Odorizzi v. Bloomfield School District
California Court of Appeal
246 Cal. App. 2d 123, 54 Cal. Rptr. 533 (1966)
- Written by Christine Hilgeman, JD
Facts
Donald Odorizzi (plaintiff) was hired by Bloomfield School District (Bloomfield) (defendant) to teach elementary school. While he was still under contract to teach, he was criminally charged with engaging in homosexual activities. Following his release on bail, Bloomfield’s district superintendent and the school principal visited Odorizzi at his home. They told Odorizzi that if he did not resign immediately, they would suspend him and publicize his dismissal proceeding, as they were required to do by statute. They told him this would cause “extreme embarrassment and humiliation.” He was also told that he had no time to talk to a lawyer and that if he resigned immediately, the arrest and suspension would not be publicized. At the time of this meeting with the superintendent and principal, Odorizzi had gone without sleep for 40 hours from the time of his arrest through his release on bail. Odorizzi agreed to tender his resignation. However, after being cleared of the criminal charges against him, he asked to be reinstated in his employment. When Bloomfield refused, Odorizzi filed an action against Bloomfield, alleging duress, menace, fraud, mistake, and undue influence. The trial court dismissed Odorizzi’s amended complaint, and he appealed that decision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fleming, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
