Cooksey v. San Bernardino City Unified School District

• Decision Date: 17 July 2003
• Docket Number: E029838.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: DEBORAH N. COOKSEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Page 1

DEBORAH N. COOKSEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents.

E029838.

Court of Appeals of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two.

Filed July 17, 2003.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Super.Ct.No. SCV57241. Martin A. Hildreth, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Mun. Ct. for the West Valley District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)

Affirmed.

Gronemeier & Associates, Dale L. Gronemeier and Ellen J. Bowers for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Creason & Aarvig and Maria K. Aarvig for Defendants and Respondents.

Ward, J.

Plaintiff and appellant Deborah N. Cooksey appeals from judgment entered in favor of defendants and respondents the San Bernardino Unified School District (the district), Joseph J. Woodford, Don Simpson and Arturo Delgado (collectively, defendants), after the trial court granted defendants' motions for summary adjudication and a directed verdict. We shall affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I. Factual History

In December of 1992, the district hired plaintiff as an English and Spanish teacher at Cajon High School.

In the 1994-1995 school year, plaintiff taught her classes in three different classrooms due to a shortage of classrooms. Plaintiff complained about being a "roving" teacher. Plaintiff claimed that, because one of the classrooms was connected to a print shop, the fumes bothered her. Although plaintiff testified that she had problems with the other classrooms as well, she also testified that she did not object to the situation strenuously and "just bore with it." Chalk was not an issue during this school year because all three classrooms had whiteboards.

At the beginning of the 1995-1996 school year, plaintiff was assigned to the same classrooms as the previous year. Plaintiff was distressed over the condition of the room adjacent to the print shop, and testified that she "totally broke down" and that she "could not face [her] students in that filthy classroom that first day." The principal, Don Simpson, persuaded another teacher to trade rooms with plaintiff while plaintiff was put on alternative duty for the first three weeks of the school year.

During this school year, plaintiff was given a written warning for using profanity toward a student, and was written up for incidents of tardiness.

During the summer of 1996, plaintiff applied for teaching positions in Northern California, including with the Roseville Unified School District (Roseville), because plaintiff's husband had moved to Sacramento for his job. Roseville offered plaintiff a position, but she turned it down because the offer was so close to the start of the 1996— 1997 school year.

Plaintiff returned to Cajon High School for the 1996-1997 school year. Plaintiff was taken off the roving assignment and was given one classroom. Nonetheless, plaintiff complained about the assigned classroom because of the heating and air conditioning unit (ventilation problems), dust, dirt and the chalkboard.

Plaintiff was issued an off-work order in October of 1996. At the same time, plaintiff and her husband purchased a home in Sacramento. The doctor who issued the off-work orders, Dr. McGhee, testified at the trial. Dr. McGhee examined plaintiff on October 25, 1996, and issued an off-work order based upon her diagnosis of depression, shoulder pain and back pain. Plaintiff had reported that she was "under excess stress at home and at work." Plaintiff was prescribed anti-depressant medications, and was given an off-work order which indicated that she was to have no contact with students. Plaintiff had no complaints or symptoms of respiratory problems at that time.

In fact, plaintiff made no complaints of respiratory problems at any of her visits to the doctor during the fall of 1996. Hence, the off-work orders during that time made no reference to any work restrictions related to environment issues in general, or a chalkboard in particular.

During this time period, while plaintiff was on leave from the district, plaintiff was offered and accepted a substitute teaching position for 10 days in January of 1997, in Roseville. Plaintiff did not inform the district that she taught at another school while she was on leave from the district.

In February of 1997, plaintiff made a claim of respiratory problems to her doctor, and to the affirmative action officer of the district. She obtained medical documentation of the accommodation she was requesting on March 13, 1997. The district accommodated her by purchasing a whiteboard and an air purifier; plaintiff returned to her classroom on March 17, 1997. Plaintiff worked the remainder of the school year with no respiratory problems.

