In California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Board (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 285, the trial court ordered the district to reinstate a teacher, even though he had been hired as a temporary employee in 1982 for less than a school year, since the teacher was then rehired for the entire following 1982-1983 school year. The district had failed to provide a written statement of the temporary nature of the employment at the beginning of the 1982-1983 school year, but had provided evaluations indicating his employee status as "probationary." When belatedly presented with a contract of temporary employment for the 1982-1983 school year, the teacher refused to sign upon the advice of his union because his status was probationary. When he reported for work for the 1983-1984 school year, he was told he would not be employed for that year. (Id. at pp. 290-291.) The trial court found that the failure of the district to provide a written statement of the temporary nature of employment for the 1982-1983 school year, in violation of the Education Code provision regarding the time for classification of certified employees, triggered the statutory remedy of deeming the employee to be a probationary employee of the school district. (Id. at pp. 290, 298-299.) The Court of Appeal affirmed on the ground that the trial court properly could fashion a remedy or sanction the district where the record reflected that the district's error was not inadvertent, but was deliberate retaliation against the employee for exercising his rights under the collective bargaining agreement. (Id. at p. 300.) The appellate court also upheld the trial court's ruling against the district's affirmative defense of laches. In so doing, it recognized that prejudice must be demonstrated by the defendant and that the existence of laches was "'a question of fact to be determined by the trial court in light of all of the applicable circumstances, and in the absence of manifest injustice or a lack of substantial support in the evidence its determination will be sustained.'" (Id. at p. 296.) It distinguished American Federation of Teachers, supra, 77 Cal.App.3d 100, on the grounds that the teacher there had understood and agreed to the terms of a written contract, knowing she was a temporary employee and failing to object to her temporary status until a date when respondent could not comply with statutory notice requirements. (CTA, supra, 195 Cal.App.3d at p. 297.) According to CTA, the "primary distinction" between the facts in the case before it and American Federation of Teachers involved the district's failure in CTA to offer and obtain a signed written employment contract at the beginning of the school year. Therefore, "unlike American Federation of Teachers, no such contract secured the teacher's understanding and acceptance of those terms. This failure is consistent with the district's failure to administer its employment policies and procedures vis-a-vis the teacher both before and after his grievances became known." (CTA, at p. 297.) The district's claim to have relied on the employee's apparent acceptance of the contract "begged the question," as it was the absence of the written contract that permitted the ambiguity to arise and the district's "subsequent inconsistencies and contradictory messages did nothing to dispel" that ambiguity. (Ibid.) Consequently, the appellate court found that substantial evidence supported the trial court's ruling against the district's laches defense. (Ibid.)