What Happened at
CVESD?
Page 20
CVESD?
Page 20
The COMMISSION’s legal conclusions 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.
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 damaging.
Werlin and Gil's plan was abusive.
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.
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.
first time she agreed to this, new allegations had been made against her and
never investigated.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| ... |
San Diego Education Report
mauralarkins.com
| Page 20 |
| San Diego Education Report |
| SDER |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
| SDER |
| SDER |
| SDER |
Commission says Maura Larkins should forgive, but also
says nothing bad was done to her.
says nothing bad was done to her.