SALARY SCHEDULE PLACEMENT OF CERTIFICATED EMPLOYEES

George v. Susanville Elementary School District – California Court of Appeal, Third District (Case No. C098772)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: Susanville Elementary School District

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

This case implicates two statewide issues: 1) the ability of local educational agencies to bargain the type and level of experience for which they will give years-of-service credit on the salary schedule under Education Code section 45028; and 2) the obligation of LEAs to provide years-of-service credit on the salary schedule for teachers who resign as permanent employees and are rehired and are entitled to the rights under Education Code section 44931.
SUMMARY OF THE CASE:
Susanville ESD (District) employed the plaintiff, Susan George, as a certificated employee from the 2012–13 through the 2018–19 school years. George voluntarily resigned at the end of the 2018–19 school year. At the time of George’s resignation, George was placed at Class 4, Step 12 of the salary schedule. The District rehired George for the 2022–23 school year after George served two years in another district. The District placed George at Class 4, Step 13 of the salary schedule, giving her credit for her service in the District in 2018–19 but not counting her years of service outside of the District. George filed a Writ, alleging that she was entitled to be placed at Step 15 based on her years of experience with the other district.

The District’s collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with its certificated employees provided that, “[f]or purposes of advancement on the salary schedule, a unit member must teach one year to advance one step on the salary schedule.” The District interpreted the language to apply only to service as a “unit member” of the District’s teacher’s union because it refers to “a unit member” in the language regarding how to advance on the salary schedule. Additionally, while the District provided “new” teachers with up to 12 years of credit for teaching outside of the District upon initial hire, it did not apply that rule to teachers who resigned and were rehired.

Superior Court Outcome:
George sued the District, making two primary arguments. First, George argued that Education Code section 44931 (Section 44931) required the District to recognize her two additional years of out-of-district experience. Section 44931 provides that teachers who leave their employment as permanent teachers and are rehired within 39 months are entitled to be reinstated with “all of the rights” of other permanent teachers “disregarding the break in service.” Thus, George argued that she was entitled to credit on the salary schedule for the two years she served outside the District because, if she had remained employed with the District, she would have earned those two years on the salary schedule. Second, George argued that Section 45028 requires complete salary uniformity, rather than allowing for differences in credit for experience between new teachers and existing or rehired teachers. Thus, because new teachers would receive up to 12 years of experience for out-of-district teaching, George, as a rehire, should too.

The District disagreed, arguing that George had been reinstated in accordance with Section 44931 because all Section 44931 required was that George be granted the same salary and rights she had when she left the District — something that the District had already provided. As to Section 45028’s uniformity requirements, the District argued that prior case law had long recognized the District’s right to determine the level and quality of experience that would qualify for schedule advancement. By providing out-of-district experience credit only to “new” teachers, the District had exercised this right, and therefore returning teachers, like George, were ineligible for out-of-district credit upon rehire.

The trial court denied George’s suit in a short decision without much detail. In doing so, the court largely agreed with the District’s positions regarding both Section 44931 and 45028.

Appellate Outcome and ELA Involvement:
George appealed, and the ELA filed an amicus brief in support of the District. In its brief, the the ELA again emphasized that prior case law has repeatedly recognized LEAs’ right to define the level, type and quality of experience that employees must obtain for salary schedule advancement. In this case, the ELA argued that the District had memorialized these requirements in its own CBA, after bargaining with the certificated unit in accordance with the Educational Employees Relations Act (EERA). Moreover, these restrictions — crediting only “new” teachers with out-of-district experience — were fully consistent with Section 45028, which expressly permits different schedule credit for teachers hired after any “locally specified date.” The ELA also explained that Section 44931, in requiring prior permanent employees to be “restored” if rehired within 39 months, entitled unit members only to the same salary and benefits they had when resigned — it did not require LEAs to grant them the salary and benefits they would hypothetically have accrued had they remained employed, as George claimed.

The Court of Appeal fully supported the District’s (and the ELA’s) arguments regarding Section 44931, finding that Section 44931 entitled George only to the salary and benefits she had at the time of resignation. However, it found George entitled to an additional two years’ credit on the salary schedule under Section 45028. In doing so, the appellate court largely ignored the CBA’s language since, in the court’s view, the language violated Section 45028’s uniformity provisions by allowing two groups of teachers with the same experience to advance at different rates on the salary schedule.

CURRENT STATUS AND/OR OUTCOME:
The case was not appealed to the California Supreme Court. As a result, the Court of Appeal’s decision is final.
Back to Report