Wage & Hour
Washington v. Alta Loma School District (4th Dist., 2026): Voluntary Job-Sharing Isn’t “Leave”
Updated
In Washington v. Alta Loma School District, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a voluntary job-sharing arrangement between two permanent teachers is not “leave” under Education Code section 44920, subdivision, and so did not permit a school district to classify the teacher hired to fill in as a temporary employee. The court reversed the judgment and remanded with directions to reinstate the teacher as a permanent employee and to determine her lost compensation.
Background
Melissa Washington began teaching at an Alta Loma elementary school in August 2019. She was hired to teach a first-grade class, and both she and the principal understood the position arose from a last-minute increase in enrollment.
Although she expected probationary status, Washington was presented with a temporary-employee contract when she arrived to sign. She was told it was “just part of the process” and that she would be reclassified later.
Washington signed temporary contracts for three consecutive school years, each time after being assured she would likely move to probationary or permanent status the following year. In early 2022, the district told her it would not offer her a contract for the next year, citing lost pandemic funding and low enrollment.
She petitioned for a writ of mandate in the San Bernardino County Superior Court, seeking reinstatement as a permanent employee. The trial court denied the petition, accepting the district’s theory that the teachers’ job-sharing arrangement counted as “leave” supporting temporary classification.
What the Court Held on the Meaning of “Leave”
The district defended Washington’s temporary classification under Education Code section 44920, which allows a district to hire a temporary teacher for up to one year because a certificated employee “has been granted leave for a semester or year.” Reviewing the statutory question independently, the court held that “leave” here means a leave of absence.
Reading the Education Code as a whole, the court noted that reduced-workload arrangements fall under the code’s employment provisions, not its leaves-of-absence provisions. A job-sharing arrangement, the court explained, is part-time work rather than a leave of absence, and nothing in the code lists job sharing among the recognized leaves.
The court added that a leave of absence ordinarily carries an expectation of return to the same position, which the governing agreement did not guarantee for job-sharing teachers. Following the California Supreme Court’s direction that temporary classifications be strictly construed, the court declined to stretch “leave” to reach this arrangement.
Under Education Code section 44920, “leave” means a leave of absence. A voluntary job-sharing arrangement that reduces a teacher’s workload is not such a leave and does not authorize classifying a replacement teacher as temporary.
What the Court Held on Classification and Remedy
Because Washington did not fit any statutory ground for temporary classification, she defaulted to probationary status for her first two years. After two complete consecutive years followed by reelection, she became a permanent employee by operation of law at the start of her third year under section 44929.21, subdivision (b).
As a permanent employee, she could not be summarily dismissed without the statutory grounds and procedures the district never used. The court directed reinstatement with a seniority date of August 2, 2019, and remanded for the trial court to determine her lost compensation.
What the Court Held on Laches
The district argued that Washington waited too long, having signed temporary contracts year after year before suing. The court rejected the defense, explaining that under section 44924 a teacher’s agreement to waive Education Code protections is null and void, so her acceptance of an unlawful classification could not support laches.
The court also found the district came to equity with unclean hands and had induced any delay through repeated assurances—later unfulfilled—that she would be reclassified. For these reasons, the court held laches did not bar relief.
What This Means for You
This decision clarifies that a voluntary job-sharing arrangement is not “leave” under Education Code section 44920 and cannot support classifying a replacement teacher as temporary. It also confirms that a teacher’s agreement to an unlawful temporary classification is void under section 44924 and does not establish laches. The ruling touches disputes over the classification and termination of public school teachers.
I write these summaries as general information about developments in California employment law. They are not legal advice and don’t create a mediator–client relationship. For guidance on a specific matter, consult a qualified attorney.