REPRESENTING UNIONS & EMPLOYEES SINCE 1936
facebook twitter linkedin youtube

Oakland: 510.625.9700 | Sacramento: 916.325.2100

Superior Court Cases

Noteworthy Education Cases Litigated by Beeson, Tayer & Bodine Attorneys – Superior Court cases

  • Kaye v. San Leandro Unified School Dist. (Alameda Superior Court, 2009) The Superior Court held that the Education Code’s 60-day deadline for school districts to commence a hearing after a teacher has requested a hearing and the district has filed an accusation means what it says. The court granted the teacher’s petition for writ after the district failed to commence a hearing within 60 days and instead tried to file a new accusation. The court also ordered the district to pay the teacher’s attorneys fees and costs.
  • Kenny, California Teachers Assn. v. Acalanes Union High School Dist. (2004). Contra Costa Sup. Ct., Case No. N04-0727. This case was brought on behalf of part-time certificated employees who had been relegated to probationary status only because they were employed less than full-time. Two of the “probationary” employees had been non-reelected, even though they had taught for more than two years. After the Court issued a tentative ruling in their favor, the petitioners agreed to dismiss their case in exchange for the district’s agreement to reclassify all eligible, part-time probationary employees to permanent status and to pay monetary awards to the two individuals who resigned in lieu of reclaiming their jobs.
  • Vallejo City Unified School District v Vallejo Education Assoc. (2004). Solano County Sup. Ct., Case No. FCS023328, in which the Court upheld an Arbitration Award to a teacher who had been reassigned based upon racially discriminatory factors and was awarded full back pay, attorneys fees and emotional distress damages in an amount in excess of $130,000. The case was later settled.
  • Alameda Education Assn. v. Alameda Unified School Dist. (2003). Alameda Sup. Ct., Case No. RG03087744. In March 2003, the district sent a layoff notice to each one of its 635 certificated employees. The Association filed a petition for writ challenging the legitimacy of the layoff due to the district’s “over-noticing.” The Court denied the petition, and the Association filed a notice of appeal. In the meantime, the district rescinded all but 11 of the layoff notices. After a layoff hearing, an administrative law judge sided with the Association and dismissed the remaining 11 layoff notices, concluding that “Notice to everyone is, in effect, notice to no one.” Eventually, the appeal was settled.
  • Adams, et. al v. Grant Joint Union High School Dist. (2003). Sacto. Sup. Ct., Case No. 03CS01192; Grant District Education Assn. v. Grant Joint Union High School Dist., (2003) Sacto. Sup. Ct., Case No. 03CS01668.
  • Caldwell, Caesar, and Sherman v. Oakland Unified School Dist. (2001). Alameda Sup. Court, Case No. 822300-8. The Court issued a writ of mandate compelling the district to comply with the law giving current employees a preferential right to coaching positions over “walk on” candidates and to pay stipends to three current employees who were denied preferential consideration.
  • Wright v. Walnut Creek School Dist. (2001). Contra Costa Sup. Ct., Case No. CO1-04870, and Wright v. Contra Costa County Schools Insurance Group (2002) Contra Costa Sup. Ct, Case No. C02-02449. Instead of providing an elementary school teacher any effective reasonable accommodation for her physical disability, the district took the advice of her insurer and removed her from her job. The teacher filed a disability discrimination lawsuit against the district under the Fair Employment and Housing Act and against the Schools Insurance Group that insured the district. The teacher accepted a large monetary settlement resolving the dispute that included lost wages, retiree health benefits until age 65, and other relief, including disposition of her workers compensation claim.