Valentine v. Stamford Board of Education

• Decision Date: 29 June 2017
• Docket Number: FSTCV166027763
• Parties: Donna Valentine v. Stamford Board of Education
• Court: Connecticut Superior Court

Donna Valentine v. Stamford Board of Education

No. FSTCV166027763

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk, Stamford

June 29, 2017

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PLAINTIFF'S APPEAL

Hon Charles T. Lee, J.

The plaintiff, Dr. Donna Valentine, appeals from the decision of the defendant, the Stamford Board of Education, dated January 26, 2016, terminating her employment as principal of Stamford High School in the City of Stamford. The plaintiff brings this appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 10-151(e). As more fully explained below, the court affirms the Board's decision and dismisses this appeal.

Background

A review of the complaint, answer, and record in this appeal reveals the following undisputed facts. From July 1, 2010 through January 26, 2015, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a school administrator, primarily as the principal of Stamford High School. During the school year 2013-2014, a student at Stamford High School (Student A) engaged in a sexual relationship with his teacher, Danielle Watkins. On or about June 23, 2014, Ms. Watkins was placed on administrative leave. On June 23, 2014, a report of the sexual relationship was made to the Department of Children and Families, as required by General Statutes § § 17a-101 and 101b(d). On July 17, 2014, Ms. Watkins was arrested and subsequently pleaded guilty to the charge of sexual assault in the second degree (C.G.S. § 53a-71(a)(8)). Ms. Watkins is currently serving a ten-year prison sentence, suspended after five years, followed by probation for fifteen years.

On October 2, 2014, Dr. Valentine was arrested on a charge of failure to report child abuse in violation of C.G.S. § 17a-101b(d), which is a Class A misdemeanor. On October 3 2014, the superintendent of Stamford public schools, Dr Winifred Hamilton, placed the plaintiff on paid administrative leave with full benefits as a result of the arrest. On November 19, 2014, Dr. Valentine was granted accelerated rehabilitation, and the charge against her was dismissed on November 21, 2014. In December 2014, the City of Stamford retained the law firm Pullman & Comley to investigate any failures in the school district that allowed this relationship to occur. On or about December 15, 2014, during a press conference, the superintendent announced that the plaintiff would not be returning to Stamford High School. On April 24, 2015, Pullman & Comley issued its report (Pullman & Comley report) detailing the circumstances surrounding the relationship between Student A and Ms. Watkins and the actions of Stamford Public School staff in response to the incident. The Pullman & Comley report concluded that Dr. Valentine failed to protect Student A, failed to comply with her statutory obligation to report the allegations to the Department of Children and Families (DCF) or the Stamford Police Department, and failed to intervene to stop Ms. Watkins' illegal conduct.

As of May 2015, the plaintiff was a " tenured teacher" within the meaning of General Statutes § 10-151, the Teacher Tenure Act. On May 8, 2015, Superintendent Hamilton sent the plaintiff a letter, stating that termination of the plaintiff's employment was under consideration. This letter stated in relevant part:

Please be advised that in accordance with [General Statutes § 10-151], termination of your employment with the Stamford Public Schools is under consideration. The reasons are as follows: 1. Inefficiency; 2. Incompetence; 3. Ineffectiveness; 4. Insubordination against reasonable rules of the Board of Education; 5. Moral misconduct; 6. Other due and sufficient cause. More specifically you: (A) failed to timely report to either the Department of Children and Families or the Stamford Police Department, allegations of a sexual relationship between teacher Danielle Watkins and a Stamford High School student (the " Student"); (B) otherwise failed to take steps, upon learning of the allegations of the sexual relationship, to protect the Student from further harm; (C) otherwise mishandled the above referenced situation; (D) poor leadership of Stamford High School including as detailed in the recent NEASC Report, resulting among other things, in a lack of confidence on the part of students in your leadership, and/or school staff, and overall inadequate performance of the school; (E) failed to provide a safe environment for children; (F) contributed to the erosion of the public trust, both within the schools, and in the community. You have the right to request a hearing in writing, within ten (10) days of receipt of this letter.

