If stubborn education attorneys had settled case of girl forced to pee in a bucket, San Diego Unified wouldn't have to pay over $1.29 million

A student was forced to urinate in a bucket during class. She sued — and won.

By Lindsey Bever  

Washington Post

January 26, 2017

A Southern California classroom was filled with high school freshmen when one of them realized that she needed to run to the restroom.

Patrick Henry High School in San Diego, however, had a policy at the time stipulating that students were not permitted to take bathroom breaks during class — and the teacher took a strict interpretation of it.

The teacher, Gonja Wolf, forbid the 14-year-old girl from leaving the classroom that Wednesday in February 2012. Instead, she let the girl pee in a bucket, then empty it in a classroom sink, according to a lawsuit.

The gossip reportedly spread through the school, then hit the news media, leading to the girl’s anxiety, depression and an attempted suicide.

Now five years later, the San Diego Unified School District was ordered Wednesday to pay the student, who is now 19, more than $1.25 million in damages and $41,000 to cover medical bills, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

“Something like this never should have happened to a 14-year-old girl just entering high school,” Brian Watkins, an attorney for the teenager, told the newspaper this week. “She took the stand and told a really embarrassing story, she told the jury how this has affected her life and how she is still working through issues.”

The ruling Wednesday concluded a years-long court battle in the Superior Court in San Diego.
The lawsuit, which was filed in 2012 against Wolf and the San Diego Unified School District, claims that on Feb. 22, 2012, the girl was forced to urinate in a small supply room next to the classroom and then take her urine back into the classroom for disposal. The lawsuit argues it was done to “humiliate and disgrace” the girl for trying to use the restroom during class time.

It states:

In the presence of several of [the student’s] male classmates, Wolf told [the student] that she could not leave the classroom regardless of the urgency of the situation and that she would have to pee in a bucket if she really needed to go. These instructions were explained in the presence of said classmates and Wolf then took [the student] to a small room and instructed her to pee in a bucket, then empty the contents in an unused classroom sink, and finally return the bucket back to the room.

The lawsuit alleges that the girl “was given no choice except to comply with these instructions.”...

How much did San Diego County Office of Education-JPA pay to delay girls' softball field?

(This article is being republished after editing.  It was originally published in 2009.)


Legal fees from losing Title IX suit prove costly
By Brent Schrotenboer
San Diego Union-Tribune
January 28, 2009

...The Ramona school district has been scrambling to find a way to pay almost $325,000 in attorneys' fees and costs to Ramona High softball parents who sued in 2007 because boys had a better baseball facility...


* * *


Here's another article about the case written by Marquette University Law School:

"During previous proceedings, Ramona Unified School District (RUSD) was required to provide softball facilities that are comparable to the boys' baseball team. The parties were involved in a mediation process to come up with a proposal. The parties were able to come up with four different proposals, which included building a new softball field. The court had originally told RUSD to remedy the disparity prior to the 2008 season opener, but the court allowed the district to have the girls play on the middle school field until the new field was finished as long as the middle school field was renovated to fix drainage and irrigation problems. However, the court held that RUSD must provide an expected timeline to the court as well as provide monthly updates to ensure that it remains on schedule."

Unlike PowayUSD and VistaUSD, Indiana school board disapproves of abuse of special ed students

Poway Unified School District (PUSD) (Lindsey Stewart case) and Vista Unified School District (VUSD) (see Guajome Park Academy) have protected abusive teachers of special education students during the tenure of school attorney Daniel Shinoff. It's nice to see that some school districts are different.

The Poway school district still has not apologized to Megan Donovan and Jerry Ramelli for refusing to protect them.

Indiana Teacher Fired for Duct Taping Kid's Mouth Shut
Fox News
January 16, 2009

LAFAYETTE, Ind. — A school board in Indiana has fired a middle school teacher who placed duct tape over a special-needs student's mouth to keep him from talking in class.

The board of Tippecanoe School Corp. voted Wednesday to cancel Pamela Dahnke's contract. She was an eighth-grade health and nutrition teacher at Battle Ground Middle School in West Lafayette.

Superintendent Scott Hanback says the September taping incident "cannot be tolerated."

