Paramount 1994

Court of Chancery Opinion, A.

Paramount 1994

Receive free daily summaries of new California Court of Appeal opinions. Subscribe Annotate this Case [No. C, Patti Kitching, Judge. Opinion by Lillie, P.

Romo and Tina L. Kannarr for Plaintiff and Appellant. Feinberg and Kathy A. Finn for Defendants and Respondents. Paramount Unified School District District appeals from a judgment confirming an arbitration award directing that District pay its former probationary teacher L.

Teachers Association of Paramount May 23, B [nonpub.

Paramount Pictures/Other | Logopedia | FANDOM powered by Wikia

We set out the facts underlying the dispute between the parties as noted in the opinion in Paramount I. Frelix was a probationary teacher, a certificated employee for District during school years and ; on March 9,pursuant to Education Code former sectionsubdivision bnow section Derogatory allegations and significant complaints have been extensively documented in this record Practically all of them remained undisclosed to [Frelix] at any time, let alone in a timely manner as required.

These are not trivia. Timely disclosures would have enabled her the chance to correct her Paramount 1994 proximate with its occurrence, if indeed the charges were accurate, as well as to dispel any misimpressions or misstatements of fact.

It would also have afforded her the opportunity to seek and receive remedial counseling relative to her attitude and performance if such appeared advisable to her and the Association.

District filed a petition to vacate the foregoing arbitration award, and Association and Frelix filed a cross-petition to confirm Paramount 1994 award; District did not contest the finding that it violated the collective bargaining agreement, but argued that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by reinstating [26 Cal.

Fontana Unified School Dist. Board of Trustees, supra, Cal. On remand to the arbitrator, District argued that the arbitrator lacked the power to award monetary damages to Frelix because an award would be tantamount to "back pay" or "front pay," which are "merely alternatives to reinstatement," and are unavailable to Frelix because she was not unlawfully discharged; absent the contractual violations, District still had every right to nonreelect her.

After hearing on remand, the arbitrator issued a second opinion and award dated December 30, In a portion of the award summarizing the evidence on the "post-remand arbitral proceeding," the arbitrator stated that it was undisputed and admitted by the parties that Frelix unsuccessfully sought employment by the Los Angeles Unified School District for the school year; she remained unemployed until February ; in the fall ofthe principal of an elementary school in the Los Angeles Unified School District informed Frelix that her former principal at Paramount had given her a negative recommendation, and based on his comments, she was not employed by the Los Angeles Unified School District at that time.

In a portion titled "Analysis and Conclusions," the arbitrator stated: It would result in a cynical perversion of public policy were arbitrators or courts to enable school districts to negotiate and enter into such contractual undertakings, as the law requires them to do First, she had and was denied her right to confront and refute any charges against her that might impugn her conduct or competence as a teacher.

Second, she had and was denied her right to the rehabilitative opportunity to remedy whatever deficiencies might properly be assessable against her and communicated to her by her principal so that she might conform to the reasonable expectations of her supervisors.

It mocks logic and justice alike to conclude that the District should be able to circumvent the basic public policy undergirding the sanctity of contracts and insulate itself in the name of a narrow public policy favoring discretionary nonreelection of probationary teachers, thereby avoiding its otherwise obvious consequential liability for the calculated infliction of those harms upon Grievant.

She was harmed, and seriously so, jeopardizing her career and livelihood as a teacher, when the District completely, indeed flagrantly, ignored those contractual requirements.

The District thereby wholly frustrated her opportunity to demonstrate her competence and wrongfully impugned her in the eyes of prospective employers. It affords a convenient and realistic basis for determining a fair and reasonable compensatory award.

District filed timely notice of appeal from the judgment confirming the arbitration award. In its briefs on appeal, District essentially asserts the same points it made in the trial court. Inasmuch as our treatment of the foregoing issues is governed by a well-defined standard of review, we set out such principles in some detail.

Standard of Review [1] "Our Supreme Court recently reiterated the strong public policy in favor of arbitration as a speedy and relatively inexpensive means of dispute resolution. Because of this important public policy, arbitration awards are subject to an extremely narrow judicial review. Of particular significance to this case is [the] assertion that the arbitrator exceeded his powers under section Absent proof of one of the five grounds contained in section Moncharsh, supra, 3 Cal.

Collins 15 Cal. United Transportation Union 5 Cal. Arbitrators also exceed their powers in enforcing a contract provision illegal on its face or as applied.

The question here is what, if any, judicial review should be afforded where they have not done so. This is a question of the contract term to be supplied by law Superior Court 15 Cal.A.2d 34 () 2 PARAMOUNT COMMUNICATIONS INC., Viacom Inc., Martin S.

Davis, Grace J.

Paramount 1994

Fippinger, Irving R. Fischer, Benjamin L.

Paramount Pictures - Wikipedia

Hooks, Franz J. Lutolf, James A.

Paramount 1994

Pattison, Irwin Schloss, Samuel J. Silberman, Lawrence M. Small, and George Weissman, Defendants Below, Appellants, Paramount is a Delaware corporation with its principal. alphabetnyc.com is a platform for academics to share research papers. Feb 15,  · February 15, , Page The New York Times Archives.

Viacom Inc. finally won the drawn-out bidding war for Paramount Communications Inc. . Paramount Pictures Corporation (also known simply as Paramount) is an American film studio based in Hollywood, California, that has been a subsidiary of the American media conglomerate Viacom since Paramount Pictures Corporation (also known simply as Paramount) is an American film studio based in Hollywood, California, that has been a subsidiary of the American media conglomerate Viacom since [No.

B Second Dist., Div. Seven. Jul 21, ] PARAMOUNT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TEACHERS ASSOCIATION OF PARAMOUNT, CTA/NEA et al.

Paramount Pictures - Wikipedia