Page | 1

DOCKET NO. 075-LH-05-2018

HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

§ §

BEFORE THE

§ Petitioner §

§ v. § CERTIFIED HEARING EXAMINER § § JAWANZA OKERA § §

Respondent § STATE OF TEXAS

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND

CERTIFIED HEARING EXAMINER’S RECOMMENDATION

I. JURISDICTION & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Petitioner, HISD proposed to nonrenew the term contract of Mr. Jawanza Okera

(“Respondent”). (HISD Exs. 1 & 2). Respondent was provided notice of the proposed

nonrenewal by letter dated April 13, 2018. (HISD Ex. 1). Mr. Okera, by and through his

attorney of record, James Fallon then notified the Board of Trustees of Houston

Independent School District in writing of his intent to appeal on April 27,2018. Said

request was timely and there were no jurisdictional challenges. On May 3,2018 Texas

Education Agency acknowledged receipt of the request for a hearing and assigned

Independent hearing examiner, Trina Perkins-Mouton. A pretrial conference was held

telephonically on May 23,2018 between a representative for the Petitioner HISD, Clay

Grover, and the representative for the Respondent, Jawanza Okera, was James Fallon.

Thereafter, an open hearing was scheduled and convened on July 19-20,2018. During that

Page | 2

same pretrial conference, a 45day waiver was agreed to by both parties and signed on June

7, 2018 and later forwarded to TEA. A hearing was held on the matter on July 19-20,

2018. Respondent was represented by Mr. James Fallon, Attorney at Law. HISD was

represented by Mr. Clay T. Grover, from the law firm Rogers, Morris & Grover, LLP.

The proposal to nonrenew Respondent’s contract was pursuant to Section 21.206

of the Texas Education Code and Section 7, 13, and 15 of Respondent’s term contract.

(HISD Exs. 1 & 2). More specifically, Respondent’s contract was recommended for

nonrenewal for the following reasons as set forth in HISD Board Policy DFBB (Local):

(2) Failure to fulfill duties or responsibilities; (4) Inability to maintain discipline in any situation in which the employee is

responsible for the oversight and supervision of students; (5) Insubordination or failure to comply with official directives; (16) Failure to meet the District’s standards of professional conduct; (21) Any breach by the employee of an employment contract or any reason

specified in the employee’s employment contract; (22) Failure to maintain an effective working relationship, or maintain good

rapport, with parents, the community, or colleagues; (24) Behavior that presents a danger of physical harm to a student or to other

individuals; (34) Any reason that makes the employment relationship void or voidable, such

as a violation of federal, state, or local law; and (36) Any reason constituting good cause for terminating the contract during its

term.

The hearing was conducted in the same manner as a civil trial without a jury in a District

Court of the State of Texas, the Texas Rules of Civil Evidence were applied, the rule was invoked

and a certified shorthand reporter recorded the hearing, all as provided by §21.256. After the

completion of testimony, the undersigned Hearing Examiner took this matter under advisement.

Counsel for the parties were permitted to file post-trial proposed Findings of Fact and proposed

Conclusions of Law, and closing statements.

Page | 3

II. ISSUES Therefore, the questions before the hearing officer are? 1. Did Respondent fail to fulfill his duties or responsibilities? 2. Was the Respondent unable to maintain discipline in any situation in which the

employee is responsible for the oversight and supervision of students? 3. Was the Respondent insubordinate or did he fail to comply with official directives? 4. Did the Respondent fail to meet District’s standards of professional conduct? 5. Did the Respondent breach any portion of the employment contract, more

specifically provision 7,13, and 15? 6. Did the Respondent fail to maintain an effective working relationship, or maintain

good rapport, with parents, the community, or colleagues? 7. Did the Respondent engage in behavior that presented a danger of physical harm to a student or to other individuals? 8. Did the Respondent’s actions make the employment relationship void or

voidable, such as a violation of federal, state, or local law? 9. Did the Petitioner have any reason that constituted good cause for terminating

the contract during its term?

