CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PARAMOUNT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (1985)

Petitioners appeal from a judgment denying their petition for a writ of mandate to compel defendant Board to reinstate a teacher to his former position.   We reverse.

The petition is brought on behalf of Russell Murphy, a former tenured teacher employed by respondent school district.   In the fall of 1983, Mr. Murphy had an interview with an official “evaluator” employed by the Board to prepare the annual evaluation of him.   That interview was a highly emotional one, turning on the difficulties faced by Mr. Murphy because of his illness and the problem of setting forth some kind of method for anticipating absences by Mr. Murphy due to his illness.

The interview left Mr. Murphy in a highly emotional state such as to cause him, immediately after its close, to prepare and deliver to the principal of the school to which he was assigned, a letter reading as follows:

“To Whom It May Concern,

“Please accept my resignation as teacher from Paramount High School effective this date, November 7, 1983.

“This action is being taken by me voluntarily in the best interests of my administration, with whom there has been constant strife and conflict.

“Respectfully,

“/s/ Russell R. Murphy.”

The letter was duly delivered to the Superintendent of Schools for the district, who, on the same day, endorsed on it as follows:

“Accepted Pending Board Approval.”

The following day, and thereafter, Mr. Murphy, both orally and in writing, gave notice that he desired to withdraw the resignation, resulting finally in a hearing before the Board several days later.   At that meeting, the Board purported to “ratify” the superintendent's “approval.”

 It is accepted law that a public employee's “resignation” is a mere offer, withdrawable, absent some intervening prejudice to the employer, at any time prior to its acceptance.¹  The Board here relies on its Board Policy Rule 4117.7 which reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

“The board hereby delegates to the superintendent, or acting superintendent, the power to accept resignation of persons on the payroll of the district, provided that such action shall be valid and enforceable only if subsequently ratified by the governing board.”   That reliance is misplaced.   Although the policy uses, and the superintendent used, the word “accepted” it is clear that his action was not truly an “acceptance” but no more than a recommendation to the Board that the Board should accept the resignation.   While it is probable, in most instances, that the Board will agree with the superintendent's action, it does not follow that the Board will always do so.   Under section 44930 of the Education Code, the Board, and only the Board, may fix the date an offer to resign becomes effective ² and there may be reasons why, in the interest of good administration, the Board is unwilling to leave its classrooms unattended merely because some personal whim of a teacher suggests a termination date prior to the end of the school year, or a date before the district can reasonably hope to secure a competent replacement.   Thus, in the case at bench, Mr. Murphy's withdrawal of his letter of resignation was effective and the Board was incompetent to “accept” it at its meeting long after the withdrawal.³

The judgment must be, and is, reversed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Shade v. Board of Trustees of Redondo Union High School District (1937) 21 Cal.App.2d 725, 70 P.2d 490.

2.   Section 44930:  “Governing boards of school districts shall accept the resignation of any employee and shall fix the time when the resignation takes effect, which shall not be later than the close of the school year during which the resignation has been received by the board.”

3.   Whether Mr. Murphy's illness should justify any other action by the Board is not here before us.   We are here concerned only with the issue of his “resignation.”

KINGSLEY, Associate Justice.

WOODS, P.J., and McCLOSKY, J., concur.