CIVIL SUIT NO.

210,322
Division "B"
PATRICIA POWELL

9 1h JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

VERSUS

PARISH OF RAPIDES

RAPIDES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD

STATE OF LOUISIANA

WRITTEN REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This matter concerns the appeal of a decision of the Rap ides Parish School
Board (RPSB) to terminate a tenured teacher, Patricia Powell, after a hearing before
the Rapides Parish School Board on September 19-20, 2001.
Because of the complicated history and record in the case, it is important to
understand a timeline of events which began twenty-four years prior to the
termination hearing:

Ms. Powell received a B.A. in English Education and Social Studies

from Louisiana College, an M.A. in Creative Writing from University
of Louisiana at Lafayette, and a Masters in Ministry from Seattle
University;

Ms. Powell taught at Our Lady of Prompt Succor Elementary School

from 1977 to 1979, and Menard High School from 1979 to 1988 (two
private Catholic schools in Rapides Parish);

Ms. Powell began teaching in public schools with the RPSB in 1989,
starting with Oak Hill High School ( 1989- 1999); South Alexandria 61h
Grade Center Gifted Program (Aug. 1996-Dec. 1997); Tioga
Elementary School Gifted Program (Aug. 1997 - Jan. 1998);

On December 2, 1997, Ms. Powell' s performance as a gifted teacher

was evaluated by Shirley Riche, principal ofTioga Elementary school,
who gave her 100% satisfactory scores, along with positive comments
such as "promoted a positive learning climate," "presented content at a
developmentally appropriate level," and "demonstrated ability to
communicate effectively with students." There were no criticisms, or
mention of any dissatisfaction with Ms. Powell ' s teaching ability;

On January 6, 1998, Ms. Powell was one of the three people whose
photograph and comments appeared on the front page of the local
newspaper, the Alexandria Daily Town Talk, in an article entitled,
"Residents Outraged," with a subheading of "Hundreds call Town Talk
to complain about Cox, School Board Settlement." Under her
photograph was a quote, " If the School Board members have violated
people ' s rights . . . why can't the public know what was done?" Her full
statement appeared in the body of the article which stated:
Patti Powell-Couvillion, a teacher at Tioga Elementary,
wondered if parish residents will ever know the details of the
agreement. "If the school board members have violated
people's rights to the extent they have to pay more than $1.5
million, why can't the public know what was done?" Ms.
Powell-Couvillion asked.
Page 1 of 31

The article related to highly publicized litigation between the RPSB

and the then Superintendent, Betty Cox, who was hired in March 1994,
but suspended one year later after she began investigating abuses which
publicly embarrassed certain board members. There had been a 'good
ole boy" system in place for years and when hired, she apparently upset
the "good ole boy" way of operating. To address her suspension, she
filed an intervention in March 1995 in the long-standing desegregation
case against the Board, and obtained an injunction in 1995 and 1996
blocking her suspension and later termination. Litigation dragged on
until the matter was finally settled for $1.7 million on January 5, 1998,
the day before the newspaper article. Throughout this time, the
respective views of the parties were regularly aired out in the print and
broadcast media in the Rapides Parish area. When the case was settled,
the public was outraged that funding for their children's education was
being used to pay for abuses allegedly committed by school board
members. 1

On January 15, 1998, Shirley Riche evaluated Powell and her

performance review, forty-four days after the December 2, 1997
evaluation and only nine days after the newspaper article. The
December 2, 1997, review had twenty-two satisfactory scores and the
January 15, 1998, review had two satisfactory, ten unsatisfactory and
eight needs improvement.

On January 26, 1998, only twenty days after the article, the RPSB closed
Ms. Powell's gifted class at Tioga Elementary.

On January 28, 1998, Clayton Williams, the Administrator of Aiken

Detention Center, sent a letter to Dr. Patsy Jenkins, then the Director of
Personnel, that "per our conversation ... .I am writing this letter as a
request a certified teacher. .. as you know, I am operating with substitute
teachers;"

On January 30, 1998, only twenty-four days after the article, Dr. Jenkins
sent a letter to Ms. Powell stating that "due to the closure of the gifted
class at Tioga Elementary," she was being assigned to the Aiken
Detention Center effective February 3, 1998; when she reported to Mr.
Williams, he told Ms. Powell that she "must have made someone
downtown very angry." Although a certified teacher with twenty-four
years' experience, she was instructed not to speak with the students, all
of whom were suspended or expelled from regular classes. Her job was
to monitor the students as they wrote papers which were not submitted
to her for review or grading. This was the worst possible teaching
position in Rapides Parish.

During her employment at Aiken, the following events occurred:

In an evaluation dated May 25, 1998, Mr. Williams rated Ms. Powell's
performance "satisfactory" in 28 of 29 areas, but a handwritten note
reprimanded Ms. Powell, stating " disregarded policy by leaving
unannounced one occasion." Ms. Powell testified that the "occasion"
was a bomb scare which required her to see that all students evacuate
the school and walk to the nearby mall. Ms. Powell did not return to
school to sign out that day, causing the reprimand.

On August 26, 1998, Ms. Powell was placed on a Level I Intensive

Assistance Plan for alleged tardiness on that date. The form stated,

See Appendix; pg. 30; Ms. Powell's conflict with the school board could also be called a "soap opera" if
the consequences were not so tragic for her.

Page 2 of31

"Teacher must arrive at work by 7:20a.m. and leave no sooner than 10

minutes after school is out in the afternoon."

Mr. Williams sent a formal letter to the RPSB Director of Personnel on

October 5, 1998, reporting that Ms. Powell had overslept and arrived at
8:30 after calling ahead of time. Because of such, she violated the
August 26, 1998, Level I Intensive Assistance Plan, (lAP).

On October 22, 1998, Ms. Powell was placed on a Level II lAP which
threatened her with termination.

On November 5, 1998, the Level II lAP recommended termination.

On March 30, 1999, Ms. Powell was suspended with pay "pending a
full investigation."

On June 27, 2000, the Superintendent sent a letter to Powell notifying

her of a tenure hearing set for August 3, 2000, to consider the charges
outlined in an attached resolution of the RPSB.

On August 3, 2000, Powell was notified by the Superintendent that she

was being transferred to Peabody Magnet High School as an English
teacher, effective August 17, 2000. This is the second worst teaching
position in Rapides Parish.

During her employment at Peabody High School, the following events occurred:

An undated typed sheet was placed in Ms. Powell's personnel file

purportedly showing that she was absent for several conferences
regarding a student in September of2000.

On October 3, 2000, a letter from a parent, MD, was placed in Ms.

Powell's personnel folder, complaining that her daughter, KD, had
received an "F" in Ms. Powell' s English class.

On October 3, 2000, Ms. Powell received a reprimand on an observation

report concerning KD's grade.

On October 4, 2000, a teacher observation form was filed, showing

seven "Needs Improvement" scores.

On October 11 , 2000, Ms. Powell was purportedly placed on a Level II

lAP directing her to "design and implement effective lessons that are
meaningful ... " Ms. Powell did not recall seeing this document, nor was
it signed by her.

On October 30, 2000, Ms. Powell was purportedly placed on a Level II

lAP directing her to "follow guidelines for makeup work; is to provide
accurate information on students during conferences, and treat all
students with dignity and respect. "

On November 14, 2000, a complaint was sent to Assistant

Superintendent Thomas Rogue concerning the grades of KD.

On November 16, 2000, Ms. Powell was reprimanded by letter from

Ms. Peggie Davis, Principal of PHS, for arriving late to work. However,
Ms. Powell was not late; the clock had not been adjusted back an hour
for loss of Daylight Savings time which occurred on October 29, 2000,
eighteen days before the reprimand. Apparently, Ms. Davis must have
"forgotten" about the time change.
Page 3 of31

On December 7, 2000, Powell was purportedly placed on a Level II lAP

directing her to "continue to design and implement effective lessons,
communicate and have physical documentation that parents and
caregivers are kept informed on students' progress." Ms. Powell does
not recall seeing this document, nor was it signed by her.

On December 11, 2000, Ms. Powell received a negative evaluation of

the Level II lAP dated October 30, 2000. The report states that Ms.
Powell "continues to fabricate information on discipline behavior
reports."

On January 11, 2001, Ms. Powell was given a letter of reprimand by

Ms. Davis with a warning that a failure to comply will result in a request
for termination.

On April 4, 2001 , Ms. Davis sent a letter to the Superintendent

recommending termination.

