Court Sides With District Employee Who Balked at Order to Purge Emails
A fired school district IT director who objected to orders to
wipe out the email archive system was rightfully awarded over $1
million by a jury in 2015, an appellate court decided this month.
Elaine Allyn accused the Fallbrook Union Elementary School District of wrongful termination in 2012, and a jury unanimously awarded her $1.05 million for lost income and $148,000 in damages in 2015...
The district’s legal fees fighting Allyn’s claims
have cost more than $800,000 to date....
...[A] statement
provided by Fallbrook’s assistant superintendent Bill Billingsley said
the school board is deciding next steps with legal counsel.
The statement, provided on behalf of Fallbrook’s superintendent
Candace Singh, said in part: “The District is clearly disappointed in
the appellate court’s decision and is reviewing its options to challenge
it further. Although the jury found in the plaintiff’s favor, the
leadership of FUESD steadfastly maintains that Mrs. Allyn was not a
whistleblower, and that her own misconduct justified her termination
from the District.”...
Read more HERE.
Showing posts with label Fallbrook Elem Sch Dist FUESD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fallbrook Elem Sch Dist FUESD. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
Friday, February 27, 2015
Jury: Fallbrook Schools Must Pay Ex-Employee $1M for Retaliation
After more than a year of delays, I'm pleased that Elaine Allyn finally got her day in court--and prevailed in her claim of illegal retaliation by Fallbrook Union Elementary School District.
I'm wondering if Allyn will appeal some or all of the 11 claims that Judge Stern decided in favor of the school district. Judge Jacqueline Stern seemed to be a bit over-anxious to protect the schools district, as indicated by the fact that she declared a mistrial in this case in October 2013 rather than placing an alternate juror on the jury--and then delayed the new trial for more than a year.
See earlier post on this case HERE.
See the complaint filed by Plaintiff HERE.
Jury: Fallbrook Schools Must Pay Ex-Employee $1M for Retaliation
Ashly McGlone
Voice of San Diego
Feb. 26, 2015
A jury Thursday afternoon ordered the Fallbrook Union Elementary School District to pay its former IT director Elaine Allyn over $1 million for retaliating against her for objecting to the deletion of district emails.
The jury returned the unanimous verdict after deliberating for four hours following a 15-day trial, said Allyn’s attorney, Michael Curran.
It was the second jury to hear wrongful termination claims made by Allyn, who was fired in May 2012 after a dispute over the deletion of district emails.
“I can’t express the emotion I am feeling,” Allyn said of the verdict. “This is not only for me but, for all the people at the Fallbrook Union Elementary School District, former and present employees that are going through the awful treatment that this administration is giving them. I really hope that it opens the eyes of the School Board to re-evaluate the current administration and their management philosophy.”
The district claimed the 18-year employee was fired for snooping and hacking colleagues’ emails and reduced the amount of time district servers retain emails on her own “to conceal her wrongful and deceitful acts.”
Allyn said she had previously reported sexual harassment by a superior and that she was ordered to dismantle the district’s email archive system, permanently erasing all deleted emails and reducing email retention from three years to one week, despite voicing objections and legal concerns.
A first trial that began in October 2013 ended in a mistrial after the district asked to extend it beyond the 10 days scheduled.
This time, the jury found Fallbrook retaliated “against Ms. Allyn for raising objections to reducing the retention time of the District’s email system,” and awarded nearly $1.05 million for lost income and $148,000 in damages, more than the amounts sought, court records show.
Read the rest of the story HERE.
I'm wondering if Allyn will appeal some or all of the 11 claims that Judge Stern decided in favor of the school district. Judge Jacqueline Stern seemed to be a bit over-anxious to protect the schools district, as indicated by the fact that she declared a mistrial in this case in October 2013 rather than placing an alternate juror on the jury--and then delayed the new trial for more than a year.
See earlier post on this case HERE.
See the complaint filed by Plaintiff HERE.
Jury: Fallbrook Schools Must Pay Ex-Employee $1M for Retaliation
Ashly McGlone
Voice of San Diego
Feb. 26, 2015
A jury Thursday afternoon ordered the Fallbrook Union Elementary School District to pay its former IT director Elaine Allyn over $1 million for retaliating against her for objecting to the deletion of district emails.
The jury returned the unanimous verdict after deliberating for four hours following a 15-day trial, said Allyn’s attorney, Michael Curran.
It was the second jury to hear wrongful termination claims made by Allyn, who was fired in May 2012 after a dispute over the deletion of district emails.
“I can’t express the emotion I am feeling,” Allyn said of the verdict. “This is not only for me but, for all the people at the Fallbrook Union Elementary School District, former and present employees that are going through the awful treatment that this administration is giving them. I really hope that it opens the eyes of the School Board to re-evaluate the current administration and their management philosophy.”
The district claimed the 18-year employee was fired for snooping and hacking colleagues’ emails and reduced the amount of time district servers retain emails on her own “to conceal her wrongful and deceitful acts.”
Allyn said she had previously reported sexual harassment by a superior and that she was ordered to dismantle the district’s email archive system, permanently erasing all deleted emails and reducing email retention from three years to one week, despite voicing objections and legal concerns.
