Appeal Court Decision 1

Posted by tim scott on July 12th, 2021

Appeal Court Decision

Defendant school district appealed the grant of a petition for a writ of mandate to plaintiff state controller by the Superior Court of San Diego County (California). Defendant argued that it had to increase its revenue limit to recover for its increased costs for salaries, and that it should not have been punished for a salary policy that violated the California Supreme Court's interpretation of Cal. Educ. Code § 45028, a new state law.

Overview: business attorney

Defendant school district had settled salary claims with its certificated employees, by increasing the salary of each affected teacher. The teachers had claimed that Cal. Educ. Code § 13506 required defendant to classify its certificated staff by years of training and experience and to pay under a salary scale that took these factors into account. Defendant then increased its revenue limit by the settlement amount. The increase was disallowed by the county and state departments of education and plaintiff state controller exercised his discretionary review and also disallowed the limit increase. Defendant disagreed, so plaintiff sought a writ of mandate to cause the revenue limit to be reduced. The trial court granted the writ and defendant appealed. The court affirmed, holding that Cal. Educ. Code § 45028 mandated that defendant make the staff classifications and put the certificated staff on a salary schedule based on years of training and experience. Therefore, the costs of the litigation fell squarely within the exclusion provided in Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 2205, and could not be passed on to the taxpayers.

Outcome

The court affirmed the grant of a writ of mandate to plaintiff state controller. It held that defendant school district was required by a change in the education law to classify its certificated staff and to pay them according to a schedule that took into account their years of training and experience. Therefore, the costs of the pay increases could not be passed onto the taxpayers through an increase in defendant's revenue limit.