The board also says Dahnke failed to implement the student's program for special needs and that she returned to the school after being told to leave.

The Journal & Courier of Lafayette reported Wednesday that Dahnke said she was unaware the board had made a decision. A call to a listing for Dahnke was not answered Friday.

Court of Appeal says GCCCD defrauded David Agosto

Looking for Kristin Rossum "American Beauty" case? Click HERE.

Click here for lawsuit against Keenan & Associates et al. Also, see San Francisco School District v. Keenan & Associates.


The California Court of Appeal has ruled against Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College and in favor of David Agosto, who appealed the dismissal of his case by Judge Joan Lewis in San Diego Superior court.

Never one to accept a loss, Jack Sleeth says David Agosoto "owes us money."

Ironically, when the case went back to Superior Court after the above decision, Agosto was awarded back pay but denied reinstatement. If the District had filed appropriate papers the District would not have had to pony-up Agosto's back pay. It turns out that if there is no order for reinstatement, there should be no order for back pay.

The Court of Appeal said (in a separate decision from the one above):

"Nevertheless, because District did not file a cross-appeal challenging the trial court's writ of mandate directing District to pay Agosto back pay (for the period of July through November 2006), District cannot now challenge the trial court's error in awarding him back pay..."

Agosto made mistakes, too. Agosto's petition for writ of mandate was denied because he should have filed a complaint for damages instead.


APPEALS COURT JUDGE: GROSSMONT-CUYAMACA RESORTS TO 'FRAUD' IN JUSTIFYING FIRING OF SICK WORKER
By Chris Reed
San Diego Union-Tribune (blog)
July 30, 2008

I've badmouthed the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District for years for its power plays, contempt for ethical standards and atttempts to whitewash scandal. Now I have fresh evidence that district constituents should be ashamed of the people they've elected as leaders. In comes in the form of a sharply worded decision issued yesterday in which an appeals court reversed a Superior Court judge's decision to throw out a lawsuit in which a fired top official at Grossmont-Cuyamaca charges he was denied due process and essentially forced out with a legal dirty trick. The ruling remands the lawsuit back to the lower court and orders its reconsideration. David Jay Agosto was hired in 1995 as executive dean of community services at Cuyamaca College and went on to serve in a variety of big jobs. But in February 2006, while Agosto was on medical leave to cope with kidney disease, he was fired by the Grossmont-Cuyamaca board of directors in a closed-session meeting.

Agosto challenged this ruling, saying his original 1995 contract made him the beneficiary of job protections which required the board to give him notice of at least six months before the expiration of his contract. Here's where the dirty trick comes in: The argument that the GCCCD's lawyers used to persuade Superior Court Judge Joan M. Lewis to throw out Agosto's lawsuit was that the original 1995 contract had never taken legal effect because it was -- for reasons unknown -- never signed by the district's chancellor. It was kept on file, just never signed.

The district argued that contract was invalid under the "statute of frauds" -- a legal provision which requires hard, documented evidence of contracts that last more than a year to ensure that they are not fraudulently redefined at some later date by the employer or employee.

[Maura Larkins note: This is exactly what Chancellor Omero Suarez did: he ordered his contract changed without approval from the board.]

What a joke. The district operated for more than a decade as if the contract were in effect, then, when convenient, declared it null and void. The appeals court figured out this stunk to the high heavens even if Judge Lewis couldn't. Here's a sign of its disgust:The statute of frauds exists to prevent the commission of fraud, not to facilitate fraud.You follow? Judge James A. McIntyre is saying the fraud that's going on here is on the district's part! Wow. He's absolutely right.Now get ready for the members of the district board to blame its lawyers. It's what they do. Lots of rotten stuff happens on their watch, sure. But, you see, it's never their fault.Read the appellate decision here. The passage I cited is on page 5..

Untrained OAH hearing officers agree with school districts 90% of the time

The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) disregards the law in case after case. 90% of special education cases are decided in favor of the district.

The public would save money, and justice would be far better served, if the officer simply flipped a coin.

School attorneys, like lawyer Daniel Shinoff of Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holz, make millions dragging out these cases, when the outcome is almost assured from the start.