A first trial that began in October 2013 ended in a mistrial after the district asked to extend it beyond the 10 days scheduled.
This time, the jury found Fallbrook retaliated “against Ms. Allyn for raising objections to reducing the retention time of the District’s email system,” and awarded nearly $1.05 million for lost income and $148,000 in damages, more than the amounts sought, court records show.
Read the rest of the story HERE.
VERDICT IS IN: Jury unanimously finds Fallbrook Union Elementary School District wrongfully terminated Elaine Allyn; district ordered to pay over $1.19 million
February 27, 2015
by admin
FALLBROOK – The following are two statements provided to the
Village News on Thursday, Feb. 26, following a unanimous verdict in
favor of plaintiff Elaine Allyn in the Allyn vs. Fallbrook Union
Elementary School District lawsuit claiming wrongful termination.
The first statement is from Allyn’s legal counsel, Curran & Curran Law.
The second statement is from Fallbrook Union Elementary School District legal counsel, Gil Abed of Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz, APC, who defended the district.
——
“1.2 million verdict in employment retaliation case against Fallbrook Union Elementary School District”
“In a resounding victory against the alleged misconduct by her former bosses, FUESD superintendent Candace Singh, Ray Proctor and Dennis Bixler, Elaine Allyn, the former 18-year information technology director for the district, prevailed in her claims for retaliatory mistreatment and wrongful termination with a unanimous jury award of $1,194,000 for lost past, present and future income and emotional distress (general damages).
“Ms. Allyn originally alleged claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, retaliation under the Labor Code and for the failure to conduct a proper alleged discrimination investigation relating to Mr. Bixler investigating his own boss, Mr. Proctor. Her claims were refined by her counsel and, based upon technical legal/procedural grounds, a single claim went to the jury; whistle-blower retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5.
“Ms. Allyn testified she had questioned the spending of Ms. Singh, alleging she had spent in excess of $43,000 of public funds on a larger office and redecorating and over $14,000 in public funds on new tech items for herself, when she first became Superintendent in August 2011. She further alleged that Ms. Singh and Mr. Proctor had spread these expenditures around various district budgets to avoid the scrutiny of the board. Ms. Singh had asked Ms. Allyn to purchase a larger computer screen for her from the IT budget so as not to “flag the board.”
“Ms. Allyn had also testified in the early summer of 2011 that Mr. Proctor had warned his fellow administrators to “clean their houses” as he was aware of public investigations into misconduct in other districts concerning improper financial relationships with contractors and other financial misconduct and was concerned Fallbrook could be investigated and he could be embarrassed or disciplined for his own alleged financial misconduct.
“Mr. Proctor and Ms. Singh then directed Ms. Allyn to delete the district’s archive server which contained three years of district historical emails. When Ms. Allyn initially refused and asked her bosses to provide a legal opinion because she believed what they were asking violated law and district policy, they threatened her with insubordination charges and ordered her to delete the email archive sever telling her they would take care of the legal issue.
“Once that was done, in a further attempt to cover themselves and point the finger at Ms. Allyn in case of investigation of the District, they falsely and pretextually accused her of “hacking” and reading their emails and conducted a $43,000 pretextual investigation with the district lawyer Dan Shinoff’s trusted investigator, who found no computer or forensic evidence of misconduct by Ms. Allyn.
“Despite the findings of the investigator, Ms. Singh, Mr. Proctor and Mr. Bixler still falsely charged Ms. Allyn with reading emails, deleting emails, and failing to assist the district with the voluntary Erate funding program. In a formal Notice of Charges document, Mr. Bixler, who testified the documents was “wordsmithed” with Mr. Shinoff, presented these pretextual and false charges to the board, resulting in Ms. Allyn’s wrongful and retaliatory termination.
“Earlier in this litigation, district spokesperson, Dennis Bixler, had previously falsely indicated to the press Ms. Allyn had been terminated for dishonesty, fraud and violation of district policies. After an initial trial, which Ms. Allyn and her counsel believe the district intentionally caused to be mistried, the district board again falsely reported to the press Ms. Allyn was terminated for dishonesty, fraud and violation of district policy.
“The dedicated jury in this second trial listened attentively to all the evidence and believed Ms. Allyn and her former district employees, all of whom were absolutely honest and sincere and none of whom were impeached, not a single time in the trial. The district witnesses were impeached repeatedly with inconsistent deposition and former testimony from the first trial. The district witnesses were shown to be inconsistent with each other on key issues in the case with Mr. Bixler giving five different versions of Ms. Allyn reporting to him and Mr. Shinoff and his investigator that she had been directed by Ms. Singh and Mr. Proctor to delete the districts archive email server.
“The district witnesses even attempted to add new preposterous claims and allegations against Ms. Allyn raised for the first time in the litigation at this trial, like Ms. Allyn had years back sexually harassed her boss Mr. Proctor and Ms. Allyn violated procedures and had a bad reputation. The jurors properly disregarded these new claims as unsubstantiated mud-slinging.”
“At trial, Mr. Proctor also testified for the first time in the litigation that he did not need to delete email as he had printed everyone of his emails for the past 21 years which district counsel said were all “public record.” There was no evidence to support this new allegation and no other witness supported these claims and, in fact, the district charges against Ms. Allyn alleged the district administrator emails were highly confidential and related to confidential district business.
