The suit alleges that education code requires school districts to advertise all coaching positions, every year, and give preference to qualified teaching staff whether or not there are long standing, successful, walk on coaches that are not teachers. The district, however, disagrees with the prosecution's interpretation of the law. While the district acknowledges it must give teachers preference, that rule applies only when there is a vacancy, according to district officials. The plaintiff’s petition quotes a section of the California Education Code, and its argument hinges on the word "temporary" in reference to coaching positions.

The Ed Code reads "Governing boards shall classify as temporary employees persons ‘who are employed in a limited assignment supervising athletic activities of pupils,' " the code reads. According to the legal representation for the teacher’s federation "The difference between a temporary employee and a regular employee of the district is that a temporary employee has no expectation of continued employment from year to year," The federation asks for the district to change its procedure and to pay all legal fees it incurs during the suit. The district's general counsel said the federation is ignoring another section of the state's Education Code that gives school boards the authority over all aspects of interscholastic activity, including personnel. The federation "has taken the position that they, the employees, have a right to dictate when a vacancy occurs, and that's ludicrous," he said. Once a coaching position opens, and a coach resigns, then the section the federation refers to kicks in, providing that the district should give qualified staff preference, Smith said. A hearing is scheduled for 2 p.m. at April 19 in Tuolumne County Superior Court Department 2.

The Union Democrat contributed to this story.