Potential Suit Filed Against Former North Davis Principal for Sexual Harassment and Retaliation

A long time teacher at DJUSD has filed a request for a right to sue with the district, based on a claim of sexual harassment against former North Davis Elementary (NDE) Principal Ramon Cusi.

Acting on a tip received through Yolo Leaks, the Vanguard filed a public records request for a Government Tort Claim filed by the teacher.  Based on exemptions to the Public Records Act, the district only provided the Vanguard with the cover sheet and not the attached narrative.

However, based on the information provided on the cover sheet, the Vanguard was able to acquire the DFEH (Department of Fair Employment and Housing) Complaint and the request for right to sue, filed on May 20 by the Law Offices of Mary-Alice Coleman on behalf of the teacher.  That same day, May 20, 2016, the Enterprise ran a story announcing “Ramon Cusi, who has been principal at North Davis Elementary School since 2008, will be leaving when the school year ends in a few weeks to become principal at Vaca Peña Middle School in Vacaville.”

According to the narrative, the claimant was transferred in August 2009 to teach at North Davis Elementary school where Ramon Cusi also began his tenure as principal.

The complaint notes, “Claimant soon learned that Cusi was a self-described ‘hugger.’ He liked to hug certain teachers, including Claimant. Cusi’s hugs made Claimant increasingly uncomfortable, especially when he would summon her to his office when no one else was present.”

“After an especially tight and personally-offensive hug in 2011, Claimant filed a formal complaint with the District about Cusi’s conduct which Claimant felt was sexually harassing,” the claim states.

District officials, including Clark Bryant, the Associate Superintendent of Instructional Services, and Matt Best, the Director of Personnel Services, investigated the allegation and concluded “that Cusi’s actions constituted unprofessional conduct.”

They proposed an agreement with the teacher to resolve her allegations: “[H]enceforward, Cusi agreed not be alone with Claimant, and also not to initiate discussions of a private nature with Claimant. Claimant was not to disclose the existence of the agreed resolution, and was to confer solely with Best if she perceived any retaliation from Cusi.”

However, the complaint alleges that the claimant “felt pressured to agree to this resolution even though she did not feel she was adequately protected by its terms.”  According to her attorney, “the agreement further victimized Claimant by sweeping the issues and problems with Cusi under the rug, leaving Claimant vulnerable to Cusi’s ongoing abuses of power. Claimant was expected to carry on as though she had never suffered personal indignities – at the hands of Cusi.”

The complaint describes that, while she felt victimized by the situation, “she also felt powerless to affect a different result.” The complaint notes, “She became increasingly uncomfortable and nervous around Cusi, especially because he reminded her of their prior issues when it suited his purposes, but ignored the terms of the agreement at his whim. On repeated occasions, Claimant had to remind him that a third party must be present after he called her into his office or came into her classroom when she was alone.”

“Not surprisingly, Claimant’s interactions with Cusi became increasingly strained over time,” her attorney writes.

The complaint notes, “As recently as September 19, 2015, Cusi called Claimant on her classroom phone and in a strange voice said, ‘I know you and I have history together’ but I am giving you the choice of meeting with me about a problem, or having someone from the District address it with you. Claimant was frightened by Cusi’s weird tone and the implications of his message, and told him she wanted any issues he had to be addressed by officials from the District.”

In May of 2015, the teacher was informed of a classroom change and that she was reassigned to teach another grade over her objections.  “Claimant believes that Cusi forced this change on her in retaliation for filing the sexual harassment complaint against him, and for her ongoing reminders when he violated the terms of their agreement.”

On August 25, 2015, “before the first day of school, Claimant wrote to Bryant and asked for his intervention and assistance in dealing with Cusi. Bryant had investigated Claimant’s prior sexual harassment complaint against Cusi and was personally aware of their history. Claimant sent up to three (3) email communications to Bryant asking for help. Bryant did not reply to any of Claimant’s communications, nor did he respond in any other manner to Claimant’s request for intervention.”