“The jury properly considered all the evidence and found Ms. Allyn had been retaliated against and wrongfully terminated. Jurors indicated the district’s mistreatment angered and insulted their intelligence and awarded Ms. Allen the maximum damages they believed they could based on the evidence and jury instructions. They even awarded Ms. Allyn a greater sum of emotional distress damages that had been asked by her counsel in closing argument...
Below is the media statement provided by Gil Abed of Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz, APC, who defended Fallbrook Union Elementary School District (FUESD). The statement is attributed to FUESD superintendent, Candace Singh.
” Re: Jury decision/Allyn v. FUESD”
“This lawsuit was filed with 12 claims against the district, 11 of which the district either prevailed or were dismissed. The district intends to seek all remedies available including costs and attorneys’ fees with respect to all of the 11 claims.
“The Fallbrook Union Elementary School District is disappointed with the outcome of the trial with respect to the one claim that the jury was asked to decide.
“While the jury’s decision is not the outcome expected, the district respects the jury’s time and commitment to the judicial process. At the same time, the district will continue to pursue the legal remedies that reach beyond today’s decision.”
—————
The Village News will publish its customary news coverage of the jury decision in the March 5 issue.
The first statement is from Allyn’s legal counsel, Curran & Curran Law.
The second statement is from Fallbrook Union Elementary School District legal counsel, Gil Abed of Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz, APC, who defended the district.
——
“1.2 million verdict in employment retaliation case against Fallbrook Union Elementary School District”
“In a resounding victory against the alleged misconduct by her former bosses, FUESD superintendent Candace Singh, Ray Proctor and Dennis Bixler, Elaine Allyn, the former 18-year information technology director for the district, prevailed in her claims for retaliatory mistreatment and wrongful termination with a unanimous jury award of $1,194,000 for lost past, present and future income and emotional distress (general damages).
“Ms. Allyn originally alleged claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, retaliation under the Labor Code and for the failure to conduct a proper alleged discrimination investigation relating to Mr. Bixler investigating his own boss, Mr. Proctor. Her claims were refined by her counsel and, based upon technical legal/procedural grounds, a single claim went to the jury; whistle-blower retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5.
“Ms. Allyn testified she had questioned the spending of Ms. Singh, alleging she had spent in excess of $43,000 of public funds on a larger office and redecorating and over $14,000 in public funds on new tech items for herself, when she first became Superintendent in August 2011. She further alleged that Ms. Singh and Mr. Proctor had spread these expenditures around various district budgets to avoid the scrutiny of the board. Ms. Singh had asked Ms. Allyn to purchase a larger computer screen for her from the IT budget so as not to “flag the board.”
“Ms. Allyn had also testified in the early summer of 2011 that Mr. Proctor had warned his fellow administrators to “clean their houses” as he was aware of public investigations into misconduct in other districts concerning improper financial relationships with contractors and other financial misconduct and was concerned Fallbrook could be investigated and he could be embarrassed or disciplined for his own alleged financial misconduct.
“Mr. Proctor and Ms. Singh then directed Ms. Allyn to delete the district’s archive server which contained three years of district historical emails. When Ms. Allyn initially refused and asked her bosses to provide a legal opinion because she believed what they were asking violated law and district policy, they threatened her with insubordination charges and ordered her to delete the email archive sever telling her they would take care of the legal issue.
“Once that was done, in a further attempt to cover themselves and point the finger at Ms. Allyn in case of investigation of the District, they falsely and pretextually accused her of “hacking” and reading their emails and conducted a $43,000 pretextual investigation with the district lawyer Dan Shinoff’s trusted investigator, who found no computer or forensic evidence of misconduct by Ms. Allyn.
“Despite the findings of the investigator, Ms. Singh, Mr. Proctor and Mr. Bixler still falsely charged Ms. Allyn with reading emails, deleting emails, and failing to assist the district with the voluntary Erate funding program. In a formal Notice of Charges document, Mr. Bixler, who testified the documents was “wordsmithed” with Mr. Shinoff, presented these pretextual and false charges to the board, resulting in Ms. Allyn’s wrongful and retaliatory termination.
“Earlier in this litigation, district spokesperson, Dennis Bixler, had previously falsely indicated to the press Ms. Allyn had been terminated for dishonesty, fraud and violation of district policies. After an initial trial, which Ms. Allyn and her counsel believe the district intentionally caused to be mistried, the district board again falsely reported to the press Ms. Allyn was terminated for dishonesty, fraud and violation of district policy.
“The dedicated jury in this second trial listened attentively to all the evidence and believed Ms. Allyn and her former district employees, all of whom were absolutely honest and sincere and none of whom were impeached, not a single time in the trial. The district witnesses were impeached repeatedly with inconsistent deposition and former testimony from the first trial. The district witnesses were shown to be inconsistent with each other on key issues in the case with Mr. Bixler giving five different versions of Ms. Allyn reporting to him and Mr. Shinoff and his investigator that she had been directed by Ms. Singh and Mr. Proctor to delete the districts archive email server.