This is lawsuit abuse by school districts and school attorneys. Who's responsible? The Joint Powers Authorities who have improper relationships with both the attorneys and insurance companies. Ironically, Leslie Devaney of Stutz Law firm is an ardent supporter of CALA, Californians Against Lawsuit Abuse. CALA never suggests giving less money to lawyers. Instead, it demands that less money be given to victims.

Lawyer Ellen Dowd has filed a class action suit regarding special education against the California Department of Education.

I have placed links to the complaint and the supporting exhibits on this page of my website.

San Diego schools and lawsuit abuse: the schools are protected, the kids and employees are not

"Schools are largely insulated from lawsuits..."

Schools should make school safe for children by teaching students and adults better ways to deal with problems. Instead, schools give away taxpayer dollars to lawyers and insurance companies to cover up wrongdoing and mistakes.

More families are taking school bullies to court
Feb. 17, 2006 San Diego Union Tribune

Click HERE to see the original article.

Excerpts:

More families are taking school bullies to court

By Chris Seper
NEWHOUSE NEWS SERVICE

February 17, 2006

School bullies who get a trip to the principal's office could also find themselves in front of a judge.

More parents whose children are beaten or bullied are suing their attackers' families or schools, according to court filings and experts on school violence. Some want money to pay for broken noses or more severe injuries. Others hope a lawsuit provides a sense of justice they didn't get from criminal trials and school discipline.

Violence-prevention centers also are hearing from more parents about whether to take schools and bullies' families to court.
“A lot of parents who take steps to a civil case believe the criminal justice system didn't work,” said William Lassiter, manager for North Carolina's Center for the Prevention of School Violence, one of the country's first school-safety agencies.

The center received one or two calls a week from concerned parents before the 1999 Columbine school shootings. Now it gets about a half-dozen daily. About a quarter of those callers eventually discuss a lawsuit because police and school officials didn't help them, Lassiter said.

“Somebody has got to get serious about this,” said Mike Duitch, whose family lost a suit in 2001 against the city schools in Canton, Ohio. Duitch's son, Nathan, was badly beaten by a group of students during his freshman year, an incident that the Duitches said was part of a school-sanctioned day of hazing.

No one – from the FBI to the U.S. Department of Education to anti-bullying advocates – tracks school violence lawsuits, but anecdotal evidence and interviews suggest civil courts are wading into these murky conflicts as the country focuses more on bullying.

Rachel Mertz tormented Emma Silverblatt during eighth grade at Mayfield High School, according to the Silverblatt family's lawsuit in Cuyahoga County (Ohio) Common Pleas Court. Emma, who is Jewish, said Rachel would threaten her and use anti-Semitic insults.

But Rachel, who like Emma was 13 at the time, told police that Emma called her names and regularly slapped her when they rode the school bus. Neither girl told the school, and each denies picking on the other.

Rachel confronted Emma at Emma's second-floor locker one afternoon in March 2004, the suit said. Emma tried to move Rachel out of the way and Rachel grabbed Emma by the hair. Rachel told police that Emma started kicking her.

Then Rachel dragged Emma to the ground, punched her and banged her head against the school's tile floor several times, calling out insults as she hit her, according to a Mayfield police report and the lawsuit.

Mayfield High suspended Rachel for five days, and she left the school soon after. Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court ordered her to mediation, a type of court counseling meant to work through youth problems.

The Silverblatts want $50,000 for their daughter's head and neck injuries, blurred vision and mental anguish, which required “extensive medical care,” according to the suit, which is pending. However, Emma Silverblatt's main purpose in suing is that “the community have an opportunity to hear what happened,” said her attorney, Robert F. DiCello.

The Mertzes' attorneys did not return phone calls seeking comment, nor did Denise Striker, Rachel Mertz's mother. The Silverblatt family declined to comment.

A settlement hearing is scheduled for March.

Child advocates don't think civil lawsuits would deter future fights or bullying.

There would be less litigation and a better long-term result if schools and juvenile systems created programs that gave attacked students a sense of justice, said Lassiter...

Being a mom is NOT what makes Lorie Zapf a fan of defense lawyers

An open letter to Lorie Zapf:

I was fascinated by Emily Alpert's article in Voice of San Diego about Lorie Zapf. Emily wrote:

"Lorie Zapf, president of the [Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse/CALA] group's San Diego chapter, said schools are falling prey to a system that makes it too easy to file lawsuits.

