Court Opinion

ID: 9732351
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:17:35.766144+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:20.567013
License: Public Domain

FLEMING, J.
I dissent. In my view petitioner qualified as a probationary employee under Education Code section 13336.5 by teaching during one school year classes which would have been taught by one person absent from service.
It is conceded that (1) petitioner was classified as a substitute employee; (2) she was employed by the school district as a teacher; (3) she taught the same classes (4) with the same pupils (5) in the same schoolroom (6) for one school year. To me it seems plain that the English classes petitioner taught were classes which would have been taught by one person, and that by teaching them for one school year petitioner qualified under the statute as a probationary employee.
The weakness of the body-slot principle, purportedly used by the school district, becomes self-evident on examining the facts of the present case, where, according to the school district’s calculations, petitioner was a substitute during the second term for Mrs. Harris, a foreign language teacher who was physically present and teaching during that term. Thus, although petitioner appeared in the starting lineup and played the same position *45throughout the entire game, the school district maintains that she remained a substitute, one who replaced Mrs. Brooks during the first half and replaced Mrs. Harris during the second half, still a substitute even when Mrs. Harris rejoined the team to play the second half. If we accept this logic, a school district through sagacious shuffling of personnel could field a team comprised entirely of substitutes. I do not believe the Legislature intended the statute to be so circumvented.
I would reverse the judgment.
Appellants’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied March 27, 1974.