“The district witnesses even attempted to add new preposterous claims and allegations against Ms. Allyn raised for the first time in the litigation at this trial, like Ms. Allyn had years back sexually harassed her boss Mr. Proctor and Ms. Allyn violated procedures and had a bad reputation. The jurors properly disregarded these new claims as unsubstantiated mud-slinging.”
“At trial, Mr. Proctor also testified for the first time in the litigation that he did not need to delete email as he had printed everyone of his emails for the past 21 years which district counsel said were all “public record.” There was no evidence to support this new allegation and no other witness supported these claims and, in fact, the district charges against Ms. Allyn alleged the district administrator emails were highly confidential and related to confidential district business.
“The jury properly considered all the evidence and found Ms. Allyn had been retaliated against and wrongfully terminated. Jurors indicated the district’s mistreatment angered and insulted their intelligence and awarded Ms. Allen the maximum damages they believed they could based on the evidence and jury instructions. They even awarded Ms. Allyn a greater sum of emotional distress damages that had been asked by her counsel in closing argument...
Below is the media statement provided by Gil Abed of Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz, APC, who defended Fallbrook Union Elementary School District (FUESD). The statement is attributed to FUESD superintendent, Candace Singh.
” Re: Jury decision/Allyn v. FUESD”
“This lawsuit was filed with 12 claims against the district, 11 of which the district either prevailed or were dismissed. The district intends to seek all remedies available including costs and attorneys’ fees with respect to all of the 11 claims.
“The Fallbrook Union Elementary School District is disappointed with the outcome of the trial with respect to the one claim that the jury was asked to decide.
“While the jury’s decision is not the outcome expected, the district respects the jury’s time and commitment to the judicial process. At the same time, the district will continue to pursue the legal remedies that reach beyond today’s decision.”
—————
The Village News will publish its customary news coverage of the jury decision in the March 5 issue.
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Mistrial declared in Fallbrook Union Eementary School District case regarding electronic document destruction
UPDATE Feb. 26, 2015: A jury awarded Elaine Allyn over $1 million for retaliation by Fallbrook Union Elementary School District when this case was finally allowed to reach a conclusion in February 2015 after more than a year of delays.
UPDATE April 2014: A new trial in the Allyn v. Fallbrook case began on
April 21, 2014 with Judge Jacqueline Stern--and was stopped
after four days and rescheduled for July 25, 2014.
Judge Stern had no need to declare a mistrial in the Allyn v. Fallbrook Schools case in October 2013 (see story below). When one juror couldn't continue with the trial, the judge could have let the remaining alternate juror take his or her place. And Judge Stern could have insisted that school district attorneys expedite their questioning instead of letting it drag on for hours and hours--three times as long as plaintiff's counsel.
SMOKELESS DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION?
Elaine Allyn claims she was fired in retaliation for her objections to the destruction of district electronic documents.
This reminds me of the recent burning of documents in San Ysidro School District.Justice.
Traditional document destruction:
a few bags of shredded documents escaped
the burning spree in San Ysidro
SDCOE board members
Mark Anderson, Susan Hartley, Lyn Neylong, Gregg Robinson and Sharon Jones
The liability insurance carrier for most San Diego County school districts, San Diego County Office of Educuation JPA, is deeply involved in the legal strategies used by districts in lawsuits such as a motion for San Ysidro Schools asking the court to forbid any mention of a cash handoff to the superintendent, destroyed documents or criminal charges. SDCOE doesn't think the court--or the public--needs to know what's going on.
It seems that Fallbrook's legal team wanted a mistrial in the Allyn case so Human Resources Director Dennis Bixler could get his story straight for the next trial.
Fallbrook's Human Resources Director Dennis Bixler
And there might also be another reason Fallbrook Union Elementary School District wanted a mistrial: to create financial pressure on the plaintiff so she'll settle for a small amount and then maintain silence about what happened at Fallbrook.
San Diego County Office of Education JPA has deep pockets so it can keep paying attorneys no matter how many times the case is retried, but I doubt that Elaine Allyn has such deep pockets. Is the district abusing the court system to force her to settle for less? The school district had the nerve to file a motion asking for attorney fees--from the Plaintiff!
Elaine Allyn
ORIGINAL POST:
Mistrial declared in Allyn vs. FUESD
Debbie Ramsey
Village News
October 24th, 2013
On Monday, Oct. 21, Judge Jacqueline Stern declared a mistrial in the case of Allyn vs. Fallbrook Union Elementary School District (FUESD) at Vista Superior Court, citing that the proceeds would exceed the time limit previously established for the trial. The trial had just begun its seventh day out of the 10 days slated for it. Allyn, the district’s former information technology director and an employee of 18 years, claimed she was wrongfully terminated by administrators in 2012 in an act of retaliation and that the district violated public policy by misusing public funds.
"The jury in this case had been scheduled through Thursday, Oct. 24, and the court determined that the case would not conclude until Nov. 7, resulting in the judge declaring a mistrial," said FUESD defense attorney Gil Abed of Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz, APC.
Allyn’s attorney Michael Curran, of Curran & Curran Law, posted the blame for the mistrial firmly on the defense counsel.
"I think it is reprehensible the way they wasted everyone’s time and resources," said Curran, who claimed FUESD attorneys "intentionally" prolonged examination of their defendants in order to effect a mistrial. Curran said he "repeatedly objected to the defense counsel’s undue consumption of time."
