In the Journal yesterday, link, we find that APS and APS Supt Winston Brooks have lost a motion for summary judgement and are heading toward a trial.
It has been nearly four years since the suit was filed against Brooks by two of his subordinates.
The Journal reports;
- APS conducted an investigation of (one of the complainants) performance at Sandia, which the district argues was the basis for his demotion.
- In her ruling, U.S. District Judge M. Christina Armijo expressed skepticism of APS’ arguments. Armijo wrote that the district’s investigation into Bachicha wasn’t completed until after he was demoted. (emphasis added)
- If someone files a complaint against an administrator or school board member, a great deal of time and money is spent "investigating" the background of the complainant in an effort to intimate, harass and discredit them. APS investigators aren't afraid to go back decades to find something they think they can twist into something they can use, and
- these investigations into justifications for firing are all post hoc; they come along well after the firing, could not therefore be the basis for the firing, and are introduced anyway.
In other cases involving Brooks, a judge in July dismissed a suit made by three APS principals who claimed they were unfairly demoted. There is also the ongoing case involving Ruby Ethridge, a former APS associate superintendent. Ethridge filed a civil rights suit against APS and Brooks arguing she was demoted after complaining that Brooks “treated woman with disdain.”I find it misleading to say other cases involving Brooks and then imply there are only two. There are of course, many more than that costing taxpayers millions.
The Journal is cooperative in keeping APS legal shenanigans out of the news. Interest holders have no idea how much money APS is spending on legal defenses and settlements.
Before he was elected to the school board, Marty Esquivel admitted to me that it was APS' practice to drive up inordinately high legal bills waging cost is no object defenses and then settling when trial was imminent.
The settlements always include a statement where APS (administrators and board members) get to admit to no wrongdoing.
If anyone cared to investigate, I believe that they would find APS pays far more to their lawyers than they pay in damages to those they have victimized.
4 comments:
Part One: (because the comment exceeds the number of characters)
The Journal article on the lawsuit is simply pathetic. A simple Internet search reveals the following about the case filed under 03/10/14 Civ. No. 10-00710 MCA/LAM. Judge Armijo's ruling consists of 30 pages and it provides a clear timeline of events that clearly shows Brooks' dirty retaliation tactics against his employees. Not only did he demote Bachicha from Sandia, but at one point he contemplated placing Bachicha-an APS veteran administrator- to a teaching position in the district (page 5 of Judge Armijo's opinion and order)because Brooks was 'pretty disturbed' that Bachicha told his assistant principal Stanojevic about their May 15, 2009 conversation where Brooks made inappropriate sexual remarks about Stanojevic.
"As of July 3, 2009, the draft report (on Bachicha) had not been prepared. A preliminary (in italics) draft report of the investigation was presented to Brooks on July 6, 2009 after (in italics) Bachicha had been transferred to LBJ middle school. The final report is dated August 28, 2009.
As per Stanojevic and APS claim that Brooks was repeating a gender-neutral rumor, not engaging in gender-based discrimination, "The Court is not persuaded by this argument. As the Court has previously observed, 'it is exceedingly rare for a man to be accused of sleeping his way to the top; accusations that a person has traded sexual favors in exchange for a promotion, or a part in a movie, for example, are almost entirely directed at women.' Unfortunately, traditional negative stereotypes regarding the relationship between the advancement of women in the work place and their sexual behavior stubbornly persist in our society. Because we are cognizant that these stereotypes may cause superiors and coworkers to treat women in the workplace differently from men, we find that a reasonable jury could conclude that plaintiff suffered the effects she alleges because she was a woman.'(in italics).
Judge Armijo goes on to state that "A reasonable jury could view Brooks' remarks as sexual stereotyping of an APS employee by APS' utlimate decision maker on personnel matters. A reasonable jury could view Brooks' remarks as a sexist attack on Stanojevic's professional qualifications...A reasonable jury could view Brooks' remarks as expressing Brooks' intention to foreclose Stanojevic from further opportunities for advancement within APS..."
"For purposes of its motion for summary judgment, APS does not dispute that Stanojevic experienced an adverse employment action: the transfer from assistant principal of curriculum at SHS to assistant principal of buildings and grounds at Eldorado HS. Given this concession, the Court assumes for purposes of analysis that Stanojevic has established the second element of a prima facie case of retaliation."
Part Two:
As per the Journal feeble summary of why Brooks transferred Stanojevic to Eldorado upon the arrival of new SHS principal,Katy Harvey, (Stanojevic "failed to get along with Harvey") Judge Armijo concludes that "The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to Stanojevic would allow a reasonable jury to find that Harvey announced that she was moving Stanojevic before Harvey had had any substantial interaction with Stanojevic that would have justified unfavorable conclusions about Stanojevic...There is evidence, apart from the summary eviction of Stanojevic from her office, that Harvey was gratuitously rude to Stanojevic, telling Stanojevic that it was none of her business when Stanojevic quite reasonably inquired if she would retain her position as curriculum assistant principal...It is undisputed that Brooks had the final say on personnel matters...Given evidence of Brooks' expressed hostility toward Stanojevic as a woman he viewed as having slept her way to position as assistant principal, his veiled threat (the "serious error of judgment" remark), and his recent demotion of Stanojevic's mentor, a jury could reason that Harvey's request provided Brooks with the perfect cover for payback and that the actual reason for the transfer was to punish Stanojevic for filing the OEOS complaint. The Court will deny summary judgment as to Stanojevic's claim that the transfer was in retaliation for protected activity..."
"The Court will deny APS' motion as to Plaintiffs' claims for emotional and physical damages."
There you have it. Just read the last sentence above in Judge Armijo's order.
As per the Journal's beyond pathetic article on Judge Armijo's 30-page opinion and order, a reasonably educated person would conclude that the lawsuit is not "likely headed to the trial," but that the lawsuit is DEFINITELY going to the trial or settlement. A reasonable person will conclude that APS will not risk going to at trial where all of the above (and much more) evidence will be made public.
For the Journal to write such a pathetic article with an even more pathetic headline is beyond professionally irresponsible. It is simply negligent reporting, most likely to cover up Brooks' true colors.
I would love to read the ruling. I can't seem to find it.
I can't help you there. Did you cut and paste the case number?
Post a Comment