Petitioner superintendent appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of San Mateo County (California) that denied petitioner’s request for a writ of mandate to compel respondent school district to reinstate him as an associate superintendent, alleging that respondent erroneously terminated his employment contract.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. provides more information about Labor Code 2699.3
Overview
Respondent school district terminated petitioner superintendent’s employment contract. Petitioner sought a writ of mandate to compel respondent to reinstate his position, which the trial court denied. Upon review, the court affirmed, holding that in his position as an administrator, petitioner was not a permanent employee, and therefore did not have a property right in his administrative position. Rather, Cal. Educ. Code §§ 13314, 13315 declared that petitioner’s tenure rights, and thus his property rights, were those of a classroom teacher and not those of an administrator. As respondent had not denied or repudiated petitioner’s classroom teacher property interests, the trial court properly denied petitioner’s request for a writ of mandate. Furthermore, insofar as Titus v. Lawndale School Dist., 157 Cal. App.2d 822 (1958) and Main v. Claremont Unified School Dist., 161 Cal.App.2d 189 (1958) were contrary, they were disapproved.
Outcome
The denial of petitioner superintendent’s request for a writ of mandate was affirmed because petitioner was not a permanent employee, and therefore petitioner did not have a property right in his administrative position.