SEA 6490
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Wilmington University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
6490
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
7
Uploaded by MateLeopardMaster1437
RUNNING HEAD: A FRAMEWORK FOR HANDLING EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT
A Framework for Handling Employee Misconduct
Madeline Jeffords
SEA 6490:
Education, Ethics & The Law Professor Kurt Hollstein
RUNNING HEAD: A FRAMEWORK FOR HANDLING EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT
Disclaimer
: For the purposes of this assignment and to maintain confidentiality all names of those involved in this situation have been changed or omitted. Introduction of Interview Facts: I was able to conduct an interview with my current school principal regarding a situation that he dealt with in 2019. This situation was unique, in that it was the first report of employee misconduct that was not able to be solved in mediation and was taken to court. Due to the court involvement, this case was made very public and unfortunately still taints the school to this day. This case lasted an exceptionally long time, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and was finally resolved in 2022. Teacher J, was a tenured English teacher at our school, who had worked here for eight years. Teacher J taught College Prep (CP) and Accelerated Prep (AP) English 1 and 2, with freshmen and sophomores. In 2019, a few situations occurred surrounding this employee's misconduct. Racial comments that Teacher J said, and also sexual misconduct allegations with a female student, however those were eventually dropped. One day during a lesson, Teacher J wrote the following on the board “N ___ G ___ E R” He told the students to guess the letters by way of playing Hangman, to figure out the word. Quickly, the students were able to decipher what word he was referring to. Teacher J spent the remainder of the class period using the word repeatedly, and explaining to the class that there is no logical reason why he, as a white man, should not be able to use this word, as it is merely just “another word in the dictionary.” Teacher J says that the purpose of this lesson was to show students that different words do not need to carry so much “weight.” That words are just words and should all be treated the same. This
RUNNING HEAD: A FRAMEWORK FOR HANDLING EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT
lesson was a precursor to the study of To Kill A Mockingbird, which does use the ‘n’ word on multiple occasions. As expected, this lesson did not go over well. Students actually took pictures of the Hangman game on the board with their cell phone as evidence this occurred. This image later got
turned into a meme and went viral all over the internet. Multiple students, one African American,
and two White, went home and expressed to their parents how uncomfortable they were by the lesson, with their teacher using that type of vocabulary, and also showed their parents the image. Their parents immediately notified the school principal, who notified the Superintendent. Teacher J was told that following evening that he was not to return to school, and would be put on paid leave pending an investigation of misconduct. Misconduct Response Plan: From the information I received in this interview, it seems the misconduct response plan was executed very well, and very swiftly in response to the allegations. Having the photo evidence in this case added additional support as to why the teacher needed to be put on leave immediately. Teacher J had also had previous conduct issues, none of which were worthy of job termination, but Teacher J was not a model employee by any means. Previous reports state that female students had felt he was “creepy” and exhibited “weird” conduct towards them. Female staff had also reported not wanting to work with him in close proximity due to his “out of pocket” comments. The information outlined in this plan has been developed by the details I was
given about the case from my administrator, as well as the information available from court documents online. Information pertaining to educational law I have learned in this course is also applied. This framework is a tool to be utilized moving forward for all misconduct cases in the school setting although adaptations of steps may be applicable in a case by case scenario.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
RUNNING HEAD: A FRAMEWORK FOR HANDLING EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT
1.
Discovery of Misconduct
: Upon learning of potential misconduct from students, staff, or parents the school administrator must act based on their professional judgment as to what their next steps are and how immediate the need for a response is in determining school safety. In this case, Teacher J was not to enter the school building even the following school day, so a school attorney immediately notified him of his place on leave. Ensuring
the information discovered is communicated to the necessary parties in a timely manner is a critical part of the framework as it may be a determining factor in the steps moving forward.
2.
Notification of District Agents: The school principal is responsible for the swift communication with the district level agents that need to be involved in a case of misconduct. This typically involves Human Resources personnel. I learned through my interview that our district has a team of attorneys that essentially wait to be called on when needed. They were needed immediately in this case and our district Superintendent was involved almost immediately after the report as well. The next steps of the school administration are guided by the district agents. 3.
Investigation: Written statements from involved parties are another critical part of a schools response plan. In this case, the school administrator took statements from the reporting parents, as well as the students in the class. As much detail as possible is given into writing these statements and investigating allegations. Accused staff members are also involved in writing statements based on their accounts of the allegations. This information must be investigated in a timely and professional manner. 4.
