Supreme Court Declines to Review Court of Appeal Decision in Vergara v. State of California (K-12) - School & College Legal Services of California

In April, 2016, the California Court of Appeal in Los Angeles overturned the decision of a superior court judge in the Vergara et al. v. State of California lawsuit. In Vergara, various parties, including several students, had challenged several 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

August 22, 2016

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

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

Subject: Supreme Court Declines to Review Court of Appeal Decision in Vergara v. State of California

Memo No. 26-2016

In April, 2016, the California Court of Appeal in Los Angeles overturned the decision of a superior court judge in the Vergara et al. v. State of California lawsuit. In Vergara, various parties, including several students, had challenged several 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 had ruled that five statutes governing teacher tenure, layoffs, and teacher 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.

When the State and the union were successful in getting the court of appeal to overturn the trial court’s ruling, the plaintiffs requested that the California Supreme Court review the appellate court’s decision. Today, the Supreme Court issued a brief order declining to hear the appeal. Three justices of the court voted to grant review, one less than the minimum four votes required. Justice Goodwin Liu issued a lengthy dissent from the denial, explaining why he believed that the Supreme Court should have agreed to hear the case.

Implications for Districts

It is possible that the plaintiff’s loss in the judicial arena will bring further political pressure on the Legislature, or perhaps spur action in the initiative process, to overturn the laws that the court has left in place. For the time being, however, the Supreme Court’s decision means that the challenged statutes remain valid and school districts must continue to abide by them.

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