III. FINDING OF FACT 1. Respondent is 60 years old and has been a teacher in HISD for 20 years [TR

326.9-14]. 2. Respondent was employed as a physical education (“PE”) teacher at Kelso

Elementary School during the 2017-2018 school year. [TR 28.9-10, 48.3, 62.24, 89.25, 120.13, 142.8-12, 208.16, 328.13].

3. Respondent has been at Kelso for 15 years [TR327.1-2]. 4. Respondent went in to teaching because he likes to work with people and

wanted to work in community service [TR 327.20-25]. 5. Mr. Okera has always worked in elementary, but he has not always been a P.E.

teacher. Sometimes when he subbed he taught regular subjects [TR 328. 4-11]. 6. Mr. Okera is the P.E. teacher for the whole school at Kelso Elementary. [ TR

37.24-25,38.1, 328.8-12]. 7. Respondent’s supervisors at Kelso Elementary School were Ms. Myra Castle Bell,

the principal, and Ms. Jennifer Whittie-Wells, the Instructional Specialist and direct supervisor to the ancillary department. The ancillary department includes physical education. [HISD Ex. 31; TR 126.16-128.12, 182.16-17, 253.24-254.1, 327.6].

Page | 4

Failure to maintain good rapport and professional conduct with parents

A. Incident Involving C.P. 8. Alyssa Camacho is a parent of two children, C.P. and M.P., who attended Kelso

Elementary School during the 2017-2018 school year. Respondent was both C.P.’s and M.P.’s PE teacher for the 2017-2018 school year. [TR. 27.20-28.10, 47.1-48.3, 62.6].

9. Alyssa Camacho made two complaints regarding two incidents that occurred during 2017-2018 as they were participating in Mr. Okera’s P.E. class. [TR 28.12-13.17].

10. On January 24,2018 while outside, Mr. Okera testified that he observed C.P. coming up towards the front of the line skipping people as they were coming from the hard top to the gate as school was letting out. Mr. Okera stopped the line and told C.P. to “go to the end of the line young man.” [TR 334.6-13].

11. As the line started to move again, C.P. repeatedly cut the line, according to testimony given by Mr. Okera. Mr. Okera then instructed C.P. again to go to the end of the line. Mr. Okera stated that he did not yell, but he did speak in a tone that he could be heard because he thought that C. P. ignored him. [ TR 335.5-25].

12. Mr. Okera testified that C.P. told him to get out of his face and Mr. Okera sent him to the end of the line again. At that point, C. P. left the class and walked outside the gate as Mr. Okera was telling him to stop [ TR 336.5-25, 337.1-2].

13. Before class had been dismissed, C.P. began walking towards a person that Mr. Okera did not know. When Mr. Okera caught up with this unknown person, when he reached her he asked, “Ma’am is this your Son?” [ TR 337.7-25].

14. C.P. is 12 years old and goes to Kelso Elementary School. [ TR 47.1-7]. 15. C.P. said it was time to go and everyone ran to the front talking loudly. Mr. Okera

tapped him on the shoulder and told him loudly to go to the back end of the line. C.P. said that Mr. Okera was close to his face. TR. 48.11-12,16,20,22,49.1-2].

16. Mr. Okera had a rule about line, they must be straight, and if you talk you have to go to the back of the room. [TR 72.7-10].

17. C.P. stated that Mr. Okera was yelling at his mom. [TR 49.15,20-22, 51.23-25]. 18. Mr. Okera did not use a curse word when speaking to C.P.’s mom. [TR. 57.19-

20]. 19. C.P. has heard Mr. Okera yell before when someone does not do something right.

[TR. 50.1-3]. 20. C.P. denies skipping the line [ TR. 61.3-6]. 21. Ms. Camacho saw Respondent and C.P. walking towards her. Ms. Camacho saw

that her son was very upset. [HISD Ex. 4; TR 29.7-31.23]. 22. As the Respondent approached Ms. Camacho. C.P. and Mr. Okera were back and

forth on what happened. [TR 29.9-10]. 23. Mr. Okera was in close proximity of Ms. Camacho’s face as he was inquiring as to

whether or not C.P. was her son. [TR 29.24-25,30.1-2]. 24. During the investigation into the incident with C.P. Ms. Bell asked each person

involved in the incident to give a written statement, and Ms. Whittie documented all of the evidence. [TR 39.5-7].

