Name that Section - Frequently Used Education Code and Title 5 Sections for Community College Districts

In the latter case, the governing board has the authority to determine the type and manner of presentation of the evidence. The governing board’s determination as to whether or not the person has been rehabilitated is final. b. Employment of Sexual Psychopaths As with academic employees, the Education Code prohibits employing or retaining in employment any classified employee, “who has been determined to be a sexual psychopath,” pursuant to Section 5500 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or similar provisions of law of any other state. 281 The section does not apply, however, if the determination is reversed and the person is determined not to be a sexual psychopath in a new proceeding, or the proceeding is dismissed. c. Compulsory Leave of Absence upon Being Charged with Sex or Controlled Substance Offense In conjunction with the mandatory termination of employees convicted of sex or controlled substance offenses, the Education Code permits merit districts to place non-academic employees charged with these offenses on a compulsory leave of absence, “for a period of time extending for not more than 10 days after the date of the entry of the judgment in the proceedings.” 282 The compulsory leave may be extended beyond the 10 days by serving upon the employee, within the 10 days, notice that the employee will be dismissed in 30 days unless the employee demands a hearing. Compulsory leave under this section is unpaid, unless the employee posts a bond. If the employee is subsequently acquitted, or the charges dismissed, the district must reimburse the employee for the cost of the bond (if posted) or pay the employee for the period of absence. The duty to reimburse does not apply, however, if the district seeks to reinstate the acquitted employee, and he or she fails or refuses to return to work. Districts should note that nothing in this section precludes serving the employee with a Notice of Intent to Dismiss if the employee is acquitted. Conviction of a crime requires proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Thus, a district may have sufficient evidence of conduct warranting dismissal (i.e. a preponderance of the evidence) although there was insufficient evidence to convict. Note, however, that the district would have to establish grounds to dismiss. On its face, this part of the Education Code only refers to merit systems. 283 There is no counterpart section for non-merit systems. However, there is no provision in the non-merit system that would prevent a non-merit district from placing an employee on unpaid leave who was charged with an enumerated sex or controlled substance offense. We believe non-merit systems may do so. While there is no case law authorizing a non-merit system to place such an employee on unpaid leave, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore has argued this successfully in at least one administrative action.

Name that Section: Frequently Used Education Code and Title 5 Sections for Community College Districts ©2018 (c) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 93