Len v. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction

• Decision Date: 07 July 2015
• Docket Number: 45534-0-II
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals
• Parties: JASON LEN, Appellant, v. OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, Respondent.

JASON LEN, Appellant,
v.
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, Respondent.

No. 45534-0-II

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2

July 7, 2015

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Sutton, J.

The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) suspended Jason Len's teacher's certificate for 12 months for unprofessional conduct with students, and required him to undergo a psychological examination and counseling as a condition for reinstatement. The superior court affirmed OSPFs final order. Len appeals and argues that (1) substantial evidence does not support the findings of fact and that the findings do not support the conclusions of law that Len violated generally recognized professional standards for teachers, violated the principal's no-contact directives, and lacked credibility, (2) the administrative, law judge (ALJ) did not correctly weigh the evidence or apply the disciplinary factors in WAC 181-86-080, (3) the ALJ erred in concluding that Len must submit to a psychological evaluation and counseling as a condition for reinstatement, and (4) the ALJ erred by not requiring a higher burden of proof than clear and convincing evidence, by conducting the hearing de novo, and by allowing additional evidence. We hold that (1) substantial evidence supports the findings of fact and the findings support the conclusions of law that Len violated generally recognized professional standards for teachers, violated the no-contact directives, and lacked credibility, (2) the ALJ correctly weighed the evidence and applied the relevant disciplinary factors, and (3) the appeal hearing complied with RCW 34.05.449(2) and WAC 181-86-150. We affirm OSPI's order that suspended Len's teacher's certificate for 12 months and required him to undergo a psychological examination and counseling as a condition for reinstatement.

FACTS

The Bellevue School District (District) employed Len to teach grades 6 through 12 at its International School. During his 10-year tenure at the school, Len primarily taught math and science to middle-school-aged boys. He also served as an advisor to the school's math and science team for several years, advisor to the school's robotics team and student government for one year, and as a chaperone on school field trips and student social functions. Over a period of two years, from 2006 to 2008, Len spent a significant amount of time socializing with several students, mostly sophomores, outside of school. All of these boys met Len as students at the International School, and most of them had been his students when they were younger. Len's conduct .from 2006 to 2008 is the focus of the 12 month suspension.

I. Len's Social Interactions with Students

Len socialized with these boys by taking them out to meals, giving them rides in his personal vehicle, and watching them play video games. Frequently, he spent time with the boys one-on-one. At other times, he socialized with groups of boys. Among other things, Len took the boys to local parks and malls, drove them on trips to the beach, and spent extended periods of time at some of their homes, often "until the small hours of the morning." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 7-8.

Len texted or called the boys to ask if they wanted to spend time together. With one exception, he had no social relationship with the boys' parents and socially interacted almost exclusively with the boys. When Len took the boys out, he did not inform the parents where they were going unless the parents specifically asked, and he seldom asked the parents' permission to spend time with the boys. Len's conduct caused some parents to talk to their sons about whether any sexual contact had occurred.

Len spent the most one-on-one time with one boy whom Len met socially on a nearly weekly basis for up to four hours at a time. The boy's mother and stepfather expressed their discomfort with this relationship, and the boy's mother wrote to Len asking him to confine his interactions with her son to school-related activities.

II. Len's Gifts and Loans to Students

Len took the boys to restaurants, bought favored students gifts such as clothes, small souvenirs, and a toy helicopter, and loaned one student money to buy a pair of shoes. The boys often contacted Len and asked him to join in on their teenage activities, to drive them around town in his car, and to come to their homes to hang out. On one occasion, Len drove several students to buy a video game to be released at midnight. They returned to a student's house and played games and Len did not leave until 3:00 a.m.

III. Len's Involvement in Student Social Affairs

Len also interjected himself into the students' social affairs. On one occasion, he attended a school-sponsored student dance where students attended with their respective dates while Len socialized with the students. When some of the boys became "frustrated and left the dance" to go to a restaurant, Len encouraged the girls "to reconcile with the boys" by offering to drive them to the restaurant. CP at 10. They declined his offer; the next week, Len "approached the girls again and encouraged them to reconcile with the boys." CP at 10. They again rejected his offer and one of the girls spoke angrily toward Len about the way he was interjecting himself in their personal affairs.

IV. Events with Students

During a number of school sponsored trips, Len spent time in sleeping areas with students. He also spent time with a few of his male students who were not part of any school sponsored event; these contacts occurred during the summer, after school, and on weekends.

During a trip to a jazz festival in Idaho, Len invited several boys to spend the night in his room to play video games on Len's game console that he bought for this trip. Len, dressed in pajamas, watched them play and only slept in his bed for part of the night. The school's jazz choir advisor found out later that Len helped these students violate curfew. On one occasion, without the District's knowledge or advance approval and in violation of the District's policy, Len had a party for the high school math team before its spring competition and invited the students to sleep over at his house. No other adults were present and the school's principal did not know about the event until after it occurred. On another occasion, Len was invited to a former student's family barbeque along with several other students who planned to spend the night there prior to leaving on a trip with that student and his stepfather the next morning. Len stayed overnight in the former student's room and watched the students play video games, without the knowledge or consent of the former student's parents.

Len took a weekend road trip to the Oregon coast with four students, with their parents' permission (one student had just graduated). Len shared rooms with the students during this trip and one night shared a room with only one student and slept side-by-side next to the student.

V. District Investigation and Principal's Directives

In March 2008, after a teacher at the school informed the principal about Len's interactions with students, the principal initiated an investigation and interviewed certain students and their parents. On March 13, during the investigation, the principal gave Len formal directives limiting Len's permissible interactions with students and prohibiting him from certain conduct, including (1) prohibiting Len from discussing the investigation with school students or their parents, (2)prohibiting Len from spending time with students after school hours, and (3) limiting Len's interactions with students to those of a professional teacher/student relationship.

In the fall of 2008, while the investigation continued, the District involuntarily transferred Len to another school within the District. Upon completion of the investigation in November 2008, the District issued a Letter of Reprimand to Len for his "failure to respect appropriate professional boundaries with students" and directed him to stop engaging in his "alarming pattern of behavior." CP at 802-05. He was directed to: (1) not visit students' homes without explicit permission from administrators, (2) have no telephone, email, or other communication with District students outside the normal requirements of teacher-student communication on school-related matters, and (3) refrain from any social or other contact with District students away from school. If he unexpectedly ran into students outside of school, Len was "directed to promptly separate [him]self from the situation in a polite and professional manner." CP at 11. In addition to the no-contact directives, the District imposed a number of directives designed to limit Len's interactions with students in school-sanctioned activities (restricting where he could park, banning him from chaperoning or supervising students on overnight trips, and prohibiting him from being the sole chaperone/supervisor for any evening or non-school day local events).

Len ignored these no-contact directives. In May 2008, two months after the principal issued the directives, during the investigation, another teacher witnessed Len talking with students about the investigation. Between 2008 and 2010, after Len was transferred to another school, he continued to talk with one of the International School students and met another student several times.

VI. Teacher Disciplinary Process

After the District investigated, reprimanded, and reassigned Len, the District's superintendent transmitted a complaint letter to the Office of Professional Practices (OPP), an office within OSPI.^[1] See WAC 181-86-110; WAC 181-87-095.

OPP initiated its investigation on December 12, 2008 after receiving the District's complaint alleging unprofessional conduct by Len. OPP concluded its investigation on March 8, 2011, and issued a proposed order recommending suspension of Len's teaching...