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:

"'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.

Questions of truthfulness in Portland Public Schools special ed whistleblower suit; jury says "bad but legal"

Stacey Sibley testifying in court

Schools aren't likely to improve as long as arrogant egotists can run them any way they want, and the public lets them get away with it. The first thing needed is for the public to demand that school officials obey the law and tell the truth under oath.

In the case below, it seems clear that someone in that jury room convinced eight people that they had to ignore the truth and protect the school district from being forced to make reparations for harmful decisons.

Somehow the jury claimed to believe that Joanne Mabbott had unintentionally grabbed Stacey Sibley by the shoulders and shoved her backward several feet in the lobby of the school district, just before telling her she was losing her job.

"We all said the school district made a lot of bad decisions...We all felt admiration for the job (Sibley) did, and we all felt pretty crummy coming out of the jury room having to make this decision."

"We thought it was bad form...Once again, we thought Mabbott made a bad decision. Was it the wrong place? Yes. Was it a stupid thing to do? Yes." But it did not meet the legal test of being intentional..."

Closing arguments raise questions of truthfulness in Portland Public Schools special ed whistleblower suit
By Betsy Hammond
OregonLive
December 06, 2011

Stacey Sibley, ousted principal of Portland's Pioneer Program schools, wipes away tears after testifying in her lawsuit against the school district that staff members at her school had to change student diapers without protective gloves after the school district refused to buy wipes and other supplies.

A bruising 13-day trial testing whether top Portland Public Schools officials demoted a special education principal because she stood up for workplace safety and special education students' rights was turned over to a Multnomah County jury Tuesday.

Stacey Sibley, founding principal of Portland's Pioneer Program schools for students with disabilities, concluded her case that she is a wronged whistleblower by tallying the many times she spoke out against changes she thought would endanger staff members or students. Her lawyer then tallied the successive cuts in job responsibilities, job conditions and prestige that Sibley suffered.

Lawyers for Portland Public Schools summarized their side by saying Sibley's complaints were merely disagreements with a boss, not galling problems or violations that needed a whistleblower to alert higher authorities. Sibley couldn't accept not getting her way and wanted special treatment when she didn't, attorney Thomas Sand said.

Sibley was demoted because, as the district streamlined administrative positions, she refused to take certain jobs and lacked the skill set to win other jobs she wanted, Sand said.

Both sides agree that the jury is being asked to decide the truthfulness of some of the highest ranking officials of Oregon's largest school district, including acting human resources director Michelle Riddell, longtime general counsel Jollee Patterson, and former special education director Joanne Mabbott. The jury can't award Sibley the $750,000-plus she seeks unless it decides those three lied on the stand, Sand told jurors.

Several emails, memos and the testimony in their own depositions suggest, but do not prove, those three took part in a key 2009 meeting to plan Sibley's demotion that was scheduled but that they now say never happened.

With numerous meetings that spring related to multiple special education and staffing issues, they were confused when they said during depositions that the meeting had happened, Patterson and others testified.

Mabbott, who has since been demoted and dismissed from Portland Public Schools, denied knowing that Sibley was going over her head with complaints about staff and student safety when she made her May 2009 decision to demote her. But some evidence, including a letter Sibley wrote to Mabbott, Superintendent Carole Smith and others, spelled out that Sibley was frustrated her complaints to Mabbott's bosses went unheeded.

"I have tried to advocate for them this year by going to Joanne, Jollee and Michelle, and I feel I have received no support for my students and my staff," Sibley wrote.

In the end, Sibley was demoted from principal of Pioneer to assistant principal at a small K-8 school, Ockley Green. Her pay was not lowered from the $102,000 a year she earned at Pioneer but her pay was capped, meaning she would not get future raises.

Two laws are key to Sibley's claims against the district: The Oregon Safe Employment Act, which bars employers from discriminating against employees who report unsafe working conditions, and a state whistleblower law, which prohibits employers from demoting employees because they report what they believe is a violation of federal or state regulation.

Sibley's chief complaints about workplace safety involved Mabbott's plans to put students of different ages and disabilities on one campus without barriers separating them, forcing staff to put their own bodies at risk to keep, for example, a 6-foot, 300-pound teen with violent tendencies from harming medically fragile kindergartners on the same hallway.

She also opposed plans to put medically needy cognitively impaired students on a separate campus, denying them contact with less disabled students.