In April, 2001, Ms. Powell was suspended. She was not allowed to copy
her grade book or take any of her student folders .
On August 22, 2001, Superintendent Jenkins sent a certified letter

to Powell notifying her of a tenure hearing that was scheduled for

September 19, 2001. In her letter, she charged Powell with four separate
and distinct charges, which were as follows:
Charge 1:
As required by the handbook for teachers at Peabody Magnet
High School, and, as directed by the Principal of Peabody
Magnet High School, teachers are required to report to work
and to clock in by 8:25 a.m. During the 2000-2001 school
year, Ms. Powell reported and/or clocked in after 8:25 a.m.
on numerous occasions. Ms. Powell has had problems with
tardiness in previous work locations and had been formally
reprimanded for her late arrival at work at Peabody Magnet
High School by letter from her principal dated November 16,
2000. Despite these facts, Ms. Powell was still unable to
consistently arrive at school in a timely fashion. Such actions
on her part constituted willful neglect of duty.
Charge 2 :
On several occasions during the 2000-2001 school year, Ms.
Powell was directed by her principal at Peabody Magnet
High School to keep records reflecting the progress of her
students (such as graded tests and papers). She was also
asked by her Principal to communicate student progress on
a regular basis to parents/caregivers. The need for physical
documentation of student's progress was discussed with Ms.
Powell on October 11 , 2000 during an Intensive Assistance
Plan meeting. On December 7, 2000, an Intensive Assistance
Plan was written highlighting the need for physical
documentation of each student's progress. On February 2,
2001 , the Principal of Peabody Magnet High School had a
conference with Ms. Powell concerning the awarding of
grades to a particular student for the fourth grading period.
Ms. Powell had no physical documentation that would
justify the grades that she gave for that grading period
Page 4 of31

despite the repeated directives of her Principal and her

Intensive Assistance Plans. The failure on the part of Ms.
Powell to keep documentation supporting the grades she
gave the students and her failure to communicate regularly
with the parents/caregivers for such students about their
performance constituted willful neglective duty on her part.
Charge 4:
On or about January 19,2001 , Ms. Powell used her cell
phone to place a call from her classroom to the home of one
of her students. Ms. Powell received some type of message
when she first placed the call, so she asked the student in the
classroom if he was poor and if his mother had paid the
phone bill. When she placed the call the second time, Ms.
Powell reached a cousin of the student. In the presence of the
students in the classroom, Ms. Powell asked the cousin if the
student had a mental problem and whether he was seeing a
psychiatrist. Ms. Powell also referred to the student as a
"bum" and that he was going to be one of the alcoholics
standing on "the PDQ Mart corner." Such actions by Ms.
Powell constituted willful neglect of duty on her part.

A hearing began on September 19, 2001, at 5:00 p.m. , and ended

approximately at 1:30 a.m. with the School Board finding that the Superintendent
had proved that Powell was guilty of willful neglect of duty on charges 1, 2 and 4.
After voting on each of the individual charges and concluding that disciplinary
action against Powell was warranted, the Board voted to terminate her employment.
TEACHER TENURE LAW
The Teacher Tenure Law (TTL) in effect at the time of this hearing is
La.R.S. 17:441-446. This law "gives to Louisiana's public school system teachers
tenure in office and arms these permanent teachers with a shield protecting them
against discharge, suspension or demotion for causes other than that provided by
statute." Rousselle v. Plaquemines Parish School Board, 93-1916 (La. 2/28/94),
633 So.2d 1235, 1241-1242. It was intended to protect worthy teachers from
"enforced yielding to the political preferences of those theretofore laws the power
to grant or withhold employment to them; and to vouchsafe to such teachers
employment, after a long term of satisfactory service to the public, regardless of the
vicissitudes of politics or the likes or dislikes of those charged with the
administration of school affairs" Andrews v. Union Parish School Bd. , 184 So.2d
578; Rouselle v. Plaquemines Parish School Bd., 633 So.2d 1235 (La. 1994).
Under the TTL, tenured teachers are entitled to strict substantive and
procedural due process protections before they can be disciplined or terminated,
Page 5 of31

"including specific enumerated grounds for discharge, a hearing by the school

board prior to discharge, and judicial review of the school board action." Richard
v. Lafayette Parish School Bo ard 08-73 (La. App. 3 Cir. 5/21 /08), 984 So.2d 218,

220. The protections afforded by the TTL "are for the benefit of the teacher, not the
school boards." Rousselle, 633 So.2d at 1242. Accordingly, it is well established
that the provisions of the TTL are to be liberally construed in favor of teachers.
Spears v. Beauregard Parish School Board, 02-2870, (La. 6/27/03), 848 So.2d 540,

542.
STANDARD OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

The standard of judicial review for any court reviewing a school board's
decision following a tenure hearing is limited to two issues: (1) determination of
whether the school board complied with the procedural requirements of La.R.S .
17:443 and (2) whether its findings were supported by substantial evidence, or
conversely, constituted an arbitrary decision and thus an abuse of discretion.
Howell v. Winn Parish School Board, 332 So.2d 822, 824-825 (La. 1976); Sias v.
Iberia Parish School Bd. , 11-163, (La. App. 3 Cir. 10/5/ 11 ), 74 So.3d 800, 802.

'"Substantial evidence' has been defined as ' evidence of

such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded
men in exercise of impartial judgment might reach
different conclusions."' Coleman v. Orleans Parish School
Bd., 93-0916 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/5/97), 688 So.2d 1312,
1315 (citing Wiley v. Richland Parish Sch.Bd., 476 So.2d
439, 443 (La.App. 2 Cir.1985)). In conducting such an
examination, the district court must give great deference to
the school board's findings of fact and credibility. Arriola
v. Orleans Parish sch. Bd., 01 - 1878 (La.2/26/02), 809
So.2d 932, 941. Reasons for dismissal are largely in the
sound discretion of the school board. Gaulden v. Lincoln
Parish School Board, 554 So.2d 152, 157 (La.App. 2
Cir.l989), writ denied, 559 So.2d 126 (La.1990) Thus, the
school board's judgment should not be reversed in the
absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion. ld.
Generally, an abuse of discretion results from a conclusion
reached capriciously or in an arbitrary manner. See Burst
v. Bd. Of Com' rs Port of New Orleans, 93-2069
(La.10/7/94), 646 So.2d 955, writ not considered, 95-265
(La.3/24/95), 651 So.2d 284. The word "arbitrary" implies
a disregard of evidence or of the proper weight thereof. A
conclusion is "capricious" when there is no substantial
evidence to support it or the conclusion is contrary to
substantiated competent evidence. Coliseum Square
Association v. City of New Orleans, 554 So.2d 351 , 360
(La.1989).
The district court may not substitute its judgment for that
of the school board or interfere with the school board's
Page 6 of 31

good faith exercise of discretion. McLaughlin v. Jefferson

Parish School Board, 560 So.2d 585 (La.App. 2 Cir.1983).
The district court's responsibility in such a case is to
determine whether the school board ' s action was
supported by substantial evidence, or conversely,
constituted an arbitrary decision and thus an abuse of
discretion. Howell, 332 So.2d at 825; Roberts v. Rapides
Parish School Board, 617 So.2d 187, 190 (La.App. 3 Cir.),
writ denied, 619 So.2d 1068 (La.1993). As with the district
court, court of appeal may not reverse the decision of a
district court unless it finds the school board's termination
proceedings failed to comply with statutory formalities
and/or the school board's findings were not supported by
substantial evidence. Wiley, 476 So.2d at 442; Cook v.
Natchitoches Parish Sch. Bd., 342 So.2d 702 (La.App. 3
Cir.), writ denied, 345 So.2d 52 (La.l977); Mims v. West
Baton Rouge Parish Sch. Bd., 315 So.2d 349 (La.App 1
Cir.1975).
While the TTL "provides for review by the courts and not a trial de novo,
the requirement of a full hearing indicates that the Legislature intended the courts
to exercise a broad scope of judicial review, particularly at the district court level.

Butler v. Jberville Parish School Board, 93-2291 , (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/22/94), 648
So.2d 459. Thus in Lewing v. DeSoto Parish School Board, 238 La. 43 , 113 So.2d
462 ( 1959), the Court noted that under the provisions requiring a full hearing at the
district court level, a discharged employee of a school board could present
additional evidence to that Court."

