Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
210,322
Division "B"
PATRICIA POWELL
VERSUS
PARISH OF RAPIDES
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Ms. Powell began teaching in public schools with the RPSB in 1989,
starting with Oak Hill High School ( 1989- 1999); South Alexandria 61h
Grade Center Gifted Program (Aug. 1996-Dec. 1997); Tioga
Elementary School Gifted Program (Aug. 1997 - Jan. 1998);
On January 6, 1998, Ms. Powell was one of the three people whose
photograph and comments appeared on the front page of the local
newspaper, the Alexandria Daily Town Talk, in an article entitled,
"Residents Outraged," with a subheading of "Hundreds call Town Talk
to complain about Cox, School Board Settlement." Under her
photograph was a quote, " If the School Board members have violated
people ' s rights . . . why can't the public know what was done?" Her full
statement appeared in the body of the article which stated:
Patti Powell-Couvillion, a teacher at Tioga Elementary,
wondered if parish residents will ever know the details of the
agreement. "If the school board members have violated
people's rights to the extent they have to pay more than $1.5
million, why can't the public know what was done?" Ms.
Powell-Couvillion asked.
Page 1 of 31
On January 26, 1998, only twenty days after the article, the RPSB closed
Ms. Powell's gifted class at Tioga Elementary.
On January 30, 1998, only twenty-four days after the article, Dr. Jenkins
sent a letter to Ms. Powell stating that "due to the closure of the gifted
class at Tioga Elementary," she was being assigned to the Aiken
Detention Center effective February 3, 1998; when she reported to Mr.
Williams, he told Ms. Powell that she "must have made someone
downtown very angry." Although a certified teacher with twenty-four
years' experience, she was instructed not to speak with the students, all
of whom were suspended or expelled from regular classes. Her job was
to monitor the students as they wrote papers which were not submitted
to her for review or grading. This was the worst possible teaching
position in Rapides Parish.
In an evaluation dated May 25, 1998, Mr. Williams rated Ms. Powell's
performance "satisfactory" in 28 of 29 areas, but a handwritten note
reprimanded Ms. Powell, stating " disregarded policy by leaving
unannounced one occasion." Ms. Powell testified that the "occasion"
was a bomb scare which required her to see that all students evacuate
the school and walk to the nearby mall. Ms. Powell did not return to
school to sign out that day, causing the reprimand.
See Appendix; pg. 30; Ms. Powell's conflict with the school board could also be called a "soap opera" if
the consequences were not so tragic for her.
Page 2 of31
On October 22, 1998, Ms. Powell was placed on a Level II lAP which
threatened her with termination.
On March 30, 1999, Ms. Powell was suspended with pay "pending a
full investigation."
During her employment at Peabody High School, the following events occurred:
In April, 2001, Ms. Powell was suspended. She was not allowed to copy
her grade book or take any of her student folders .
On August 22, 2001, Superintendent Jenkins sent a certified letter
220. The protections afforded by the TTL "are for the benefit of the teacher, not the
school boards." Rousselle, 633 So.2d at 1242. Accordingly, it is well established
that the provisions of the TTL are to be liberally construed in favor of teachers.
Spears v. Beauregard Parish School Board, 02-2870, (La. 6/27/03), 848 So.2d 540,
542.
STANDARD OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
The standard of judicial review for any court reviewing a school board's
decision following a tenure hearing is limited to two issues: (1) determination of
whether the school board complied with the procedural requirements of La.R.S .
17:443 and (2) whether its findings were supported by substantial evidence, or
conversely, constituted an arbitrary decision and thus an abuse of discretion.
Howell v. Winn Parish School Board, 332 So.2d 822, 824-825 (La. 1976); Sias v.
Iberia Parish School Bd. , 11-163, (La. App. 3 Cir. 10/5/ 11 ), 74 So.3d 800, 802.
Butler v. Jberville Parish School Board, 93-2291 , (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/22/94), 648
So.2d 459. Thus in Lewing v. DeSoto Parish School Board, 238 La. 43 , 113 So.2d
462 ( 1959), the Court noted that under the provisions requiring a full hearing at the
district court level, a discharged employee of a school board could present
additional evidence to that Court."
a meaningful manner. !d. (citing Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67,92 S.Ct. 1983, 32
L.Ed.2d 556 (1972); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 14 L.Ed.2d
62 (1965)).
Page 8 of31
Page 9 of31
finding that the school board failed to comply with La.R.S. 17:443(A). In its reasons
for judgment, the Court stated:
A perusal of this letter quickly leads to the conclusion that
Rubin, supra, is a case factually similar to the case sub judice. Like Ms.
