Page One

Union says the administration wrongly laid off teachers 

The Berkeley Federation of Teachers filed suit against the Berkeley Unified School District earlier this month, claiming that district officials misclassified 38 teachers as “temporary” this spring and improperly laid them off. 

In recent weeks, the district has restored several of the teachers in question as part of its normal budget processes, but union officials say 12 to 13 teachers still qualify for legal action. 

“Unless they are all reinstated, we are probably going to proceed with this suit,” said BFT President Barry Fike. 

Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services David Gomez said the district still might reinstate the remaining teachers. But if that doesn’t happen, Gomez is confident that the district would prevail if the case goes to trial. 

“We’re pretty sure that they’re properly classified,” he said. 

The district, faced with a $5.4 million 2002-2003 deficit, issued layoff notices to 173 teachers in March. The layoffs included 82 “probationary” status teachers – generally first or second year instructors with a full or preliminary credential – and 91 temporary teachers, often first-year instructors on an emergency credential. 

The district, as planned, has rescinded almost all of the layoff notices in recent months as the murky budget picture has cleared, but some teachers remain without jobs. Gomez said about 10 teachers are jobless, but the union said 40 to 50 are still unemployed. 

The union warned as early as May that it might file suit on behalf of the allegedly misclassified teachers, but it held out in hope that all the instructors would get their jobs back. Fike said BFT decided to file in August because there were still some teachers with pink slips. 

“We were hoping the question would become moot,” he said. “In fact it has not.” 

In April the district, in accordance with state law, provided probationary teachers with a chance to challenge their layoff notices at official hearings. But, as is customary, the district did not provide hearings for temporary status teachers. 

The union claims that by improperly classifying permanent or probationary status teachers as temporary, and subsequently denying the instructors their right to layoff hearings, the district broke the law and must reinstate the teachers in question. 

The district, though, contends that it properly classified the teachers as temporary and therefore does not owe them hearings or reinstatement. 

Fike said the district’s conduct is particularly troublesome because it has filled vacancies in recent weeks with new teachers instead of restoring some of the temporary teachers involved in the suit. 

But Gomez said the district, in filling open slots, has only hired new teachers when the laid-off instructors lacked the proper credentials for the jobs in question. Fike said that is true in most, but not all cases. 

Gomez suggested that he was disappointed with the union’s decision to sue, arguing that the district has made a “good faith” effort to restore as many teaching positions as possible. 

Fike said some of the teachers who still qualify for legal action have taken jobs elsewhere and may not be able to wait for a fall court case to win their posts back. But he said some teachers have not found employment elsewhere and still plan to take part in the suit. 

Gomez said that if the district is fully-staffed and a judge rules in favor of the union this fall, requiring the restoration of laid-off teachers could have a negative financial impact on the cash-strapped district. 

Contact reporter at  

scharfenberg@berkeleydailyplanet.net