REQUIREMENTS OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

1) NOTICE AND SPECIFICATION OF CHARGES

It is well recognized that the teacher tenure law vests a property right in the
teacher. Once property interests are created, they may not be deprived without
adequate legal process. Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341 , 345,96 S.Ct. 2074, 2077,
48 L.Ed.2d 684 (1976); Franceski v. Plaquemines Parish School Board, 772 F.2d
197 (5th Cir.l985).
"The central meaning of procedural due process is well settled. Persons
whose rights may be affected are entitled to be heard; and in order that they may
enjoy that right, they must first be notified." Wilson v. City of New Orleans, 479
So.2d 891 , 894 (La.l985) An equal concomitant to this right is " the right to notice
and opportunity to be heard," which must be extended at a meaningful time and in
Page 7 of31

a meaningful manner. !d. (citing Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67,92 S.Ct. 1983, 32
L.Ed.2d 556 (1972); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 14 L.Ed.2d
62 (1965)).

The advance notice requirement (fundamental to assuring due process)

envisions affording and protecting an employee' s right to adequately prepare a
defense to the charges and to subpoena witnesses expected to offer testimony
favoring the employee' s version of the facts. Fuentes, supra. Neither the federal
nor this State's adversarial scheme favor trial by ambush whether in a judicial or
administrative forum. Rubin v. Lafayette Parish School Board, 649 So.2d 1003 (La.
App. 3 Cir. 1994); Cleveland Board ofEducation v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 105
S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985).
La.R.S. 17:443 (A) provides for procedural due process in the TTL that
requires that the "Superintendent, with approval of the school board, shall furnish
the teacher with a copy of the written charges. Such statement of charges shall
include a complete and detailed list of specific reasons for such charges an~ shall
include but not be limited to the following: date and place of alleged offense or
offenses, names of individuals involved in or witnessing such offense of offenses,
name of witnesses called or to be called to testify against the teacher at said hearing,
and whether or not any such charges previously have been brought against the
teacher," (emphasis added).
Charge Number One against Ms. Powell fails to comply with the due
process requirement for the following reasons:
1) There was a failure to state the date(s) and time(s) Ms. Powell
"clocked in" after 8:25a.m. Obviously because the school had a time
clock, the Rapides Parish School Board should have been aware of
the exact dates and times she was late and stated such.
2) Although an allegation states she had "problems with tardiness in
previous work locations," it does not provide specificity as to the
date(s), time(s) or place(s)" she had problems with tardiness;
Charge Number Two against Ms. Powell fails to comply with the due
process requirement for the following reasons:
1) There is a failure to state the date(s) and time(s) Ms. Powell "was
directed to keep records reflecting the progress of her students"
and "when she was asked by her principal to communicate
student progress on a regular basis."

Page 8 of31

2) There is a failure to state the name of the "particular student" the

principal and Ms. Powell discussed on February 2, 2011.
Similar issues were addressed in Richard v. Lafayette Parish School Board,
984 So.2d 218 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2008) and Rubin v. Lafayette Parish School Board,
649 So.2d 1003 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1994)
In Richard, a special education pre-school teacher received a certified Jetter
from the school Superintendent notifying her of a tenure hearing before the School
Board on February 1, 2006, which stated:
On November 8, 2005, you were issued an official Jetter of
reprimand for issues that were revealed during the
investigation of allegations of misconduct. The investigation
revealed the following misconduct on your part: hitting a
child with a ruler, force feeding students in the cafeteria,
pushing against a student in time out, and improper use of
CPI (Crisis Prevention Intervention).
A thorough investigation, led by Mr. Lovelace Langlinais,
Human Resource Generalist, and involving Ms. Christine
Duay, Principal, Live Oak Elementary School, and Ms.
Nancy Cech, Area Director, revealed the above allegations
were in fact true.
Lafayette Parish School System Policy File JDS states, "The
Lafayette Parish School Board does not authorize or
condone the use of corporal punishment as a means of
maintaining order in the schools." The Lafayette Parish
School System is mandated by law to investigate allegations
of misconduct directed at its employees. This mandate, in
part is reflected by La.R.S. 17:81.6 as well as The Lafayette
Parish School System Policy File GAEB.
In the CPI training book it states, "Physical restraint is
recommended only when all less restrictive methods of
intervening have been exhausted, and when the individual
presents a danger to self or others." Any time a CPI hold is
used on a student, you are required to complete a CPI
Incident Report which requires the signature of your
principal; Ms. Duay has not received any CPI Incident
Report from you.
Due to your violation of policies regarding corporal
punishment and CPI, Mr. Langlinais is recommending your
termination and Ms. Ramona Bernard, Director, Human
Resources, is supporting his decision. Your behavior is
unacceptable; it is contrary to our mandate to provide a safe
environment for students, faculty , and staff at all schools.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the School Board upheld the
Superintendent's recommendation to terminate Richard which was affirmed by the
District Court after an appeal by Richard. She then appealed the District Court' s
decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal which reversed Richard' s termination

Page 9 of31

finding that the school board failed to comply with La.R.S. 17:443(A). In its reasons
for judgment, the Court stated:
A perusal of this letter quickly leads to the conclusion that

the School Board failed to comply with the procedural

requirements set out in La.R.S. 17:443(A) for the removal of
a tenured teacher. Although Dr. Easton's letter lists the
offenses Richard is accused of, it fails in all other respects as
it fails to state that it is sent with the approval of the School
Board; it fails to list the date and place of the alleged
offenses; it fails to list the names of any persons involved in
or a witness to the events, and it fails to list the names of any
persons to be called as witnesses against her.
Although the allegations alleged against Richard are serious
and the School Board was presented with substantial
evidence pertaining to those allegations, we are constrained
from reaching the merits of this matter. Our first task as a
reviewing court is to determine whether the School Board
complied procedurally with La.R.S. 17:443. Construing that
statute liberally in favor of Richard, we find that it failed to
do so. Thus, the School Board's finding must be reversed
and the matter remanded to the school Board for further
proceedings in compliance with La.R.S. 17:443(A). To hold
otherwise would be a violation of Richard's constitutional
and statutorily conferred rights of due process.

Rubin, supra, is a case factually similar to the case sub judice. Like Ms.
Powell, Rubin had an eighteen-year employment history "without blemish,"

(Rubin, p. 1005, fn.l ). After a termination hearing, the Board dismissed, as

unsupported by sufficient evidence or untrue, fourteen of the eighteen charges
lodged against Rubin, but found her guilty of four counts and terminated her
employment.
The District Court affirmed the ruling of the School Board. She then
appealed the decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal alleging as one of her
assignments of error that the "Lafayette Parish School Board and the district court
erred by misapplying La.R.S. 17:443 and thereby depriving Mrs. Rubin of the due
process guarantees afforded to tenured teachers by both statute and constitution."
Rubin's argument focused on one of the charges of the Board which stated:
"While teaching a prescribed unit of focus on Life,
Science, Chapter 6, entitled "Animal Reproduction,"
Mrs. Rubin, in violation of school board policy and
state law, as is prescribed in La.R.S . 17:275,
instructed her students on human sexuality."
The Court reversed the District Court's finding "the Board's failure to
comply with the expressed requirements of La.R.S. 17:443 and those recognized

Page 10 of31

by constitutional due process principles render the decision to terminate Rubin

unenforceable." (Rubin, 1016).
In its decision, the Rubin Court found the above charge did not " refer to
specific acts nor state the number of times the teacher allegedly instructed the
students on human sexuality, and it does not state the dates on which such
infractions occurred."

2) OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AT A "MEANINGFUL TIME

AND IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER"
Further, the Court finds that the RPSB did not provide an opportunity to
Ms. Powell to be heard at a "meaningful time and in a meaningful manner."

Fuentes, supra.
The tenure hearing commenced at 5:00p.m. on September 19, 2001, with
the Superintendent completing her case around 11:00 p.m. Ms. Powell, without
counsel, began her case at or around 11 :00 p.m. until the hearing concluded around
1:30 a.m.
During her hearing, and while in the Superintendent's case in chief, Mr.
Hammonds stated:

SB, Tr. 224: Hammonds' comment to Principal Davis, "I know it's
getting very late and I know you're very tired." (Notice it was not
late and they were not tired, but it was very late and they were very
tired).

When Ms. Powell presented her evidence (beginning at page 246), the
following comments were made by Mr. Hammonds and the school board members
about the late hour and their fatigue, such as:

SB, 258: Mr. Tannehill states, "I know I' m real tired and it's real
late, but did she get sworn in?" (Once again, he was real tired and
it was real/ate).

SB, Tr. 303: Mr. Dixon stated: "It's now twelve o'clock. We started
at five o'clock and it's now twelve."