Sibley is seeking $500,000 in damages for suffering related to being demoted. She is also seeking about $220,000 in economic damages.

Sibley left Portland schools in summer 2010 for a job as director of special programs at Willamette Education Service District in Salem, a job that pays $103,000.

Sand said Sibley deserves no compensation for voluntarily leaving a $102,000 job for one that pays better and for not getting her way on the job. Other committed educators in the school district heard her complaints but disagreed with her, he said.

"She has not earned the damages."

Sibley's attorney, Judy Snyder, called her a courageous and committed educator who bore the costs for speaking up.

"She worked tirelessly to improve (conditions for special education students) until Joanne Mabbott took that all away from her."


Portland Public Schools soft-pedaled its demotion of special ed principal, emails show
Betsy Hammond
Oregonlive
on November 20, 2011

Concern about the safety of students on this playground at a Pioneer Program school in Southeast Portland was one factor that prompted Pioneer principal Stacey Sibley to complain about her boss's decisions.

Evidence presented last week in a special education whistleblower lawsuit against Portland Public Schools shows a major assertion of the district's defense -- that Stacey Sibley was not pushed out of her job as Pioneer Program principal after complaining about student safety -- is untrue.

On Monday, Sibley and the school district begin week two of a three-week trial to determine whether Oregon's largest school district saved money or retaliated against an advocate for students when it moved Sibley from her principal's job.

Sibley, who complained that many of her boss's decisions posed a safety risk to students and staff members, was willing in April 2009 to take on a lower-ranking administrator's duties plus her own as long as she could remain overall principal of the cluster of special education schools known as the Pioneer Program. She said so in an email to her boss, special education director Joanne Mabbott.

Within weeks, however, Mabbott decided to eliminate the principal job and demote Sibley to an administrator job with less responsibility and a lower pay scale. Higher-ranking district officials helped Mabbott deny Sibley her former position and another lower-ranking administrative job she was willing to take.

In the end, she was demoted to assistant principal of a small K-8 school and assigned an isolated second-floor office with no heat.

Many emails and witness testimony presented in court last week document those and other unflattering details about the way Mabbott and other district leaders treated employees including Sibley.

The case represents the second time in a decade that a special education employee has sued the Portland district, alleging she was fired or demoted for standing up for students' best interests. Physical education teacher Pamella Settlegoode won $1 million in 2004.

Sibley's case is different because she wasn't fired, nor was her pay lowered.

District lawyers argue that financial straits forced the district to cut administrative positions in 2009 and that administrators with higher pay and responsibility than Sibley also were asked to accept lower positions in schools.

But in his opening statement to the jury Monday, attorney Thomas Sand said Sibley could have remained at Pioneer if she had accepted additional responsibilities, but she refused.

However, Sibley did not refuse to run Youngson School, one of the four in the Pioneer Program, in addition to remaining principal of all four. In an April email, Mabbott wrote, "If you are at Youngson ... I would still see you as the overall principal." Sibley answered, "Yes, I believe I would," then detailed how she would make sure the administrators under her would be treated fairly.

Nor was she ultimately allowed to remain principal.

Matt Shelby, public information officer for Portland Public Schools, cautioned that the trial is only half completed and contradictory evidence could come out this week or next.

Sibley is expected to testify Monday, according to her attorney, Judy Snyder.

After Mabbott reversed her decision to let Sibley remain principal, Mabbott broke the news to Sibley in a bizarre way, according to a co-worker's testimony and Sibley emails.

Mabbott confronted her in the foyer of the school district headquarters. She took Sibley by the shoulders, pushed her several feet and told her she would be able to handle being moved down a notch.

District lawyers and human resource leaders then spent several meetings planning how they would justify the change to Sibley and to parents and staff members, according to emails.

In May, Mabbott's boss suggested to Sibley that she could have her choice of special education administrator jobs, and Sibley named her choice, emails show. Mabbott decided not to give her that position.

Sibley got on Mabbott's bad side by complaining repeatedly, including to Mabbott's bosses, that the special education director was pushing decisions that placed students and staff at risk. For instance, Mabbott decided to move a 6-foot, 365-pound teenager with impulsive and violent tendencies -- a student who required his own classroom and two or three staff members at all times -- from a high school-only setting to one where he was on the same hallway as middle school students and shared playground space with kindergartners.

