In California:
A school district employee terminated filed a writ of mandate with the superior court which the district admitted under oath that a manager took statements from the employee's called to testify and filed them without showing the employee or allowing him to sign and respond. The employee's supervisor also had memo's that the employee never seen, signed or respond to admitted under oath which is education code violation 44031.
[That information of a derogatory nature, which was used as a basis for the action to terminate the employee, was not properly made available to the employee, or that the employee was not properly notified of the information and given advance opportunity to review and comment thereon as required by Education Code section 44031. Unless the district notifies the employee of such derogatory information within a reasonable time and affords the employee an opportunity to review and respond thereto, the district may not rely upon the information in reaching a decision affecting the employee's employment status.89]
The superior court judge granted the writ of mandate and said it was an abuse of discretion, an independent judgement. It also was not an invited error in fact the error was caused by the district for allowing the violations. The employee's wrote up a proposed decision verbatim from the judge but After the district sent there proposed decision the judge for some reason decided to go with the school districts? What that did was when the employee met with the school board for them to reconsider there decision of termination for reinstatement of the employee the superior courts decision allowed the employee's attorney 1 memo taken out of the packet of the case sent to the Board members but the 2 other memo's and all the charges that were admitted to be education code violations were left in the packet so the district went ahead and upheld there decision and the employee was terminated.
What I want to know is there a precedent that a superior court judge makes a decision that is enforcable by a govenment statue or regulation then makes his own decision what is a violation and what is not. The Judge knows the entire case was taken in violation but only allows the employee 1 piece of it when there should be no charges or memo's.
A school district employee terminated filed a writ of mandate with the superior court which the district admitted under oath that a manager took statements from the employee's called to testify and filed them without showing the employee or allowing him to sign and respond. The employee's supervisor also had memo's that the employee never seen, signed or respond to admitted under oath which is education code violation 44031.
[That information of a derogatory nature, which was used as a basis for the action to terminate the employee, was not properly made available to the employee, or that the employee was not properly notified of the information and given advance opportunity to review and comment thereon as required by Education Code section 44031. Unless the district notifies the employee of such derogatory information within a reasonable time and affords the employee an opportunity to review and respond thereto, the district may not rely upon the information in reaching a decision affecting the employee's employment status.89]
The superior court judge granted the writ of mandate and said it was an abuse of discretion, an independent judgement. It also was not an invited error in fact the error was caused by the district for allowing the violations. The employee's wrote up a proposed decision verbatim from the judge but After the district sent there proposed decision the judge for some reason decided to go with the school districts? What that did was when the employee met with the school board for them to reconsider there decision of termination for reinstatement of the employee the superior courts decision allowed the employee's attorney 1 memo taken out of the packet of the case sent to the Board members but the 2 other memo's and all the charges that were admitted to be education code violations were left in the packet so the district went ahead and upheld there decision and the employee was terminated.
What I want to know is there a precedent that a superior court judge makes a decision that is enforcable by a govenment statue or regulation then makes his own decision what is a violation and what is not. The Judge knows the entire case was taken in violation but only allows the employee 1 piece of it when there should be no charges or memo's.
