DOCKET NO.

019-R10-03-2016
RICHARD D. YOUNG
Petitioner,
V.
DALLAS INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Respondent

BEFORE THE

COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

THE STATE OF TEXAS

PETITIONERS SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR REVIEW TO RESPONDENT

DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
Pursuant to 157.1051, Petitioner Richard D. Young, pro se, timely serves this second
Amended Petition for Review before the Commissioner of Education in the State of Texas,
against Respondent Dallas Independent School District (Dallas ISD) (the district), by and
through its Party Representative, and respectfully shows the following:
I. Challenged ruling, action, or failure to act complained of
Petitioner timely filed a grievance of January 4, 2016, pursuant to Respondents local
grievance procedure, regarding the improper delivery method of his probationary teaching
contract termination notice. Petitioners probationary contract termination notice was dated May
18, 2015, and issued to him May 20, 2015. However, Petitioner was not officially made aware of
the improper delivery method until December 29, 2015, by a member of his local teachers
union.
Sec. 21.103 of the Texas Education Code holds that the notice must be delivered personally by hand delivery
to the teacher on the campus at which the teacher is employed, except that if the teacher is not present on the
campus on the date that hand delivery is attempted, the notice must be mailed by prepaid certified mail or
delivered by express delivery service to the teachers address of record with the district.

Petitioner was not present at his home campus of Stephen C. Foster Elementary during the time
of his probationary contract termination, nor did Petitioner ever receive a probationary contract
termination notice via prepaid certified mail. Although Respondents school board timely
notified Petitioner of his probationary contract termination, Respondent failed to properly mail
Petitioner the probationary contract termination notice pursuant to Texas Education Code 21.103.
Petitioners probationary teaching contract, provision 20 holds that: The Educator agrees that the District
may meet any legal obligation it has to give the Educator written notice regarding the Educators
employment by hand delivering the notice to the Educator or by sending the notice by certified mail, regular
mail, and/or express delivery service to the Educators address on file with Human Resources.

Since Respondent failed to comply with Texas Education Code Section 21.103 and failed to
comply with provision 20 of Petitioners probationary contract, the board must employ the
probationary teacher (Petitioner) in the same capacity under a probationary contract for the
following school year (2015-2016), pursuant to Texas Education Code section 21.103(b)(1).
Petitioner further adds that he was dismissed from the district, without reason, before his
probationary teaching contract was ever terminated. Petitioners 2014-2015 probationary contract
was still a valid contract when he was released from the district as of April 1.[1] Petitioner timely
extended his probationary teaching certification and emailed such payment confirmation to
Respondent. Respondent took no action. Since Petitioner was dismissed prior to his probationary
contract termination, this allows him to appeal to Commissioner that termination procedures of
Respondent were improper.

[1]

Chapter 157.1073(f) states that in all hearings filed against a school district, the commissioners decision shall be
based on a review of the local record. Since this is the case, Petitioner has not submitted an additional copy of his
2014-2015 probationary teaching contract. However, the agency does have a copy of Petitioners 2014-2015
probationary teaching contract that was provided in Petitioners brief relating to Docket no. 054-R10-08-2015.
Respondent also provided the agency a copy of Petitioners 2014-2015 probationary teaching contract with its plea to
the jurisdiction, motion to dismiss, and original answer on April 20, 2016, relating to this specific docket, in which
Respondent labeled as Exhibit B.

Petitioner timely filed a grievance with Respondent within the ten day time frame on
January 4, 2016. Petitioner did not receive the results of the grievance until February 4, 2016, 31

days after he filed his grievance, which stated that his January grievance is not grievable.
Therefore, Petitioner cannot timely file a Level III grievance to Respondents board of trustees,
whom makes the final decision on any grievance, if Petitioners grievance is deemed not
grievable. Further, Petitioner cannot exhaust administrative remedies such as, but not limited to,
filing a Level I grievance, mitigating, informal conference, or mediation. If a grievance is
deemed not grievable, exhaustion of remedies cannot apply. Petitioner has suffered financially
and received monetary harm because of the improper delivery method of his probationary
contract termination notice, the violation of his 2014-2015 probationary contract, and not being
offered another probationary teaching contract for the 2015-2016 school year.
II. Date of challenged ruling, action, or failure to act
The decision of the Human Resources-Employee Relations Department was dated
February 4, 2016, in favor of Respondent by notifying Petitioner his January 4 grievance is not
grievable, and by denying grievance to be forwarded to a hearing officer. Therefore, Petitioner
cannot timely file a Level III grievance to Respondents board of trustees, whom makes the final
decision on any grievance, if Petitioners grievances is deemed not grievable.
III. Action Requested by Petitioner for the Commissioner to take
Petitioner respectfully asks Commissioner to look at all facts, and take appropriate action
on any and all claims and causes of action plead by Petitioner, regarding the Petitioners January
4 grievance, the delivery method of Petitioners probationary contract termination pursuant to
Texas Education Code 21.103, and Petitioners 2014-2015 probationary teaching contract.
Petitioner asks Commissioner to grant relief on any and all claims.
IV. Jurisdiction

Petitioner timely filed a Petition for Review to Commissioner of Education in the State of
Texas on March 12, 2016 pursuant to 157.1049(a), filed an Amended Petition for Review on
June 1, 2016, and a second Amended Petition for Review on June 3, 2016. The Commissioners
jurisdiction is invoked and based on 157.1041(a). Petitioner contends there are violations of the
school laws of this state with respect to his 2014-2015 probationary teaching contract,
person/entity dismissing his grievance before a board hearing, and the improper delivery of
method of his probationary contract termination notice, which is governed under Texas
Education Code Chapter 21. The Commissioner has jurisdiction over all of Petitioners claims.
V. Party Representation of Petitioner
A party representative will not be representing Petitioner at this time, as Petitioner will be
appearing pro se pursuant to 157.1045, with the contact information as follows: 4539 Lake Ave.
#345, Dallas, TX 75219, cell phone (972)201-6681.
VI. Contact Information for Opposing Party
Contact information for Respondent is as follows: Dallas Independent School District,
Dr. Eliu Misael Michael Hinojosa, 3700 Ross Ave., Dallas, TX, 75204, 972-925-3700.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Richard D. Young

Richard D. Young (pro se)
4539 Lake Ave., #345
Dallas, TX 75219
Cell (972)201-6681
FAX (214)602-1880
YoungRichardD@yahoo.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to 157.1050, the undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of
this document has been served upon Respondent, by and through its party representative, via
Regular Postal Mail, electronic mail, and fax on this 3rd day of June, 2016.
Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Richard D. Young

Richard D. Young (pro se)

Richard D. Young (pro se)

4539 Lake Ave. #345

Dallas, TX 75219
Cell (972)201-6681
FAX (214)602-1880
YoungRichardD@yahoo.com
June 3, 2016
Texas Education Agency
Attn: Isabel Lozoria-Camarillo
Office of Legal Services
Division of Hearing and Appeals
1701 N. Congress Ave., Suite 2-150
Austin, TX 78701
Richard D. Young vs. Dallas I.S.D., Docket no. 019-R10-03-2016
Dear Ms. Camarillo,
Enclosed you will find my Second Amended Petition for Review for the said docket case.
There were only a few minor inadvertent errors that needed to be corrected, in order to avoid any
further confusion regarding this case.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need further documentation.
Respectfully Submitted,
Richard D. Young
Richard D. Young (pro se)
Encl.
RDY/fp