Mabbott also hired as a special education administrator, and kept on board, Laraine Adams, a co-worker from her previous job described by the assistant director of special ed as a close friend of Mabbott's. Adams was given three different jobs during her first six months working in Portland because she could not handle the first two. Students at one challenging special education school erupted into out-of-control near riots under her leadership.

Sibley wrote to Mabbott's bosses that Adams was a "lovely woman" but unable to do the job, so Sibley worried for the safety of students if Adams were given certain jobs.

Emails show Sibley begged to meet with top district officials to learn why she was being moved out of her job, given that she felt it was because she advocated for student safety. Weeks went by without such a meeting.

When Superintendent Carole Smith's chief of staff Zeke Smith and interim Chief Academic Officer Eyelyn Brzezinski finally met with her, they concluded Sibley had two main issues, according to Brzezinski's written summary: Mabbott's plans for the Pioneer Program were unsafe and too costly, and she felt she was being retaliated against for saying so.

In June., Mabbott, who has since been demoted from her job and dismissed from the district, emailed Brzezinski about Sibley, saying, "The most difficult piece is Stacey is messing with my reputation." Brzezinski replied, "It is understandable that you feel like you do. Let me reiterate that Zeke and I trust your judgment re: the Pioneer moves."


Jury clears Portland Public Schools in special ed demotion case, says treatment of former principal was bad but legal
Betsy Hammond
December 07, 2011

Stacey Sibley, a former special education principal in Portland Public Schools, turned to her husband, Steve, after a jury rejected her legal claims to be a wronged whistleblower.

After a 13-day trial, a Multnomah County jury Wednesday cleared Portland Public Schools of allegations that it illegally retaliated against a special education principal who stood up to her bosses over staff and student safety.

Stacey Sibley, founding principal of Portland's Pioneer Program schools for students with disabilities, sought $750,000 in damages after top district officials demoted her in 2009. She said her job was eliminated and she was made an assistant principal because she opposed her boss's actions and plans as unsafe for employees and students.

But the jury awarded her nothing, saying she did not prove her case.

The 12-member jury reached its decision on a narrow legal basis, and its ruling should not be seen as exonerating district conduct, said juror Kirk Andrews, one of nine jurors who sided with the school district on all three central legal questions.

Jurors all agreed Sibley had spoken up about important workplace safety issues, and most concluded she had been demoted, Andrews said. But they did not find that her reporting of safety concerns was a key factor behind her supervisors' decision to move her down in rank, he said.

It was a hard decision that came down to the specific legal tests, two other jurors agreed.

"We all said the school district made a lot of bad decisions," Andrews said. "We all felt admiration for the job (Sibley) did, and we all felt pretty crummy coming out of the jury room having to make this decision.

"She did a great job, she set up a great program, and she was an advocate for the kids," he said. "But we had a limited scope. We did not believe (her reports of safety problems) were the underlying reason" she was moved.

Andrews, a former manager at Intel, said jurors discussed a host of factors that could have been the real reason Sibley was moved, but he declined to reveal them.

The jury also had to decide whether Sibley was wronged when her boss, then-special education director Joanne Mabbott, confronted her in the open lobby of school district headquarters and demoted her. Sibley sought damages because Mabbott put her hands on Sibley's shoulders and pushed her several feet before breaking the bad news. Sibley's lawyer, Judy Snyder, said that constituted battery.

But jurors disagreed, saying there was no evidence Mabbott grabbed Sibley intentionally to cause her harm.

"We thought it was bad form," Andrews said. "Once again, we thought Mabbott made a bad decision. Was it the wrong place? Yes. Was it a stupid thing to do? Yes." But it did not meet the legal test of being intentional, he said.

Snyder built her case in part on emails and testimony that suggested some top officials met to plan a way to demote Sibley for her advocacy but paint the decision as a way to streamline jobs and save money. Several of those officials testified in their pre-trial depositions that they met to discuss Sibley's demotion but said on the witness stand that the meeting never took place. Snyder accused them of "spinning" information and suggested they weren't truthful.

Andrews and another juror said the jury didn't try to determine whether that meeting took place.

Sibley left Portland in 2010 to become director of special programs at the Willamette Education Service District in Salem.

After losing her case, she said, "I feel very good. I didn't have to resort to lying. I do worry about the people left behind (still working for the school district) who spoke up for me. I'm headed back to work, and I'm looking forward to it."