Dismissal/Disciplinary Action/Charges Filed: Upon the findings of the investigation, a few things can occur. In this case, the school district pursued tenure charges on Teacher J
RUNNING HEAD: A FRAMEWORK FOR HANDLING EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT
for “Unbecoming Conduct” “Incapacity” and “Other Just Cause”. The school district wanted Teacher J terminated. However, some investigations may result in a dismissal of all claims if they are unfounded, or a disciplinary action set forth by the school district. In the situation of Teacher J, these framework steps were followed exactly as outlined above. Teacher J was given an opportunity to speak on his own behalf and it was at that time that he entered into mediation. Teacher J secured his own lawyer and decided to fight the tenure charges
of termination.
Communication of Plan
Ensuring that staff, students and parents are aware of the steps and procedure for communicating evidence or allegations of misconduct is very important. In our school we use the phrase “if you see something, say something.” Essentially guaranteeing that students and staff feel safe to report
any concerning behaviors they witness. This is also a phrase that is communicated to parents at our Open House nights, especially in the day of technology and social media. Parents, staff and students are all aware of the channels that will be used to address and investigate misconduct to ensure our school is a safe place to work and learn. District is supportive of this method of communication to all parties and the misconduct framework steps outlined above are identical throughout all four district schools.
Considerations for Fairness and Integrity
Issues of misconduct often involve two parties, someone who is accused, and someone who is doing the accusing. As we all know, sometimes accused parties are actually innocent. When handling misconduct, we must ensure that innocence until proven guilty is an applied principle. Our U.S Constitution states in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment, our rights to a due process hearing as citizens of the United States. A due process hearing ensures a fair treatment of
RUNNING HEAD: A FRAMEWORK FOR HANDLING EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT
all involved parties where both parties' opinions are heard. The importance of maintaining integrity and an open mind when investigating the truth of misconduct allegations should start from the top down in safeguards set forth by the district. In the situation of Teacher J, I do believe the case was handled with integrity and fairness as he had multiple opportunities to address his allegations. Moral and Ethical Implications As staff employees in a school, we must maintain a role of professional decision making, and appropriate moral behavior as we are role models for youth. The argument in the case of Teacher J was that his behavior was inappropriate and unbecoming of a teacher. It demonstrated his inability to consider his students emotions when discussing a very sensitive issue and knowingly caused harm to them. His moral and ethical values do not align with that of both the school and the district as whole, hence their desire for his dismissal. When implementing the framework for dealing with staff misconduct, it is easy for our own personal values and opinions to enter the picture. However, for all legal purposes, we must ensure all steps are handled with moral and ethical standards at the forefront. It is possible that conflicts of interest could exist between the accused/accuser and who they are reporting to. This is why safeguards, HR personal, and district level supports must be utilized in all accusations. Limiting Legal Issues
As a school leader and a school district as a whole, there should be substantial training on
what appropriate staff behavior looks like with clearly defined consequences. HR personnel should remind staff of these expectations on a yearly basis, and refresher training should be available whenever possible. Holding staff accountable, and ensuring staff is aware of the expectations of their behavior, is one way to limit the legal issues of misconduct in your
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
RUNNING HEAD: A FRAMEWORK FOR HANDLING EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT
building. School administrators should also ensure they are doing their due diligence in performing background checks and contacting references before hiring new staff for vacancies. Again, ensuring that the staff hired met the standard for people you want in your building can help to limit the amount of legal issues that may occur. Despite our best efforts however, staff misconduct is something that can and will occur. When it does, we must be adequately prepared on the steps to handle it. Personal Reflection
The conclusion of the story regarding Teacher J is an interesting one. Teacher J and the school district went to trial. Students, parents and staff were all put on the stand testifying against
Teacher J. The judge and jury seemed impacted greatly by the effects that Teacher J’s behavior had on the students, and it seemed that the court was going to agree with Teacher J’s termination.
However, right as the trial was concluding, the pandemic hit and the entire proceedings were on pause. When they began again a year and a half later, a new judge and jury took the cause. This judge did not allow for the witnesses to re-testify and simply just said “he read the transcript” from the previous court hearings. This judge and jury did not get to be impacted emotionally by the victims statements as the previous jury did.