An Administrator's Guide to California Private School Law

Chapter 4 - Employment Contracts And Separation Of Employees

P. S IGNATURES The end of the employment contract should provide a space for both the employee’s signature and a representative of the school’s signature. Also, there should be an acknowledgement section to certify that by signing the employment contract, the employee accepts all terms and conditions of the employment and affirms that he or she has not obtained employment through any false representation. The school’s representative should be someone authorized to represent the school in contracts, such as the Head of School or a business administrator. The school should ensure that its authorized representative is the person who, in fact, signs the employment contract and that this task is not delegated to an unauthorized individual, such as an assistant or secretary. Some schools are implementing online versions of employment contracts, which employees can sign electronically. Electronic signatures are acceptable in California 455 and a signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form. 456 However, there is a dearth of case law related to electronic signatures and issues may arise related to the authenticity of the electronic signatures. The safest and most conservative course of action is to require employees to sign a hard copy of the employment contract. This will limit the risk that a court or arbitrator may determine that the contract is unenforceable, since the employee actually signed the contract rather than checking a box or typing in his or her name from a computer. If a school does not require handwritten signatures and uses an electronic signature method, it should still allow employees the option of printing out the employment contract and signing it by hand. For more information about the requirements and best practices regarding electronic signatures, see the Student Applications and Enrollment Contracts Chapter of this Administrator’s Guide. I NVESTIGATING E MPLOYEE M ISCONDUCT In a “for cause” termination, employers bear the “burden of proof” as to the facts supporting the termination. Thus, schools should only terminate an employee based upon provable facts. A mere denial of misconduct or the presence of conflicting evidence does not mean that the facts cannot be proven. In the final analysis, the decision maker(s) must be convinced that the facts supporting the discipline are more likely than not (more than 50%) true. The school will need to make a factual inquiry to determine if the employee committed misconduct. If the facts supporting potential disciplinary action are not sufficiently developed, a supervisor may need to conduct an investigation before making the decision to propose disciplinary action. An “investigation” is simply the means of determining what happened. Depending on the allegations, an investigation may be very simple or extremely involved. It must be as detailed as necessary to clearly establish what actually happened. If an investigation is not handled properly, the discipline may be overturned. Supervisors do not always need to conduct a detailed investigation. For example, if an employee is subject to discipline for excessive tardiness, the administrator may simply rely on his or her records and observations as to when the employee arrived at work. In contrast, the school should Section 6

An Administrator’s Guide to California Private School Law ©2019 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 123