In spite of inflating the charge to child abuse, not one educator reported the allegation to CPS as required under Texas Family Code § 261.101, §261.102, and § 261.104. To date, no statutorily compliant CPS report has been produced by any of the four Dallas ISD employees required to by policy. This failure to report, prevented the students and families from receiving any professional assistance to address their concerns, and denied me as their educator, any due process. Later, realizing the District’s omission and nondisclosure of evidence allowed it to maintain exclusive control over the investigative record, I followed District policy guidance and sued the students and parents for libel under aliases to uncover their accusations, identities, and any evidence. All of this unbeknownst to the parents until served.
“Dallas ISD’s Student Code of Conduct: “General Guidelines and Notifications - False Accusations - Be advised that teachers, administrators, or any district employee, falsely accused may file a criminal complaint against any person making a false police report. If any district employee is harmed by a student’s false accusation, the victim may seek civil damages from the student/parent/guardian. These are individual rights and do not belong to the school district. Employees shall consult their own attorney for legal advice and counsel in these situations. " (DISD 931)
It took almost one year to obtain the statements and shortly thereafter the libel suit was dropped because it took an additional seventeen months for Dallas ISD to identify the accuser and the witnesses. That’s a total of almost two-and-a-half years to obtain this evidence.
To date, over four years have passed and not one Dallas ISD administrator has asked any of the reasonable questions regarding the statements and sadly, if this case doesn’t go before a jury, they will never be asked. An impartial investigation by the District investigators, PSO, Legal Review Committee (LRC), Chief of Human Capital Management (CHCM), CPS, or my attorney at a Chapter 21 hearing could have asked them before pursuing termination, but Dallas ISD exercised every tool at their disposal, whether in compliance with policies and statutes or not, to make sure that didn’t happen.
Dallas ISD’s conduct went beyond withholding student identities. Its representation of the
record had the effect of exposing students and families to collateral legal
consequences not protect them, to insulate itself from scrutiny of discrimination
accusations. Confidentiality here, was not protective of students but protective of the
District itself, allegedly repurposed as a weapon to silence dissent and purge non-favored
staff. This is inconsistent with policies and statutes, opposite of its ministerial duty to
protect children’s safety and well-being. Taken together, these factual controversies,
credibility disputes, inferences of pretext, and inconsistencies are inseparable from the
broader evidence of discriminatory motive and due process violations.