Thomas Sand, lead attorney for the school district, declined to comment on the verdict.

Robb Cowie, the district's executive director of community involvement, said, "We are very pleased that the jury found that Portland Public Schools acted fairly in the employment of Stacey Sibley."

Snyder said the case showed how hard it is for people who feel they have been wronged to win lawsuits. She said she found it interesting, but was unsure what to make of it, that all five women on the jury initially concluded that Sibley had been wrongly demoted for calling out staff safety problems while the seven male jurors determined her safety reports weren't the reason she was moved down.

One of the female jurors said the fact that top district officials had destroyed notes from important meetings and interviews that would have shed light on their true motives helped convince some jurors that Sibley's repeated safety complaints were a prime reason she was demoted.

After Judge Marilyn Litzenberger told jurors they needed to have at least nine jurors agree on each of the key three questions, the jury deliberated further, and two more jurors took the district's side.

Sibley's trial, which lasted almost four weeks, was the longest court battle for Oregon's largest school district since a class-action lawsuit over its 2002 decision to outsource the jobs of nearly 300 custodians. That case, which ended with the district paying $14.5 million to the wronged custodians, lasted until 2007.

Fagen, Friedman Fulfrost loses PERB case for Jurupa Unified School District

PERB decision against Jurupa Unifed (represented by Fagen, Friedman, Fulfrost) in the case of Ermine Nelson
See also CTA indemnifies Jurupa Unified (!?!)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

ERMINE FREDRICA NELSON,
Charging Party,
v.
JURUPA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.

UNFAIR PRACTICE
CASE NO. LA-CE-5517-E

PROPOSED DECISION
(3/16/2012)

Appearances: Richard Ackerman, Attorney, for Ermine Fredrica Nelson; Fagen Friedman &Fulfrost, LLP, by Kerrie Taylor, Attorney, for Jurupa Unified School District.
Before Eric J. Cu, Administrative Law Judge.

...[I]t is found that the Jurupa Unified School District (District) violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (Act), Government Code section 3543.5(a). The District violated the Act by informing Ermine Fredrica Nelson that her employment with the District had been terminated effective March 3, 2010 in retaliation for her participation in protected activity.

Pursuant to section 3541.5(c) of the Government Code, it hereby is ORDERED that the District, its governing board and its representatives shall:

A. CEASE AND DESIST FROM:

1. Retaliating against Ermine Fredrica Nelson by inaccurately informing her that her employment with the District had been terminated.

B. TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT:

1. Within ten (10) working days following the date this Decision is no longer subject to appeal, rescind the September 15, 2010 letter issued to Nelson.

2. Within ten (10) workdays of the service of a final decision in this matter, post at all work locations where notices to certificated employees in the District customarily are posted, copies of the Notice attached hereto as an Appendix. The Notice must be signed by an authorized agent of the District, indicating that it will comply with the terms of this Order.

Such posting shall be maintained for a period of thirty (30) consecutive workdays. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that the Notice is not reduced in size, altered, defaced or covered with any other material.

"Hostile, authoritarian environment ...disrespect, intimidation and the appearance of retaliation"; Luther Burbank school sounds just like my school

Grand jury blasts San Jose's Luther Burbank school board
By Sharon Noguchi
07/11/2009

With seven years of climbing test scores, wild success in teaching reading and a record of lifting the most struggling students, Luther Burbank School District has been hailed as a model for educating poor and immigrant children.

Now the tiny San Jose district is getting noticed for something that could threaten that progress: a grand jury report that blasts Luther Burbank for a crisis of leadership and an intimidating board that may have run afoul of the law.

In a scathing report, the Santa Clara County civil grand jury awarded the five-member Luther Burbank board an F for mishandling its duties, among them firing a popular superintendent and hastily hiring a replacement without vetting.

The jury singled out board President Antonio Perez for creating a "hostile, authoritarian environment characterized by disrespect, intimidation and the appearance of retaliation." It suggested he step down as president.

The report concluded gloomily that the one-school district, which serves primarily low-income immigrant families in San Jose's central Burbank district, may not be able to change the board's systemic problems. The Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office is looking into the findings, spokeswoman Amy Cornell said, and Santa Clara County Schools Deputy Superintendent Cary Dritz is naming a committee to review and respond to the report.