Powell, Rubin had an eighteen-year employment history "without blemish,"
Page 10 of31
Fuentes, supra.
The tenure hearing commenced at 5:00p.m. on September 19, 2001, with
the Superintendent completing her case around 11:00 p.m. Ms. Powell, without
counsel, began her case at or around 11 :00 p.m. until the hearing concluded around
1:30 a.m.
During her hearing, and while in the Superintendent's case in chief, Mr.
Hammonds stated:
SB, Tr. 224: Hammonds' comment to Principal Davis, "I know it's
getting very late and I know you're very tired." (Notice it was not
late and they were not tired, but it was very late and they were very
tired).
When Ms. Powell presented her evidence (beginning at page 246), the
following comments were made by Mr. Hammonds and the school board members
about the late hour and their fatigue, such as:
SB, 258: Mr. Tannehill states, "I know I' m real tired and it's real
late, but did she get sworn in?" (Once again, he was real tired and
it was real/ate).
SB, Tr. 303: Mr. Dixon stated: "It's now twelve o'clock. We started
at five o'clock and it's now twelve."
SB, Tr. 327: Mr. Hammonds, when questioning Ms. Powell states:
"And I apologize, it's late and I guess I'm getting tired, but I don' t
understand ... "
SB, Tr. 330: Mr. Hammonds, when questioning Ms. Powell, stated
he was confused by her testimony and she responded:
" Well , you should go home and go to bed if you' re that
confused and we should go and refresh. Let's have a
Page 11 of31
The second issue of the Court's limited review of the School Board's
decision is to determine whether there was a rational basis for the decision that was
supported by substantial evidence, or conversely, constituted an arbitrary decision
and thus an abuse of discretion.
As to this issue, substantial evidence was presented by both parties as to
whether Powell should have been terminated because of a willful neglect of duty.
However, before addressing that issue, the Court will address another issue, one
that preempts all the willful neglect of duty evidence. It's the elephant in this case,
and it concerns political retaliation of a kind that is not found in any other TTL
jurisprudence.
Consider the following facts that are not in dispute:
Page 12 of31
LINK EXISTED
ACTIVITY AND
Page 13 of31
BETWEEN THE
THE ADVERSE
As authority, the Court relies on a line of cases involving federal causes of action which are not
controlling but are persuas ive. See Flether v. Wendelta, Inc. , 999 So.2d 1223,43 -866 (La.App. 2 Cir
1/ 14/09); Brooks v. Southern University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, 877 So.2d 11 94, 20030231 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7114/04); and Tatum v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 79 So.3d 1094, 10-1053 (La.App.
5 Cir. 11 /15/ I I).
Page 14 of31
Because minors are involved, the Court will only use initials.
Page 15 of31
Page 17 of31
After reading these reports, one should understand why 42.3% of the
students received aD or F during certain grading periods. Ms. Davis' answer to this
problem was to change their grades and Ms. Powell's response was the oppositeyou get the grade you deserve.
Also, when this was going on from August of2000 to March of2001, where
was Ms. Davis and why didn 't she support Ms. Powell by using her authority to
discipline these students? The only answer is she intentionally failed to respond to
this bedlam in an effort to get Ms. Powell to resign to punish her for the January 6,
I 998, comment.
The Court will now address the second issue to the standard of review in a
teacher tenure review and that is whether the findings by the School Board were
supported by substantial evidence, or conversely, constituted an arbitrary decision
and thus an abuse of discretion.
Because of the Court's findings that Ms. Powell was clearly a victim of
political retaliation, (at least on February 3, 1998, when transferred to Aiken
Detention Center), there is no need to decide this issue. If the purpose of the TTL
is to protect Ms. Powell "from the vicissitudes of politics or the likes or dislikes of
those charged with the administration of school affairs," Andrews, supra, then she
is entitled to judgment and any evidence of willful neglect of duty after February
3, 1998, if any, is not relevant.
Furthermore, because of the adverse employment action is evidence of
intent by the School Board to obtain a voluntary retirement or a termination,
evidence after her transfer to Aiken Detention Center is questionable and subject to
closer scrutiny by the Court.
The Court will address each charge individually.
CHARGE!
As required by the handbook for teachers at Peabody Magnet
High School, teachers are required to report to work and to
clock in by 8:25a.m. During the 2000-2001 school year, Ms.
Powell reported and/or clocked in after 8:25 a.m. on
numerous occasions. Ms. Powell has had problems with
tardiness in previous work locations and had been formally
reprimanded for her late arrival of work at Peabody Magnet
High School by letter from her principal dated November 16,
2000. Despite these facts, Ms. Powell was still unable to
consistently arrive at school in a timely fashion.
