By the end of the morning session of the second day during which the administration was cross-examined and I was able to countermand the administration with  testimony, videos, and documentation, before the late lunch break the judge advised that it might be best for both sides to come to some sort of settlement as it was clear to her how the case should be decided, and one side would not fare well. If not, the judge declared, she was prepared to issue her judgment.

My legal team had approached the other side to see if that was possible, but was rebuffed.

There was no way of knowing how the judge would rule, and here I was, a Gay man taking on the school district in the capitol city of the reddest state in the Union with a pronounced anti-GLBT animus in the court room of a Republican judge.

Lunch was not enjoyable.

When court reconvened, I sat there quietly listening, and even though the judge’s ruling began to appear in my favor, I was waiting for the big HOWEVER to come at the end informing me that in spite of how she thought personally, she was constrained by the rule of law.

She stated

“In determining whether or not the preponderance burden of proof has been met by the school district, I’ve considered the main factors that were brought forward in the Defendant’s Exhibit 1. That addressed most of the exhibits that we have been through the last couple days.

In considering the issue as to whether or not Mr. Quigley used videos improperly, it appears to me that this is one of the prime examples that the school district believes that following policy is more important than educating children. And I can’t find that anything that he wished to show his students would have harmed them in any way or done anything more than help educate them in the curriculum that Mr. Quigley was assigned.

It appears that he was subjected to disparate treatment with regard to the policy on videos and that that does not establish any of the allegations alleged against him.

With regard to failure to use PASS Skills, I have the conflicting information between observers and the video showing that the skills were listed. And all I have with regard to the end of year or end of instruction testing is that his students did well, by his testimony. No one brought me the test scores, so I don’t know. I have to accept his testimony.

With regard to lesson plans, in reviewing the policy of Northwest Classen the only requirement is that they should reference the objectives in the PASS documents, not that they have to be listed by number or by specific date or attached to a video request. There’s no requirement in this policy for that. So that appears to be less than objective.

With regard to the emails, it again focuses on the allegation that the district has stated that he’s failed to do the things his employer asked him to do. Well, I think what teachers are asked to do is educate the children, and it appears this case is more concerned about whether or not we can fill out forms or keep track of emails or who we’re sending emails to. There’s no evidence that the children were neglected in his class because he was sending emails. There have been emails sent during instruction time, but no one’s brought me any evidence that has caused a lack of learning in his classroom if it, in fact, happened.

With regard the zero grading policy, what a Catch-22. First Mr. Quigley’s faulted for giving zeroes for lack of participation during class and then faulted for leaving them blank if work is late but they’re within the five-day policy of turning it in. So I’m sure the SmartWeb is a wonderful program and I’m sure there are parents that use it, but to criticize a teacher and try to take his job away for not following a policy that he gets faulted whether he uses it or doesn’t use it does not appear to be a good use of the district’s time.

It appears this case could have been solved very easily if they had just changed the evaluator. If the problems had remained the same with a different evaluator that had not made up her mind, this case would have been completely different, but the school district chose not to do that.

 So I believe it’s obvious from the parts of this case that I have just commented on that I find that in no way has the district met their burden of proof.

 And I, as a parent of a child of Oklahoma City Public Schools, apologize to Mr. Quigley for the way you’ve been treated. And I hope in the future—–I doubt that you’ll choose to stay with the Oklahoma City Public Schools, but I hope our children will have that opportunity and I wish you good luck”

There was no “However”.

 Even though I had prevailed at the Trial de Novo and the judge had passed down her decision from the bench without delay at the end of the trial, I was not immediately replaced in the position from which the attempt had been made to wrongfully dismiss me. I was informed that I would soon hear when I was to report to the classroom, but in the meantime I was to just sit and wait.

The days stretched into weeks.

By rights I should have been put back into the position I would have had if all these events had not happened, and I did have the legal right for further action if I was not. As this would cost the taxpayers more unnecessary money to prolong a case that should end, and should never have happened in the first place, the Union and I offered a deal to the district that was totally unnecessary as I had prevailed.

The deal was that I would accept whatever placement the district thought up, no matter how inconvenient to me without any further action on my part provided they did not appeal the ruling and they added the words “sexual orientation, gender identity” to the policies on Non-discrimination, Bullying, and Harassment just before the phrase “or for any other reason” as the policies presently stated. Instead, the Board made an attempt at an end run around the court‘s ruling.

At a Board meeting held a month after the court ruling the Board voted to appeal the District Court decision. Although this was a little disappointing, it was the accompanying action that went a bit too far. They also voted that for the length of the appeal process, a time span that could cover up to eighteen months, not only would I not be assigned to a teaching position, but they made the claim that the law forbade them from paying me during that time, so I would be effectively unemployed, but unable to apply for unemployment compensation.

