Mcintyre

Mcintyre v. Sonoma Valley Unified School District

Good Law
141 Cal. Rptr. 3d 540·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 608·206 Cal. App. 4th 170·2012 WL 1858959·12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5574
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 1, 2012No. A131327California5,856 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Ruvolo, J.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Dawn McIntyre (McIntyre), a former employee of the Sonoma Valley Unified School District (the District), filed a petition for writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085) to compel the District to reinstate her as a permanent tenured teacher. The primary issue in this case is whether the District had a mandatory duty under the Education Code to classify McIntyre as a “probationary” employee rather than as a “temporary” employee. Whether McIntyre was properly classified as “temporary” instead of “probationary” is a matter of some consequence because a teacher’s job classification “is important in detetinining a teacher’s rights to reelection [(retention)] and promotion . . . and to determining the level of procedural protections to which a teacher is entitled should he or she be dismissed or nonreelected” for the next school year, as happened in McIntyre’s case. (Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School Dist. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 911, 921 [ 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 811 , *175 62 P.3d 54 ] (Kavanaugh).) The trial court denied McIntyre’s petition after ruling that the District had properly classified her during her three years of service. We affirm.…

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.