Lunderville

Lunderville v. Emery Unified School District

Good Law
1968 Cal. App. LEXIS 2333·262 Cal. App. 2d 459·68 Cal. Rptr. 768
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 24, 1968Civ. 23935California2,861 words

Opinion

Opinion

Salsman, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment denying appellant’s petition for a writ of mandate to compel the respondent school district to reinstate her as a school teacher., and to pay damages. We modify the judgment but affirm denial of the writ.

Appellant was employed by the respondent district'-as a probationary second grade teacher for the school year 1964-1965. On April 14, 1965, at the request of Mr. Higgins D. Bailey, the district superintendent, she attended a meeting of the district board of trustees. At the meeting she was given a letter-notice by Mr. Bailey. It read: “You are hereby notified that on the 14th day of April, 1965, the Board of Trustees of the Emery Unified School District of Alameda County, State of California, passed and adopted a resolution, resolving that-your .services as a probationary employee will not be required for the ensuing school year, namely the school year 1965-1966. It was further resolved that you. be removed from • your present status as classroom teadher, effective. Monday, April 19, 1965, at 8:00 a.m. You by this'resolution are forbidden" to meet with yoqr second’ grade class effective' oil’ the date and time shown above. You are hereby…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.