CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. GOVERNING BOARD OF THE EAST SIDE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT







Filed 3/15/11






CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE EAST SIDE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents.

H034866 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV142980)

Appellant Bernice Singer and her labor union, appellant California School Employees Association (CSEA), appeal from the trial court's denial of their mandate petition. They contend that a classified employee of a nonmerit system school district[1] who attains permanent status and then is laid off from her position and thereafter reemployed by the district in a different, lower position retains her permanent status and may not be required to serve a probationary period in the new position. We conclude that the statutory scheme does not support their contention. We hold that such an employee's permanent status is restricted to the position or class in which it was attained and is not retained when the employee is reemployed in a different, lower position.

I. Background
Singer became employed by the East Side Union High School District (the District) in a School Community Liaison (SCL) position in November 1989. The SCL position was a year-round position that was paid at Range 18 on the District's salary schedule. Singer served a six-month probationary period and became a permanent employee in May 1990. In March 2008, the District decided to eliminate all of its SCL positions due to lack of funds. In April 2008, Singer was notified by the District that her position was being eliminated due to lack of funds and that she would be laid off in June 2008 and placed on the 39-month reemployment list. Singer's employment in the SCL position ended in June 2008.
In August 2008, the District posted openings for eight Campus Monitor (CM) positions. The CM position was not a year-round position; it had a 10-month schedule. The CM position was paid at Range 6 on the District's salary schedule, and it was therefore a lower position than the SCL position. The duties for the CM and SCL positions were considerably different. The CM position was limited to â€