"'Right now anybody can file a lawsuit ... It is so incredibly easy, and there aren't big repercussions for bringing frivolous suits,' Zapf said. 'Then the schools are stuck defending themselves.

"'All that money just makes me sick,' she said, 'being a mom.'"

(The above is from Voice of San Diego, http://voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2008/01/05/this_just_in/595litigation010308.txt)


All that money makes me sick, too, Lorie.

But perhaps you failed to notice that the report from your own organization shows that the abusers of the taxpayers are the school lawyers, who took $10.7 million from San Diego Unified School District budget between 2005 and 2007.

On the other hand, victims received settlements or verdicts of less than one-fourth of that amount: $2.5 million. Some worthy victims received nothing at all except a second mortgage to pay lawyers.

For example, James "Ted" Carter mortgaged his house to pay Veronica Aguilar and her firm, Holben and Associates. A jury awarded him $1.2 million for doing what any mom would want a teacher to do: reporting that a coach had told a boy to take a body-building substance which caused the boy's kidneys to fail. The school did nothing to the coach who advised taking the substance. But then Escondido School District do allowed the wife of the coach who pushed substances to fire the teacher who reported the problem. The jury was right, but California's Court of Appeal is so in favor of business and the status quo in the power structure that it overturned the decision, saying the school.

Who was the lawyer against James Carter? Daniel Shinoff, partner of Leslie Devaney, a past board member of CALA and continuing presence on CALA's TV show.

Schools are disaster areas largely because bad coaches and bad administrators are protected by defense lawyers, and good teachers and administrators are fired because they got in somebody's way by telling the truth.

I don't think most mothers would agree with you, Lorie, if they knew the whole story.

Education defense lawyers are hired to deprive citizens, particularly those who are victimized in a school setting, of their right to protection of the law.

Should the justice system be partisan? Attorney General Anthony Gonzalez thought so. Apparently so do you.

You are outraged that any ordinary person--absolutely anyone--has a right to petition for redress of grievances.

Shocking! Who do they think they are, Americans?

You clearly think plaintiffs should have certain qualifications. And I'll bet you think those qualifications should be determined by the Republican party.

You don't think Leslie Devaney's current lawsuit against me for defamation is frivolous, do you, Lorie?

Your clearly partisan concerns have nothing to do with being a mom. The status quo is harmful to students, and your efforts to undermine the public's respect for plaintiffs are even more harmful to students. Why not just admit that defense lawyers and insurance companies are your backers, and that you are simply a partisan Republican and Member of the San Diego County Republican Party County Central Committee who is using motherhood to spread cynical propaganda?

CALA: Lawsuit abuse by those who claim to oppose lawsuit abuse

Click HERE to see the original post.

Organizations like CALA (Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse) want defense attorneys to soak up tax dollars, litigating cases against plaintiffs who have been wrongfully damaged.

These cases shouldn't be litigated, they should be settled.

But then the CALA lawyers wouldn't be paid, would they?

But CALA lawyers don't just want to get paid, they also want to win so insurance companies will keep hiring them.

So they go on a propaganda campaign against plaintiffs.

Insurance companies and their lawyers don't care who gets hurt or how many laws are violated, they just want to make sure that juries don't give money to plaintiffs.


Here's an article that describes the situation:

North County Times
San Diego
October 12, 2003


By:SCOTT MARSHALL - Staff Writer

VISTA ---- Playing off California's recent recall election, Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse held an online election last week to "recall" what it described as "crazy" lawsuits and to draw public awareness to the issue of frivolous lawsuits.

Some local attorneys dispute whether any lawsuit abuse problem exists and say national statistics back up their position that it does not.

While the opponents say laws need to be changed so the judicial system protects legitimate victims and businesses, some attorneys contend that the marketing effort to promote the concept of lawsuit abuse already has adversely affected those seeking justice in civil courts...

Chris Hulburt, the president-elect of Consumer Attorneys of San Diego, said the numbers cited by the groups to support their claims of a "lawsuit tax" have no basis in fact. No data exists to back up those contentions, Hulburt said.