On or about May 19, 2015, the plaintiff sent a letter to the superintendent requesting a private hearing to contest the termination before a neutral third-party hearing officer pursuant to § 10-151(d). The parties subsequently selected Attorney Peter Adomeit to serve as the impartial hearing officer. The hearing officer conducted an evidentiary hearing over the course of six days in July and August 2015, at which fourteen witnesses testified and various exhibits were submitted. The parties submitted post-hearing briefs and reply briefs on or about October 17, 2015, and October 23, 2015, respectively. On or about January 11, 2016, the hearing officer issued Findings of Fact and Recommendations (cited " FOF"), which included 270 findings and various recommendations and conclusions of law. In particular, the hearing officer found that the evidence supported termination on four of the six grounds contained in the superintendent's letter of May 8, 2015, i.e., moral misconduct, insubordination, inefficiency and other due and sufficient cause.

On January 25, 2016, the defendant Board of Education held a meeting at which the plaintiff and the superintendent presented oral argument regarding whether the Board should accept the hearing officer's recommendation to terminate the plaintiff's employment. The members of the defendant Board voted to accept the Findings of Fact and Recommendations of the hearing officer and voted to terminate the plaintiff's employment, effective January 26, 2016, on the four grounds listed in the hearing officer's report. The Board notified the plaintiff of the decision by letter dated January 26, 2016 and attached a copy of the hearing officer's report (the " Termination Decision").

The Termination Decision described the four grounds for termination as follows:

1. Inefficiency --Dr. Valentine's actions and inaction constitute " inefficiency" under the statute and provide sufficient ground to terminate Dr. Valentine.

2. Insubordination against reasonable rules of the Board of Education --Dr. Valentine violated a Board rule, repeatedly, and in the process was being insubordinate against the reasonable rules of the Board of Education. She was aware of the rule and failed to follow it.

3. Moral Misconduct --Dr. Valentine failed to report the moral misconduct of Ms. Watkins, failed to protect the Student from ongoing sexual assault though having the means to put a stop to it and failed to protect the Student. Dr. Valentine, because of her position as Principal, and being responsible for the safety of the children in her school, was under a moral compulsion as Principal to intervene directly with Mrs. Watkins and the Student, but she failed to do so.

4. Other due and sufficient cause --Dr. Valentine knew or should have known that her consistent failure over the course of months to not [sic] intervene and not report the sex would produce an adverse public reaction of significant intensity and duration, and her failure to act would and did constitute a clear threat to the reputation of Stamford High School and the school system and the City of Stamford. Leaving Dr. Valentine in place would create more public outcry and the students of Stamford High School would continue to feel unsafe. Dr. Valentine has threatened teachers with retribution if they spoke out. Dr. Valentine's conduct, as described in the Findings of Fact has had a negative impact on the Stamford School System. No school can operate with so divisive and ineffective a leader.

The plaintiff commenced this appeal on February 23, 2016. The defendant filed its answer and the return of record on April 27, 2016. Following its July 8, 2016 motion to file portions of the record and briefs under seal, and this court's ruling on that motion on September 12, 2016, the defendant filed a revised, redacted return of record on October 11, 2016, which protected, among other things, the identity of Student A, who was a minor at the time of the commencement of the affair with his teacher. The plaintiff subsequently filed a memorandum in support of her appeal with exhibits on November 23, 2016. The defendant filed its opposition memorandum on January 3, 2017. The plaintiff filed a reply memorandum on January 24, 2017. The court heard oral argument on this appeal on February 6, 2017.

Contentions of the Parties

The plaintiff argues that the defendant's termination decision substantially prejudiced her rights to a fair decision-making process in several ways and should be overturned. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that (1) the decision fails to meet due process requirements because it lacks meaningful detail regarding the basis for the board's conclusions; (2) it violates the plaintiff's due process rights to the extent it is based on poor leadership or upon any reason other than those based on the relationship between the teacher, Danielle Watkins, and the student (Student A); (3) the hearing officer's findings report upon which the board based its decision was fundamentally flawed and unreliable; (4) the decision was arbitrary, capricious, and constituted an abuse of discretion; (5) procedural defects occurring throughout...