Nevertheless, plaintiff continued to have serious conflicts with her students and faculty members. Plaintiff admitted that she told students that whatever the principal stated was "bullsh—," and that she told other students to "get the hell out of here." Plaintiff also admitted to other incidents of using profanity toward students. Moreover, plaintiff admitted to a verbal confrontation with another teacher in which she used profanity in the presence of students. Furthermore, plaintiff had a problem with tardiness. Plaintiff described her experience during the balance of the school year as "an awful situation."

Plaintiff did not report to work on the first day of the 1997-1998 school year and submitted another off-work order. She requested a leave of absence because she was depressed and anxious about returning to work at the district. She was, at that time, under the care of psychiatrists in Northern California, in weekly therapy. She was also taking medications which made her dysfunctional.

The

district became suspicious of the off-work order because it could not be confirmed with the local Kaiser facilities and plaintiff could not be reached by telephone. The district began to investigate. The district learned that the off-work order was issued from a Northern California Kaiser facility and that plaintiff was living in Northern California. Moreover, it was learned that plaintiff's teaching credential had been activated in Placer County, which led to the discovery that she had been working in Roseville while on leave from the district in January of 1997.

On October 14, 1997, the district issued a "Notice of Proposed Suspension and Dismissal" with an accompanying "Statement of Charges" (the Charges). The Charges against plaintiff asserted immoral conduct, dishonesty, and evident unfitness for service. The sole basis of the Charges was the fact plaintiff taught in Roseville while she claimed that she could not work for the district.

Plaintiff's union appointed Conrad Ohlson to represent plaintiff regarding the Charges. Plaintiff authorized Ohlson to represent her at the Skelly¹ hearing on October 24, 1997. At the hearing, Joseph Woodford, the assistant to the superintendent of the district, discussed the possibility of plaintiff's resignation — which resulted in settlement discussions. During the negotiations that ensued, all communication was held between Ohlson and Woodford. Although plaintiff spoke with Ohlson approximately 30 times during this period, she never spoke directly with Woodford or issued any written communication to him.

Woodford prepared a first draft of a settlement agreement, which he sent to Ohlson, and which plaintiff received on October 31, 1997. The district believed that plaintiff was represented by counsel, in addition to her union representative, during the settlement discussions because it had received a message from plaintiff's counsel and the union informed the district that plaintiff had counsel. Plaintiff, however, maintains that she was not represented by counsel during the settlement negotiations. Notwithstanding whether plaintiff was represented by counsel, the evidence showed that plaintiff consulted with a number of sources during the settlement negotiations, including the State Teachers Retirement System, her accountant, and a representative of the California Teachers Association (CTA) in Sacramento. Moreover, plaintiff admitted that she told her union representative that she had consulted with an attorney regarding the settlement proposal.

The only item on the first draft of the settlement agreement that was changed was the amount of money plaintiff would receive under the agreement. Ohlson negotiated for more money, and also requested that the settlement not be reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The district approved the request for a higher payout, but rejected the request that the income not be reported to the IRS.

Ohlson communicated that with the exception of the amount to be paid, the first draft was acceptable as printed. A final draft of the agreement was prepared, with the only substantive change being an increase in the amount to be paid by the district.

The final agreement, in pertinent part, provided as follows (the settlement agreement):

(1) That plaintiff tender an irrevocable voluntary resignation of her own free will and choice;

(2) That the district pay the sum of $ 14,500;

(3) That the district continue to provide plaintiff's benefits through December of 1997;

(4) That the parties mutually release one another;

(5) That the parties acknowledge that they each had been represented by counsel;

(6) That plaintiff had 21 days to consider the settlement agreement; and, once plaintiff executed the agreement, plaintiff had seven days within which to rescind the agreement; and

(7) That the district not place "the Notice of Proposed Suspension and Dismissal, Statement of Charges or investigation documents" in plaintiff's personnel file.

Plaintiff signed the settlement agreement, rendering her resignation effective November 19, 1997.

In the interim, at a board meeting on November 18, 1997, one day before plaintiff signed the...