"It's just nonsense," Hulburt said. "It's a marketing campaign."

Hulburt said that during the last 10 to 20 years statistics have shown that the number of civil lawsuits filed nationwide has steadily declined and that almost half the lawsuits filed involved businesses suing other businesses rather than cases of individuals seeking money for personal injuries or property damage.

"I think that there is no problem," Hulburt said. "I think it's something that big business has created as a massive marketing campaign that there's some crisis."

A National Center for State Courts report stated that the number of tort cases ---- which include personal injury, defamation and malpractice lawsuits ---- filed in 16 states, including California, rose 75 percent from 1973 to 1990, but have declined continually from 1990 to 2001.

The same report stated that combined figures from those 16 states and 14 others showed a 9 percent decline in the number of tort cases filed from 1992 to 2001.

In San Diego County, however, court cases have climbed in recent years: Court statistics showed that the number of civil lawsuits filed in almost all categories increased each year from the 1998-99 fiscal year to the 2001-02 fiscal year.

Statewide, lawsuits involving property damages, personal injury and wrongful death also have increased in number each year, but the total number of new lawsuits statewide involving more than $25,000 declined from 2000-01 to 2001-02.

Hulburt said some that of the lawsuits include businesses suing businesses and that the data showing increases locally should be compared to population increases in the county. Kotner said the figures show the problem is real.

Is 'reform' possible?

"It indicates that there is lawsuit abuse and we need to reform the system," Kotner said. "We need meaningful changes."

Laws need to be fair, Kotner said, and to provide protection for legitimate victims as well as for businesses.

Striking that balance may not be possible, said Nicholas Pace, a researcher at the Rand Institute for Civil Justice.

"Is there a way to filter out all the really bad cases and not filter out the legitimate cases?" Pace said. "No. There is no perfect system. ... I know when I see a case of lawsuit abuse, but it's difficult to write up a law that describes that and nothing else."

Hulburt and Escondido attorney Carla Dedominicis said the justice system already contains checks to prevent cases without merit from going forward and that campaigns to draw attention to lawsuit abuse already have made it harder for legitimate clients to obtain justice.

"There hasn't been a jury that's been picked in recent years where somebody hasn't expressed a disdain for frivolous lawsuits," Dedominicis said.

Hulburt said every lawyer has seen the same problem in the last five to 10 years because the lawsuit abuse campaign has successfully put the idea of lawsuit abuse in people's minds.

"It's a completely different environment in the courtroom, and it's much more difficult for a legitimate victim to get fair compensation," Hulburt said...

Is this why Carl Cohn is leaving in disgust? CALA works to make sure that school money goes to lawyers, not students and employees

Defense lawyers for school districts are bleeding taxpayers dry, instead of telling districts to obey the law and settle cases of wrongdoing before litigation begins, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN A HUGE NET SAVINGS FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

Ironically, these facts are twisted by defense lawyers who work with organizations like CALA (Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse) to bring about legislation to limit just payments to injured students and employees harmed by wrongful actions.

But at the same time, these individuals work TO KEEP UNLIMITED TAX DOLLARS FLOWING TO SCHOOL DEFENSE LAWYERS and the insurance companies who employ them.

The San Diego Union Tribune, with its usual slanted reporting, states in today's paper, "San Diego city schools spent $1.4 million on verdicts and settlements and $3.2 million on outside counsel in fiscal 2005, according to the [CALA] report. That money could have purchased 1.8 million packs of crayons."

What the San Diego Union Tribune article doesn't say:

The entire $3.2 million wasted on ouside counsel for San Diego schools could almost certainly have been saved if the $1.4 million of payouts had been spent on settlements to injured parties BEFORE the lawsuits were ever filed.

This is what the tort claims act is supposed to accomplish: to give public entities a chance to settle claims before they are filed in court.

But the insurance companies who have their hands deep into the pockets of school districts instruct schools to deny ALL tort claims.

Insurance companies want tax money to go to them, instead of students and employees who have been harmed, even though they have to violate the law to do it. This is how law firms like Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz and Parham & Rajcic obtain millions of dollars meant for kids and teachers and administrators.