SCHOOL SUES TEACHER...AGAIN

NEW TYPE ABUSE AVAILABLE TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS:
SCHOOL SUES TEACHER FOR REPORTING MISCONDUCT

THE CASE BELOW ILLUSTRATES THAT EDUCRATS WILL NOT JUST STOP WITH SHAM TERMINATION'S WON BY ASSAULTING TEACHERS IN COURT, KNOWING THAT MOST JUDGES WILL ASSUME THE FACTS ARE TRUE AND RUBBER STAMP DECISIONS. THIS SCHOOL HAS GONE AFTER A TEACHER WHO CARES ABOUT HER STUDENTS BY INITIATING A LAWSUIT AGAINST HER THAT PUNISHES HER FOR THINKING THAT SHE HAS RIGHTS SINCE SHE LIVES IN A COUNTRY FOUNDED ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT THAT FOLLOWS THE RULE OF LAW.

TYPICALLY A PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER FALLS APART AT AN ATTACK AND THE SCHOOL PREVAILS IN SPITE OF LAW THAT IS IN PLACE TO PROTECT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES. THIS SHOWS THAT IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS NOTHING IS IN PLACE TO PROTECT THE TEACHER WHO CARES ABOUT CHILDREN. LOGIC SUGGESTS, AND DOCUMENTATION PROVES, THAT EVERY TEACHER IN AMERICA MUST PREPARE HERSELF TO BE A ROBOT, NOT AN ADVOCATE FOR CHILDREN, THE ROLE TAUGHT TO US AT UNIVERSITIES, AND SPECIFIED BY SPECIAL EDUCATION LAW, IF THIS SCHOOL SUCCEEDS AT USING THE POWER OF THE COURT TO COVER UP ITS FAILURES. WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS BEYOND THE "NOT ACCOUNTABLE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION"; THIS IS THE "BEST DEFENSE IS A GOOD OFFENSE SCHOOL."

THIS TEACHER NEEDS NAPTA. WE ARE GLAD SHE FOUND US. MOST OF ALL, THOSE OF YOU WHO SEE PRIVATIZATION AS THE ANSWER TO OUR DETERIORATING SCHOOLS HAD BETTER THINK AGAIN. FREE SPEECH TO REPORT ADMINISTRATIVE MISCONDUCT THAT SHOULD BE PROTECTED ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION, BUT IS CONVENIENTLY NOT PROTECTED BY THE COURTS, IS NOT AT ALL PROTECTED IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. HENCE, IF YOU THINK THINGS ARE BAD WITH PUBLIC SCHOOLS, WAIT TO SEE HOW MUCH WORSE THEY WILL GET WHEN TEACHERS KNOW THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS TO SPEAK OUT. AT LEAST NOW TEACHERS BELIEVE THAT THE LAWS GOVERNING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES PROTECT THEM AND A FEW REPORT HARM TO CHILDREN. WHAT TEACHER WOULD RISK HAVING TO PAY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR SPEAKING OUT? NAPTA

Friday, January 28, 2005
Special education teacher getting not-so-special treatment from former employer
By Richard Jones*
RICHMOND, VA -- Kandise Lucas (M.S.Ed) is a special ed instructor, consultant, and reformist who says, "I was dragged into court because I dare to care."

Stephen C. Hall, the Richmond attorney hired to file the lawsuit against her, claims that she is being sued because she slandered her former employer, Bermuda Run Educational Center (BREC) in Prince George, VA, which is owned and operated by Specialized Youth Services of Virginia, Inc. (SYS).

For six months during the 2002-2003 school year, Lucas was the instructional specialist and health instructor at BREC, a predominantly Black alternative school funded by taxpayers.

In a performance review conducted two weeks before she resigned, Warren G. Bull, executive director of SYS, described her as "punctual, professional and attentive to the needs of both students and staff."

He further noted that "she is engaging in the classroom and as a result student participation is good."

Finally, he concluded, "She is also encouraged to share ideas that may strengthen the school program with the (Educational Coordinator, Norma Lonneman) and Director (i.e., Bull) so that they may be integrated into the program.",

So, why did Lucas resign two weeks later and is now being sued by the institution?

According to Hall, the lawsuit was precipitated by allegations Lucas initially emailed to Carolyn Hodgkins at the Virginia Department of Education (DOE) in May 2003.

Lucas never received a written or verbal response from Hodgkins.

However, court records show that, in June 2003, Hodgkins, who has certified BREC for several years, faxed Bull a copy of what she deemed to be an "anonymous complaint" a day after the DOE internally acknowledged receipt of it.

