Court of Appeal Reverses Trial Court in Vergara v. State of California (K-12) - School & College Legal Services of California

In June, 2014, following a two-month trial, a superior court judge in Los Angeles issued a 16-page ruling in the Vergara et al. v. State of California lawsuit. In Vergara, various parties, including several students, challenged a number of the statutes that provide employment protections to California teachers. The defendant was the State of California. The California Teachers Association was permitted to intervene in the litigation on the side of the State.

LEGAL UPDATE

May 6, 2016

To: Superintendents, Member School Districts (K-12)

From: Frank Zotter, Jr., Senior Associate General Counsel

Subject: Court of Appeal Reverses Trial Court in Vergara v. State of California

Memo No. 14-2016

In June, 2014, following a two-month trial, a superior court judge in Los Angeles issued a 16-page ruling in the Vergara et al. v. State of California lawsuit. In Vergara, various parties, including several students, challenged a number of the statutes that provide employment protections to California teachers. The defendant was the State of California. The California Teachers Association was permitted to intervene in the litigation on the side of the State.

The trial judge found five statutes governing teacher tenure, layoffs, and dismissal violated the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution. The challenged statutes generally allow teachers to become permanent employees after two years of probation, and to be laid off in inverse order of hiring. They also impose significant procedural roadblocks to terminating teachers for misconduct or unsatisfactory performance in the classroom.

The trial judge concluded that these statutes made it more likely that ineffective teachers who had obtained tenure would be retained, and that firing all but the worst teachers was too difficult and expensive for school districts. The judge also found that these statutes had a disproportionate impact on poor and minority students, who were more likely to be assigned to classrooms presided over by teachers with the poorest skills.

The State and the union appealed, and on April 16, 2016 the court of appeal overturned the trial judge’s ruling by a 3-0 vote. The court of appeal found that the plaintiffs had only brought a facial Equal Protection challenge to the statutes, not a challenge about how the statutes were applied. A facial challenge is a more difficult legal burden to meet. The court of appeal also found that the plaintiffs “failed to show that the statutes themselves make any certain group of students more likely to be taught by ineffective teachers than any other group of students.” Thus, the court of appeal concluded that the challenged statutes were, in fact, constitutional.

The plaintiffs almost immediately announced that they would file a request for the California Supreme Court to review the appellate court’s decision. As of this writing they have not, but they have 10 days after the court of appeal’s decision is final, which in turn is typically 30 days after the appellate decision was issued. Thus, the request to the Supreme Court will likely be due around the end of May.

Implications for Districts

The status of the challenged statutes is, of course, of great importance to school districts. The trial court’s decision made national headlines, and will therefore continue to have political implications whether the Supreme Court decides to review the appellate court’s decision or to leave it in place. Furthermore, districts must comply with these statutes when reviewing probationary teachers’ performance, when conducting layoffs, and when a teacher’s conduct requires discipline. Our office will therefore monitor the developments of this case closely and update our clients on any significant developments.

Please contact our office with questions regarding this Legal Update or any other legal matter.

The information in this Legal Update is provided as a summary of law and is not intended as legal advice. Application of the law may vary depending on the particular facts and circumstances at issue. We, therefore, recommend that you consult legal counsel to advise you on how the law applies to your specific situation.

Contact SCLS