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
I have a question with regard to process.
“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.”
And yet, ‘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.”
I am wondering why the claimant chose to go outside the explicit terms of her agreement to confer solely with Mr. Best if she perceived any sign of retaliation. Completely understandable if there were a logistical issue, say for example, if Mr. Best were on vacation or out of town. But the words “solely with Best” makes me wonder if there might not have been some other reason for the deviation from agreement.
This looks pretty horrible. Very curious whether others will come forward with similar treatment.
This lawsuit is in part based on a few hugs and he sounded like he had a strange voice on the telephone?
I think it’s based mostly on retaliation and a hostile work environment.
“In May of 2015, the teacher was informed of a classroom change and that she was reassigned to teach another grade over her objections.”
So four years after she complained about the hugs she was assigned to teach a grade she did not want to teach and that is now considered retaliation? I can’t wait to see how much of my tax money the District is going to pay her for getting back at her by having her teach children all day, aka doing her job.
To me there seemed to be a period of escalation, I didn’t put everything down for the sake of brevity but also trying to protect her identity
Even if she felt that there were four years of escalation she is claiming that the retaliation is having her do the job that she has been hired and paid to do.
THat’s not what I see as her claim. If you believe the attorney’s account, Matt Best became concerned about his conduct as well.
David wrote:
> trying to protect her identity
Why are you trying to protect the identity of a teacher who it taking money from our kids today (as the district fights this) and hopes to take more money from Davis kids if she wins her lawsuit.
I understand why we should try and protect the identity of a teacher who a principal kept as a sex slave in his basement, but don’t get it why we need to “protect the identity” of a lady that got a couple “hugs” back in Obama’s first term (when Bill Dodd was still a Republican).
I reject your narrative.
THat’s not what I see as her claim. If you believe the attorney’s account, Matt Best became concerned about his conduct as well.
Including all of the information about a disruptive child in her class last year and teachers complaining about her performance and then complaining about the teachers aid assigned to her class this suit seems more like a preemptive move so that the District can’t comment on her teaching performance. It could be a little of both too.
BP
“This lawsuit is in part based on a few hugs…”
A few unwanted hugs constitutes harassment. I have no idea whether or not this occurred. I am merely pointing out that “hugs” are not necessarily a benign act but can be seen as a form of physical aggression especially when there is a power disparity between two individuals as was the case here and should not automatically be trivialized.
He says he’s a “hugger”, I know many people who are. Did she ask him not to hug her before she filed the complaint?
If he grabbed her behind, would she be required to do the same? It sounded like a very aggressive hug, I don’t know if she complained or asked him to stop or not. And part of the problem with sexual harassment is the power asymmetry, she might not have felt comfortable confronting him and she shouldn’t have to.
David wrote:
> she might not have felt comfortable confronting
> him and she shouldn’t have to.
If school district employees need to hire a attorney to talk to the district’s team of attorneys every time they have a complaint we are doomed (and will need to double the school parcel taxes)…
She didn’t, she lodged a complaint with the district office first in 2011.
Answer to first question… irrelevant, as that has not been alleged… also, somewhat provocative, and shows prejudice… he’s “guilty as alleged”, right? DJUSD too, right?
You got two things right (or at least partially)… you “don’t know”, and the “[perceived] asymmetry of power” is actually the MAIN problem. If, the allegation is true…
Your last phrase is also speculative. At best, if not provocative.
hpierce, reporting.
BP
“Did she ask him not to hug her before she filed the complaint?”
We don’t have that information available to us. However, I really do not think it matters since I find it difficult to believe that if she was truly uncomfortable, he would not have been able to pick up on that. If he is so oblivious to the feelings of others that he cannot tell a welcome response to one that is not welcoming, then perhaps the principle of an elementary school is not the optimal position for him.
I once reported a superior in training to the chief of the department after he had literally pinned me to the side of an operating table and told me a very unacceptable ( sexual in nature) joke while pretending that he had to lean over me to check on the patient. I did not feel that speaking with him about the inappropriateness of his behavior would have any effect and might jeopardize my position. The department chair agreed and it was handled in a very direct and very fair manner.
BP wrote:
> Did she ask him not to hug her before she filed the complaint?
