Washington: Job Sharing Did Not Authorize Three Years of Temporary Teacher Status

A school district could not use two permanent teachers’ voluntary job-sharing arrangement to classify another teacher as temporary for three consecutive years. In Washington v. Alta Loma School District, No. D088028 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2026), the court held that “leave” under Education Code section 44920 meant a leave of absence, not the reduced workload described in the district’s job-share agreement. Washington therefore should have been probationary during her first two years and became permanent when rehired for the third.

The court reversed the judgment denying her petition. It directed reinstatement with an August 2, 2019 seniority date and further proceedings to determine lost compensation. The published opinion was filed October 2; that is the decision date, rather than the date of this analysis.

Current procedural status: The district filed a petition for rehearing on October 19, 2026. The official appellate docket, checked October 20, lists that petition as its latest entry and shows no ruling on it. Readers can check case D088028 in the Fourth District’s official case search for later action.

Three contracts repeated the temporary classification

Washington began teaching first grade in August 2019. Her principal said she had been hired because enrollment required an additional class. When she arrived to sign her contract, however, the paperwork classified her as temporary. District personnel repeatedly described that designation as the normal starting process and predicted a later probationary classification. During the pandemic, she received two more temporary contracts, with similar explanations about uncertainty and future status. Washington, pages 3–6.

After her third year, the district declined to offer her another contract, citing funding and enrollment. She petitioned for reinstatement as a permanent employee and lost compensation. The district defended its temporary designation by pointing to two permanent teachers who shared a full-time position. It argued their reduced workloads created qualifying leave vacancies under section 44920. Washington, pages 6–9.

The trial court found she had not actually been hired to fill a specific job-share vacancy. It nevertheless accepted the district’s statutory interpretation and its broader calculation of temporary positions against supposed leave vacancies. The appellate court disagreed with that interpretation—the foundation of both approaches.

The contract label could not replace the Education Code

The Education Code distinguishes permanent, probationary, substitute and temporary certificated employees. Those categories affect retention, dismissal and procedural protections. Probationary status is the default when the statutory requirements for another classification are absent. Temporary status must fit a category the Legislature authorized; it is not simply an arrangement the district and teacher may negotiate. Washington, pages 10–14.

Section 44920 permits specified temporary hiring because another certificated employee has been granted leave for a semester or year or has a long-term illness. The district relied on the leave provision. Following Balen v. Peralta Junior College District, 11 Cal.3d 821, 826 (1974), the court strictly construed the temporary classification because it lacks protections associated with continuing service.

Job sharing and a leave of absence carried different return rights

The court read “leave” in the context of the Education Code’s provisions for leaves of absence and reduced workloads. Job sharing was part-time employment, not a listed leave of absence. The collective bargaining agreement reinforced that distinction. Its teaching-hours article governed job sharing; a separate article governed leaves. Washington, pages 15–19.

A teacher on leave generally retained a place and could return to the same position if it still existed and the required notice was given. A teacher ending a job share instead had to await an available full-time assignment, subject to transfer, reassignment and protection against laying off other teachers. Those were not equivalent arrangements merely because both reduced the employee’s classroom hours.

The district relied on an older case treating reassignment to a categorically funded program as leave. The court distinguished that setting, considered the Legislature’s later specific treatment of replacement employees in categorical programs, and found the older reasoning unpersuasive insofar as it failed to construe temporary status narrowly. Washington, pages 19–22.

The statutory ruling made two staffing disputes unnecessary

Washington disputed that the job share caused her hiring at all. The court did not resolve that causal-link question because even the district’s version failed: The job share was not qualifying leave. Washington, page 15.

She also challenged spreadsheets used to compare temporary hires with employees on leave. The calculation improperly included job-share vacancies. For that reason, the court did not address the trial court’s reliance on cases allowing temporary hiring without a one-to-one match between a replacement and a particular teacher on leave. The decision turned on what counted as leave, not a new rule requiring every replacement to match one named absent teacher. Washington, pages 22–23, footnote 11.

Rehiring for the third year supplied the permanent-status consequence

Because temporary status was unauthorized, Washington was probationary for her first two complete years. Section 44929.21(b), as applied to this district and record, provided permanent status upon reelection for the succeeding year after two qualifying consecutive years. The district did not give a second-year notice of nonreelection; it hired her for the third year. It then could not dismiss her through the summary process for temporary employees. Washington, pages 23–26.

The appellate court ordered reinstatement as permanent, with seniority dating to her first day. It did not calculate a final damages amount. That required proceedings on lost wages, benefits and other compensation. Her alternative claim for preferential reemployment under section 44918 was actually presented but unnecessary to decide once the court held she had been misclassified. Washington, pages 26 and 33; page 26, footnote 12.

Signing the contracts did not establish the district’s laches defense

The district argued that Washington waited too long and deprived it of the chance to nonreelect her before she became permanent. The court rejected laches on this record. Section 44924 makes agreements waiving the relevant statutory protections null and void; accepting an unlawful temporary designation did not waive the correct classification. The district’s repeated statements that temporary status was unavoidable and would improve later also induced the delay on which it relied. Washington, pages 26–32.

For a similar classification review, the useful documents are the contracts for each year, complete service history, stated statutory basis for temporary hiring, actual leave or job-share agreements, notices of nonreelection, and communications about future status. Those records test different parts of the reasoning. A contract caption alone cannot answer the statutory question, and Washington’s specific service and reelection history must not be replaced with an assumed entitlement based only on years worked.

Our teacher job-share classification guide explains how to separate those questions before requesting review. The employment practice can evaluate the classification and the applicable remedies using the complete record.