Appeals Court Rules Certificated Job Sharing Is Not “Leave” Under Education Code Section 44920

10.19.2026

On October 2, 2026, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, issued a published decision in Washington v. Alta Loma School District (2026) Cal.App.5th __(“Washington”). The court held Alta Loma School District (“ALSD”) improperly classified a teacher as a temporary employee based on a voluntary job-sharing arrangement between two permanent teachers. The court concluded the term “leave” in Education Code section 44920 referred to a leave of absence granted “for a semester or year” and does not include a reduction in workload resulting from job sharing under ALSD’s collective bargaining agreement language. As a result, the Court of Appeal held ALSD lacked statutory authority to classify the teacher as temporary and concluded the teacher had obtained permanent status by operation of law.

Background

ALSD employed Melissa Washington for three consecutive school years, each time on a temporary contract. District staff told her the temporary classification was “just part of the process” and that she would be made probationary the following year. In March 2022, the District released her. The District defended the temporary classification under Education Code section 44920, asserting she was filling in for two full-time permanent teachers who shared a single full-time teaching assignment through a voluntary job-sharing arrangement.

Section 44920 permits hiring a temporary certificated employee when a certificated employee “has been granted leave for a semester or year, or is experiencing long-term illness.” ALSD maintained that the job share was a form of “leave.” However, under the District’s certificated collective bargaining agreement, certificated teachers approved for a job-sharing arrangement did not have a right to immediately return to full-time employment after termination of a job-share.

The employee petitioned for a writ of mandate which the trial court denied, concluding the District’s temporary teachers did not outnumber its teachers on leave, and the teachers on a job share were effectively on leave. The employee appealed.

The Court of Appeal Decision

The Court of Appeal reversed. The Washington court concluded the term “leave” in section 44920 refers to a “leave of absence” and not simply any reduction in a permanent employee’s workload. Following Balen v. Peralta Junior College Dist. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 821, the court noted temporary classifications “are narrowly defined by the Legislature, and should be strictly interpreted.” The court noted the Education Code addresses leaves of absence (section 44962 and following) separately from arrangements allowing employees to reduce their workload to part-time (section 44922), and that a leave of absence ordinarily carries the right to return to one’s position. The job-sharing teachers had no such right under the District’s collective bargaining agreement, which explicitly stated they could return to full-time teaching only when a position became available.

Because the job-sharing arrangement was not “leave,” section 44920 did not authorize the District’s temporary classification in any of the three years, therefore the employee defaulted to probationary status. Since the District did not issue a March 15 nonreelection notice in the second year, the employee obtained permanent status by operation of law at the start of the third year under section 44929.21(b). As a permanent employee, ALSD’s temporary employee release was invalid, and the court awarded reinstatement with a seniority date and back pay.

Implications for California School Districts

School districts should review their existing job sharing teaching assignments if backfilled with “temporary” employees to determine if that status is affected by the Washington court’s decision.

If you have any questions about this decision, please contact the authors of this alert or your regular AALRR counsel.