FUESD’s defendants, Dennis Bixler, Candace Singh, Bob Price, and associate superintendent Raymond Proctor were the individuals under fire by the plaintiff’s counsel. In an earlier interview, Curran said, "This case is really about an abuse of power, a breach of public trust, and a cover up that included retaliation by [Allyn’s] bosses."
Candace Singh, Superintendent
Curran cited examples of what he called the "excessive" time used in the early days of the trial. "We examined Bixler for 2.5 hours, compared to their 6.5 hours; we examined superintendent Singh for 2 hours, compared to their 6 hours; and we questioned the district’s investigator Price for 2.5 hours, compared to their 7.5 hours," he said.
"Then the district and their counsel claimed they need another two weeks to put on their defense case," said Curran. "The judge was forced to declare mistrial after jurors indicated they could not stay longer then the court originally cleared."
"Two jurors would have encountered problems with their jobs; one had to report for military duty on a certain date," Curran explained.
Prior to the mistrial being declared, Curran said in his opinion, "The case was going along very well and we were demonstrating that Ms. Allyn’s termination was wrongful and retaliatory; the evidence was unfolding just as we had planned."
Conversely, Abed said "As officers of the court, neither Mr. Shinoff (law firm partner) nor I will try a case in the press and will only litigate our cases before the court. We are very disappointed that we were not able to complete this trial and show the jury the abundance of evidence justifying the dismissal of a management employee in the district."
Judge Stern ordered a judicial settlement conference be set for Dec. 12 in the case, which will be presided over by Judge Thomas Nugent, to see if the parties can be assisted in resolving the case before scheduling a new trial.
"[The district] could settle with Ms. Allyn and they should," said Curran. "If an acceptable settlement is not reached, then a case management conference will be set for January, after which a new trial date will be ordered."
Following the dismissal of the jurors, Curran said he had an opportunity to speak with 11 of the 12 to gauge their opinion of the case.
"Ten of the 11 jurors said they felt like it was looking like a case of retaliation (against Allyn)," said Curran. "They said they felt Bixler and Singh were not credible, and that Singh also came across as rehearsed. They said they felt Price wasn’t believable and they hadn’t seen anything that proved [Allyn] had violated any processes."
Curran claimed one significant incident during the proceedings was noted by the jurors. "Bixler impeached himself dozens of times by changing his testimony on a critical issue in the trial." The matter involved whether or not Allyn had complained to Bixler that she was being asked to delete district archives.
"That is smoking gun evidence and we knew he was being told to change his testimony," said Curran. "We showed him what was in his notes and he had to go back to his original testimony."
Abed said his respect continues for the jury trial process. "A trial is a pursuit of the truth to a jury. We look forward to a complete vindication of all the allegations made against the district."
Curran said he felt the situation leading to the mistrial was disrespectful.
"It is a terrible, continued injustice to Ms. Allyn and 12 very conscientious jurors who listened to the evidence/case for seven days only to have their time wasted by the district and their lawyers," he said.
Curran said other matters have come to light during his handling of Allyn’s case that he feels should be investigated.
"We intend on providing a complete report and demanding the San Diego Office of Education and California Office of Education investigate these matters," said Curran.
COMMENT
...Teri Heyneman-Myers
Oct 28, 2013
I wanted to explain about the jury and the question about the availability of the alternates. The first juror was used when a selected juror had conflicts. There was only one other alternate juror available for the trial Well...the trial was going to extend two weeks beyond the original AGREED upon date. By the way...this was not Allyn's attorney's idea. When a poll took place asking which jurors could remain the answer was obvious. This was a shame that the dedicated jurors had wasted their time.
Apparently it is common for the jurors to speak after a trial. As Mr. Curran said in the VN article Ms. Allyn was favored.
My sister, Elaine Allyn (Heyneman) and I have grown up in Fallbrook. The FUESD style of politics need to change. I think a bit of pruning needs to take place and I do not mean trees. Let's begin at the top shall we?!...
[Maura Larkins comment: When you say "begin at the top" do you mean the pruning should start with Diane Crosier and Randy Ward and the board at SDCOE?]
COMMENT
...[by] WasThere
Oct 28, 2013
I observed one day of that trial and it was a joke. The defense legal team so obviously was burning time on the clock, it was painful to watch. I heard about every job Candace Singh ever had, what she did there, why her role(s) were important, who she worked with.........
This line of questioning by her own legal team went on for hours!! The judge was useless and could have "overseen" this trial via skype. Every time there was an objection (which was literally about every 30 seconds) she had to go back to the minutes because she had no clue what was objected to.
Elaine Allyn on left
FALLBROOK: Ex-tech director says school district officials ordered her to destroy emails
By GARY WARTH
nctimes.com
June 17, 2012
The former director of educational technology for the Fallbrook Union Elementary School District has filed a $972,000 civil lawsuit against the district, alleging she was wrongfully fired after being falsely accused of snooping through emails.
The suit, filed May 31 by Encinitas resident Elaine Allyn, includes allegations of discrimination, harassment, retaliation and wasteful spending. She also claims that a district investigation into a teacher suspected of videotaping students was hampered because an administrator had ordered emails deleted, inadvertently destroying possible evidence.