The Luther Burbank school board is scheduled Tuesday to discuss the grand jury's 33-page
Advertisement
report, which has done little to change the tenor at the school: Two secretaries have taken stress leaves, a principal and five teachers have complained of harassment and parents say they are terrified to speak out.

"I'm afraid of what might happen to my children," said Maria Uribe, mother of three. Even though her youngest just finished eighth grade and will move on to high school in a different district next year, she said she and other parents fear unspecified retaliation.

Since the report's publication in June, Perez has been a frequent visitor to Luther Burbank's only school, strolling on the playground, walking into rooms or sitting in the school office.

A parent who works as a school crossing guard said Perez reported her to her boss for allegedly talking with parents about the grand jury report while on duty.

Perez said he visits school because his son is in kindergarten there. "One thing I did notice is a lot of employees expressing their First Amendment rights during working hours. I'm sure there (are) a few laws against political activities using public resources," he wrote in an e-mail to the Mercury News.

The grand jury report, culminating a yearlong investigation by the civilian watchdog, alleged multiple failures, among them:

# The board summarily fired Superintendent Richard Rodriguez and on the same evening hired an interim superintendent without proper notice or vetting.

# Perez appears to be intimidating employees who supported the former superintendent and who were summoned to speak to the grand jury.

# Layoffs and demotions, while budget related, seemed to single out those considered hostile to Perez and the new administration.

# In a potential conflict of interest, Perez voted to award district contracts to a company that his woodworking company does business with.

# The district has violated open-meetings and public-notification laws.

In a lengthy interview with the Mercury News, Perez, in his seventh year on the board and third as president, said the jury was brainwashed by Rodriguez, whom the board ousted in November. Perez said he had to bring in a new administration to clean up a fiscal mess in the district office.

Rodriguez said he left the district with a $2 million surplus. He's distressed at recent events and says the board lacks ability and "has no business whatsoever overseeing a school district."

California Dept. of Education protected fraud, retaliated against whisteblower

Whistleblower Sues State Over School Fraud
Operators Of Language Schools Stole Millions, Man Says
KCRA.com
December 14, 2007

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Auditors found that some locally run language schools were fleecing the State Department of Education out of tens of millions of dollars.

Whistleblowers said top department officials not only looked the other way, but harassed and retaliated against them.

One of the whistleblowers sued the state, which twice appealed and has lost, costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

Efforts to settle the case in Sacramento this week went nowhere, meaning taxpayers may have to foot the bill for a third trial against a former employee who says the state ruined his life.

There are dozens of adult education schools in California teaching recent immigrants to speak English.

They are funded by the state and operated by community-based organizations.

In an investigation that began 12 years ago and is still dragging through the courts today, auditors found widespread fraud involving some schools.

Whistleblower Robert Cervantes said they engaged in flat-out corruption, and yet the public does nothing.

Cervantes, a former high-ranking officer in the Department of Education, said some of the operators of these schools were ripping off millions of taxpayer dollars.

Cervantes said what he and colleagues found the sites of some alleged schools were boarded-up gas stations, empty fields, drug houses and warehouses that were locked. His group found very few facilities that indicated that in fact classes were being conducted.

Cervantes said he and department auditor James Linberg blew the whistle.

Lindberg said if they had stopped it right then, it would have been about $3 million to $4 million.

This tale of intrigue began in the mid-1990s when the state Department of Education directed more than $23 million in federal funding to community-based organizations in California to teach English as a second language to immigrants.

But when Cervantes and Lindberg took a closer look, they found that community-based organizations flat-out told them they didn't have a program. The community-based schools felt totally immune, Cervantes said.

Cervantes said if he had persisted in investigating them and didn't continue funding these operations, they said they would get him. And by getting him, meaning, trying to kill him.

Cervantes said then Superintendent of Education Delaine Eastin and other department supervisors told him it was still his job to get the money out the door. He pointed out to them that this was fraud. They said it didn't matter, then Cervantes indicated he simply wouldn't do that.

Cervantes and Lindberg said the department retaliated, sending them to dead-end jobs where they did nothing for months on end.

The stress took a toll on Lindberg. He suffered two heart attacks.

Lindberg said the first heart attack came shortly after meeting with Eastin when he confronted her with questions such as "Why are you retaliating against me?"

Unable to work, Lindberg sued the department and Eastin. The case went to trial five years ago. A Sacramento jury awarded him a $4.5 million judgement, finding the state and Eastin liable...