After learning that the email was sent by Lucas, Hall filed a lawsuit against her on behalf of BREC and SYS in October 2003, alleging that she should pay 1.1 million dollars in damages because her malicious intent was to discredit the organizations and thereby interfere with their business pursuits.

In November 2004, after over a year of legal proceedings, Hall had the case "nonsuited" by Judge Timothy J. Hauler of the Chesterfield County Circuit Court.

Less than a week later, he filed the libel suit again and named Bull as the third and additional plaintiff. This new lawsuit seeks the 1.1 million dollars in damages, but also aims to curtail Lucas's freedom to speak publicly about BREC, SYS, or Bull.

Lucas says the lawsuit is persecution under the guise of prosecution, and several former employees of BREC, including a former BREC administrator and SYS partner, Bruce Evans, have come to her defense.

In sworn affidavits and depositions, Lucas and the others who were employees at BREC allege that, during the 2002-2003 school year, certain BREC administrators violated federal laws as well as the school's own guidelines while enforcing unfair student retention policies.

In his sworn affidavit for the defense, James A. Powell, Jr., charges, "Mr. Bull and Mrs. Lonneman indicated that the students seemed to be doing too well and wanted to change the point system for students that were performing well. They also stated that they would have training classes on the way that they wish to have the point system implemented. At that point, I communicated to them that it was clear that the goal was not to provide a 'therapeutic' environment for the students, but to continue the idea of BREC being a 'holding tank' for students. Specifically the ones that should not have been accepted into the program based on BREC policy."

It is further alleged that administrators tampered with student files and discouraged teachers from attending meetings regarding their students in an effort to prevent students from being released from the program.

Among other things, it is also alleged that students already under the influence of illegal substances were given prescription medication without regard for possible drug interactions.

"These children have no voice," says Lucas. "If adults who profess to care about them don't speak up for them, then they will be lost in inhumane systems and bureaucracies."

That conviction is what moved her to speak out when she was at BREC.

"I voiced my concerns repeatedly to the administration, including Mr. Bull, and they turned a deaf ear. Now they're retaliating through the legal system because I was forced to go outside BREC to advocate for the children."

She is also concerned about the intimidating message this lawsuit might send to other educators, who are mandated by law to report suspected abuse and neglect in educational settings.

"It's time to stop just talking about how it takes a village to raise a child and actually become the village," says Lusas. "Therefore, I hope that everyone who knows a child sees these children as their own and speaks out."

She and the plaintiffs are scheduled to appear before Judge Hauler on Thursday, February 17, 2005, at 9 a.m.

Teacher Ordered to Shut Up and Pay Up

Educators say court ruling is the kind of thing that makes them afraid to speak out
By Richard Jones*
February 25, 2005

RICHMOND, VA -- A major legal battle is quietly taking place in the state of Virginia. It involves a special ed teacher who was sued for slander by a corporation after she contacted the state's department of education and governor's office to request a special investigation and intervention at an alternative school owned by the corporation. It also seems to be a case of unabashed teacher abuse and student neglect.

For the first six months of the 2002-2003 school year, Kandise Lucas was the instructional specialist and health instructor at Bermuda Run Education Center in Prince George, VA. She then abruptly resigned and, in May 2003, sent an email to the Virginia Department of Education (VADOE) urging it to investigate her claim that certain administrators at the school were violating federal laws as well as the school's own guidelines while enforcing unfair student retention policies.

She did not hear from VADOE until after she forwarded her allegations to the office of Lieutenant Governor Timothy Caine in July 2003. However, Carolyn Hodgkins in VADOE's compliance department summarily dismissed Lucas's allegations a month earlier, in June 2003, after only discussing them with Warren G. Bull, executive director of Specialized Youth Services of Virginia Inc., which owns and operates the school. Hodgkins is also the VADOE employee who for several years certified the school.

VADOE conducted an on-site "investigation" of Lucas's allegations several months later, in December 2003 and January 2004. It then reported its findings in February 2004, almost a year after Lucas's initial complaint: "While our investigation did not reveal noncompliance, our office will continue to review these issues during future compliance reviews at the facility and offer recommendations to facilitate improved coordination of services with the placing agencies."

Since October 2003, the corporation has retaliated by filing two libel suits against Lucas. In both, it petitioned Judge Timothy J. Hauler of the Chesterfield County Circuit Court to order her to pay 1.1 million dollars in damages.