It was a second attempt to have me go quietly away because, without an income, I might have had to relocate for employment.

greyandgrey.com viagra sans prescription In some cases, the doctors cannot figure out why a particular couple is unable to conceive. Kamagra jelly takes around 40 to 60 minutes to show its effect; hence, it should be taken approximately 40 to 60 minutes prior to sexual activity. discount price on viagra viagra order uk To learn more about Acai and Where To Buy Acai, check out the Acai Checklist. So, join the brigade and be a happy-go-lucky person http://greyandgrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/City-Wrong-to-Stiff-Sick-9-11-Big-NY-Post-May-2006.pdf cialis discount online with us. They based this latter decision on the law which stated that during the time leading up to the Trial de Novo was adjudicated I was to be paid my regular salary, but I would not be paid after if there were a further appeal on my part in the event I lost in the District Court.  Obviously the intent of the law was based on the idea that if I won the Trial de Novo I had been right in my claim and, so, was actually still employed. As it as, because of the district and Union contract that divided a teacher’s 10 month pay  into 12 months, the money I received between the dismissal hearing and the Trial de Novo was my already earned income. If I had lost and then appealed, I would not be an employee during that time, and, so, would receive no salary.

For the record, I prevailed at the appeal mainly because, rather than relitigating what they had lost, in light of the court ruling and comments made by those involved on both sides and the media which had followed the case, the administration thought they could present a new improved case, obviously did not know, or ignored, that an appeal meant they had to object to the District Court decision, and by presenting what they had at that case, show why the judge had been mistaken in her conclusion.

I also received a letter after the trial from the Director of Human Resources informing me that the School  Board had accepted my resignation/retirement, which was not only untrue, as I had requested neither, but was a statement sufficient enough to have unemployment compensation denied.

Eventually we all headed back to court in front of the same judge who was not very pleased with the game the Board was attempting to play.

First it was pointed out that the Board was playing a semantic game with the wording of the law. The law stated that I was to be paid during the adjudication of the Trial de Novo, but that upon any further appeal such salary payments would cease. Had I lost the Trial de Novo during the adjudication of which I was being paid, obviously an appeal of the ruling by me would take place without my being paid as I would have lost the case. This would have constituted a “further appeal”.

The Board‘s appealing the case after my win did not constitute such a further appeal, but was in reality the Board’s first appeal. They were attempting to assume whichever role was best for their purposes, but it was a little too insulting to the court.

Secondly, it was pointed out by the judge that she had instructed me to be reinstated, and that such an order was not the suggestion the administrator’s attorney attempted to claim it was. The judge informed them that her ruling from the bench as not a suggestion that could be honored or not, but was something that must be followed, or the School Board members in ignoring her ruling were in contempt and faced arrest.

The Union argued against an arrest of Board members for contempt of court as the district with its Board in jail and unable to hold any public meetings would shut down. It suggested that each member be fined a dollar a day until such time as the Board rescinded its faulty decision and reinstated me.

Such a blemish on their reputation would be sufficient, and the action would be evidence that I had defended myself and my advocacy and was not the enemy of the school district or the students in it.

The judge gave the Board the weekend to come up with a placement for me, and let them know that if I were not in a classroom by the following Monday the contempt of court writ would be issued.

The Board objected to my being placed back at the school I had been teaching at as it would be, in their view, bad for morale. It was not clear whose morale they were referring to as most teachers would be thrilled to see me back at the school and one of their own a winner, but it was obvious that their objection was actually to protect the losing administrators from embarrassment.

The judge recognized this.

It was clear from the testimony at trial, the evidence at the hearing, and statements at my deposition that I desired to remain a high school teacher. I was given four schools to choose from. Three were middle schools and one was a high school. I chose the high school.

Again, even the schools offered to me to choose from brought up more questions as the only high school offered to me was one that was in its fourth year on the list of failing schools under No Child Left Behind, and obviously should not have been offered to a teacher who the Board had just spent so much time and money on attempting to get dismissed for poor performance. Either they were admitting they had been wrong in their assessment of me; they really did not care for that school if they held to what they claimed; or their hope was that I could somehow be connected to the failure of this school and justifiably dismissed successfully later.

Around this same time the Union asked about the language additions of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to school district policies, and, although the superintendent and the attorney for the administrators agree the language was necessary and would one day have to be added, the feeling was to do it at that particular time would connect the action to my win at the Trial de Novo, and they just would not allow that.

It was obvious that the Board seemed more intent on sparing their own image than they were in protecting all of its students. Losing in court was one thing, to give in to our request for more specific language was too much for them.

The students were being held hostage to egos, and would continue to be until action was to be taken four months later.