Besides the $972,000 cited in the lawsuit, Allyn's attorney Susan Curran said her client also will be seeking lost past and future income, lost benefits, attorney fees and punitive damages.
Dennis Bixler, assistant superintendent of human resources, said the school board meet in closed session last month to discuss the claim Allyn had filed as a prerequisite to the lawsuit. Trustees rejected part of the claim and sent other parts back without action because they were untimely, meaning they had happened too far in the past, he said.
In the complaint, Allyn said she had been a district employee for 18 years and was earning about $109,000 a year when she was fired in May.
According to the lawsuit, Allyn had been subjected to six years of harassment from Ray Proctor, associate superintendent of business services at the district, who had become vindictive after learning she had complained that he made an inappropriate comment about her in a Cabinet meeting in 2005.
Proctor declined to comment for this story, directing all inquiries to Bixler.
According to the lawsuit, Proctor had said Allyn must have "slept with the vendor" to get the district its good cellphone contract.
Allyn said in the lawsuit that the human resources department ignored her complaint about Proctor, but her accusation was leaked to him. For the next six years, according to the suit, he was overly critical of her, giving her smaller budgets than her male counterparts and denying her staff assistance.
Also in the lawsuit, Proctor is said to have asked Allyn in early August 2011 to wipe out or cleanse the district's entire electronic data imaging from its archive system and to wipe out all emails that were in the trash bin of the active system.
The district hired Candy Singh as the new superintendent last August. According to the complaint, Singh also requested Allyn delete old imaging and emails, and Allyn said she again refused because it was a violation of state and federal laws.
At Singh's and Proctor's insistence, however, Allyn later hired a consultant to help dismantle the archive system, according to the lawsuit.
Last January, the lawsuit continues, Allyn was asked to assist in the investigation against a teacher suspected of videotaping students. Allyn said she scanned the video camera and found nothing incriminating, but was unable to provide a backlog of the teacher's emails, as requested by private investigator Bob Price, because there were few to read since Proctor and Singh had order a change to the archive system.
According to the lawsuit, Proctor asked Allyn for an administrative password to access additional log files on the computer system.
After she complied, Allyn said she was called in to Proctor's office and accused of illegally accessing and reading employee emails.
Allyn said the accusation was unfounded, as employee emails are not considered private and district policy gives her the right and ability to access emails and electronic files without prior notice or consent.
Bixler, however, said that while the emails are not considered private, and supervisors have the right to look into the emails of subordinates, Allyn was looking into the emails of her supervisors.
According to the lawsuit, Allyn said she was accused of looking into Singh's emails because she knew about complaints against the superintendent, including how $30,000 had been spent on new office furniture and remodeling. Allyn said in the suit that she knew of the complaints about the spending because people in the district were talking about them, not because she snooped in emails.
But according to a district notice outlining existing causes to discipline Allyn, which Bixler signed April 12 and provided to the North County Times, the investigator hired by the district found other indications that Allyn was looking into the superintendent's and other administrators' emails.
In her lawsuit, Allyn denied ever looking into the superintendent's emails.
[Maura Larkins's comment: Maybe the Allyn v. Fallbrook case should be called Falliburton due to its similarities to a case in which a Halliburton manager pleaded guilty to destroying documents after the BP Gulf oil spill.
] See also the early articles from 2012 about this case.
UPDATE April 2014: A new trial in the Allyn v. Fallbrook case began on
April 21, 2014 with Judge Jacqueline Stern--and was stopped
after four days and rescheduled for July 25, 2014.
Judge Stern had no need to declare a mistrial in the Allyn v. Fallbrook Schools case in October 2013 (see story below). When one juror couldn't continue with the trial, the judge could have let the remaining alternate juror take his or her place. And Judge Stern could have insisted that school district attorneys expedite their questioning instead of letting it drag on for hours and hours--three times as long as plaintiff's counsel.
SMOKELESS DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION?
Elaine Allyn claims she was fired in retaliation for her objections to the destruction of district electronic documents.
This reminds me of the recent burning of documents in San Ysidro School District.Justice.
Traditional document destruction:
a few bags of shredded documents escaped
the burning spree in San Ysidro
SDCOE board members
Mark Anderson, Susan Hartley, Lyn Neylong, Gregg Robinson and Sharon Jones
The liability insurance carrier for most San Diego County school districts, San Diego County Office of Educuation JPA, is deeply involved in the legal strategies used by districts in lawsuits such as a motion for San Ysidro Schools asking the court to forbid any mention of a cash handoff to the superintendent, destroyed documents or criminal charges. SDCOE doesn't think the court--or the public--needs to know what's going on.
It seems that Fallbrook's legal team wanted a mistrial in the Allyn case so Human Resources Director Dennis Bixler could get his story straight for the next trial.
Fallbrook's Human Resources Director Dennis Bixler
And there might also be another reason Fallbrook Union Elementary School District wanted a mistrial: to create financial pressure on the plaintiff so she'll settle for a small amount and then maintain silence about what happened at Fallbrook.
San Diego County Office of Education JPA has deep pockets so it can keep paying attorneys no matter how many times the case is retried, but I doubt that Elaine Allyn has such deep pockets. Is the district abusing the court system to force her to settle for less? The school district had the nerve to file a motion asking for attorney fees--from the Plaintiff!
