Sayre v. Board of Trustees
| Decision Date | 08 July 1970 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Donald B. SAYRE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the COALINGA COLLEGE DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 1140. |
Frame & Courtney, and Ted R. Frame, Coalinga, for appellant.
Robert M. Wash, County Counsel, and Max E. Robinson, Deputy County Counsel, Fresno, for respondent.
Appellant, Donald B. Sayre, appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County, denying his application for a writ of mandate to compel respondent, the Board of Trustees of the Coalinga College District, to reclassify appellant on the salary schedule as of the 1964--1965 school year, and to pay him the additional compensation he claims he would have received if he had been properly classified at that time. The sole question presented in the appeal is whether the rule adopted by respondent board in 1964, giving school teachers employed for the 1964--1965 school year greater credit and higher placement on the salary schedule than given to school teachers employed before that school year, is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Education Code section 13506. This section provides in part:
'Uniform allowance may be made in any schedule of salaries for years of training and for years of service.
'In no case shall the governing board of a school district draw orders for the salary of any teacher in violation of this section, nor shall any superintendent draw any requisition for the salary of any teacher in violation thereof.'
(§ 13506 has been amended, effective July 1, 1970.)
The facts are not in dispute. Appellant was employed by the Coalinga College District for the 1963--1964 school year. Appellant had twelve years of prior teaching experience, and he was given five years' credit for this experience and placed on the sixth step of the district's salary schedule; at that time five years was the maximum credit allowed for prior teaching experience; along with other teachers, appellant has advanced one step each year. In 1964 the district board to facilitate the recruitment of experienced teachers, changed the rule and increased the maximum credit allowed for prior teaching experience from five to nine years. The change did not affect teachers employed prior to the 1964--1965 school year; if the rule change had applied to teachers already employed by the district, during the 1964--1965 school year appellant would have been placed at the tenth step of the salary schedule instead of the seventh step.
On first impression, one would be inclined to agree with appellant's contention that he is entitled to a reversal of the judgment and an order reclassifying him on the salary schedule as prayed for in his petition. A school board is authorized to fix the compensation of school teachers (Ed.Code § 13502). But, the salary schedules must not be arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable (Kacsur v. Board of Trustees, 18 Cal.2d 586, 116 P.2d 593; Shoban v. Board of Trustees, 276 A.C.A. 623, 81 Cal.Rptr. 112). And, if allowance is made for years of training and experience, the allowance must be uniform. (Ed.Code § 13506.) Yet, in granting greater credit for prior teaching experience to teachers hired during the 1964--1965 school year than given to teachers hired prior to the rule change, respondent board seemingly distinguished between teachers solely on the basis of the date of their employment.
Upon careful consideration, we are compelled to conclude that the trial court properly denied appellant's petition. The obvious purpose of section 13506 is to prevent favoritism in school employment, without unduly hampering school boards in school administration. Thus, a reasonable classification of school teachers, brought about by policy changes necessitated by employment needs, is permissible. (Fry v. Board of Education, 17 Cal.2d 753, 112 P.2d 229; Law v. El Monte School Dist., 267 Cal.App.2d 20, 72 Cal.Rptr. 554; Eastham v. Santa...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palos Verdes Faculty Assn. v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified Sch. Dist.
...807, 810, 76 Cal.Rptr. 198; Shoban v. Board of Trustees (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 534, 541, 81 Cal.Rptr. 112; Sayre v. Board of Trustees (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 488, 491, 88 Cal.Rptr. 355.) Of the cited cases, two are of particular interest with reference to the matter we now consider. In the leadi......
-
Mayer v. Board of Trustees
...see that the amendment of section 13506 in any way operated to render obsolete the holdings in Fry and Lawe or in Sayre v. Board of Trustees, 9 Cal.App.3d 488, 88 Cal.Rptr. 355, a case which also relied upon Fry and Lawe in upholding the right of a school district to establish a higher maxi......
-
California Teachers Assn. v. Board of Education
...(1944) 24 Cal.2d 437, 150 P.2d 455; Lawe v. El Monte School Dist. (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 20, 72 Cal.Rptr. 554; Sayre v. Board of Trustees (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 488, 88 Cal.Rptr. 355.) If the case before us were decided under Education Code section 13506 prior to its 1970 amendment, we would be......
-
California Sch. Employees Assn. v. Coachella Valley Unified Sch. Dist.
...Code permits a reasonable classification brought about by policy changes because of employment needs. (Sayre v. Board of Trustees, 9 Cal.App.3d 488, 491, 88 Cal.Rptr. 355; Lawe v. El Monte School Dist., 267 Cal.App.2d 20, 22--23, 72 Cal.Rptr. The obvious purpose of provisions requiring unif......