The situation escalated to the point where a student with severe behavioral disabilities had been assigned to the teacher’s classroom and “was unhappy and did not want to come to school.”

In front of other teachers, Mr. Cusi allegedly “accused Claimant of making the Student unhappy and causing his dislike for school.”

Afterward, “Cusi directed Claimant to meet with the Student’s parent, and told Claimant she ‘better’ convince the parent that she really wants the Student in her class, or else. Claimant interpreted Cusi’s directive as a threat to her employment with the District, and suspected he was using this Student to set her up to fail.”

A permanent aide was assigned to work with the student on a full-time basis.  This aide helped to manage the student’s behavior and assist the student with assignments.  However, the complaint alleges that “sometimes the Aide managed the Student’s behavior in ways Claimant had never before experienced. For example, when the Student would throw a screaming fit on the floor, the Aide would drag him across the floor by his wrists or his ankles as he screamed. “

The claimant became alarmed by this and contacted the NDE Inclusion Specialist on September 21.  The specialist “responded by reminding Claimant that the Aide was specially trained to handle the Student’s behaviors. (The specialist) further directed Claimant not to interfere with the Aide’s behavior management of the Student, because the actions were taken under his direction.”

The aide became aware of the claimant’s concern and “made her displeasure with Claimant’s inquiry to Learned very obvious. The Aide was openly hostile and defiant to Claimant, and interacted with Claimant in a rude and discourteous manner.”  The complaint alleges that her conduct toward the teacher interfered with the teacher’s ability to facilitate the student’s lessons and other activities.

On September 25, 2015, “Claimant met with Best, now Associate Superintendent of Administrative Services, and complained that Cusi was retaliating against her and continuing to foster hostility against her because of her past sexual harassment complaint.”

The DTA (Davis Teachers Association) Rep attended this meeting  and, “[a]s a result of the District’s non-responsiveness to Claimant’s ongoing pleas for intervention and assistance, DTA paid for Claimant to confer with an attorney about her experiences with Cusi and potential violations of law and her rights.”

During the school year, “the Student had screaming fits almost on a daily whenever he attended class. On December 9, 2015, the Student had a screaming episode and threw himself to the floor. In response, the Aide restrained him by holding down his arms and mounting him from his side with one knee and her weight on his chest. The student screamed even louder and yelled ‘NO! NO! NO!’”

The teacher’s complaint about the aide’s use of restraints was ignored by district personnel.

On January 5, 2016, the teacher was notified “that a complaint asserting discrimination, incompetence and misconduct toward the Student had been lodged against her by the Aide.”  The teacher complained that the accusations “were false and that they were lodged against her because she had questioned the Aide’s use of force and restraints on the Student. Thereafter, Claimant endured 8 hours of investigative interviews with (district staff), for which she has yet to be informed of the outcome.”

“Due to the constant accusations, manipulation, and criticism by Cusi, the lack of responsiveness by District officials to her pleas for help, and the overall deficient support and attention to the special needs of many of Claimant’s (students) took a colossal toll on Claimant’s health and emotional well-being, as the 2015-2016 school year progressed.”

Parents began to complain about the teacher’s abilities to manage the students at this grade level.  Mr. Cusi met with parents “and told some that Matt Best bore the responsibility for removing Claimant from her successful” class to reassign her to another grade.

The complaint notes, “When Best learned about Cusi’s false representation to parents, he informed Claimant that he now understood the hardship she had endured when Cusi forced the classroom change on her.”

“By that time, Claimant had already informed the District that she could no longer teach at NDE, and that she wanted to transfer to another school site for the 2016-2017 school year,” the complaint continues. “Claimant believes that her teaching career and her professional reputation have been forever tarnished and sabotaged by Cusi’s harassment and retaliation and by the horrific events she endured during the 2015-2016 school year.”

—David M. Greenwald reporting