Elaine Allyn
ORIGINAL POST:
"'Ten of the 11 jurors said they felt like it was looking like a case of retaliation (against Allyn),' said Curran. 'They said they felt Bixler and Singh were not credible, and that Singh also came across as rehearsed. They said they felt Price wasn’t believable and they hadn’t seen anything that proved [Allyn] had violated any processes.'
Curran claimed one significant incident during the proceedings was noted by the jurors. 'Bixler impeached himself dozens of times by changing his testimony on a critical issue in the trial.' The matter involved whether or not Allyn had complained to Bixler that she was being asked to delete district archives.
Mistrial declared in Allyn vs. FUESD
Debbie Ramsey
Village News
October 24th, 2013
On Monday, Oct. 21, Judge Jacqueline Stern declared a mistrial in the case of Allyn vs. Fallbrook Union Elementary School District (FUESD) at Vista Superior Court, citing that the proceeds would exceed the time limit previously established for the trial. The trial had just begun its seventh day out of the 10 days slated for it. Allyn, the district’s former information technology director and an employee of 18 years, claimed she was wrongfully terminated by administrators in 2012 in an act of retaliation and that the district violated public policy by misusing public funds.
"The jury in this case had been scheduled through Thursday, Oct. 24, and the court determined that the case would not conclude until Nov. 7, resulting in the judge declaring a mistrial," said FUESD defense attorney Gil Abed of Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz, APC.
Allyn’s attorney Michael Curran, of Curran & Curran Law, posted the blame for the mistrial firmly on the defense counsel.
"I think it is reprehensible the way they wasted everyone’s time and resources," said Curran, who claimed FUESD attorneys "intentionally" prolonged examination of their defendants in order to effect a mistrial. Curran said he "repeatedly objected to the defense counsel’s undue consumption of time."
FUESD’s defendants, Dennis Bixler, Candace Singh, Bob Price, and associate superintendent Raymond Proctor were the individuals under fire by the plaintiff’s counsel. In an earlier interview, Curran said, "This case is really about an abuse of power, a breach of public trust, and a cover up that included retaliation by [Allyn’s] bosses."
Candace Singh, Superintendent
Curran cited examples of what he called the "excessive" time used in the early days of the trial. "We examined Bixler for 2.5 hours, compared to their 6.5 hours; we examined superintendent Singh for 2 hours, compared to their 6 hours; and we questioned the district’s investigator Price for 2.5 hours, compared to their 7.5 hours," he said.
"Then the district and their counsel claimed they need another two weeks to put on their defense case," said Curran. "The judge was forced to declare mistrial after jurors indicated they could not stay longer then the court originally cleared."
"Two jurors would have encountered problems with their jobs; one had to report for military duty on a certain date," Curran explained.
Prior to the mistrial being declared, Curran said in his opinion, "The case was going along very well and we were demonstrating that Ms. Allyn’s termination was wrongful and retaliatory; the evidence was unfolding just as we had planned."
Conversely, Abed said "As officers of the court, neither Mr. Shinoff (law firm partner) nor I will try a case in the press and will only litigate our cases before the court. We are very disappointed that we were not able to complete this trial and show the jury the abundance of evidence justifying the dismissal of a management employee in the district."
Judge Stern ordered a judicial settlement conference be set for Dec. 12 in the case, which will be presided over by Judge Thomas Nugent, to see if the parties can be assisted in resolving the case before scheduling a new trial.
"[The district] could settle with Ms. Allyn and they should," said Curran. "If an acceptable settlement is not reached, then a case management conference will be set for January, after which a new trial date will be ordered."
Following the dismissal of the jurors, Curran said he had an opportunity to speak with 11 of the 12 to gauge their opinion of the case.
"Ten of the 11 jurors said they felt like it was looking like a case of retaliation (against Allyn)," said Curran. "They said they felt Bixler and Singh were not credible, and that Singh also came across as rehearsed. They said they felt Price wasn’t believable and they hadn’t seen anything that proved [Allyn] had violated any processes."
Curran claimed one significant incident during the proceedings was noted by the jurors. "Bixler impeached himself dozens of times by changing his testimony on a critical issue in the trial." The matter involved whether or not Allyn had complained to Bixler that she was being asked to delete district archives.
"That is smoking gun evidence and we knew he was being told to change his testimony," said Curran. "We showed him what was in his notes and he had to go back to his original testimony."
Abed said his respect continues for the jury trial process. "A trial is a pursuit of the truth to a jury. We look forward to a complete vindication of all the allegations made against the district."
Curran said he felt the situation leading to the mistrial was disrespectful.
"It is a terrible, continued injustice to Ms. Allyn and 12 very conscientious jurors who listened to the evidence/case for seven days only to have their time wasted by the district and their lawyers," he said.
Curran said other matters have come to light during his handling of Allyn’s case that he feels should be investigated.
"We intend on providing a complete report and demanding the San Diego Office of Education and California Office of Education investigate these matters," said Curran.