Page | 5

25. Ms. Camacho was upset about the confrontation because she did not expect her son’s teacher to behave that way. She expected for him to call or email her and tell her what was going on because that was the procedures other teachers had followed in the past. [ TR 31.21-25,30.1-17].

26. Mr. Okera said he did not recall getting into C.P.’ face and he does not recall making the statement of”” what are you going to do about it?” [ TR 405.4-5].

27. During the investigation into the incident with C.P. Ms. Bell asked each person involved in the incident to give a written statement, and Ms. Whittie documented all of the evidence. [TR 39.5-7].

28. CP’s mother went straight to Principal Castle with CP and Respondent. When they all met, CP’s mother aired her grievances against Mr. Okera. According to Principal Castle, CP’s mother did not claim the Mr. Okera used the F-word during that meeting. [TR 273 L23-25; P274 L1-18].

29. Respondent saw the testimony of CP and his mother. CP had violated the rules concerning maintaining a safe line by cutting. Respondent sent him to the end of the line for his infractions. Respondent denies yelling at CP or threatening him. Respondent denies yelling at CP’s mother. Respondent also denies using a curse word in front of CP’s mother. [TR 334-339].

30. CP’s mother states that Respondent used the F-word when she saw him that day. [TR30 L5-7].

31. CP’s mother was untruthful in her trial testimony. Mr. Okera did not use the F-word when addressing her. [ TR 57.19-22].

32. Mr. Okera has been falsely accused by students in the past. At the beginning of the school year, Principal Bell concluded in investigation into allegations made against Mr. Okera. In that investigation, Principal Bell found that Mr. Okera had been falsely accused. She further found that the students involved had collaborated together to make false statements in order to get Mr. Okera fired. [TR258-265].

33. Ms. Bell investigated the incident and verified through written and verbal statements of witnesses that Respondent had come within a close proximity of Ms. Camacho’s face when he asked, “Is this your child?” in a manner that made Ms. Camacho uncomfortable. (HISD Ex. 4; TR 201.5-202.24).

B. Incident Involving M.P. 34. On or about October 18, 2017, Ms. Camacho was called by Kelso Elementary

School’s nurse requesting her to bring a change of clothes for her son, M.P. who urinated on himself during Respondent’s class when Respondent did not let him go to the restroom. Ms. Camacho noticed that M.P.’s pants, socks, and other garments were saturated with urine. [TR. 32.17-25,33.17-18].

35. M.P. is 11 years old and attends Kelso Elementary School. He is in fourth grade [ TR. 62.3-6,68.25].

36. M.P. asked Mr. Okera three times to go to the restroom, and he said no. [ TR 63.10-13].

37. M.P. felt mad, embarrassed, and cried a little after he wet his pants. [TR. 65.12-14].

Page | 6

38. Respondent did not remember anything about MP wetting his pants. [TR 340 L17-18].

39. M.P.’S mother was mad, and he was taken out of P.E. with Mr. Okera. [TR. 65.20-22].

40. When she went to take her son his clothes, Ms. Camacho observed her son was embarrassed because he wet his pants. [ TR 34.4-9].

41. P.E. classes normally have between 25-30 kids in them. Sometimes classes are merged and there are more students [ TR 71.15-20].

42. Mr. Okera does not generally have anyone outside helping him, except on Fridays. [TR 74.24-25].

43. Mr. Okera has rules for this class room like tuck in your shirt, get water, and go to the bathroom before you come to class [ TR71.6-8].