SB, Tr. 327: Mr. Hammonds, when questioning Ms. Powell states:
"And I apologize, it's late and I guess I'm getting tired, but I don' t
understand ... "

SB, Tr. 330: Mr. Hammonds, when questioning Ms. Powell, stated
he was confused by her testimony and she responded:
" Well , you should go home and go to bed if you' re that
confused and we should go and refresh. Let's have a
Page 11 of31

postponement and I'll come back when we're fresh if you're

that constantly confused."
Ms. Powell was not afforded a hearing at a meaningful time and in a
meaningful manner. The RPSB made the decision to begin at a late hour when they
knew or should have known it was going to be a long hearing, and when the hearing
went into the early hours of September 20, 2001, rather than recess and return
another day, as suggested by Ms. Powell, they continued with the hearing.
The hearing is not meaningful because when fact finders are tired, they
don't pay attention, get confused about the testimony (as is evident in the record),
do not engage in meaningful discussion about the issues to be decided and are in a
hurry to decide and leave ... especially at 1:30 a.m.
If this concerned a criminal conviction, it would be worthy of a reversal. A
judge would never have a jury listen to evidence and argument until late at night,
read the jury charge and send them to deliberate at 9 or 10 p.m. They would be
tired, agitated and would make a quick decision rather than deliberating in a
meaningful manner required by due process.
To the School Board, this may have been business as usual and just another
meeting. To Ms. Powell, this meeting was the most important meeting in her life in
that it would determine if she would continue to be employed. After all her years
of service and with so much at risk, she deserved better.

The second issue of the Court's limited review of the School Board's
decision is to determine whether there was a rational basis for the decision that was
supported by substantial evidence, or conversely, constituted an arbitrary decision
and thus an abuse of discretion.
As to this issue, substantial evidence was presented by both parties as to
whether Powell should have been terminated because of a willful neglect of duty.
However, before addressing that issue, the Court will address another issue, one
that preempts all the willful neglect of duty evidence. It's the elephant in this case,
and it concerns political retaliation of a kind that is not found in any other TTL
jurisprudence.
Consider the following facts that are not in dispute:
Page 12 of31

1) Powell was a teacher for 24 years without a blemish on her

record, including with the RPSB;
2) December 2, 1997: she received a perfect performance
review by her principal, Shirley Richie, which was
consistent with her past years of service;
3) January 6, 1998: she is quoted in the local newspaper
criticizing the RPSB;
4) January 15, 1998: forty-four calendar days after her previous
evaluation and nine days after the article appeared, her
evaluation by the same principal with the same class resulted
in ten unsatisfactory, eight needs improvement and two
satisfactory scores;
5) January 26, 1998: twenty days after the article, the RPSB
closed her gifted class at Tioga Elementary School;
6) January 28, 1998: twenty-two days after the article, the
administration of Aiken Detention Center sent a letter to
Patsy Jenkins for a certified teacher after they had a
" conversation";
7) January 30, 1998: By letter from Patsy Jenkins, Powell was
transferred to Aiken Detention Center as of February 3,
1999. Although Clayton Williams wrote that he needed a
"certified teacher" at Aiken, Ms. Powell was not assigned a
teaching position at Aiken. Query: If Powell was not
assigned a teaching position, why did Williams need a
certified teacher?
ALL OF THIS HAPPENED IN ONE MONTH AFTER THE
NEWSPAPER ARTICLE- JANUARY 6 TO FEBRUARY 3, 1998!
The Court finds that Ms. Powell was the victim of political
retaliation because there is no dispute in the evidence that:

1) SHE ENGAGED IN A PROTECTED ACTIVITY WHEN

SHE PUBLICLY COMMENTED ON A PUBLIC
MATTER ON JANUARY 6, 1998; there is no dispute that
her public comment on a matter of public concern was a
protected activity;
2) AN ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION OCCURRED;
there is no dispute that less than a month after the article, she
was transferred to a non-teaching position at Aiken
Detention Center chaperoning suspended and expelled
students. This was an "adverse employment action" which
can be defined as a demotion, reduction in salary, reduction
in job responsibilities, reassignment to menial or degrading
work, badgering, harassment, or humiliation by the
employer. There is no dispute that being transferred from
teaching gifted children in an elementary school to the Aiken
Detention Center was a reduction in job responsibilities,
reassignment to menial or degrading work and humiliating
and therefore, an "adverse employment action."
3) A CAUSAL
PROTECTED

LINK EXISTED
ACTIVITY AND

Page 13 of31

BETWEEN THE
THE ADVERSE

EMPLOYMENT ACTION; the RPSB knew of Ms.

Powell's activity and the response was prompt; in less than
a month, she was transferred to Aiken Detention Center. The
Court finds that "but-for" her public comment, she would
have completed her teaching career and retired from the

teacher's retirement system. Therefore, there was an obvious

causal link, an ease of association, between the protected
activity and the adverse employment action. 2
The unanswered question is who were the actors with the RPSB who
orchestrated such retaliation against Ms. Powell? The answer is irrelevant
because we will never know. What is important is Ms. Powell went from a
hero to a zero (metaphorically speaking) in a very short period of time and
that occurred because of acts of unknown RPSB agents or employees to
retaliate against her.
The Court does not suggest that every employee with the RPSB or
all of the board members knew what was going on and participated in this
downfall of Ms. Powell. The Court does believe, and the evidence shows,
that Peggy Davis was the main actor making Powell's working conditions
intolerable. (See SB, Powell2, 11 /2/00; SB, Powell3, 11-19-00; SB, Powell
12, an undated outline of events by Powell). Ms. Powell's exhibits above
and her testimony were an accurate portrayal of the events leading to her
termination. Ms. Davis' evidence is indicative of a pretext for terminating
Powell, and therefore, not credible with the Court.
Once the retaliation began by her transfer to Aiken, it is axiomatic
to believe that the RPSB had the intent to engage in acts to obtain a
voluntary resignation of Ms. Powell. The evidence proves they did by
assigning her to difficult schools, in impossible situations, along with the
constant badgering, harassment and humiliation. They were trying to set her
up for failure.
Evidence to support this finding are the behavior reports she
introduced at the tenure hearing which describe the atmosphere of her

As authority, the Court relies on a line of cases involving federal causes of action which are not
controlling but are persuas ive. See Flether v. Wendelta, Inc. , 999 So.2d 1223,43 -866 (La.App. 2 Cir
1/ 14/09); Brooks v. Southern University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, 877 So.2d 11 94, 20030231 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7114/04); and Tatum v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 79 So.3d 1094, 10-1053 (La.App.
5 Cir. 11 /15/ I I).

Page 14 of31

classroom at Peabody which are indicative of the intent of the RPSB to

obtain her resignation.

1) AP: "Sassing-refusal to be quiet-normally AP does

okay, but today (s)he was singing loud, dancing,

going wild." (s)he had previously recommended
detentions.
2) RH: "Refused to settle down. Constant talking and
eating in class daily. Disruptive and loud. Refuses to
listen to teacher's prompts." She noted there had
been a previous conference with his/her parent and
recommended that "something needs to be done as
this is his/her second referral."
3) EN, 11-3-00: "Refuses to do work. Constant talking,
sassing, refuses to leave the room when told to do
so."
4) JD, 12-19-00: "JD approached my desk after I
received a plate of goodies from my secret pal and
said, ' someone might put something in your food.'
This following a previous incident where he/she was
at my desk when someone poisoned my coffee with
hand sanitizer. Though others witnessed that he/she
did it, he/she claimed innocence." At the top of the
form, she wrote "left class without permission,"
"threatening teacher," and for a recommendation,
she stated, "(s)he refuses to sit in assigned seat.
Constant talking and argumentative. (S)he carne to
my class yesterday and said he/she was 'thrown out'
of another class."
5) KC, undated: "Was shouting 'So?' after teacher' s
every word. Playing poker each day. Took referral
home and threw it in trash.

6) GM, 3-26-01 : "Student refused to be quiet and told

me to shut up. (S)he also says (s)he is going to get
him/her some d ___ ."Powell made a comment she
was going to try and reach the parent that day.

7) JD, 12-4-00: "Singing 'PUSH IT REAL GOOD'

while class is taking a diagnostic test. Refuses to stop
singing and talking. Rudeness. Repeated by asked
him/her to stop. Accused teacher falsely."
8) AM, 8-25-00: "Student left the room after being told
twice to sit down. Previously, on 8-23, paper Q) and
refused to start homework.
9) CH, 9-5-00: "Shouted at teacher while teacher tried
to direct students. Refused to give name to teacherrefused to leave the room to go to office. Sassingrudeness. Attempted to contact parent, but no
answer."
10) TC, 9-11-00 and 9-13-00: "Student was warned
repeatedly for talking, laughing-on 9/ 13 she refused
3

Because minors are involved, the Court will only use initials.