Page 18 of31
The testimony presented at the tenure hearing concerning the reporting time
for teachers was confusing and inconsistent. The Superintendent did not produce a
copy of the handbook for teachers at Peabody Magnet High School, so there is no
evidence as to the report time required by the handbook. Instead, the Superintendent
produced a letter to teachers which stated teachers were "to report by 8:25a.m. you
may leave at 3:25p.m." Ms. Powell has been adamant that the report time was 8:35
a.m. The difference is substantial. If the reporting time was 8:25, Ms. Powell was
late fifty-one times and if it was 8:35, she was a few minutes late which totaled 61
minutes in a five month period. However, if report time was 8:35 and class
instruction began at 8:45 a.m., she never missed the start of her class at 8:45 a.m.
The latest she clocked in was 8:41, six minutes late if clock-in time was 8:35 a.m.
Although the Court is not aware of the report time from the Peabody
handbook, the job description for secondary teachers required teachers to report to
school ten minutes before school began and to be in the assigned classroom when
the class period begins.
As stated before, the evidence presented at the tenure hearing is insufficient
to prove Ms. Powell was tardy. The Court is baffled at why such an easy issue as
report time for teachers is so difficult to find from the record.
Principal Davis testified at the tenure hearing that Ms. Powell's frequent
tardiness caused problems for the school and that Ms. Davis "had to get a sub or
someone to go in and keep her class" when Ms. Powell "came in at 8:40 and nine
o' clock." This testimony is contradicted by the time cards which show that Ms.
Powell never clocked in at 9:00 and in fact never clocked in later than 8:41.
She also testified that there were three bells: the first at 8:35, the "beginning
of school", a second at 8:40, and the final "tardy" bell at 8:45 when "class
instruction" began. She later contradicted herself and said that because the first bell
rang at 8:35a.m., the teachers were expected to be on campus at 8:25a.m.
However, in her November 16, 2000, Letter of Reprimand, she stated "you
are aware that our school day begins at 8:40a.m. and that you are expected to report
to work before 8:25," which conflicts with her testimony that school began at 8:35
Page 19 of31
and conflicts with the job description for secondary teachers to report ten minutes
before school begins which would be 8:35.
Lyle
Hutchison ,
Curriculum and
Instruction, testified at the tenure hearing that teachers were to arrive "ten minutes
before class begins," (which would be 8:35). He later contradicted this testimony
stating that teachers had to report "ten minutes before the first bell" at 8:35, which
would have been 8:25. He was unable to explain where Ms. Davis got the idea that
school began at 8:40 and not 8:35.
Dr. Patsy Jenkins, the Rapides Parish School Superintendent at the time of
the tenure hearing, testified at trial that the rule to report "ten minutes before school
begins" could not be overruled by a principal. Therefore, teachers cannot be ordered
to appear at school fifteen or twenty minutes before the "class instruction time" in
that it would violate the Rapides Parish School Board policy.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court does not find substantial evidence in
the record to support the finding on charge I that Ms. Powell was guilty of"willful
neglect of duty for fail ing to work timely." Based on the contradictory and
confusing evidence, the Court is unable to determine the time Powell was required
to be present at school. Therefore, the finding by the Board on this charge was
reached in an arbitrary and capriciously manner in that there was a disregard of the
evidence before it and not supported by substantiated competent evidence.
CHARGE2
On several occasions during the 2000-2001 school year, Ms. Powell
was directed by her principal at Peabody Magnet High School to
keep records reflecting the progress of her students (such as graded
tests and papers). She was also asked by her principal to
communicate student progress on a regular basis to
parents/caregivers. The need for physical documentation of
student's progress was discussed with Ms. Powell on October 11,
2000 during an Intensive Assistance Plan meeting. On December 7,
2000, an Intensive Assistance Plan was written outlining the need
for physical documentation of each student's progress. On February
2, 2001, the Principal.. .had a conference with Ms. Powell
concerning the awarding of grades to a particular student for the
fourth grading period. Ms. Powell had no physical documentation
that would justify the grades that she gave for that grading period
despite the repeated directives of her Principal and her Intensive
Assistance Plans. The failure on the part of Ms. Powell to keep
documentation supporting grades that she gave the students and her
failure to communicate regularly to the parents/caregivers for such
students about their performance constituted willful neglect of duty
on her part."
Page 20 of31
The evidence on this issue came solely from Ms. Davis, who has no
credibility with this Court. Although she had custody and control of Ms. Powell's
student folders, she did not support her testimony with any of Powell's records at
the hearing.
