Vergara v. State of California
202 Cal. Rptr. 3d 262, 206 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3055, 246 Cal. App. 4th 619 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute is facially unconstitutional under the equal protection clause only if it inevitably causes a constitutional violation, regardless of how it is implemented, by creating a classification that affects similarly situated groups in an unequal manner. This requires demonstrating that the constitutional violation flows directly and unavoidably from the statute itself, not from the actions of those administering it.
Facts:
- California Education Code includes provisions governing how K-12 public school teachers obtain tenure, are dismissed for unsatisfactory performance, and are laid off based on seniority.
- Nine students attending California public schools alleged that these provisions caused "grossly ineffective" teachers to become employed and retain their employment in the school system.
- The "tenure statute" (§ 44929.21, subd. (b)) required school districts with more than 250 students to decide on a probationary teacher's permanent employment by March 15 of their second consecutive school year.
- The "dismissal statutes" (§§ 44934; 44938, subds. (b)(1), (2); 44944) outlined a process for dismissing permanent certificated teachers for unsatisfactory performance, involving written notice, a 90-day period to correct faults, filing of charges, and a hearing by a three-member Commission on Professional Competence (CPC).
- The "reduction-in-force statute" (§ 44955) mandated that in the event of layoffs, permanent employees be terminated based on inverse seniority (last-hired, first-fired), with limited exceptions.
- Evidence presented at trial indicated that the probationary period in the tenure statute (approximately 16 months, including summers) was too short for administrators to make adequately informed reelection decisions, resulting in highly ineffective teachers being retained as permanent employees.
- Evidence showed that teacher dismissal proceedings were time-consuming (1 to 10 years) and expensive ($50,000 to $450,000), which significantly disincentivized districts from initiating formal dismissal proceedings against highly ineffective teachers.
- Evidence further suggested that the seniority-based reduction-in-force statute often resulted in highly effective junior teachers being terminated while grossly ineffective senior teachers kept their jobs, with little correlation to effectiveness.
- A phenomenon known as the "dance of the lemons" was described, where poorly performing teachers were transferred by administrators to other schools within a district, often ending up at schools predominantly serving minority and low-income students.
Procedural Posture:
- Nine students filed a lawsuit against the State of California, various state officials, and three school districts (Los Angeles Unified School District, Oakland Unified School District, and Alum Rock Union School District) in state trial court.
- Prior to trial, the plaintiffs dismissed the three school districts as defendants.
- The California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers were granted leave to intervene as defendants in the trial court.
- The trial court (Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Judge Rolf M. Treu) conducted a bench trial, hearing eight weeks of evidence from over 50 witnesses.
- The trial court issued a tentative decision finding five sections of the Education Code unconstitutional.
- The trial court subsequently issued a final statement of decision and judgment on August 27, 2014, declaring the challenged statutes unconstitutional and void, and ordered them enjoined.
- The trial court stayed all injunctions pending appellate review.
- Defendants (State of California et al. and the intervener defendants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do California's tenure, dismissal, and reduction-in-force statutes, on their face, violate the California Constitution's equal protection clause by inevitably causing a certain group of students (specifically an "unlucky subset" or poor and minority students) to receive an education inferior to other students?
Opinions:
Majority - Boren, P.J.
No, California's tenure, dismissal, and reduction-in-force statutes do not violate the California Constitution's equal protection clause on their face, because the plaintiffs failed to establish that the statutes inevitably cause a certain group of students to receive an education inferior to others. The court clarified that for a facial challenge to succeed, the constitutional violation must flow "inevitably" from the statute itself, not from the actions of those implementing it. Regarding the "unlucky subset" of students (Group 1), the court found this was not an identifiable class for equal protection purposes, as their only shared characteristic was the asserted harm, which is a circular premise. The statutes did not make any individual student more likely to be assigned an ineffective teacher, thus making the group a random assortment subject to constant flux. For poor and minority students (Group 2), the court acknowledged that race and wealth are suspect classifications requiring strict scrutiny, but found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the challenged statutes caused these students to be disproportionately assigned to grossly ineffective teachers. The statutes, by their text, do not differentiate students by race or wealth, nor do they instruct administrators on teacher assignments. The court emphasized that staffing decisions, including teacher assignments and transfers, are made by local administrators, often influenced by teacher preference and collective bargaining agreements. The "dance of the lemons," while troubling, was deemed a result of administrative decisions, not an inevitable consequence mandated by the statutes. Expert testimony suggesting statutes "could be" a cause or that ineffective teachers "tend to" accumulate was insufficient to meet the high burden of proving inevitability required for a facial challenge. The court concluded that even if the statutes contribute to a higher number of ineffective teachers in the system, this is a policy issue, not an equal protection violation stemming inevitably from the statutes themselves. The constitutional infringement, if present, was attributed to staffing decisions rather than the challenged statutes.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent regarding the high burden for successfully bringing a facial constitutional challenge, particularly for equal protection claims. It clarifies that merely demonstrating a problematic outcome or a disproportionate impact, even on fundamental rights or suspect classes, is insufficient; plaintiffs must prove that the statute itself, independent of its administration or implementation, inevitably causes the constitutional violation. The ruling reinforces the principle that courts assess the constitutionality of legislation, not its wisdom or efficacy as policy. Future challenges to statutes governing teacher employment or similar systemic issues will likely need to be structured as "as-applied" challenges, focusing on specific administrative practices or policies that lead to unconstitutional outcomes rather than the facial validity of the statutes.
