Saxton v. Board of Education

The plaintiff was a teacher in the public schools of the city of Los Angeles, and prior to the commencement of this action had been classified as a permanent teacher in said public schools, and remained such until her alleged wrongful dismissal by the defendant Board of Education of said school district. She instituted this action for the purpose of having said order of dismissal declared and adjudged null and void; that she be reinstated and permitted to continue to serve in said public schools as a permanent teacher and for the sum of $286, which amount, it was alleged, was due her as salary for the remainder of the school year 1925-26, the year of her alleged illegal dismissal. The action was commenced September 7, 1926. The Board of Education in its answer to plaintiff’s complaint denied that the plaintiff had been wrongfully or illegally dismissed as a teacher in said schools, and then set forth in its said answer the steps taken by said board prior, and leading up, to the order of said board dismissing the plaintiff from further service as a teacher in said schools. Upon the trial the court found that written charges had been made against plaintiff by the city superintendent of schools of said district, in which plaintiff was charged with unprofessional conduct; that a hearing upon said charges had been held by said board on the twentieth day of May, 1926, at which time said board made said order of dismissal; that prior to said hearing said board had given plaintiff written notice thereof, as provided by section 1609 of the 'Political Code, and that in the holding of said hearing said board had complied in all respects with the provisions of said section of the Political Code. The trial court further found “that substantial evidence was introduced at said hearing which tended to support the said charges,” but that “no one of said charges is true and that all of said charges are untrue” and that the order of dismissal “was erroneous, in that the charges above mentioned were wholly false and untrue.” Following these findings were those to the effect that plaintiff had no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law; that she had not appealed from the decision of said Board of Education, made at said hearing dismissing her from service as a teacher in said pub-

Two questions are presented by this appeal. The first is whether the decision of the Board of Education as to the truth of the charges preferred against the plaintiff after a hearing thereon, of which hearing plaintiff had due and legal notice, and at which she was present with counsel and introduced evidence in her defense, is final and binding upon the plaintiff and upon said Board of Education. In case it be held that such decision is not final, then a second question is presented, and that is whether under all the facts and circumstances of this case mandamus will lie to compel said Board of Education to reinstate the plaintiff in her former position as a permanent teacher in said schools. The answers to the questions arising herein are largely'controlled by the provisions of the so-called Teachers’ Tenure Act as the same is now found in said section 1609 of the Political Code, upon its amendment in 1921. The constitutionality of said act was questioned, and its validity sustained, in a recent decision of this court. (Grigsby v. King, 202 Cal. 299 [ 260 Pac. 789 ].) This act provides for the classification of public school teachers into three classes, to be known as substitute, probationary and permanent teachers. As this action involves only the latter class we will dismiss the other two classes from further consideration. Subdivision fifth (j) of this section provides that permanent teachers, except where the number employed by a school district is decreased by reason of the decrease in the pupils attending the school in such district, or by the discontinuance of a particular kind of teaching service, may be dismissed only after a fair trial and impartial public hearing for certain designated causes particularly mentioned therein. Ten days’ notice of said hearing must be given in writing to the teacher against whom charges have been preferred,

The above provisions of section 1609 of the Political Code have been before the district court of appeal upon two different occasions, in each of which the question was squarely presented as to the finality and conclusiveness of the decision of the board of trustees dismissing a teacher for cause. In each of said cases it was held that such decision of the board of trustees was not final nor conclusive upon the teacher accused. (Alexander v. Manton etc. School Dist., 73 Cal. App. 252 [ 238 Pac. 742 ] ; Hooper v. Wiches et al., 88 Cal. App. 535 [ 263 Pac. 853 ].) In the first of these two cases the appellate court, after reviewing the facts, stated the position of the trial court in said action as follows: “From the whole record it clearly appears that the [trial] court decided the case upon the theory that the trustees had the right to dismiss plaintiff during the term of his employment for cause only, and after notice and a hearing as provided in section 1609 of the Political Code; that the court was without jurisdiction to determine the truth or falsity of the charges; ...” After discussing a point not involved in the present action, the opinion of the district court of appeal continues: “There are cases holding that the dismissal of a teacher for cause, after a trial by the board of trustees on charges preferred against him, is final and conclusive. There are others holding that where the teacher is given the right of appeal to the superintendent of schools in ease of his dismissal, such remedy by appeal is

The case of Alexander v. Manton, supra, was followed by the case of Hooper v. Wickes et al., supra, decided by the said district court of appeal. In this latter case the court discussed the effect of section 1609 of the Political Code, and particularly the following provision: “Nothing in this act shall be construed in such manner as to deprive any teacher of his rights and remedies in a court of competent jurisdiction on a question of fact and law.” The conclusion arrived at by the court in that case is stated as follows: “Subdivision ‘J’ of section 1609 of the Political Code empowers the trustees of a school district to dismiss a principal for one or more of the following causes, after a fair and impartial hearing, to-wit: Immoral or unprofessional conduct; incompetence; evident unfitness for teaching; persistent violation of, or refusal to obey the school laws of California or reasonable rules prescribed for the government of public schools. This subdivision of the section is followed by others relating to procedure not material here for the reason that no question is raised as to the procedure in this cause. We come then to the subdivision pertaining to this action, which reads: ‘Nothing in this act shall be construed in such man