Page 15 of31

to change and sit in assigned seat. Left room without

permission and refused to sit down. Slammed the
door." Although Powell made three calls to her
house, she was unable to speak to her mother. TC
intercepted two of those calls saying his/her mother
was not home.
11)LK, 9-1 9-00: "LV claimed (s)he had to check out.
When I went to lunch, (s)he was first in line. Ms.
Shutlow (?) stated the child never attempted to check
out. Warned about distractions." Powell attempted to
contact the parent.
12) LK, 10-20-00: "Refused to be quiet, shouted back at
teacher, shouted that teacher messes up grades after
telling teacher to write down grades. Sent to office.
Did not go." Powell noted under recommendations
that she had a "previous conference with parents"
and that "mother came for conference."
13) CL, 10-27-00 and 10-30-00: "Constant movement
out of seat. Talking and laughing. Stole candy from
goodie bags at teacher's desk." Powell noted that she
contacted parent, but there was no answer.
14) CF, 10-30-00: "CF refuses to turn around in English.
(S)he's failing the new term. Constantly talking,
laughing, sassing.' Powell contacted the parent that
day and found her "very supportive."
15) BC, 11-1-00: "BC' s parents were called in august.
(S)he improved but still chewed gum, shouted, threw
books at times. In Sept., (s)he refused to sit down.
(S)he was talking and shouting. In Oct., (s)he
improved, but on Oct. 31 , (s)he shook his/her fist at
the teacher saying, 'this is what you're gonna get.' I
asked (s)he three times nicely to be quiet and finally
when I said 'shut up,' (s)he shouted back 'you shut
up.'" In her recommendations, Powell stated "(s)he
is ~ angry. (S)he needs counseling and a
suspension for his/her threats and thrown objects."
She contacted his/her parent(s) on 11-2-00.
16) JD and TE, unknown date: Powell requested more
forms to write up JD and TE for constant talking,
distraction, and sassing and the following:
a. JD: "Demanded his/her report card and
shouted 'that's stupid' when I told him/her I
would give them out at the end of class. (I do
this to reduce the potential for disorder!) slept
through class yesterday-almost all.
b. TE: "Is off-task, playing, laughing, talking
and OUT OF HER ASSIGNED SEAT!
(S)he' s been warned repeatedly."
17)10, 12-11 -00: "Refuses to be quiet. Shouted 'Liar! '
three times while I was trying to get meanings of
words for prefix/suffix study. I can' t teach this class
because of his/her distraction." Powell noted she had
previously contacted the parent Nov. 17. She
Page 16 of31

requested JD be suspended because detentions were

not working.
18) JD, 12-13-00: the report states that (s)he is "willfully
disobedient, treats authority with disrespect, makes
unfounded charges against authority and disturbs the
school and habitually violates any rule." The
remainder of the report is difficult to read but states
"(s)he is unaffected by referrals." His/her parent was
contacted by Powell and shows the parent signed the
form.
19) TE, 12-13-00: "TE refuses to sit in assigned seat.
Daily battle with this. (S)he and JD talk, laugh or
sleep." Powell contacted the parent of TE and the
parent signed the form.
20) TC, 1-3-00: "Refuses to sit in assigned seat and be
quiet. I cannot teach with him/her present. Talking,
laughing, shouting out of seat."
21)AM, 1-23-01: "AM has been 'mooing,' talking and
laughing today. (S)he has been sassing and
interrupting. Today when I was teaching, (s)he
shouted 'who the fuck cares!' later ( s)he shouted,
"FUCK you." I sent him/her to the office and (s)he
returned and banged on my door the rest of the class.
(S)he had to be removed by the janitor."
22) SH, 2-8-01 : "SH was sent from the class for the
second time for hitting furniture hard. (S)he makes
animal noises, shrieks and slams things around. (S)he
counseling."
Under
appears
to
need
recommendations, she wrote: "Students are
complaining. I called his/her mother and she said she
would ' try' to help.
23) AP, 2-1 9-01: "AP misread lines from the play and I
said I wanted someone to read it correctly. He
shouted "Fuck you" and made other disparaging
remarks ." Under remarks, she wrote "This is the
second time a student has spoken to me in this
manner. If nothing is done, I will let others know."
Under recommendations she wrote she was going to
contact his parent that night.
24) VL, 3-1 9-01: "VL has been warned repeatedly for
disturbing class by talking. (S)he refused to be quiet
during a film then throwing paper from her desk to
the trash can. When told to stop, (s)he continued to
disturb the class." Under recommendations, she
wrote "Have students learn how to respect people."
25) NW, 3-19-0 1: "NW was told to hand over candyaccording to students, she slipped it in her purse and
refused. She grabbed purse and swung it. When
teacher's glasses fell on her desk, she threw them
onto the floor. When asked to leave, she threatened
teacher saying .... " (unable to read). Powell wrote
under recommendations: "This is my 3rd pair of
glasses this year. -Teach children respect for rules."

Page 17 of31

After reading these reports, one should understand why 42.3% of the
students received aD or F during certain grading periods. Ms. Davis' answer to this
problem was to change their grades and Ms. Powell's response was the oppositeyou get the grade you deserve.
Also, when this was going on from August of2000 to March of2001, where
was Ms. Davis and why didn 't she support Ms. Powell by using her authority to
discipline these students? The only answer is she intentionally failed to respond to
this bedlam in an effort to get Ms. Powell to resign to punish her for the January 6,
I 998, comment.
The Court will now address the second issue to the standard of review in a
teacher tenure review and that is whether the findings by the School Board were
supported by substantial evidence, or conversely, constituted an arbitrary decision
and thus an abuse of discretion.
Because of the Court's findings that Ms. Powell was clearly a victim of
political retaliation, (at least on February 3, 1998, when transferred to Aiken
Detention Center), there is no need to decide this issue. If the purpose of the TTL
is to protect Ms. Powell "from the vicissitudes of politics or the likes or dislikes of
those charged with the administration of school affairs," Andrews, supra, then she
is entitled to judgment and any evidence of willful neglect of duty after February
3, 1998, if any, is not relevant.
Furthermore, because of the adverse employment action is evidence of
intent by the School Board to obtain a voluntary retirement or a termination,
evidence after her transfer to Aiken Detention Center is questionable and subject to
closer scrutiny by the Court.
The Court will address each charge individually.
CHARGE!
As required by the handbook for teachers at Peabody Magnet
High School, teachers are required to report to work and to
clock in by 8:25a.m. During the 2000-2001 school year, Ms.
Powell reported and/or clocked in after 8:25 a.m. on
numerous occasions. Ms. Powell has had problems with
tardiness in previous work locations and had been formally
reprimanded for her late arrival of work at Peabody Magnet
High School by letter from her principal dated November 16,
2000. Despite these facts, Ms. Powell was still unable to
consistently arrive at school in a timely fashion.

Page 18 of31

The testimony presented at the tenure hearing concerning the reporting time
for teachers was confusing and inconsistent. The Superintendent did not produce a
copy of the handbook for teachers at Peabody Magnet High School, so there is no
evidence as to the report time required by the handbook. Instead, the Superintendent
produced a letter to teachers which stated teachers were "to report by 8:25a.m. you
may leave at 3:25p.m." Ms. Powell has been adamant that the report time was 8:35
a.m. The difference is substantial. If the reporting time was 8:25, Ms. Powell was
late fifty-one times and if it was 8:35, she was a few minutes late which totaled 61
minutes in a five month period. However, if report time was 8:35 and class
instruction began at 8:45 a.m., she never missed the start of her class at 8:45 a.m.
The latest she clocked in was 8:41, six minutes late if clock-in time was 8:35 a.m.
Although the Court is not aware of the report time from the Peabody
handbook, the job description for secondary teachers required teachers to report to
school ten minutes before school began and to be in the assigned classroom when
the class period begins.
As stated before, the evidence presented at the tenure hearing is insufficient
to prove Ms. Powell was tardy. The Court is baffled at why such an easy issue as
report time for teachers is so difficult to find from the record.
Principal Davis testified at the tenure hearing that Ms. Powell's frequent
tardiness caused problems for the school and that Ms. Davis "had to get a sub or
someone to go in and keep her class" when Ms. Powell "came in at 8:40 and nine
o' clock." This testimony is contradicted by the time cards which show that Ms.
Powell never clocked in at 9:00 and in fact never clocked in later than 8:41.
She also testified that there were three bells: the first at 8:35, the "beginning
of school", a second at 8:40, and the final "tardy" bell at 8:45 when "class
instruction" began. She later contradicted herself and said that because the first bell
rang at 8:35a.m., the teachers were expected to be on campus at 8:25a.m.
However, in her November 16, 2000, Letter of Reprimand, she stated "you
are aware that our school day begins at 8:40a.m. and that you are expected to report
to work before 8:25," which conflicts with her testimony that school began at 8:35

Page 19 of31

and conflicts with the job description for secondary teachers to report ten minutes
before school begins which would be 8:35.
Lyle

Hutchison ,

the Assistant Superintendent for

Curriculum and

Instruction, testified at the tenure hearing that teachers were to arrive "ten minutes
before class begins," (which would be 8:35). He later contradicted this testimony
stating that teachers had to report "ten minutes before the first bell" at 8:35, which
would have been 8:25. He was unable to explain where Ms. Davis got the idea that
school began at 8:40 and not 8:35.
Dr. Patsy Jenkins, the Rapides Parish School Superintendent at the time of
the tenure hearing, testified at trial that the rule to report "ten minutes before school
begins" could not be overruled by a principal. Therefore, teachers cannot be ordered
to appear at school fifteen or twenty minutes before the "class instruction time" in
that it would violate the Rapides Parish School Board policy.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court does not find substantial evidence in
the record to support the finding on charge I that Ms. Powell was guilty of"willful
neglect of duty for fail ing to work timely." Based on the contradictory and
confusing evidence, the Court is unable to determine the time Powell was required
to be present at school. Therefore, the finding by the Board on this charge was
reached in an arbitrary and capriciously manner in that there was a disregard of the
evidence before it and not supported by substantiated competent evidence.
CHARGE2
On several occasions during the 2000-2001 school year, Ms. Powell
was directed by her principal at Peabody Magnet High School to
keep records reflecting the progress of her students (such as graded
tests and papers). She was also asked by her principal to
communicate student progress on a regular basis to
parents/caregivers. The need for physical documentation of
student's progress was discussed with Ms. Powell on October 11,
2000 during an Intensive Assistance Plan meeting. On December 7,
2000, an Intensive Assistance Plan was written outlining the need
for physical documentation of each student's progress. On February
2, 2001, the Principal.. .had a conference with Ms. Powell
concerning the awarding of grades to a particular student for the
fourth grading period. Ms. Powell had no physical documentation
that would justify the grades that she gave for that grading period
despite the repeated directives of her Principal and her Intensive
Assistance Plans. The failure on the part of Ms. Powell to keep
documentation supporting grades that she gave the students and her
failure to communicate regularly to the parents/caregivers for such
students about their performance constituted willful neglect of duty
on her part."

Page 20 of31

The evidence on this issue came solely from Ms. Davis, who has no
credibility with this Court. Although she had custody and control of Ms. Powell's
student folders, she did not support her testimony with any of Powell's records at
the hearing.
At the tenure hearing, the School Board heard the following evidence on
this charge:
1) Powell testified she recorded grades for every assignment and
test score, kept two folders on each child, kept physical
documentation of every grade, gave students many opportunities
for extra credit and offered extra help two days a week either
before or after school.
2) Powell testified she placed a comment on every student's report
card which contained a D or F grade, indicating she needed to
see the parent. Principal Petty Davis, who recommended
Powell's termination, admitted a lack of knowledge regarding
Ms. Powell's report cared procedures.
3) Powell testified she allowed parents to check out their child' s
folders at any time during the school year to see the child' s
grades. Principal Davis, who recommended Powell's
termination, admitted that she was unaware of that practice.
4) Powell Exhibit 7 admitted at the tenure hearing contains 18
pages of notations showing phone calls Ms. Powell made to
parents involving student behavior which impacted grades and
classroom conduct.
5) At the tenure hearing, Ms. Powell testified as follows: "this is a
book I call my discipline book where I would document every
time- I would put the phone numbers and I would document
every time a parent was called or whatever behavior in class was
disturbing or if students were misbehaving, and I kept this book
up until January, through January, and no changes have been
made since. You know, it's the original thing. I indicated that I
did indeed call parents and I very often communicated with
people about what was going on in the classroom.
BY MR. BYRNES: Well, why did you quit after
January?
[BY MRS. POWELL:]
I think I felt like it was so futile. I kind of started to lose hope
because no matter what I did it just kept coming at me, and I
thought at first it was, you know, kind of a good idea to have
documentation of everything and then I just- just like the reason
I didn' t sign things, I just lost heart with that aspect of it, you
know, trying to document everything. And I just, I quit. For
some reason, I quit in January. But prior to then, you know, I
kept it up. I was going to enter a piece of evidence that proves
that - or I thought they were saying that I never had kept a grade
book in my life, but now that I see that Ms. Davis did admit that
I owned a grade book and, you know, then there's not a reason
to submit that."
6) Powell Exhibit 8 from the tenure hearing documented all the
help modifications and parental contact for her "504" students
who needed accommodations. When tendered to the Board,
Page 21 of31

there was a prolonged discussion about relevancy of the

documents. Why the Board had a prolonged discussion about the
relevancy of these documents perplexes the Court- charge 2
alleges that Powell was "asked by her principal to communicate
student progress on a regular basis to parents/caregivers."
Powell 8 is an exhibit that lists the parents and phone numbers
contacted by Powell. After much discussion, they were admitted
but sealed by the Board. However, there is no evidence in the
record these documents were reviewed by the Board prior to
their decision.
7) Powell testified that "prior to the Detention Center, I had the
gifted class at Tioga Elementary. As far as the second charge, I
definitely kept physical documentation on everything, every
paper that child ever did, every test they ever took I kept. I have
two - every child has two folders. I didn't get any at the
beginning of the year. I did not see a folder. I went one day to
ask Mr. Bayonne if I could get a box of folders and he didn't
even respond to me. So I went to Ms. Cox and asked her if she
- if I was just to go buy those on my own and she said well, no,
I have some that I got with grant money and so she gave me a
box. And I had asked all the kids- I had sent letters home at the
beginning of the year asking every student with a- it was like a
syllabus and I had a list of supplies and two manilla folders,
black pens, glue stick, three ring binds, everything I needed was
on there, and the kids wouldn't bring them in regularly. You
know, I didn't collect enough, and so I did go ahead and try to
finally and try to make my own with the help of Ms. Cox and
they were used. There were two folders for every child. One was
a writing portfolio because I use process writing groups in my
class and you have to keep - to trace their progress, you have to
keep a portfolio of their work, and it shows how they get better
and better as the year progresses. The other folder was all their
test papers, every, every test they had ever taken, every grade
they had ever made. And generally my students would have lots
of opportunities for extra credit. I offered extra help two days a
week. They could either come before school or after school. So
I had two days a week where I offered extra help or they could
like make an appointment and I was glad to help them with
anything extra."
8) It appears from the evidence that the documentation issue in this
charge specifically involved KD, a student in Powell's English
I class. The evidence shows beyond any doubt that KD, like
most of her fellow students, had a serious problem with rules
and authority figures . During class time instruction, she would
talk, shout, and distract the other students and was insubordinate
to Ms. Powell. She would also step out into the hall during class
and leave the class early without permission. On some
occasions, KD would leave class early without turning in her test
paper which resulted in Powell giving her a zero (0) grade for
that test. According to Powell's grade book, this occurred on
three occasions which caused her to receive an F average.
Unfortunately, instead of her mother disciplining her child, she
complained to Ms. Davis, who then complained by letter to
Thomas Roque, Assistant Superintendent at RPSB. In the Jetter,
Davis informed Roque that after MD (KD's mother) had met
with Mr. Bazone, Mrs. Henagan, Ms. Hammond and Ms.
Powell, she "mandated" Powell to "change a grade of 70 that
should have been a 93." Her reasons were: There were three
zeros recorded that Ms. Powell could not justify because "papers
could not be produced to verify the grades of zero (0)." In
Page 22 of31

translation, this means KD was given a test, left the room early
and did not turn in her test paper. Her failure to Lake the test and
turn it in means she doesn 'L get any credit for a test she doesn 't
take ... thus, she received the zeros.
The Court finds the evidence shows that KD would leave class
early without permission and would fail to turn in her test
because there was a "bus leaving early from school." In her
letter, Ms. Davis stated this was "proven to be a
misrepresentation of true facts because we do not have any buses
leaving before 3:20p.m." This was "not a misrepresentation of
true facts" by Ms. Powell, but was a misrepresentation of "true
facts" by KD. KD knew there was not an early bus but used this
as an excuse to leave the classroom without permission so she
didn't have to turn in her test. Obviously, Ms. Davis chose to
believe a 15 year old child with a behavioral problem than a
teacher with 24 years' experience.
Powell also caught KD cheating on two occasions giving her a
zero for one assignment and reducing a 95 to a 70 on one paper
because she "at least turned in an assignment." A review ofKD' s
grade form Powell's grade book shows KD received grades of
0, 0, 73, 57,43 and 61, a total of236 points, for an average grade
of 39. Ms. Powell's grade book shows an average of 39.8,
exactly as it should be, which is an F average anywhere in North
America.
The Court was impressed with Powell's record keeping and finds that there
was no substantial evidence to support the change and therefore, a clear abuse of
discretion.