If she asked it would lower her chance of getting millions of tax dollars when she sues…
P.S. We can tell people that we need the parcel tax so we can pay teachers who got “hugged”…
Don’t know the physical size of these two individuals. but I challenge every male commentor, who refuses to be empathetic, to try this:
Find a man, not a friend, just a co-worker, much larger than you, and ask him to hug you very tightly. Will you feel even slightly uncomfortable?
Until you do this, you cannot even begin to understand.
If he doesn’t understand that as a person in a supervisory position you cannot hug those you supervise he is not qualified for the job. To do so is to invite an early end to your career.
Doesn’t DJUSD require annual sexual harassment training?
Would prefer they’d have sexual harassment prevention training…
The Principal is leaving, so what is the purpose of the lawsuit? Does she just want people to know that this guy is creepy?
“What’s the purpose of the lawsuit?”
You really can’t figure that out?
No, I can’t. Is it money she is after?
Do you have to be so obnoxious?
Ya think?
People have different motivations for filing civil damages cases. Yes, there is money involved, but also the plaintiffs just want to use the case to research what happened in the, say, plane crash, because the litigation pays for enormously expensive forensic technical research. The high damages fund the research. Due to budget contraints, the government often does not do much factual investigation or gets it wrong.
Here, I have no idea what the real issues are in the case. I have known Mary Alice Coleman for many years, and she is a very good, very serious employment plaintiff’s attorney who specializes in these kinds of cases. So for her to sign up, and launch the cruise missile (the complaint letter), tells me that she thinks she is not wasting her time or law firm resources.
Again, I hope they all attend mediation as soon as possible and try to get the parties past this highly contentious disagreement.
So you are basing your judgement of the validity of the lawsuit on the gamble by the lawyer she hired?
The legal profession is a weird one.
Gamble?
I’m a parent whose child is at NDE. I have known Dr. Cusi for years. He is a good guy, and I hope that he and the district get this matter amicably resolved as soon as possible.
Mike, Apparently Dr. Cusi was found to be acting unprofessionally, so just being a good guy doesn’t cut it.
It seems that her difficulties were about more than just the one student.
Am starting to think there are two ‘guilty’ parties, each of whom are also likely to be ‘victims’.
Funny how many have “found” one person guilty, who would becry that approach elsewhere… it the allegations are true, have no sympathy for the accused or their employer. If false, or “trumped up” (exaggerated), I will have a lot of compassion for the accused. Whatever the outcome, his career is likely in the toilet, and even if it is, and he is exonerated, he will have little/no recourse against the complaintant. Screwed either way, apparently, fueled in part, by this article. Nice work.
That’s Yolo Leaks!
Why is Cusi named in the article and not the claimant? They’re both adults.
A lot of reasons – both practical and philosophical.
1. He is named in a public document – the complaint
2. I could have simply said the former Principal at North Davis elementary and it would have taken two seconds for someone to name him in a comment
3. He was a supervisor and therefore a more public figure
4. The teacher is still employed here, he isn’t
Her name isn’t on the public document?
You could’ve stated a former DJUSD administrator.
He still is working in the region, he still values his reputation.
Personally I think it’s wrong to not name both or leave both names out.
Do you also think it’s wrong for newspaper to name the defendant in criminal matters but not the victim?
BP wrote:
> Personally I think it’s wrong to not name both or leave both names out.
It is interesting that Sean named a “real” victim of sexual harassment in his article today, but David won’t even name someone who was “hugged” a couple times by her boss.
I’m wondering if David will name the accuser and apologize for dragging Cusi’s name through the mud if the court says he is not guilty of a crime.
It’s a civil action – the court is not going to weigh in on criminal matters.
hpierce
“fueled in part, by this article. Nice work.”
I may be misinterpreting your post, and if so just feel free to correct me. But this is the second time within one week that I have heard the basic message, although conveyed in different ways, that if there is a controversial issue with regard to the employees and/ or functioning of the school district that the Vanguard should basically keep quiet about it, or possibly drop back to an “equal” presentation of the two sides. I started participating in the Vanguard precisely because it was a forum for the presentation and discussion of controversial issues within our community.
Tia…
Am correcting you… who created this “controversy”? Who is exploiting what is a personal/personnel matter very early in the process that you are so interested in? What public interest is served at this point?
