Berkeley Federation of Teachers v. Berkeley Unified School District

I concur in the judgment.

Education Code section 44887 does not specify the period of service a person must be employed in order to fall under its more than 60 per cent rule. Neither does the mirror statute, former Education Code section 87482 (see new Ed. Code, § 87482.5, subd. (a); added by Stats. 1985, ch. 132, § 2, p. 259), which applies the same rule in the community college context. But in Rooney v. San Diego Community College Dist. (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 977, 981-982 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 464 ], the Court of Appeal took a practical approach of using the employee’s weekly teaching load, calculated on the basis of the entire school year.

As I read Rooney two reasons were given for choosing an entire school year as the framework for calculating whether the employee’s hours met the more than 60 percent rule: (1) the employee there had a contract for and *781 worked an entire year; (2) a regular employee with a full time assignment works pursuant to an annual contract. (Id., at pp. 981-982.) But, I do not read Rooney as making dispositive the fact that the employee’s two semester workload was pursuant to a single contract. Rather all that is important is that the employee in fact…

Berkeley Unified School District (District) and the Governing Board of the Berkeley Unified School District (Governing Board) appeal from a judgment ordering the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate directing them to reclassify respondent Nancy Edwards as a probationary *777 teaching employee of the District. Respondent Berkeley Federation of Teachers, Local 1078, AFT, AFL-CIO (the Union), joined with Edwards in bringing the petition for writ of mandate which resulted in the judgment. The issue presented is whether a school district is required to analyze the workload of a teacher on a semester basis or on a school year basis for purposes of classifying the teacher pursuant to Education Code section 44887. We hold, on the facts of this case, that the District was permitted to view Edwards’ workload on a school year basis and, therefore, reverse the judgment.

I. The Facts and Procedure

As is common in the superior courts, this matter was heard on declarations and documentary evidence without oral testimony. The evidence before the trial court consisted of the verified petition, the verified response, the declaration of Richard E. Endsley, director of certificated…