Education employment: termination: hearing.
Summary
Existing law requires that, when a reduction in the number of certificated employees employed by a school district is authorized, the layoffs occur in order of employee seniority. Under existing law, when an employee is terminated due to a reduction in force pursuant to these provisions, the employee has the option to request a hearing to determine if there is cause for not reemploying him or her for the ensuing year. Existing law requires that this hearing be conducted in accordance with specified provisions of law. With respect to this hearing, existing law defines the "respondent" as any person against whom an accusation is filed pursuant to specified provisions of law. Additionally, existing law provides for a "notice of defense," which, when signed by or on behalf of the respondent and returned to the agency, will acknowledge service of the accusation and constitute a notice of defense under specified provisions of law. This bill would change the phrase "accusation" to "District Statement of Reduction in Force," and "Notice of Defense" to "Notice of Participation in Reduction in Force Hearing" for purposes of the provisions relating to the termination of a certificated employee due to a reduction in force and would make conforming changes. This bill would also make technical, nonsubstantive changes.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2013
Committee Review
Jul 2013
Senate Passage
May 2013
Assembly Passage
Jun 2013
Signed into Law
Aug 2013
Introduced Feb 22, 2013
Signed Aug 12, 2013
Floor votes · Senate Jul 8, 2013 · Assembly Jun 25, 2013
How they voted
27–0
Passed · 7 other
Total votes 34
Jul 8, 2013
D
Democratic25
72% Yea
R
Republican9
100% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
21
Key actions
6
Committee
5
Amendments
1
Aug 12, 2013
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Jul 8, 2013
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (27-0-7)
senate
Jul 8, 2013
Upper · Passed
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 29. Noes 0. Page 1682.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
upper
Jun 25, 2013
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (60-0-4)
assembly
Jun 25, 2013
Introduced
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
upper
Jun 18, 2013
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. Ordered to consent calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 12).
lower
May 28, 2013
Committee
Referred to Com. on ED.
lower
May 8, 2013
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass. Ordered to consent calendar. (Ayes 8. Noes 0. Page 880.) (May 8).
upper
Mar 11, 2013
Committee
Referred to Com. on ED.
upper
Feb 22, 2013
Introduced
Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Roderick Wright
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 546
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 546. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline