COVID-19   Law    Advocacy    Topics A-Z     Training    Wrights' Blog   Wrightslaw Store    Yellow Pages for Kids 
 Home > Topics  > Retaliation > Jury Awards One Million to Fired Special Ed Teacher


The Special Ed Advocate newsletter
It's Unique ... and Free!

Enter your email address below:

2024
Training Programs

Apr. 11 - Denver, CO

June 5-8 - San Antonio, TX

Sept. 24 - MD via ZOOM

Full Schedule


Wrightslaw

Home
Topics from A-Z
Free Newsletter
Seminars & Training
Yellow Pages for Kids
Press Room
FAQs
Sitemap

Books & Training

Wrightslaw Storesecure store lock
  Advocate's Store
  Student Bookstore
  Exam Copies
Training Center
Mail & Fax Orders

Advocacy Library

Articles
Cool Tools
Doing Your Homework
Ask the Advocate
FAQs
Newsletter Archives
Short Course Series
Success Stories
Tips

Law Library

Articles
Caselaw
Fed Court Complaints
IDEA 2004
McKinney-Vento Homeless
FERPA
Section 504

Topics

Advocacy
ADD/ADHD
Allergy/Anaphylaxis
American Indian
Assistive Technology
Autism Spectrum
Behavior & Discipline
Bullying
College/Continuing Ed
Damages
Discrimination
Due Process
Early Intervention
  (Part C)

Eligibility
Episodic, such as
   Allergies, Asthma,
   Diabetes, Epilepsy, etc

ESSA
ESY
Evaluations
FAPE
Flyers
Future Planning
Harassment
High-Stakes Tests
Homeless Children
IDEA 2004
Identification & Child Find
IEPs
Juvenile Justice
Law School & Clinics
Letters & Paper Trails
LRE / Inclusion
Mediation
Military / DOD
Parental Protections
PE and Adapted PE
Privacy & Records
Procedural Safeguards
Progress Monitoring
Reading
Related Services
Research Based
  Instruction

Response to Intervention
  (RTI)

Restraints / Seclusion
   and Abuse

Retention
Retaliation
School Report Cards
Section 504
Self-Advocacy
Teachers & Principals
Transition
Twice Exceptional (2e)
VA Special Education

Resources & Directories

Advocate's Bookstore
Advocacy Resources
Directories
  Disability Groups
  International
  State DOEs
  State PTIs
Free Flyers
Free Pubs
Free Newsletters
Legal & Advocacy
Glossaries
   Legal Terms
   Assessment Terms
Best School Websites

 

(Note: 1/31/02 - Case dismissed, appeal is likely.)

Jury Awards One Million to Fired Special Ed Teacher

On occasion, the United States Supreme Court issues a landmark decision that interprets the law and changes the legal landscape. On occasion, we hear about a jury trial that we remember for years.

We will remember the trial of Pamella Settlegoode v. Portland Public Schools and her two supervisors, just as we remember trials of O. J. Simpson, Timothy McVeigh, Karen Silkwood, and the Bush/Gore Florida State Court recount litigation. While these are not published appellate decisions, we view them from different perspectives and have strong emotional reactions to them.

Pamella Settlegoode's case will change the landscape and will open doors for other special educators who feel trapped in oppressive work environments. While many special education teachers will not follow her lead, Dr. Settlegoode carved a path in the wilderness. With support from advocacy litigation agencies, other brave teachers will use her roadmap.

In January 2001, we alerted newsletter subscribers to a decision by the Eighth Circuit in Fales v. Garst, the case in which three special education teachers sued a building principal.

In an article about Fales v. Garst, we wrote:

"The door of litigation between special education teachers and administrators opened wide enough that a Court of Appeals issued a ruling. The initial Judge kept the door open. The Court of Appeals closed the door. But the door opened which means that pathways and road maps to successful litigation will develop."

"Attorneys who prosecute and defend similar cases in the future will study Garst."

"These cases will come. With this decision in Garst, you are witnessing the emergence of a new era in special education litigation. In law, early litigators and trailblazers are often vilified and criticized, and they often lose the initial skirmish."

"The actions of special education teachers Jacquelyn Fales, Mary Ann Kahmann, and Eileen Scarborough will be remembered and studied by lawyers and their clients for many years."

"In time, the rights of students and the teachers who stand up for these students may receive better protection and greater weight in the balancing process." [read full article]

On November 16, 2001, that door swung open with a one million dollar award.

The Story

In September 1998, Pamella Settlegoode accepted a job as special education teacher with the Portland Oregon Public School District. Because she had a doctorate in education, her students called her Dr. S.

Inequities

Soon after she began work as an adaptive PE teacher, Dr. S. was struck by inequities in access and services. Her students were not allowed to participate in activities that were freely available to non-disabled students. Many of these denials of access were in clear violation of law.

For example:

  • Non-disabled students had PE five days a week
  • Many of Dr. S's students had adaptive PE one day a week
  • Many students with disabilities were bussed to a different school for weight training
  • Non-disabled students participated in sports like tennis and track
  • Many students with disabilities were not allowed to participate in sports

Dr. S found that in some schools, adaptive PE was simply modified weight training.

During the trial, Dr. S. testified about how she taught one student who was born without arms to play tennis. Under Dr., S's tutelage, the child learned to use straps to hold her racket. The jury learned that Dr. S's supervisor terminated tennis instruction for her students, over the objections of the building principal and this child's parent.

Inaccessible Schools

Dr. S. testified that the high school was not accessible for people in wheelchairs - no accessible sidewalks, no elevators, no ramps. Children who used wheelchairs and children with hearing and visual impairments had to use the street and student parking lot. Dr. S explained that she feared a reckless teenage driver would hit one of her students.

The high school did not have ramps or an elevator for the students and staff who used wheelchairs. The wrestling coach was superb coach. He wanted his students to learn about independence and the value of hard work and perseverance. The high school did not have ramps or elevators for students or staff. When the coach had to move from one floor to the next, his students had to carry him up the stairs, deposit him on the floor, and retrieve his chair.

It is difficult to teach students about independence when their teacher must depend on students to carry him between floors of the school building.

Dr. S. complained that the district altered IEPs and failed to provide services listed in IEPs, violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Act. How did her supervisor deal with these issues? Her supervisor directed her to discontinue her practice of communicating through letters!

Although she met with a member of the school board, the problems did not improve.

Retaliation

Dr. S. contacted Robert Crebo, special education director, to express her concerns about discrimination and retaliation. How did Crebo respond? He directed her to discontinue letter writing! After she contacted Crebo, the district renewed its retaliation against her.

Her supervisor took away responsibilities. She was directed not to write letters. She was ordered not to volunteer for a reading program during her lunch hour. She was excluded from IEP meetings for her students. Classes were cancelled.

Dr. S. wrote to Superintendent Ben Canada about retaliation and ongoing problems with discrimination against students with disabilities. Canada admitted that he read one page of her letter, saw the claim of retaliation, and forwarded her letter to those individuals who were retaliating against Dr. S.!

Dr. S. was repeatedly directed to stop writing letters. Why? Unlike spoken words, letters are powerful evidence. Attorneys know that spoken words and verbal admissions often have little value in litigation.

Eighteen months after she began work as an adaptive PE teacher, Dr. S was fired. As a new teacher, she was on probationary status. She sent out fifty job applications, did not have a single offer. She was blackballed.

The Lawsuit

Dr. S. is married to William Goode, an experienced federal court litigator who specializes in civil rights litigation. Mr. Goode prepared and filed the lawsuit against Portland Public Schools, Multnomah School District No. 1, Susan Winthrop, Robert Crebo, and Larry Whitson. (Note: Midway through the trial, Mr. Whitson was dropped as a defendant.)

The Complaint

The Complaint filed in the U. S. District Court alleged violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution, (as a 1983 action), violation of the Oregon Whistle Blowers Act, Defamation of Character, and a violation of the Equal Pay Act.

URL: http://www.wrightslaw/law/pleadings/or.complaint.settlegoode.pdf

(Note: for tactical and strategic reasons, the latter two claims were eventually dropped.)

Key portions of the Complaint alleged that:

11. PPS intentionally did not provide Dr. Settlegoode and her students adequate scheduling, equipment, facilities, or other support, to properly teach, consult, coach, or supervise the instruction of disabled students or locations assigned to her. PPS intentionally assigned to Dr. Settlegoode students located at several different school locations in a manner such that she could not reasonably provide appropriate instruction to disabled students in a non-discriminatory manner. Although assigned to a campus of PCC, Winthrop advised Dr. Settlegoode not to provide any services to disabled students at PCC.

12. Dr. Settlegoode reported incidents and situations in which her disabled students were subjected to discrimination; not provided free and appropriate education including after-school activities that was equal or equivalent to services provided to non-disabled students; inadequate facilities or services; hazardous facilities; improper employee conduct, including falsified reports or lack of required reports; mismanagement of funds; and other violations of laws ("deficiencies"). She made reports of these deficiencies at various times to her supervisors including Winthrop and Crebo, and PPS through its superintendent, Dr. Ben Canada.

13. In response to Dr. Settlegoode's reports, Defendant PPS, intentionally retaliated against her.

Until six weeks before the trial, Mr. Goode handled pretrial discovery depositions and pleadings.

New Attorneys: Kafoury & McDougal

Before the trial, Bill Goode and Dr. S. retained Greg Kafoury and Mark McDougal to handle the trial.

The well-known Kafoury-McDougal firm is no stranger to million dollar verdicts. On August 25, 2000, Williamette Week Newsletter reported that:

In the past 30 years, Greg Kafoury has seen his share of dramatic moments, and he was in his element with his name in lights on the electronic scoreboard that hung above the capacity crowd (at a rally for Ralph Nader.)

A trial lawyer who delights in taking on big business, Kafoury spent much of the '90s working to shut down Trojan Nuclear Power Plant and won a $2 million lawsuit against Fred Meyer to give petitioners the right to circulate ballot measures on its property . . .

Along the way, Kafoury has become a sometimes loved, sometimes reviled Portland character -- a wild-haired, hard-partying, self-righteous liberal with an unlimited supply of million-dollar quips.

During the trial, Mr. Goode did not sit at counsel table nor did he examine witnesses. An earlier pre-trial Motion in Limine resulted in a Court Order that the neither party could tell the jurors that Mr. Goode represented his wife in the earlier stages of the case.

Pre-Trial Order

Both parties, through their counsel, filed a "Proposed Pre-Trial Order" with the Court. During meetings with the Judge, this document is revised. Eventually, the Court issues a Pre-Trial Order.The purpose of the Pre-Trial Order is to narrow down the issues of fact and law.

When you read the Draft Pre-Trial Order, you will have a clearer understanding of the factual and legal issues in this case.

URL: http://www.wrightslaw/law/pleadings/or.fedpretrial.settlegoode.pdf

The Trial

Greg Kafoury and Mark McDougal filed approximately 150 exhibits. During the trial, they relied on approximately eight exhibits.

Key exhibits included two letters written by Dr. S, an internal school memorandum, and the front of Dr. S's school personnel file, on which Defendant Winthrop wrote in large letters, "Home of the Idealist."

The front page of the personnel file with these words was printed on poster board and used as an exhibit in the trial.

For tactical reasons, the plaintiffs did not request that witnesses be excluded during the trial. All witnesses could hear testimony of other witnesses.

The Plaintiff

The first two witnesses for Dr. S. were educational aides who testified about factual incidents that established elements of the case.

Two adaptive physical education teachers testified on behalf of Dr. S. (Note: These four witnesses were employees of the school district when they testified. If they suffer retaliation because of their testimony, this may be another Section 504 retaliation case against Portland, Oregon and particular individuals.)

The next witness to testify for Dr. S. was a special ed teacher and former "Best Teacher of the Year." She testified about Dr. S's teaching techniques and manner of working with her children. She testified that Dr. S was the best teacher she had ever observed.

Next, two educational aides testified about more specific factual incidents. A vice principal testified about her favorable classroom observation of Dr. S, her rapport with her students, and teaching methodology.

An economist testified about Dr. S's loss of earnings from the termination and subsequent blacklisting and inability to secure new employment. A vocational expert testified about Dr. S's futile job search attempts and the career impact of the Portland termination.

Dr. S. was the last witness during the first phase of the case.

In one of her letters, Dr. S wrote that what she saw happening in the school district was like what happened in the Wizard of Oz. She testified that defendant Winthrop operated a "Stalinist" regime. She testified about supervisory staff altering and backdating IEPs. She explained the allegations in her letters, the steps she took, and the retaliation perpetrated on her. Two themes of the case were that Dr. S's file was the "Home of the Idealist" and the Wizard of Oz.

The "Idealist" simply wanted the district to follow the law. She not want to be in a position of being forced to violate the law.

Dr. S. testified on direct exam for two and a half hours. She was cross-examined for nearly eight hours.

The Defense

When the school district put on their case, they offered 750 exhibits. The theme of their case was that Dr. S. wrote poorly drafted IEPs.

Defendant Winthrop slogged through 30 IEPs, describing what was wrong with them. On cross, she admitted that while they were purportedly poor, the district did not bother to redraft the IEP documents.

According to the district's "internal memorandum," it was unlikely that Dr. S's termination was due to IEPs.

The school witnesses had already listened to testimony from witnesses on behalf of Dr. S. Their subsequent testimony corroborated the earlier testimony in support of Dr. S. This was a tactic and it worked.

Rebuttal

After the defendants rested, the plaintiff offered more testimony in rebuttal.

The parent of the armless tennis player and her former school principal (now retired) testified about the disparate treatment received by children with disabilities. According to Mr. Goode, as the tennis story unfolded, "there was not a dry eye in the gallery."

Jury Instructions

After rebuttal testimony ended and both parties rested, the attorneys presented the Court with proposed jury instructions. This led to extensive discussion about what should and should not be in the instructions. Eventually, with the apparent agreement of both parties, the Judge wrote a 15-page narrative jury instruction that told the story and provided the law.

Note: We are trying to secure a copy of this unique jury instruction to post on the website.

The Verdict

The Jury began deliberating on Thursday afternoon at 2:45 p.m. until 6 p.m. They resumed deliberations on Friday, November 16, 2001 at 8:00 a.m. At 2:00 p.m., the unanimous jury announced their verdict.

Dr. S. was awarded ONE MILLION DOLLARS. Defendant Winthrop and Defendant Crebo were each ordered to pay $50,000.00.

The Future

After the trial, jury foreman Neil Moeller told newspaper reporter Clifton Chestnut of the Portland Oregonian:

"The big issue was the handicapped kids and the schools not being able to accommodate the situations for teaching handicapped kids. That's what the Rehabilitation Act is all about. We wanted to send a statement back that they were not invincible."

Given the finding of retaliation and the nature of insurance exclusion clauses, it is unknown what portion of the award, if any, will be covered by insurance for each of the three defendants. It is not known if they have insurance for this type of claim, i.e., retaliation.

On Saturday, November 17, after the Friday jury verdict, Pete Wright talked to Greg Kafoury and Bill Goode. On Sunday, November 18, Pete interviewed Bill Goode and Dr. S. for nearly three hours.

Dr. S. told Pete that this has been the "most heart-wrenching and hellish experience of my life," but that my children "want to learn PE, they love it, they want to be athletes, they want to learn, they are teachable, and that was not the problem."

She said the problem is the system that views children with disabilities as second-class citizens.

The District Court has the power to reduce the verdict. If the District Court does not reduce the verdict, the Defendants may appeal to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. If they appeal, they face stiff odds since the Ninth Circuit has affirmed 94% of jury verdicts.

Attorney's fees for the school district are estimated to be close to a half million dollars.

Plaintiff's attorneys fees based on time are estimated at around $250,000 - $300,000. Discovery deposition costs and expert witness fees for Dr. S are approximately $20,000.

Lessons from This Case

"If it was not written down, it was not said. If it was not written down, it did not happen." Pete Wright (From Emotions to Advocacy, page 201)

Dr. S. wrote letters to document her concerns. Her supervisors directed her to stop writing letters. She did not stop.

Change the facts. Assume Dr. S. was fired and filed a lawsuit. Assume she testified about these incidents but did not have letters to substantiate her claims.

Do you think the outcome of her case would have been different? Absolutely!

Honing Your Letter Writing Skills

In our book, From Emotions to Advocacy, we devote two chapters to letter writing and include an Appendix of sample letters to the school.

Chapter 23 is "How to Write Good Evidence Letters". You learn about the purposes of letters and how to use the letters purpose to guide you. You learn strategies you can use to ensure that your letters accomplish their purposes. We provide advice about how to write business letters, letter-writing tips, and sample letters that you can adapt to your circumstances.

Chapter 24 is "Writing the 'Letter to the Stranger''. You learn about two approaches to letter writing - the Blame Approach and the Story-Telling Approach. You learn about the Sympathy Factor, persuasion, and why you must not write angry letters to the school.

Appendix I, "Sample Letters to the School," includes sixteen sample letters from two parents. These letters teach you how to use letters to tell your side of the story and to:

  • Request Information
  • Request a Meeting with a Teacher
  • Document a Problem
  • Express Appreciation
  • Decline a Request
  • Request an Evaluation
  • Request a Records Review
  • Request an IEP Meeting
  • Request Test Scores
  • Document Unresolved or Ongoing Problems
  • Provide Ten-Day Notice to Withdraw Child

If you are a parent or a teacher and you are having problems with the school, you need to read these chapters about letter writing.

Learn more about From Emotions to Advocacy, read reviews, and download the table of contents, index, and a sample chapter.

Understanding Section 504

Many parents and educators do not understand Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Section 504 is a civil rights statute that prohibits discrimination and retaliation. Section 504 is not a statute that provides an individualized educational program with specialized instruction, modifications and supports that is designed to provide educational benefit to a child with special needs.

If a child has a disability that adversely affects educational performance, the child should be eligible for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

These issues are discussed thoroughly in Wrightslaw: Special Education Law and Wrightslaw: From Emotions to Advocacy.

Contact Information

Dr. S. can be reached at psettlegoode@msn.com

Her husband, Bill Goode can be reached at goodewilliam@hotmail.com

Attorneys Greg Kafoury and Mark McDougal can be reached at kafoury@kafourymcdougal.com


Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon The Special Ed Advocate: It's Free!