The case of Hooper v. Wickes et al. was before this court upon a petition for a hearing herein. After a careful consideration of the opinion therein we denied said petition. At that time we were of the opinion that the district court of appeal had placed a correct construction upon the provisions of section 1609 of the Political Code in its decision of said cause. We have not been shown any reason why we should change the opinion at which we arrived at the time of the consideration by us of said petition. The plain effect of the ruling in each of the above causes is that the decision of the Board of Education, or board of trustees, as the case might be, is not final, but that in an action brought under the provisions of section 1609 of the Political Code the whole matter of the truthfulness of the charge against an accused teacher is laid open in the trial court for inquiry and investigation. If for inquiry and investigation, it must be for determination also. It follows, therefore, in the present action that it was the right of the trial court to determine the truth or falsity of the charges preferred against the plaintiff by the city superintendent of schools and which had been previously passed upon by said Board of Education. This right on the part of the trial court was in no way restrained or restricted by the fact that the Board of Education h.ád previously acted upon said charges and had found the same to be true, as the action of said board by the plain terms of the statute is expressly made subject to the right of the teacher to resort to a court of competent jurisdiction and there have determined every “question of fact and law.” The foregoing, we think, affords a complete answer to the first question above referred to as presented by the appeal in this action.

The other question, as already stated, involves the right of plaintiff to a writ of mandamus in a proceeding of this nature under the facts as found by the court in this action. It is first contended that a discharged teacher has the right to appeal to the county superintendent of schools under section 1698 of the Political Code, and that in case the salary of a teacher is withheld by a Board of Education or board of school trustees the teacher may appeal to the superin

The case of Kennedy v. Board of Education, supra, contains an apt and comprehensive statement of the law upon

“The writ of mandamus may issue in this state ‘to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which he is entitled, and from which he is unlawfully precluded.’ (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1085.)

“It may be conceded that a right to hold the position of teacher in the public schools would not be a ‘right’ within the meaning of this section, if such right depended solely upon a contract with the board of education, and the term for which such position should be held were not fixed by the statute. But such is not the ease. As we have seen, the term for which the respondent was entitled to hold her position was not fixed by any contract with the appellant. The duration of her term of service is fixed by the statute, and her removal from it was not merely a violation of a contract, but of an express provision of law forbidding such removal. Although her right to take the position depended upon the act of the appellant, the right to continue in it was preserved to her by the statute, and to take it from her was to deprive her of a right given her by law, and to which she has a right to be restored by mandamus. (People v. Van Siclen, 43 Hun (N. Y.), 537.)

“The object being to restore her to a right given her by law, mandamus is the proper remedy. And as her term of service is uncertain, and depends upon the action of the board of education, based upon the causes named in the statute, her damages could not be ascertained with certainty, and an action for such damages would not be an adequate remedy.”

The finding of the trial court that there was substantial evidence introduced at the hearing of the charges before the Board of Education “which tended to support said charges” would not deprive said court of the power to issue its writ of mandamus to compel said board to reinstate the plaintiff. The trial court found that said order of dismissal “was erroneous in that the charges above mentioned were untrue.” The trial court further found that “no one of said charges is true and that all of said charges are untrue.” We have already held that under the provisions of section 1609 of the Political Code the power of finally passing upon the truth or falsity of the charges preferred against

There is no merit, we think, in the contention of the defendants that by the amendment of 1921 of section 1609 of the Political Code the legislature has enlarged the scope of the writ of mandamus beyond that which it had at the time the constitution was adopted. The law is well settled that the legislature has no such power. (Pacific Telephone etc. Co. v. Eshleman, 166 Cal. 640 [Ann. Cas. 1915C, 822, 50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 652 , 137 Pac. 1119 ].) Section 1609 of the Political Code, since its amendment in 1921, at most gives to a discharged teacher a trial de novo before the superior court, after a hearing before the Board of Education. By this amendment the Board of Education has been deprived of the power to pass finally upon the dismissal of a teacher in the public schools. The effect of the amendment, therefore, is not to enlarge the power of the court in matters of mandamus, but to diminish the effectiveness of orders of Boards of Education and boards of trustees in dismissing teachers. The scope of the writ of mandamus remains the same after such amendment as it was before the adoption thereof. Neither are we able to agree with defendants

The judgment is affirmed.

Langdon, J., Preston, J., Richards, J., Seawell, J'., and Waste, C. J., concurred.

Rehearing denied.

All the Justices concurred.