At the tenure hearing, the School Board heard the following evidence on
this charge:
1) Powell testified she recorded grades for every assignment and
test score, kept two folders on each child, kept physical
documentation of every grade, gave students many opportunities
for extra credit and offered extra help two days a week either
before or after school.
2) Powell testified she placed a comment on every student's report
card which contained a D or F grade, indicating she needed to
see the parent. Principal Petty Davis, who recommended
Powell's termination, admitted a lack of knowledge regarding
Ms. Powell's report cared procedures.
3) Powell testified she allowed parents to check out their child' s
folders at any time during the school year to see the child' s
grades. Principal Davis, who recommended Powell's
termination, admitted that she was unaware of that practice.
4) Powell Exhibit 7 admitted at the tenure hearing contains 18
pages of notations showing phone calls Ms. Powell made to
parents involving student behavior which impacted grades and
classroom conduct.
5) At the tenure hearing, Ms. Powell testified as follows: "this is a
book I call my discipline book where I would document every
time- I would put the phone numbers and I would document
every time a parent was called or whatever behavior in class was
disturbing or if students were misbehaving, and I kept this book
up until January, through January, and no changes have been
made since. You know, it's the original thing. I indicated that I
did indeed call parents and I very often communicated with
people about what was going on in the classroom.
BY MR. BYRNES: Well, why did you quit after
January?
[BY MRS. POWELL:]
I think I felt like it was so futile. I kind of started to lose hope
because no matter what I did it just kept coming at me, and I
thought at first it was, you know, kind of a good idea to have
documentation of everything and then I just- just like the reason
I didn' t sign things, I just lost heart with that aspect of it, you
know, trying to document everything. And I just, I quit. For
some reason, I quit in January. But prior to then, you know, I
kept it up. I was going to enter a piece of evidence that proves
that - or I thought they were saying that I never had kept a grade
book in my life, but now that I see that Ms. Davis did admit that
I owned a grade book and, you know, then there's not a reason
to submit that."
6) Powell Exhibit 8 from the tenure hearing documented all the
help modifications and parental contact for her "504" students
who needed accommodations. When tendered to the Board,
Page 21 of31
translation, this means KD was given a test, left the room early
and did not turn in her test paper. Her failure to Lake the test and
turn it in means she doesn 'L get any credit for a test she doesn 't
take ... thus, she received the zeros.
The Court finds the evidence shows that KD would leave class
early without permission and would fail to turn in her test
because there was a "bus leaving early from school." In her
letter, Ms. Davis stated this was "proven to be a
misrepresentation of true facts because we do not have any buses
leaving before 3:20p.m." This was "not a misrepresentation of
true facts" by Ms. Powell, but was a misrepresentation of "true
facts" by KD. KD knew there was not an early bus but used this
as an excuse to leave the classroom without permission so she
didn't have to turn in her test. Obviously, Ms. Davis chose to
believe a 15 year old child with a behavioral problem than a
teacher with 24 years' experience.
Powell also caught KD cheating on two occasions giving her a
zero for one assignment and reducing a 95 to a 70 on one paper
because she "at least turned in an assignment." A review ofKD' s
grade form Powell's grade book shows KD received grades of
0, 0, 73, 57,43 and 61, a total of236 points, for an average grade
of 39. Ms. Powell's grade book shows an average of 39.8,
exactly as it should be, which is an F average anywhere in North
America.
The Court was impressed with Powell's record keeping and finds that there
was no substantial evidence to support the change and therefore, a clear abuse of
discretion.
CHARGE3:
On several occasions during the 2000-2001 school year,
Ms. Powell referred to students by inappropriate names
such as "idiots," "stupid," "ignorant," and "sissy." She
referred to one female student as "a sneaky little trick"
in front of the entire class. This incident occurred after
Ms. Powell had received a written letter of reprimand
from her principal about referring to students in such
fashion. Ms. Powell has also been heard to refer to
Peabody Magnet High School as "Peabody Maggot."
Such actions on the part of Ms. Powell constituted willful
neglect of duty by her.
As to Charge No. 3, the RPSB did not find there was
"substantial evidence" presented, and therefore, this
charge will not be discussed by the Court.
CHARGE4:
On or about 1anuary 19, 200 1, Ms. Powell used her cell
phone to place a call from her classroom to the home of
one of her students. Ms. Powell received some type of
message when she first placed the call, so she asked the
student in the classroom if he was poor and if his mother
had paid the phone bill. When she placed the call the
second time, Ms. Powell reached a cousin of the student.
In the presence of the students in the classroom, Ms.
Powell asked the cousin if the student had a mental
problem and whether he was seeing a psychiatrist. Ms.
