MAURA LARKINS
Plaintiff in pro per
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
MAURA LARKINS,
Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON PROFESSIONAL
COMPETENCE,
Respondent
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
DISTRICT, Real Party in Interest.
__________________________ ______
Comes now Petitioner and offers the following Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in support of her Petition for Writ of Mandate.
Case L-2002050728 at the California Office of Administrative Hearings
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Plaintiff in pro per
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
MAURA LARKINS,
Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON PROFESSIONAL
COMPETENCE,
Respondent
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
DISTRICT, Real Party in Interest.
__________________________ ______
Comes now Petitioner and offers the following Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in support of her Petition for Writ of Mandate.
Case L-2002050728 at the California Office of Administrative Hearings
TABLE OF CONTENTS
| Click page # below |
I. SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW OF EVIDENCE
A. FEB 12, 2001--PETITIONER REMOVED FROM CLASSROOM BY
ASST SUPERINTENDENT WERLIN DUE TO ALLEGATIONS THAT SHE
WAS GOING TO KILL TWO TEACHERS.
B. MAR 24, 2001--PETITIONER WAS ASKED TO RETURN TO HER
CLASSROOM WITH NO INVESTIGATION.
C. MAR 27, 2001--PETITIONER WAS TOLD NOT TO RETURN TO
DISTRICT PROPERTY.
D. APR 4, 2001--PETITIONER WAS ASKED TO RETURN TO HER
CLASSROOM WITH NO INVESTIGATION.
E. APR 20, 2001--PETITIONER WAS TOLD NOT TO RETURN TO
DISTRICT PROPERTY.
F. APR 21, 2001--A POLICE PRESENCE WAS ESTABLISHED AT CASTLE
PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WHICH CREATED AN IMPRESSION IN
THE COMMUNITY THAT PETITIONER WAS DANGEROUS.
G. JUNE 2001--AT THE REQUEST OF PETITIONER'S ATTORNEY,
ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT WERLIN AGREED TO INVESTIGATE
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PETITIONER.
H. JULY 2001--THE SUPERINTENDENT REFUSED TO REMOVE MR.
WERLIN AS SUPERINTENDENT'S DESIGNEE FOR HANDLING
PETITIONER'S GRIEVANCES;
I. AUG 13, 2001--PETITIONER WAS TOLD SHE WOULD BE ON
ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE THE FOLLOWING YEAR.
A. FEB 12, 2001--PETITIONER REMOVED FROM CLASSROOM BY
ASST SUPERINTENDENT WERLIN DUE TO ALLEGATIONS THAT SHE
WAS GOING TO KILL TWO TEACHERS.
B. MAR 24, 2001--PETITIONER WAS ASKED TO RETURN TO HER
CLASSROOM WITH NO INVESTIGATION.
C. MAR 27, 2001--PETITIONER WAS TOLD NOT TO RETURN TO
DISTRICT PROPERTY.
D. APR 4, 2001--PETITIONER WAS ASKED TO RETURN TO HER
CLASSROOM WITH NO INVESTIGATION.
E. APR 20, 2001--PETITIONER WAS TOLD NOT TO RETURN TO
DISTRICT PROPERTY.
F. APR 21, 2001--A POLICE PRESENCE WAS ESTABLISHED AT CASTLE
PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WHICH CREATED AN IMPRESSION IN
THE COMMUNITY THAT PETITIONER WAS DANGEROUS.
G. JUNE 2001--AT THE REQUEST OF PETITIONER'S ATTORNEY,
ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT WERLIN AGREED TO INVESTIGATE
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PETITIONER.
H. JULY 2001--THE SUPERINTENDENT REFUSED TO REMOVE MR.
WERLIN AS SUPERINTENDENT'S DESIGNEE FOR HANDLING
PETITIONER'S GRIEVANCES;
I. AUG 13, 2001--PETITIONER WAS TOLD SHE WOULD BE ON
ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE THE FOLLOWING YEAR.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
J. SEPT 2001--WERLIN BEGAN FAXING PETITIONER WHEN HER
LAWYER WAS OUT OF TOWN, DEMANDING THAT SHE COME IN AND
MEET WITH HIM; PETITIONER REFUSED.
K. SEPT 2001--PETITIONER AND HER ATTORNEY EACH WROTE TO
THE DISTRICT REGARDING MR. WERLIN'S ACTIONS.
L. SEPT 26, 2001--PETITIONER'S PAY WAS STOPPED; SHE
REQUESTED A FULL EVIDENTIARY HEARING; THE DISTRICT
REFUSED. [This was a violation of the contract.]
M. OCT 5, 2001--PETITIONER WAS TOLD TO REPORT BACK TO
WORK; PETITIONER SAID SHE WOULD NOT RETURN UNTIL THERE
HAD BEEN AN INVESTIGATION.
N. NOV 13, 2001--PETITIONER FILED 3 GRIEVANCES.
O. NOV 14, 2001--(One day later!) PETITIONER WAS THREATENED
WITH DISMISSAL. [It is a violation of the Elementary Education
Relations Act to retaliate against an employee for filing a
grievance.]
P. NOV 21, 2001--MR. WERLIN GAVE PETITIONER THE ONE AND ONLY
DISTRICT REPORT ABOUT HER CASE;
Q. NOV AND DEC, 2001--PETITIONER WROTE LETTERS ATTEMPTING
TO SETTLE HER PENDING LAWSUIT
R. DEC 2001--PETITIONER'S GRIEVANCES WERE SUMMARILY
DENIED BY MR. WERLIN.
