What Happened
at CVESD?
Page 20
at CVESD?
Page 20
San Diego Education Report
mauralarkins.com
| Page 20 |
The COMMISSION’s legal conclusions
contradict each other.
contradict each other.
According the COMMISSION, no harm was done to Mrs. Larkins;
there was no hostile environment, no violation of the contract, no violation
of the law against her.
But the conclusion that Mrs. Larkins was “unforgiving” implies a finding
that there was something to forgive.
The COMMISSION not only based its Legal Conclusion 8 on implied
findings, but those findings don’t even support the conclusion—they
contradict it. The finding of an “unforgiving nature, a trait of character that
was not remediable” is a virtual admission that Maura Larkins suffered
harm, that Maura Larkins did indeed have a hostile environment. This
contradicts the statement in the very same Legal Conclusion 8 (and in legal
conclusions 7 and 9) that Mrs. Larkins was insubordinate.
Legal Conclusion 11: “A reasonable person in Mrs. Larkins’ situation
would have continued working and would have reported to work
when directed to do so by the Superintendent of Schools.” Mrs.
Larkins had reported back to work in April of 2001, which seemed
reasonable at the time. Within a week Mr. Werlin made his true intentions
clear. He was determined to remove her from her classroom, using any
flimsy excuse he could come up with. What he came up with was Exhibit R-
24, Al Smith’s notes, and Exhibit 20, Linda Watson’s notes. In the summer
he told her that she would not be allowed to teach in any school in the
district the following year. When he asked her back in the fall, without an
investigation or a single retraction, she knew that it would be downright
foolish and unreasonable to expose herself once again to Mr. Werlin’s
extreme hostility, and absolute, arbitrary power over every aspect of her
employment.
To be banned from every school in the district but one is a mark of
Cain which has never been placed on any employee of any school
district to Petitioner’s knowledge. It is a clear signal that MRS.
LARKINS was considered a persona non grata in the district, that
she was falsely believed to be dangerous and disruptive. This was
not a hostile environment?
How did the COMMISSION determine how a reasonable person would
respond? The behavior of teachers and administrators was so
malicious and dishonest that it is difficult to find anything to
compare it with, but it is certainly comparable to the forms of
harassment which have been ruled illegal in countless cases.
there was no hostile environment, no violation of the contract, no violation
of the law against her.
But the conclusion that Mrs. Larkins was “unforgiving” implies a finding
that there was something to forgive.
The COMMISSION not only based its Legal Conclusion 8 on implied
findings, but those findings don’t even support the conclusion—they
contradict it. The finding of an “unforgiving nature, a trait of character that
was not remediable” is a virtual admission that Maura Larkins suffered
harm, that Maura Larkins did indeed have a hostile environment. This
contradicts the statement in the very same Legal Conclusion 8 (and in legal
conclusions 7 and 9) that Mrs. Larkins was insubordinate.
Legal Conclusion 11: “A reasonable person in Mrs. Larkins’ situation
would have continued working and would have reported to work
when directed to do so by the Superintendent of Schools.” Mrs.
Larkins had reported back to work in April of 2001, which seemed
reasonable at the time. Within a week Mr. Werlin made his true intentions
clear. He was determined to remove her from her classroom, using any
flimsy excuse he could come up with. What he came up with was Exhibit R-
24, Al Smith’s notes, and Exhibit 20, Linda Watson’s notes. In the summer
he told her that she would not be allowed to teach in any school in the
district the following year. When he asked her back in the fall, without an
investigation or a single retraction, she knew that it would be downright
foolish and unreasonable to expose herself once again to Mr. Werlin’s
extreme hostility, and absolute, arbitrary power over every aspect of her
employment.
To be banned from every school in the district but one is a mark of
Cain which has never been placed on any employee of any school
district to Petitioner’s knowledge. It is a clear signal that MRS.
LARKINS was considered a persona non grata in the district, that
she was falsely believed to be dangerous and disruptive. This was
not a hostile environment?
How did the COMMISSION determine how a reasonable person would
respond? The behavior of teachers and administrators was so
malicious and dishonest that it is difficult to find anything to
compare it with, but it is certainly comparable to the forms of
harassment which have been ruled illegal in countless cases.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| To be banned from every school in the district but one is a mark of Cain. Werlin and Gil's plan was abusive. |
| Richard Werlin and Libia Gil claimed they wanted Maura Larkins to come back to work, but they refused to conduct an investigation, or to retract the allegations against her, and they banned her from every school in the district except one. |
| Maura Larkins would not go back a second time under these conditions. The first time she agreed to this, new allegations had been made against her and never investigated. |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |