On October 2, 2026, the California Court of Appeal published a decision holding that a teacher’s reduction in workload due to a voluntary job-sharing arrangement does not constitute a “leave” under Education Code section 44920 that permits a school district to classify a replacement teacher as a temporary employee (Washington v. Alta Loma School District (Oct. 2, 2026, D088028)). The decision has significant implications for school districts that have hired temporary certificated employees to back-fill positions made available through job-sharing arrangements or other reduced workload assignments.

Improper classification may result in certificated employees acquiring probationary or even permanent status by operation of law, potentially affecting staffing decisions, seniority rights, and layoffs.

Background

Melissa Washington was employed by Alta Loma School District (District) as a temporary teacher for three consecutive school years. When the District declined to re-employ her after the third year, she challenged her temporary classification and sought reinstatement as a permanent employee.

The District argued the employee was properly classified as temporary under Education Code section 44920 because she was filling a staffing need that was created by two permanent teachers working a voluntary job-sharing arrangement. Under the arrangement, each teacher reduced their workload to 50 percent and shared one full-time teaching position. The District maintained that the teachers were effectively on “leave” during the portions of the assignment they were not working.

The trial court agreed that a reduction in workload through a voluntary job-sharing arrangement qualified as leave under Education Code section 44920 and upheld the employee’s temporary classification. The employee appealed.

Decision

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision and held that the employee was improperly classified as temporary. Education Code section 44920 specifies when a certificated employee may be classified as “temporary.” For example, section 44920 permits a school district to hire and classify a certificated employee as a temporary employee for a semester or school year when additional staffing is needed because another certificated employee has been granted leave for a semester or year or is experiencing a long-term illness. The court emphasized that the Education Code strictly construes the circumstances in which certificated employees may be classified as temporary and held that a reduction in workload through a voluntary job-sharing arrangement is not a “leave” as described in section 44920. The court reviewed the interplay between the Education Code sections addressing leaves and reduced workload arrangements.

The court also distinguished a leave of absence from a reduced-workload arrangement. Education Code section 44962 authorizes school districts to grant certificated leaves of absence, while Education Code section 44922 separately authorizes arrangements allowing certificated employees to reduce their workload from full-time to part-time duties. The court explained that the term “leave of absence” is defined under Black’s Law Dictionary as “[a] worker’s temporary absence from employment or duty with the intention to return.”

The court also examined the District’s collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The CBA addressed job sharing separately from leaves of absence and did not guarantee that participating teachers could return to their former full-time assignments. Instead, their return depended on the availability of a full-time position and could not result in the layoff of another probationary or permanent teacher. These CBA provisions further supported the court’s conclusion that the job-sharing arrangement was a reduced-workload assignment and not a leave of absence.

Consequently, because the District lacked a statutory basis for classifying the employee as temporary, she was considered probationary during her first two school years and became permanent at the beginning of her third year. As a permanent employee, she could not be released through the procedures applicable to temporary employees.

The court directed the trial court to order the employee’s reinstatement as a permanent employee and to conduct further proceedings to determine her lost compensation.

Impact

This decision limits a school district’s ability to classify new hires as temporary certificated employees. A reduction in a permanent teacher’s workload to facilitate a job-sharing arrangement is not a leave that would allow a temporary employee to back-fill under Education Code section 44920.

The consequences of misclassification may be substantial. A certificated employee improperly classified as temporary may acquire probationary and, eventually, permanent status. This may affect re-employment and dismissal rights, seniority calculations, and layoff rights. As Washington illustrates, misclassification may also expose districts to reinstatement and back pay liability.

Recommendations

We recommend that districts review temporary teacher classifications and consider the following:

• Districts currently employing temporary teachers to fill positions associated with job-sharing arrangements should review those classifications to determine whether they are supported by qualifying leaves of absence or another statutory basis for temporary employment.
• Districts should also review employment records and temporary contracts to ensure that adequate statutory authority exists to support each temporary classification. This review is especially important before issuing or renewing temporary contracts, making certificated staffing decisions, or preparing for the certificated layoff process.
• CBA provisions governing job sharing and leaves of absence should also be reviewed. The court relied in part on CBA language and the absence of a guaranteed return to full-time employment after the job-sharing arrangement ended. The court, however, did not directly decide whether a job-sharing arrangement expressly structured as a partial leave under a CBA would qualify as a leave under Education Code section 44920. CBA language may or may not be helpful or determinative, given courts’ narrowing interpretation of the circumstances in which certificated employees may be classified as temporary. Districts should consult legal counsel regarding this aspect of the decision.

Although the decision involved a voluntary job-sharing arrangement, the court’s reasoning may have broader implications for school districts’ use of temporary employees to back-fill classroom assignments when a teacher is temporarily reassigned to an out-of-classroom assignment. Districts should consult legal counsel regarding the broader implications of this decision.

If you have questions regarding this decision, your district’s temporary certificated classifications, or the effect of CBA provisions governing job sharing and leaves of absence, please contact a DWK attorney in our Labor, Employment and Personnel practice group.