Kacsur v. Board of Trustees (1941) 18 Cal.2d 586, presented a contest between two teachers and the South Whittier Elementary School District. Appellant Hill had been a teacher in the district beginning July 1, 1927; appellant Kacsur since July 1, 1928. In 1931, both became "permanent" teachers of the district and were the only two such teachers out of a total of 18 full-time faculty at the time of the litigation. For the year 1937-1938 both received $ 1,600 per year, as did a Miss Harrington who had taught in the district for only nine years before that school year and had not been classified as a permanent teacher. In May of 1938, Hill and Kacsur were tendered contracts for $ 1,325 for the coming year, $ 5 over the minimum fixed by section 5.751 of the School Code. Simultaneously, the school board abolished the salary schedule and set salaries for the other teachers at figures comparable to what the schedule would have otherwise provided for. In particular, Miss Harrington was tendered a contract for $ 1,600 for the coming year 1938-1939. Otherwise, Kacsur was reassigned to "home teaching" of those pupils who, for a variety of reasons, could not get to school. She was provided no expense allowance for her travel to the homes involved. The two appellants accepted the employment but by petitions for writs of mandate sought to compel the district to undo the allegedly discriminatory treatment. The trial court denied both petitions, but, upon a combined appeal to the Supreme Court, it reversed. The district took the position that discrimination and unreasonableness could not be shown by comparison of salaries of former years with salaries of other teachers for the reason that each teacher is an individual employee of the district and each teacher's salary is fixed under a one-year contract distinct from any past or future contract. ( Kacsur v. Board of Trustees, supra, 18 Cal.2d 586, 591.) The Supreme Court rejected this argument. It found the differential treatment to be discriminatory and ordered the two appellants to be paid for 1938-1939 at least at the rate of $ 1,600. In reaching this result, the Kacsur court said, "that there must be some degree of uniformity was recently recognized by this court in the case of Fry v. Board of Education, 17 Cal. (2d) 753 . . ., wherein it is stated at p. 757: '"It must be conceded that, within the limits fixed by the School Code, the Board has discretionary control over the salaries of teachers. (Citing cases.) However, it must also be conceded that the legislature had enjoined on such Boards, within reasonable limits, the principle of uniformity of treatment as to salary for those performing like services with like experience . . . ."'" (Id. at p. 592.)