CHARGE3:
On several occasions during the 2000-2001 school year,
Ms. Powell referred to students by inappropriate names
such as "idiots," "stupid," "ignorant," and "sissy." She
referred to one female student as "a sneaky little trick"
in front of the entire class. This incident occurred after
Ms. Powell had received a written letter of reprimand
from her principal about referring to students in such
fashion. Ms. Powell has also been heard to refer to
Peabody Magnet High School as "Peabody Maggot."
Such actions on the part of Ms. Powell constituted willful
neglect of duty by her.
As to Charge No. 3, the RPSB did not find there was
"substantial evidence" presented, and therefore, this
charge will not be discussed by the Court.
CHARGE4:
On or about 1anuary 19, 200 1, Ms. Powell used her cell
phone to place a call from her classroom to the home of
one of her students. Ms. Powell received some type of
message when she first placed the call, so she asked the
student in the classroom if he was poor and if his mother
had paid the phone bill. When she placed the call the
second time, Ms. Powell reached a cousin of the student.
In the presence of the students in the classroom, Ms.
Powell asked the cousin if the student had a mental
problem and whether he was seeing a psychiatrist. Ms.
Page 23 of31

Powell also referred to the student as a " burn" and that he

was going to be one of the alcoholics standing on "the
PDQ Mart Corner." Such actions by Ms. Powell
constituted willful neglect of duty on her part.
As to this charge, the RPSB found there was proof to support that
Powell willfully neglected her duty, but her violation of the duty did not
warrant disciplinary action.
RPSB cites Wise v. Bossier Parish School Board, 851 So.2d l 090
(La.2003), that "it is sufficient to support termination if any of the charges of willful
neglect of duty against the tenured teacher is sufficiently supported by the record."
However, the facts in Wise are not similar to the case sub judice.
In Wise, the teacher was charged with seven charges and after a finding of
guilty of willful neglect of duty on six of the seven charges, was terminated. The
district court affirmed the School Board, appellate court reversed the district court,
and the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court as to the charge 1, refusing to
address the remaining charges (pg. l 095, fn. 6).
Therefore, Wise was found guilty on one count and was terminated on that
one count.
In the case sub judice, Powell was found guilty to willful neglect of duty on
charge 1 and 2 with a recommendation of termination, and found guilty on count 4
with no disciplinary action.
The RPSB seeks to "bootstrap" the recommendation of disciplinary action
on charge I and 2 to charge 4, which the Court will not do. If the RPSB made a
finding that she violated her duty, but such did not warrant a disciplinary action,
the Court does not have the authority to substitute its judgment for the School
Board' s. Therefore, the Court will not and cannot impose any disciplinary action as
to this charge.
The RPSB contends the Board's conclusions on the charges couldn' t have
been arbitrary or capricious because of three reasons:
1) The newspaper picture and caption in question was printed
more than three (3) years, eight (8) months prior to Ms.
Powell's tenure hearing;
2) Elections were held for school board members between the
appearance of the article and the termination hearing and
only two (2) of the nine (9) School Board members were still
Page 24 of31

present on the Board at the time of the tenure hearing,

Rodessa Metoyer, and Herbert Dixon. Ms. Metoyer
abstained on every vote and Mr. Dixon voted guilty on every
count of willful neglect of duty, made the motion to
terminate Ms. Powell, and also voted to terminate Ms.
Powell;
3) The evidence of different evaluations in December of 1997
and January of 1998 is not proof of retaliation.
Superintendent Betty Cox appointed Shirley Riche as the
principal of Tioga Elementary school so why would she
retaliate against an employee who publicly supported
Superintendent Cox? The School Board would have you
believe that Riche observed Powell doing a good job on
December 2, 1997 and not doing a good job on January 15,
1998.

The School Board misses the issue with their first contention. None of the
charges and none of the evidence concerned the newspaper picture and caption in
question, but rather concerned her not reporting timely, failing to keep records,
calling students inappropriate names and calling a student' s home during class. The
charges allegedly occurred after the article and after the political retaliation which
the Court has found to be a pretext to her termination.
The second contention of the School Board follows the Court's finding
above. Regardless who was on the board at the termination hearing, the evidence
against Ms. Powell concerned the four charges, not the article. It is interesting to
note that the President of the School Board, Rodessa Metoyer, listened to the
evidence for more than eight hours and abstained on every vote and Herbert Dixon,
whose School Board District "D' includes Peabody High School, found her guilty
on all charges, moved to terminate her and then voted to terminate her on every
charge.

The last contention is a fairy tale. With the exception of one "NI" (needs
improvement) in 1989 and 1995, Ms. Powell had a twenty-four year unblemished
record.
Comments from evaluation forms prior to the newspaper article refers to
her competency, creativity and ethics:

"Mrs. Couvillion's creativity is an asset to her teaching. She

and her class of 7 students put out one newspaper and the
school yearbook. She worked in organizing a recycling and
environmental club."

See Appendix for Herbert Dixon' s involvement in the Betty Cox case.

Page 25 of 31

"Mrs. Couvillion is a very good teacher."

"Good job producing each 6-weeks newsletter; very

creative; thanks for Drug Free Teachers Workshop."

APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES
"Teacher has love oflearning."

PRACTICES PROFESSIONAL ETHICS:

"High standard of professional ethics."

ACCEPTS ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES:

"Yes, worked with Junior Debate Team, 4-H Sponsors
Club."
" Yes, always willing to help. "

EXHIBITS KNOWLEDGE OF SUBJECT MATTER:

" Knowledgeable in reading content and tactics."

ESTABLISHES A CLASSROOM
COURTESY AND RESPECT:
"Demonstrates courteous manner."

IS FAIR AND IMPARTIAL WITH ALL STUDENTS:

"Treats all students in fair manner."

COMMENTS TO OR ABOUT STUDENTS ARE FREE OF

SARCASM,
RIDICULE,
AND
DEROGATORY,
DEMEANING OR HUMILIATING REFERENCES:
"Offers positive, supportive comments."
"A voids all negative comments."

ESTABLISHES A CLASSROOM CLIMATE OF

COURTESY AND RESPECT:
"The teacher and students show courtesy and regard for
individuals."

OF

LEARNING:

CLIMATE

OF

Also, at the time of Riche's January 15, 1998 evaluation, Ms. Cox was not
the Superintendent. She never returned to her former position after the January 6,
1998, settlement. Because she was not in a position to protect Ms. Riche or Ms.
Powell from political retaliation, it would follow that if Ms. Riche wanted to
continue as the principal of Tioga Elementary, she had better take orders or there
could have consequences.
In summary, the Court finds beyond a reasonable doubt the following facts
and conclusions:

1) Ms. Powell was a tenured teacher with 24 years' experience

and an impeccable record;
2) On January 6, 1998, she made a public comment on a public
matter;
3) The RPSB retaliated against her for the comment with an
adverse employment action;
Page 26 of31

4) By doing so, the RPSB violated the letter and spirit of the
TTL that was designed to protect teachers "against political
vengeance and reprisals." Therefore, as of February 3, 1998,
Powell is entitled to a judgment in her favor;
5) The RPSB began a campaign to terminate Ms. Powell by
assigning her menial/degrading work, badgering, harassing
and humiliating her;
6) The RPSB held a tenure hearing from 5 p.m. to 1:30 a.m.
after which they voted to terminate Ms. Powell;
7) The RPSB did not prove by substantial evidence that she
willfully neglected her duties;
8) The RPSB did not comply with procedural due process at the
tenure hearing;
9) The decision by the RPSB to terminate Powell was a clear
abuse of discretion from a conclusion reached in an arbitrary
and capricious manner and contrary to the law and evidence.
The usual remedy when a tenure decision is reversed is for the teacher to be
reinstated to her position with all back pay and lost benefits restored. La.R.S.
17:448(B).
However, in this case, more than fifteen years have passed since Ms. Powell
was terminated. In the interim, Ms. Powell applied for and has been receiving
Social Security Disability Benefits since 2006 based upon cognitive deficits related
to multiple sclerosis.
Ms. Powell alleges she should be fully compensated for back pay and lost
retirement benefits without a finding she would have become disabled in 2006. If
she had not been discharged, she contends she would have been able to continue
teaching until her retirement at age 62 on August 18,2014. At that point she would
have had twenty-five years as a teacher, and would have received retirements based
upon 62.5% of her highest contiguous 3-year earnings.
The RPSB argues that Ms. Powell's application for disability benefits
shows she would have become disabled in 2006 regardless of any accommodations,
and contends that any award to Ms. Powell should be discounted because of these
benefits.
The Court agrees with Ms. Powell and finds that any mental, physical and
emotional disability she suffered after the hearing was related to psychological

