A contentious legal battle has emerged as two former teachers challenge the constitutionality of several California Education Code provisions. Gerald Corn and Junnie Verceles, both former employees of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), filed a complaint against the State of California and the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County on August 26, 2024.
The plaintiffs, Corn and Verceles, allege that various statutes governing teacher discipline and dismissal are unconstitutional. They argue that these laws violate due process rights by not adhering to the California Evidence Code. The case was presided over by Judge Richard L. Fruin, who ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants, leading to an appeal by Corn and Verceles.
Verceles' troubles began in December 2015 when he was removed from his teaching position at LAUSD amid allegations of misconduct. After being reassigned to home duties for three years during an investigation, he was dismissed in March 2018 under sections 44932 and 44939 of the Education Code. Verceles opted out of a dismissal hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), citing concerns about bias and non-compliance with the Evidence Code. Instead, he filed a civil complaint challenging his dismissal in Superior Court.
Corn's situation unfolded differently but also involved disputes over evaluation procedures. After receiving a Below Standards Evaluation (BSE) in August 2018, Corn was placed into LAUSD's Peer Assistance and Review Program (PAR). According to Corn, this program unfairly subjected him to evaluations based on unverified information and arbitrary standards, which led to undue stress and his eventual inability to return to his teaching position.
In their second amended complaint (SAC), Corn and Verceles sought a judgment declaring thirteen statutes unconstitutional. These statutes include sections related to teacher employment status, disciplinary procedures, and credentialing requirements. The plaintiffs argue that these laws function as "bills of attainder" or violate equal protection clauses due to alleged racial biases against African American teachers and age discrimination against those over 45.
Despite their arguments, Judge Fruin sustained the defendants' demurrer without leave to amend. He concluded that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate how these statutes explicitly or implicitly violated constitutional protections or treated similarly situated groups unequally. The court also noted that formal evidentiary rules applicable in court are not required in administrative proceedings like those conducted by school districts or CCTC.
The plaintiffs are seeking declaratory relief from the court—essentially asking for a judicial declaration that these specific Education Code provisions are unconstitutional. They aim for a broader interpretation that would affect how teacher discipline is managed across California.
Representing themselves pro per., Gerald Corn and Junnie Verceles faced off against Ron Bonta, Attorney General of California; Cheryl L. Feiner, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Gregory D. Brown; and Colin D. Schoell, Deputy Attorneys General for the defense.
This case is recorded under Case ID B327498 with Judge Richard L. Fruin presiding.