The corporation "nonsuited" or voluntary dismissed the first libel suit in November 2004. In a brief article about Virginia's nonsuit statute (see related links below), Attorney Christopher J. Wesser of Richmond, VA, explains, "To an extent, (this statute) means that plaintiffs can test their strategies and theories by bringing a lawsuit and dragging the defense through pleadings, discovery, trial preparation and a full trial - all while retaining the right to dismiss the case before suffering a potentially adverse verdict or judgment." (Please note that Wesser is not involved with this case in any way.)

After Judge Hauler granted its request for a nonsuit, the corporation filed another libel suit against Lucas less than one week later (case number CL04-1311). However, this time the corporation abandoned nearly all the evidence and testimony from its initial suit and rested its case on the results of the investigation VADOE conducted seven months after Lucas contacted VADOE and Hodgkins made Bull aware of the allegations.

Thursday, February 17, 2005, the corporation persuaded Judge Hauler to curtail Lucas's freedom of speech by barring her from continuing to speak with anyone about her allegations. He also ordered her to pay the corporation's legal fees, around $20,000, even though the corporation failed to make its case for over a million dollars in damages and presented no documentation supporting its claim to have suffered financial harm.

"The injunction also includes (VADOE)," says Lucas. "I no longer have the ability to appeal the initial findings of (VADOE) or forward additional supporting evidence of my allegations. More important, in the event that I suspect or witness abuse or neglect in relation to (the corporation or its school), I am severely limited in my capacity to serve as a mandated reporter for the state of Virginia."

Despite the injunction, Sandra Ruffin, VADOE's director of federal program monitoring who testified for the plaintiff at the February 17 proceeding, sent Lucas a postal letter dated February 21, 2005. Oddly enough, it begins, "Thank you for your January 25, 2005, correspondence to Reba O'Connor and me about concerns you and your former colleagues, by way of their affidavits, have regarding the Bermuda Run Education Center. We take very seriously the welfare of the students placed in private day schools for students with disabilities. Anyone who has a concern or complaint is encouraged to contact us."

Bruce Evans, a former part owner of the corporation, and several educators and paraprofessionals who also used to work at the school support Lucas's allegations in sworn affidavits and depositions. However, Judge Hauler denied her requests to introduce these as evidence or call witnesses because she somehow failed to respond to the second lawsuit within 21 days.

She plans to appeal the ruling and believes, "The improper manner in which (VADOE) handled the issue resulted in the private alternative school filing a lawsuit against me."

Many other educators and administrators following the case agree with her and are appalled by VADOE's handling of her allegations. They also insist that such lawsuits and verdicts send the wrong message to the public as well as those in the education field.

As one teacher speaking on the condition of anonymity revealed, "Most concerned teachers keep their most serious educational concerns to themselves precisely because cases like this one have them more concerned about job security and their financial well-being."

The general public, especially parents and guardians, is also beginning to take a keen interest in this whole matter because, if teachers are afraid to speak out about neglect and abuse that might be occurring in educational settings, the safety of their school-aged children is severely compromised.

*richard jones (www.iamrj.com) is a freelance journalist who lives in Detroit, Michigan.
RELATED LINKS

PONDER THIS: THIS TEACHER HAD CONTACTED THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ASKING THEM TO INVESTIGATE HARM TO STUDENTS, AN ACT SHE IS MANDATED TO DO BY LAW. SHE DID NOT SPEAK OUT IN ANY OTHER FORUM. THEREFORE, THIS RULING CONFLICTS WITH THE EXISTING LAW, SINCE IT TIES A TEACHER'S HANDS AS A MANDATED REPORTER OF ABUSE DONE TO CHILDREN. AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, THIS RULING OCCURRED BECAUSE HER REPORTING THIS HARM "AFFECTED THIS OWNER'S BUSINESS."

THIS TEACHER WAS ORDERED TO PAY DAMAGES FOR THE HARM TO HIS BUSINESS CAUSED BY HER MANDATED REPORTING OF HARM TO CHILDREN. DO YOU REALLY WANT BUSINESS OWNERS CONTROLLING THE INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR CHILDREN TO STAY IN BUSINESS? AT LEAST, AS BAD AS THINGS ARE, TEACHERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK OUT ON BEHALF OF CHILDREN AND A FEW BRAVE TEACHERS WILL. TEACHER ABUSE IS SCARY BECAUSE IT LIMITS WHO WILL SPEAK THE TRUTH. PRIVATIZATION IS EVEN SCARIER BECAUSE IT ELIMINATES THE TRUTH COMPLETELY.

Top

BACKGROUND