S. FEB 2002--PETITIONER FILED A PERB CHARGE AGAINST THE
DISTRICT
T. MAR 2002--PETITIONER FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE DISTRICT.
U. MAY 7, 2002--THE SCHOOL BOARD VOTED TO DISMISS
PETITIONER.
[The School Board thus committed a violation of Labor Code
section 1102.5 which makes it illegal to dismiss an employee for
reporting wrongdoing to a government agency!]
II. THE COMMISSION ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ITS DECISION
TO DISMISS PETITIONER.
III. THE COMMISSION’S FINDINGS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE
EVIDENCE.
IV. THE COMMISSION’S DECISION IS NOT BASED ON THE
FINDINGS.
V. THE COMMISSION FAILED TO PROCEED IN THE MANNER
REQUIRED BY LAW.
A. THE COMMISSION MISCONSTRUED THE LAW.
THE COMMISSION MISCONSTRUED CALIFORNIA EDUCATION CODE
SECTIONS 44932(a)(7), 44932(a)(5) AND 44939.
B. THE COMMISSION VIOLATED THE RULES OF EVIDENCE
C. THE COMMISSION VIOLATED PETITIONER’S CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES BY RULING
THAT PETITIONER MAY BE DISMISSED FOR FILING GRIEVANCES
AND A LAWSUIT.
LAWYER WAS OUT OF TOWN, DEMANDING THAT SHE COME IN AND
MEET WITH HIM; PETITIONER REFUSED.
K. SEPT 2001--PETITIONER AND HER ATTORNEY EACH WROTE TO
THE DISTRICT REGARDING MR. WERLIN'S ACTIONS.
L. SEPT 26, 2001--PETITIONER'S PAY WAS STOPPED; SHE
REQUESTED A FULL EVIDENTIARY HEARING; THE DISTRICT
REFUSED. [This was a violation of the contract.]
M. OCT 5, 2001--PETITIONER WAS TOLD TO REPORT BACK TO
WORK; PETITIONER SAID SHE WOULD NOT RETURN UNTIL THERE
HAD BEEN AN INVESTIGATION.
N. NOV 13, 2001--PETITIONER FILED 3 GRIEVANCES.
O. NOV 14, 2001--(One day later!) PETITIONER WAS THREATENED
WITH DISMISSAL. [It is a violation of the Elementary Education
Relations Act to retaliate against an employee for filing a
grievance.]
P. NOV 21, 2001--MR. WERLIN GAVE PETITIONER THE ONE AND ONLY
DISTRICT REPORT ABOUT HER CASE;
Q. NOV AND DEC, 2001--PETITIONER WROTE LETTERS ATTEMPTING
TO SETTLE HER PENDING LAWSUIT
R. DEC 2001--PETITIONER'S GRIEVANCES WERE SUMMARILY
DENIED BY MR. WERLIN.
S. FEB 2002--PETITIONER FILED A PERB CHARGE AGAINST THE
DISTRICT
T. MAR 2002--PETITIONER FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE DISTRICT.
U. MAY 7, 2002--THE SCHOOL BOARD VOTED TO DISMISS
PETITIONER.
[The School Board thus committed a violation of Labor Code
section 1102.5 which makes it illegal to dismiss an employee for
reporting wrongdoing to a government agency!]
II. THE COMMISSION ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ITS DECISION
TO DISMISS PETITIONER.
III. THE COMMISSION’S FINDINGS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE
EVIDENCE.
IV. THE COMMISSION’S DECISION IS NOT BASED ON THE
FINDINGS.
V. THE COMMISSION FAILED TO PROCEED IN THE MANNER
REQUIRED BY LAW.
A. THE COMMISSION MISCONSTRUED THE LAW.
THE COMMISSION MISCONSTRUED CALIFORNIA EDUCATION CODE
SECTIONS 44932(a)(7), 44932(a)(5) AND 44939.
B. THE COMMISSION VIOLATED THE RULES OF EVIDENCE
C. THE COMMISSION VIOLATED PETITIONER’S CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES BY RULING
THAT PETITIONER MAY BE DISMISSED FOR FILING GRIEVANCES
AND A LAWSUIT.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Case No. GIC 810661
PETITIONER'S MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
WRIT OF MANDATE
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Maura Larkins' Petition for Writ of Mandate Page 1 Table of Contents & Sequence of Events |
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Board of Education v. Matthews (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 265
Board of Education v. Swan (1953) 41 Cal.2d 546
Gardner v. Commission of Professional Competence (1985) 164
Cal.App.3d 1035
Governing Board of the Oakdale Union School District V. Seaman (1972)
28 Cal. App..3d 77
Hanley v. Murphy 40 Cal.2d 572 [255 P.2d 1]
Hayman v. city of Los Angeles 17 Cal.App.2d 679 [62 P.2d 1047]
In re Micheal G. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 700
Woodland Joint Unified School District v. COMMISSION on Professional
Competence (1992) 2 Cal.app.4th 1429
Board of Education v. Matthews (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 265
Board of Education v. Swan (1953) 41 Cal.2d 546
Gardner v. Commission of Professional Competence (1985) 164
Cal.App.3d 1035
Governing Board of the Oakdale Union School District V. Seaman (1972)
28 Cal. App..3d 77
Hanley v. Murphy 40 Cal.2d 572 [255 P.2d 1]
Hayman v. city of Los Angeles 17 Cal.App.2d 679 [62 P.2d 1047]
In re Micheal G. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 700
Woodland Joint Unified School District v. COMMISSION on Professional
Competence (1992) 2 Cal.app.4th 1429
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| What happened at CVESD? Page 1 |
| Blogs |