard to the athletic assignments and that if so obligated, the required duties are unreasonable and not within the scope of teaching duties. He states that such obligation is nowhere set forth in the contract, the rules of the Board of Education, nor in the laws of the state of California. While it is true that this specific duty is not set forth, a study of the evidence and the provisions set forth in the Education Code and the Administrative Code reveals that the assignment complained of by appellant is and was within the contemplation of the parties when the contract of employment was entered into. Relevant portions of each are set out below:
Education Code, section 2204. 'The governing board of any school district shall: (a) Prescribe and enforce rules not inconsistent with law or with the rules prescribed by the State Board of Education, for its own government, and for the government of the schools under its jurisdiction.'
Education Code, section 13201. 'The governing board of each school district shall fix and prescribe the duties to be performed by all persons in public school service in the school district.'
These sections provide for the delegation of rule making authority, so that the correct body can prescribe exactly what the duties are. In connection with this, certain rules promulgated by the State Board of Education must be considered. The following excerpts are taken from the California Administrative Code, Title 5, Article 3, which is entitled 'Duties of Principals and Teachers.'
The Education Code also sets forth certain general duties required of all teachers in the public schools, as section 13228 which requires enforcement of the course of study, the use of legally authorized textbooks, and the rules and regulations prescribed for schools; section 13229 which requires that pupils be held to a strict account for their conduct on the way to and from school, on the playgrounds, or during recess; and section 13230 which requires instruction and teaching in the principles of morality, truth, justice and patriotism, 'and to train them up to a true comprehension of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hartzell v. Connell
...such programs constitute "a fundamental ingredient of the educational process." (Id., at p. 493.) Further, in McGrath v. Burkhard (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 367, 280 P.2d 864, the court upheld a school board's assignment of teachers to supervise extracurricular activities, reasoning that such su......
-
Di Genova v. State Bd. of Ed. (State Report Title: DiGenova v. State Bd. of Educ.)
...v. Redlands H. Sch. Dist. (1942), 49 Cal.App.2d 722, 727(4), 122 P.2d 289 quoted with approval in McGrath v. Burkhard (1955), 131 Cal.App.2d 367, 377(4b), 280 P.2d 864; see also Goldsmith v. Board of Education (1924), 66 Cal.App. 157, 168(5), 225 P. It may also be mentioned that, as said by......
-
C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High Sch. Dist.
...Regs., tit. 5, § 5551 [“The principal is responsible for the supervision and administration of his school.”]; McGrath v. Burkhard (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 367, 372, 280 P.2d 864 [“[T]he principal has the necessary power which is inherent in his office to properly administer and supervise his s......
-
Board of Ed. of City of Asbury Park v. Asbury Park Ed. Ass'n
...of such activities an integral part of a teacher's duty toward his or her students. In the leading case, McGrath v. Burkhard, 131 Cal.App.2d 367, 280 P.2d 864 (1955), appellant, shortly after securing tenure, attacked the practice within his school district whereby male teachers could be re......