## Facts

- California public-school students, through guardians, brought a facial constitutional challenge under the California Constitution’s equal protection guarantee to Education Code provisions governing (1) permanent employment decisions for teachers after a short probationary period, (2) procedures for dismissing permanent teachers, and (3) seniority-based layoffs during reductions in force.
- Plaintiffs alleged the statutes create and maintain an “oversupply” of “grossly ineffective” teachers by requiring tenure decisions too early, making dismissal difficult and costly, and mandating seniority-based layoffs that retain ineffective senior teachers over more effective junior teachers.
- Plaintiffs asserted the statutes deny students equal educational opportunity, especially harming low-income and minority students who allegedly are more likely to be assigned ineffective teachers.
- After an eight-week bench trial, the superior court found the statutes unconstitutional, concluded they disproportionately burden low-income and minority students, and enjoined enforcement (stayed pending appeal).
- The State and intervening teachers’ unions appealed, arguing the statutes are facially neutral, any unequal distribution of ineffective teachers results from local implementation and other factors, and the statutes serve state interests such as protecting teachers from arbitrary dismissal and supporting stability in the teaching workforce.

## Issues

1. Whether facially neutral statewide statutes governing teacher tenure, dismissal procedures, and seniority-based layoffs violate California equal protection by denying students equal educational opportunity or disproportionately burdening low-income and minority students.
2. Whether plaintiffs in a facial equal protection challenge must show the statutes themselves, rather than local administrative decisions, necessarily cause the alleged unequal educational harms.
3. Whether a court may invalidate facially neutral teacher-employment statutes based on evidence concerning local implementation choices (teacher assignment, evaluation, and staffing decisions).

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the superior court’s judgment and directed entry of judgment for defendants.
- The court held the challenged statutes are constitutional on their face.
- The court concluded plaintiffs did not show the statutes themselves make any identifiable group of students more likely than others to be taught by ineffective teachers.
- The court reasoned that any unequal distribution of ineffective teachers is attributable to local discretionary decisions and other intervening factors, not to a constitutionally defective feature inherent in the statutes.

## Legal Principles

- A facial equal protection challenge requires proof that the constitutional defect is inherent in the statute itself, not in the manner of its implementation by administering agencies.
- Facially neutral statutes that do not classify students by race, wealth, or other suspect criteria do not violate equal protection absent a showing that the statutory scheme itself necessarily causes unequal treatment or denial of a protected educational right.
- Evidence that some students receive inferior instruction, without a demonstrated statutory causation link, is insufficient to invalidate statewide education-employment statutes on equal protection grounds.
- An asserted “class” for equal protection purposes must be legally cognizable and tied to differential treatment created by law; a chance-based “unlucky subset” of students assigned to ineffective teachers is not a statutory classification.
- Policy disputes about the design and desirability of teacher tenure, dismissal, and layoff rules are for the Legislature unless a clear constitutional violation is shown.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal upheld California’s teacher tenure, dismissal, and seniority-based layoff statutes against a facial equal protection challenge because plaintiffs failed to prove the statutes themselves, rather than local assignment and management decisions, necessarily caused unequal educational opportunity or disproportionate harm to low-income and minority students.


Vergara v. State, 246 Cal. App. 4th 619, 202 Cal. Rptr. 3d 262 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)