If the allegation is proven true, am all for ‘transparency’… the discussion here is more like watching a “soap opera”, at this point, as the process is just beginning, as to the lawsuit.
There is no “controversial” issue here, except perhaps (and that’s a stretch, at this point) that the District did not effectively act on a complaint… the names of those involved (particularly the one whose name is ‘protected’ and that of one who is “exposed”) have no place, IMHO, to the district’s action or inaction. Do you see this differently? And if so, why?
I categorically do not defend the district, nor the purported “culprit”, nor the (at this point) alleged “victim”… this subject, carried by the VG, smells like ‘National Enquirer’… all the “news” fit to exploit…
Unless like some, you have already made a judgement (?)…
Apparently we want to bury our heads in the sand and wait until prom.
I have been a parent at NDE for many years as well and no, Dr. Cusi is NOT a “good guy”. There is much more to the story than this single incident of one teacher attempting to speak out. Dr. Cusi has been involved in numerous incidents of inappropriate behavior and abuses of power, and there are MANY more victims of his actions than the community of Davis is aware of. Be careful of assumptions when you don’t know the whole story. If Dr. Cusi will finally receive some consequences for his actions of the past few years, that is “your tax dollars” well spent.
The victims of this avoidable disaster are the children that were subject to a dysfunctional 1st grade classroom for an entire school year and endured emotional trauma and a horrible learning environment. Failing our students from the classroom to the district.
Moretothestory: you are a total weasel. You are posting behind a screened window, trashing this professional whose very nice family and children attend local schools, defaming him based on innuendo and hearsay. Now, if you put YOUR name on the post, and said that YOU saw or received inappropriate conduct from this professional, then I might respect your post because baby, if you are wrong, be prepared to tender the case to your insurance.
I don’t know the law of defamation, or the process to force websites like this one to disclose who posted something, but I will say that the moderator should edit out your post. (David, it is total BS that the DV is allowing these sneaky, nasty anonymous posts to trash a local professional by name like this.) It’s because of stuff like this that many, many of my friends refuse to post on the DV. Thoroughly disgusting.
Me thinks that you are more involved in this lawsuit than you are saying.
He’s not
So it is not okay for someone who has factual information to make a statement but it is okay for numerous people to belittle and insult and “defame” the teacher involved in this issue without knowing the full story? For this teacher to have their claim downgraded and degraded and for people to attack their motive and character?
I know many people that have been personally involved in struggles with Dr. Cusi over many years. I have every right to express my own personal thoughts but I do not have the right to involve others, which is what I would be doing if I were to post as myself.
To the moderators of Davis Vanguard, if there really is anything in my posts that could have actual legal ramifications, then please delete my posts.
In many ways, I agree with you… yet, what is the “factual basis” for:
He may indeed be a “cad”… he may not be… can you explain, consistent with, (changes mine)
Two edged sword, mon ami…
On one hand, don’t give a damn… on the other I hate hypocrisy…
This article was “not ready for prime time”, IMO… you obviously have tried, convicted, and passed judgement… to your credit, you are entitled to… please understand there are those who are waiting for more “facts” before we get to that point. And believe that this is neither the forum, nor time, to “self-pleasure”.
Another slant… I love dogs… when I encounter a dog, I always ask the owner, “is it OK to say ‘hi’ to your friend?”. [and no, not equating anyone to ‘dogs’!] Usually, the answer is “that’s fine”.
I have been in workplaces where someone is obviously upset, and as their supervisor, I was concerned, because that can get in the way of their performance, and because I cared for them as a person. I have asked, “is there anything I can do to help?”… a number of times, they literally reached out to me for a hug… I am NOT a “hugger” and actually have a fairly large ‘personal bubble’. Yet, sometimes I ended up giving a gentle, reassuring hug to someone [opposite gender, and a ‘subordinate’] who needed it to get ‘grounded’. And I always was a bit concerned that a third party would view it as “inappropriate”.
So, “sue me”…
This is a strange ‘case’ and I suggest it play out in the appropriate venues, which does not include this blog (IMHO)… the speculations here may be much more ‘perverse’ than the actual acts alleged.
One writer has already upped it to ‘what if he grabbed her butt’…