COMMENT
...Teri Heyneman-Myers
Oct 28, 2013
I wanted to explain about the jury and the question about the availability of the alternates. The first juror was used when a selected juror had conflicts. There was only one other alternate juror available for the trial Well...the trial was going to extend two weeks beyond the original AGREED upon date. By the way...this was not Allyn's attorney's idea. When a poll took place asking which jurors could remain the answer was obvious. This was a shame that the dedicated jurors had wasted their time.
Apparently it is common for the jurors to speak after a trial. As Mr. Curran said in the VN article Ms. Allyn was favored.
My sister, Elaine Allyn (Heyneman) and I have grown up in Fallbrook. The FUESD style of politics need to change. I think a bit of pruning needs to take place and I do not mean trees. Let's begin at the top shall we?!...
[Maura Larkins comment: When you say "begin at the top" do you mean the pruning should start with Diane Crosier and Randy Ward and the board at SDCOE?]
COMMENT
...[by] WasThere
Oct 28, 2013
I observed one day of that trial and it was a joke. The defense legal team so obviously was burning time on the clock, it was painful to watch. I heard about every job Candace Singh ever had, what she did there, why her role(s) were important, who she worked with.........
This line of questioning by her own legal team went on for hours!! The judge was useless and could have "overseen" this trial via skype. Every time there was an objection (which was literally about every 30 seconds) she had to go back to the minutes because she had no clue what was objected to.
Elaine Allyn on left
FALLBROOK: Ex-tech director says school district officials ordered her to destroy emails
By GARY WARTH
nctimes.com
June 17, 2012
The former director of educational technology for the Fallbrook Union Elementary School District has filed a $972,000 civil lawsuit against the district, alleging she was wrongfully fired after being falsely accused of snooping through emails.
The suit, filed May 31 by Encinitas resident Elaine Allyn, includes allegations of discrimination, harassment, retaliation and wasteful spending. She also claims that a district investigation into a teacher suspected of videotaping students was hampered because an administrator had ordered emails deleted, inadvertently destroying possible evidence.
Besides the $972,000 cited in the lawsuit, Allyn's attorney Susan Curran said her client also will be seeking lost past and future income, lost benefits, attorney fees and punitive damages.
Dennis Bixler, assistant superintendent of human resources, said the school board meet in closed session last month to discuss the claim Allyn had filed as a prerequisite to the lawsuit. Trustees rejected part of the claim and sent other parts back without action because they were untimely, meaning they had happened too far in the past, he said.
In the complaint, Allyn said she had been a district employee for 18 years and was earning about $109,000 a year when she was fired in May.
According to the lawsuit, Allyn had been subjected to six years of harassment from Ray Proctor, associate superintendent of business services at the district, who had become vindictive after learning she had complained that he made an inappropriate comment about her in a Cabinet meeting in 2005.
Proctor declined to comment for this story, directing all inquiries to Bixler.
According to the lawsuit, Proctor had said Allyn must have "slept with the vendor" to get the district its good cellphone contract.
Allyn said in the lawsuit that the human resources department ignored her complaint about Proctor, but her accusation was leaked to him. For the next six years, according to the suit, he was overly critical of her, giving her smaller budgets than her male counterparts and denying her staff assistance.
Also in the lawsuit, Proctor is said to have asked Allyn in early August 2011 to wipe out or cleanse the district's entire electronic data imaging from its archive system and to wipe out all emails that were in the trash bin of the active system.
The district hired Candy Singh as the new superintendent last August. According to the complaint, Singh also requested Allyn delete old imaging and emails, and Allyn said she again refused because it was a violation of state and federal laws.
At Singh's and Proctor's insistence, however, Allyn later hired a consultant to help dismantle the archive system, according to the lawsuit.
Last January, the lawsuit continues, Allyn was asked to assist in the investigation against a teacher suspected of videotaping students. Allyn said she scanned the video camera and found nothing incriminating, but was unable to provide a backlog of the teacher's emails, as requested by private investigator Bob Price, because there were few to read since Proctor and Singh had order a change to the archive system.
According to the lawsuit, Proctor asked Allyn for an administrative password to access additional log files on the computer system.
After she complied, Allyn said she was called in to Proctor's office and accused of illegally accessing and reading employee emails.
Allyn said the accusation was unfounded, as employee emails are not considered private and district policy gives her the right and ability to access emails and electronic files without prior notice or consent.
Bixler, however, said that while the emails are not considered private, and supervisors have the right to look into the emails of subordinates, Allyn was looking into the emails of her supervisors.
According to the lawsuit, Allyn said she was accused of looking into Singh's emails because she knew about complaints against the superintendent, including how $30,000 had been spent on new office furniture and remodeling. Allyn said in the suit that she knew of the complaints about the spending because people in the district were talking about them, not because she snooped in emails.
But according to a district notice outlining existing causes to discipline Allyn, which Bixler signed April 12 and provided to the North County Times, the investigator hired by the district found other indications that Allyn was looking into the superintendent's and other administrators' emails.
In her lawsuit, Allyn denied ever looking into the superintendent's emails.
[Maura Larkins's comment: Maybe the Allyn v. Fallbrook case should be called Falliburton due to its similarities to a case in which a Halliburton manager pleaded guilty to destroying documents after the BP Gulf oil spill.
] See also the early articles from 2012 about this case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)