Page 27 of31

stress caused by the unlawful termination of her employment which exacerbated

her multiple sclerosis.
After her termination, she was forced to sell her house and rent a house near
her daughter in Deville. Ms. Powell looked for other employment, but was unable
to get a job teaching due to the termination and loss of references. She got a
cashier's job at a Shell station in Deville where she was required to arrive at work
at 2:00 a.m. and make biscuits. The job didn' t pay enough to cover rent, so Ms.
Powell moved into a small room in the garage behind her daughter's home. During
her two year stay in this small room, Ms. Powell had her worse exacerbation ofMS,
experiencing a short period of blindness.
During this period, Ms. Powell had to apply for food stamps. She moved
from her daughter's garage to Our Lady's Manor, a residential unit subsidized by
the Catholic Church and has worked part-time doing online teaching, tutoring and
helping people learn English as a second language.
The Court finds, based upon the opinions of Dr. Stephanie Abron, M.D.,
Dr. Daniel Lonowski, Ph.D., and Jack Spurrier, Ed.D ., that if the RPSB had not
wrongfully terminated Ms. Powell, she would have been able to continue teaching
until August 18,2014.
She is entitled to her past income and future retirement benefits (discounted
to present value) until August 18, 2014, which she lost as a result of her wrongful
termination with a finding that she would have not been disabled in 2006.
THEREFORE, for the above written reasons and based upon the report of
Dr. Robert Eisenstadt, Ph.D., the Court grants a judgment in favor of petitioner,
PATRICIA POWELL, and against the RAPIDES PARISH SCHOOL~A~n
;o -<
C7'
> n
en
the full sum of$ 1, 147,732.00, plus judicial interest from the date ofj
dem!igd
until paid, along with all costs of these proceedings.
:J:II

:X

s..

Alexandria, Louisiana, this 22"d day of September, 201 6.

FlLED

~~ ;.d--,201L
~~.--B-,.DATE:

Page 28 of31

Send to:

Mildred E. Methvin
Attorney at Law
408 Silverstone Rd.
Lafayette, LA. 70508
Fax: (888) 298-0566
Allison A. Jones
Attorney at Law
401 Market Street, Suite 1250
Shreveport, LA. 71101
Fax: (318) 213-4445
Jacques Roy
1920 Jackson Street
Alexandria, LA. 71301
Fax: (318) 767-1404
Robert L. Hammonds
Attorney at Law
2431 S. Acadian Thruway, Suite 600
Baton Rouge, LA. 70808
Fax: (225) 923-0315

Page 29 of 31

APPENDIX
The Court in the Cox case, Vallery v. Rapides Parish School Board, 118 F.3d 1047
(5 111 Cir. , 7/24/97), made the following findings of fact:

On March 7, 1994, Cox, Intervenor-Appellee, was appointed

as the Superintendent of Schools for Rapides Parish by the
Rapides Parish School Board. In her position, Cox was
responsible for an entire school system with approximately
25,000 students, 3,000 employees, and an annual budget of
about $90,000,000.00. In her new position, Cox immediately
began to institute changes concerning patronage hiring by
Board members, self-dealing, and abusive use of a wide area
telephone service ("W ATS") phone line.
A year after her appointment, on March 7, 199 5, by a vote
of six to three, the Board suspended Cox with pay pending
an investigation of allegations concerning her performance.
Cox did not receive prior notice of the charges or a separate
hearing. On March 13, 1995, Cox filed a motion to intervene
and an intervention complaint in the school desegregation
case against the Board and the six members of the Board who
had voted to suspend her. The complaint alleged violation of
Cox ' s federally protected rights and sought redress under 42
U.S.C. 1983.
The district court, Judge Nauman Scott, granted Cox 's
motion and issued a temporary restraining order reinstating
Cox pending a hearing on her request for preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief. Subsequently, Judge Scott
recused himself and the case was reassigned to Judge F.A.
Little, Jr. Judge Little scheduled a hearing on Cox's motion
for a preliminary injunction and restricted the issue to
whether the Board had violated Cox' s due process rights by
not giving her prior notice of the allegations and a hearing.
On April21 , 1995, Judge Little granted Cox's request for a
preliminary injunction.
The Board and its six-member defendants appealed the
ruling to this Court. The appellants argued that the district
court erred in its ruling that Cox's due process rights were
violated by her suspension with pay pending investigation of
the allegations against her and the district erred by not
addressing the qualified immunity defense raised by the
Board members in their individual capacities.
While the appeal was pending before this Court, the Board
proceeded with its investigation of the charges against Cox.
A discharge hearing was scheduled for November 29, 1995.
The hearing lasted fifty-five hours, over five days, and
culminated in the termination of Cox on December 4, 1995,
by a vote of six to three. On December 7, 1995, Cox filed an
amended complaint seeking reinstatement of the temporary
restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief. The temporary restraining order was denied on
December 14, 1995, and a hearing on the motion for
preliminary injunction was scheduled for January 2, 1996.
On February 29, 1996, the district court granted Cox's
request for preliminary injunctive relief, holding that Cox' s
substantive due process rights to fair and impartial
Page 30 of31

adjudicators at the discharge hearing were violated because

four of the nine Board members (Kenneth Doyle, Walter
Gatlin, Herbert Dixon, and Sylvia Pearson) were irreversibly
biased against her. On April 10, 1996, the district court
entered formal judgment granting Cox preliminary
injunctive relief and reinstating her as superintendent.
When the district court ruled that Dixon and Pearson were
irreversibly biased, it gave the following explanation: " In the
interest of avoiding further exacerbation of what was a
tender subject, we will temper our opinion and not mention
or detail the disqualifying events concerning Board members
Dixon and Pearson. We will recognize, however, that their
prehearing protestations rose to the level of irreversible
partiality and bias." After reviewing the record we have no
doubt about the factual basis for the district court's finding
of bias on the part of Dixon and Pearson. Both Dixon and
Pearson were embarrassed publicly by an investigation of
abusive use of the WATS telephone line maintained by the
Board. Though not denying their actions, they later voiced
their objection over the handling of the investigation and
stated how their opinion of Cox changed after this incident.
Board member Ruth O'Quinn testified at the 1996 injunction
hearing that she had " never seen Pearson as angry as she was
the night that her name had surfaced regarding the WATS
line." O' Quinn also testified to Pearson 's and Dixon's
statements regarding how the W ATS line investigation had
been the turning point of the relationship between the Board
and Cox. In addition, Cox testified that at the March 1995
school board hearing- when the Board voted to suspend her
- Dixon stated that her tenure as superintendent had "come
under siege.'
The record also showed that despite a court order limiting
the Board's hiring power, Dixon sought to circumvent that
order by instructing several school system employees to
make certain hiring decisions of his choosing. Jane
Swearingen, Principal of Acadian Sixth Grade Center,
testified that Dixon left notes on several occasions
instructing her to carry out his hiring recommendations, in
direct contravention of the court order. Swearingen also
testified that Dixon stated they could work around the court
order. Undoubtedly the district court concluded that Dixon
knew that Cox had petitioned the court for the very order he
was trying to circumvent. This knowledge coupled with his
actions testified to by Swearingen was typical of the quality
of the evidence the district court had before it when it found
bias on the part of Dixon and Pearson.
In sum, the record in the case unfolds like a soap opera. The
respective views of the parties were regularly aired out in the
print and broadcast media in the Rapides Parish area. One
need only make a cursory review of the exhibits and the
testimony to get a clear impression of the rancor and deeply
held views of the aforementioned school board members
prior to the discharge hearing. Indeed, the district court's
sparing recitation of the facts underlying its ruling was a tacit
acknowledgment of the general public's and the school
board ' s awareness of the details of the accusations in the
case.

Page 31 of31