Page 23 of31
The School Board misses the issue with their first contention. None of the
charges and none of the evidence concerned the newspaper picture and caption in
question, but rather concerned her not reporting timely, failing to keep records,
calling students inappropriate names and calling a student' s home during class. The
charges allegedly occurred after the article and after the political retaliation which
the Court has found to be a pretext to her termination.
The second contention of the School Board follows the Court's finding
above. Regardless who was on the board at the termination hearing, the evidence
against Ms. Powell concerned the four charges, not the article. It is interesting to
note that the President of the School Board, Rodessa Metoyer, listened to the
evidence for more than eight hours and abstained on every vote and Herbert Dixon,
whose School Board District "D' includes Peabody High School, found her guilty
on all charges, moved to terminate her and then voted to terminate her on every
charge.
The last contention is a fairy tale. With the exception of one "NI" (needs
improvement) in 1989 and 1995, Ms. Powell had a twenty-four year unblemished
record.
Comments from evaluation forms prior to the newspaper article refers to
her competency, creativity and ethics:
See Appendix for Herbert Dixon' s involvement in the Betty Cox case.
Page 25 of 31
APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES
"Teacher has love oflearning."
ESTABLISHES A CLASSROOM
COURTESY AND RESPECT:
"Demonstrates courteous manner."
OF
LEARNING:
CLIMATE
OF
Also, at the time of Riche's January 15, 1998 evaluation, Ms. Cox was not
the Superintendent. She never returned to her former position after the January 6,
1998, settlement. Because she was not in a position to protect Ms. Riche or Ms.
Powell from political retaliation, it would follow that if Ms. Riche wanted to
continue as the principal of Tioga Elementary, she had better take orders or there
could have consequences.
In summary, the Court finds beyond a reasonable doubt the following facts
and conclusions:
4) By doing so, the RPSB violated the letter and spirit of the
TTL that was designed to protect teachers "against political
vengeance and reprisals." Therefore, as of February 3, 1998,
Powell is entitled to a judgment in her favor;
5) The RPSB began a campaign to terminate Ms. Powell by
assigning her menial/degrading work, badgering, harassing
and humiliating her;
6) The RPSB held a tenure hearing from 5 p.m. to 1:30 a.m.
after which they voted to terminate Ms. Powell;
7) The RPSB did not prove by substantial evidence that she
willfully neglected her duties;
8) The RPSB did not comply with procedural due process at the
tenure hearing;
9) The decision by the RPSB to terminate Powell was a clear
abuse of discretion from a conclusion reached in an arbitrary
and capricious manner and contrary to the law and evidence.
The usual remedy when a tenure decision is reversed is for the teacher to be
reinstated to her position with all back pay and lost benefits restored. La.R.S.
17:448(B).
However, in this case, more than fifteen years have passed since Ms. Powell
was terminated. In the interim, Ms. Powell applied for and has been receiving
Social Security Disability Benefits since 2006 based upon cognitive deficits related
to multiple sclerosis.
Ms. Powell alleges she should be fully compensated for back pay and lost
retirement benefits without a finding she would have become disabled in 2006. If
she had not been discharged, she contends she would have been able to continue
teaching until her retirement at age 62 on August 18,2014. At that point she would
have had twenty-five years as a teacher, and would have received retirements based
upon 62.5% of her highest contiguous 3-year earnings.
The RPSB argues that Ms. Powell's application for disability benefits
shows she would have become disabled in 2006 regardless of any accommodations,
and contends that any award to Ms. Powell should be discounted because of these
benefits.
The Court agrees with Ms. Powell and finds that any mental, physical and
emotional disability she suffered after the hearing was related to psychological
Page 27 of31
:X
s..
FlLED
~~ ;.d--,201L
~~.--B-,.DATE:
Page 28 of31
Send to:
Mildred E. Methvin
Attorney at Law
408 Silverstone Rd.
Lafayette, LA. 70508
Fax: (888) 298-0566
Allison A. Jones
Attorney at Law
401 Market Street, Suite 1250
Shreveport, LA. 71101
Fax: (318) 213-4445
Jacques Roy
1920 Jackson Street
Alexandria, LA. 71301
Fax: (318) 767-1404
Robert L. Hammonds
Attorney at Law
2431 S. Acadian Thruway, Suite 600
Baton Rouge, LA. 70808
Fax: (225) 923-0315
Page 29 of 31
APPENDIX
The Court in the Cox case, Vallery v. Rapides Parish School Board, 118 F.3d 1047
(5 111 Cir. , 7/24/97), made the following findings of fact:
Page 31 of31