Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ruben Gonzalez, the head women's soccer coach and an academic employee at Cerritos Community College, challenged the district's decision to terminate him under Education Code section 87732. On January 20, 2021, the Board of Trustees voted to terminate him, and the district served the required statutory notice the same day. The charges included immoral conduct, dishonesty, evident unfitness for service, and persistent violation or refusal to obey school laws or regulations. An administrative law judge heard testimony over 11 days and excluded much evidence concerning events more than four years before the district's January 20, 2021 notice, as section 87680 generally requires. The ALJ nevertheless sustained dismissal for immoral or unprofessional conduct and evident unfitness, while rejecting the dishonesty and persistent-refusal grounds.
Gonzalez and the district filed related administrative-mandamus petitions. The superior court exercised independent judgment, denied both petitions, and upheld dismissal solely for evident unfitness for service. It reversed the immoral-conduct finding and agreed that most of the older evidence was inadmissible, but allowed part of witness CR's testimony about repercussions following her report. The court credited testimony describing a toxic team environment, discouraged reporting, and retaliation. Gonzalez appealed, arguing that the unfitness findings were contradictory or unsupported, that the court established no qualifying pattern, that it improperly used time-barred evidence, and that reversal of the immoral-conduct charge entitled him to back pay for his unpaid suspension.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment denying the writ petition. Because the superior court had exercised independent judgment, the appellate court asked whether substantial evidence supported its factual findings, without reweighing testimony or redetermining credibility. It concluded that admitted testimony supported Gonzalez's awareness of inappropriate conduct and a harmful team environment: AZ described directions not to speak with investigators and to shut down discussion, while other testimony concerned intoxicated coaches, flirtation, and Gonzalez's presence during relevant events. The court also found no contradiction between concluding that Gonzalez had not been proved to hear every detail of MC's confrontation with AZ and finding that he knew something unusual and hostile was occurring yet failed to inquire or notify the Title IX coordinator.
The court rejected the argument that two significant episodes of discouraging reports could not establish a pattern, particularly given evidence that players feared retaliation and that Gonzalez had knowledge of multiple investigations. It also upheld the limited use of CR's testimony about retaliation after her report under equitable-estoppel principles drawn from Atwater. In any event, recent testimony from AZ and AJ independently supported the findings, so Gonzalez showed no prejudice or miscarriage of justice. Finally, the court declined to consider back pay under Von Durjais. Although his petition generally requested back pay, Gonzalez did not press the specific issue after the superior court reversed the immoral-conduct charge or object to the omission from the proposed judgment, depriving the district of an opportunity to develop legal and factual responses.
Key Takeaways
- Substantial evidence supported the finding that Gonzalez was evidently unfit for service based on his supervision of the soccer program and his responses to misconduct reports.
- The appellate court could not reweigh conflicting testimony or revisit credibility determinations merely because witnesses offered accounts favorable to Gonzalez.
- The limited admission of testimony about retaliation following CR's report did not warrant reversal, particularly because more recent evidence independently supported the unfitness finding.
- Reversing the immoral-conduct charge did not produce an appellate back-pay award because Gonzalez failed to preserve the specific claim in the superior court.
- The judgment was affirmed, and the district was awarded its costs of appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the layered review of a community-college dismissal: the superior court independently evaluates the administrative evidence, while the Court of Appeal reviews the resulting factual findings for substantial evidence. It also shows that rejecting one dismissal ground does not necessarily undermine termination sustained on another supported ground, and that the four-year evidence limit in section 87680 can yield to equitable estoppel where a coach's own retaliation deterred timely reporting.
The back-pay portion is principally procedural. The court did not decide whether Von Durjais would otherwise require salary restoration after the immoral-conduct charge failed; it held that Gonzalez's general petition allegations were insufficient to obtain appellate review without pressing the issue below.