The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) is a quasi-judicial tribunal established by the California Legislature in 1945 to hear and neutrally resolve disputes for various state and local government agencies, such as school districts. OAH conducts hearings on a variety of matters, including challenges to reduction in force (layoff) actions for certificated and classified employees. These OAH decisions, made by administrative law judges (ALJs), offer helpful guidance for properly completing the complex process of executing a layoff. In 2025, there were more reductions in force than in prior years when funding was on stronger footing. Given economic conditions, layoffs are likely to be significant in March 2026, and this article addresses recent cases regarding certificated layoffs.

Generally, a school district is authorized by law to lay off employees due to unfavorable economic circumstances, such as declining student enrollment, reduction of services or budget issues. In doing so, the law requires that the layoffs be carried out in inverse order of the employment dates of the employees involved (seniority), from last hired to first. However, specific concepts within the process, such as “skipping” and “bumping,” require careful consideration and attention to detail in how they are used, so as to avoid violating the Education Code, as well as the rights of employees when executing a reduction in force.

For context, a more senior certificated employee whose position has been discontinued has a right to move into the position of a more junior employee that is not discontinued (bump), if the senior employee possesses the appropriate certification and competency. Relatedly, a certificated employee who is more junior may be “skipped” and retained in employment over a more senior employee if the junior employee possesses the specific certification and competency for a specialized role that the senior employee does not have. The details in the processes of executing these bumps and skips are of utmost importance to ensure the reduction in force is legally compliant. The following cases provide examples of how these rules are interpreted.

The Monrovia Unified School District reduction in force decision offers a prime example of how a more junior employee may be retained based on specifics of the positions being discontinued. In this case, a part-time counselor was bumped from her position by a more senior part-time counselor whose position was discontinued based on a reduction in particular kinds of service because of budgetary issues. The bumped counselor argued that she should be allowed to bump other more junior counselors employed in full-time positions that she is certified and competent to perform. The ALJ disagreed. A part-time employee, even if willing to assume a full-time position, is not entitled to bump a more junior employee in a full-time position.

Similarly, in the Roseland School District decision, when an employee is bumped based on the district’s reasonable criteria for certification and competency, the district is not obligated to reassign other senior teachers who are not losing their positions in an effort to save the bumped teacher. In this case, a teacher was subject to a layoff after other junior teachers were skipped because of the district’s need for math teachers with a specific certification. In addition to skipping, the teacher was bumped by another more-senior teacher and consequently received a layoff notice. The teacher’s arguments in favor of reassignment of teachers and classes to protect senior teachers were rejected by the ALJ. Specifically, the district was not obligated to reassign a teacher to a position that they do not hold certification or competency to teach, reassign senior teachers to protect others that are losing their position, or divide full-time positions based on an employee’s wish for a part-time position. In summary, districts do not have to consider reassignments to save a teacher’s employment when skipping and bumping have been properly applied.

Further, as pointed out in the Plumas USD decision, “skipping” and “bumping” occur at different times in the process of determining which individuals will be subject to a layoff. Skipping occurs when determining which employees are subject to layoff; whereas bumping takes place after it is determined that an individual is subject to a layoff. Thus, before considering an employee’s bumping rights, that employee must be a candidate for layoff. Because of this distinction in timing, it is incorrect for a district to argue it did not engage in skipping because the senior employees did not have the requisite competency or certification to bump the junior employees. This conflates the two concepts and is not allowed by the law. The district’s action in this case of not subjecting less-senior employees to layoffs because they could not be bumped by more senior employees was actually skipping and the district did not justify skipping the less-senior employees.

A mistake in the bumping or skipping process may result in the district being required to retain an employee that it needed to layoff. Due to the complexities involved in implementing skipping and bumping, as well as other reduction in force concepts, it is necessary to consult with legal counsel to ensure the processes used are legally compliant.

Please note that the information provided here by CSBA is for informational purposes and is not legal advice. Contact your LEA legal counsel of CSBA Legal Services at legalservices@csba.org for questions related to this information.