She signed three temporary contracts - now she's permanent with backpay on the way
An appellate court has ordered school district to reinstate a teacher it kept on temporary contracts for three consecutive years without authority to do so.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal published the decision on October 2, 2026, finding the Alta Loma School District wrongly classified the teacher as temporary from the day she started at Stork Elementary in August 2019.
She was hired to teach first grade after a last-minute enrollment increase. The principal confirmed she was brought on for an additional class, not to cover anyone's absence. But the contract waiting for her said "temporary."
The human resources director told her it was "just part of the process." Probationary status, she was assured, would come the following year.
It never did.
Each year brought the same story: temporary contracts across the board, "no exceptions," apologies from the principal, and promises that reclassification was just around the corner. When COVID-19 hit, pandemic uncertainty became the new reason. A human resources secretary told the teacher during her third year that "this never happens" and that she had "quite a few temporary teachers going on their third year."
Then in March 2022, the district cut all temporary teachers loose, citing lost pandemic funding and low enrollment.
The district's entire defence rested on two permanent teachers who shared one full-time position under a voluntary job-sharing arrangement. It argued the arrangement amounted to "leave" under California Education Code section 44920, which permits temporary hires when a permanent teacher has been granted leave.
The appellate court rejected that reading outright. Part-time work under a job-sharing arrangement is not a leave of absence, the court held. The Education Code treats reduced workload arrangements and leaves of absence as separate categories - and the district's own collective bargaining agreement drew the same line.
Because the classification was improper, the teacher defaulted to probationary status by law. After two consecutive probationary years, she became permanent at the start of year three under Education Code section 44929.21. The district never followed the procedures required to terminate a permanent employee.
The district also argued laches - that the teacher waited too long to challenge her status. The court rejected that too. Under Education Code section 44924, any agreement by a teacher to waive the code's employment protections is "null and void." And a district that repeatedly promised future reclassification cannot claim clean hands when the teacher took it at its word.
For HR professionals managing employee classifications, the takeaway is plain: the label on a contract does not override the statutory scheme. If the law does not support the classification, the employee's rights accumulate regardless.