44. M.P. said when he goes to P.E. he is outside a lot [ TR 74.2-3]. 45. Mr. Okera will let the students get water and go to the bathroom after they come

back in from P.E. [TR 75.15-20]. 46. On or about October 18,2017, multiple children asked Mr. Okera to go to the

restroom while they were outside, and he did not let anyone go. M.P. had to go while they were in the middle of playing kickball towards the middle of the class. [TR 77.1-6].

47. According to his testimony, Respondent was not aware that there was a problem with students wetting their pants in the classroom. [TR 314 L5-14].

48. Mr. Okera did remember having a conversation with Ms. Hudson regarding the restroom and some kids wanting to go. Mr. Okera stated that the teachers who brought them to did not take them to the restroom and there was a rule that the teachers take the children to the school prior to ancillary. They should not take up ancillary time to go to the restroom [ TR. 341.4,9-41,21-25].

49. Mr. Okera spoke about a memo regarding a restroom policy where students would receive hall passes, but his ancillary class did not receive a hall pass. [TR 342.14-71.18-23,343.11-14].

50. Ms. Camacho asked Principal Bell to remove both C.P. and M.P. from Mr. Okera’s room for the rest of the school year because she did not want things to escalate between C.P. and M.P. was already humiliated, and she did not want him to have to face that teacher every day. [TR 34.10,20-21,35.3,6-7].

51. These requests to have both children removed were made at different times, but after each incident with Mr. Okera. [TR 40.15-16].

52. Ms. Camacho testified that she did not want to complain, but when it was something that put the child in danger, or at risk of being failed, that’s when she got them out. [TR 42.8-10].

53. Principal Bell granted this request. (HISD Ex. 10; Tr. 34.16-18, 191.5-9). 54. Mr. Okera did not have a good reputation with the parents. [ TR. 42.24-25].

C. Incident Involving A.G. 55. Amalia Guzman is a parent of a child, A.G., who attended Kelso Elementary

School during the 2017-2018 school year. Respondent was A.G.’s PE teacher for the 2017-2018 school year. (Tr. 77.15-23, 89.24-25).

Page | 7

56. A.G. is 8 years old and in the second grade at Kelso Elementary [ TR 77.19-23].

57. On January 11, 2018, Ms. Guzman went to see Ms. Bell regarding an allegation that Respondent had forcefully pulled A.G.’s necklace causing the necklace to break on or about December 21, 2017. [HISD 34; Tr. 81.12-82.8, 200.6-19].

58. Ms. Guzman has made multiple complaints to school administration regarding Respondent’s tone with students, including with her daughter, A.G. (HISD 13; Tr. 80.15-20, 82.21-22, 186.8-187.2).

59. Ms. Guzman did say that she never witnessed Mr. Okera yelling at any of the children, and she made these complaints based on information she received from her daughter. [TR 79.23-25, 80.1-4].

60. Ms. Guzman testified that Respondent does not have a good reputation amongst the parents of students at Kelso Elementary School because of the way Respondent speaks to and handles the students. [Tr. 84.2-8]. 61.Ms. Guzman took the broken necklace to Principal Bell and she documented the incident and said that she would talk to Mr. Okera. [ TR 82.2-11]. 62.Ms. Guzman also told Principal Bell that she did not want her daughter to go to P.E. because of multiple things he did to her. [TR 82.15-20]. 63.A.G. said Mr. Okera tried to take the necklace off of her because she could not get it off. Mr. Okera got the necklace off of A.G.’s neck, but only after she tried a lot of times. She said he then threw it to the floor, according to A.G. [ TR. 90.15-20, 92.21]. 64. Mr. Okera stated that he did not remember A.G., but he does remember being asked about a necklace incident by Principal Bell [ TR 344.15-19]. 65. Mr. Okera denied jerking the necklace off of the student’s neck and throwing it to the floor. In fact, he stated he was shocked when Ms. Bell called him into the office about it. [ TR 344.22-24,345.11-13]. 66.Mr. Okera gave a list of recommendations to Principal Bell regarding dress code which included no chains around the neck and no hula hoop earrings [ TR 330. 6-9]. 67. Mr. Okera says he does remember telling a person to take the necklace off and figured it was done. He went on with class, and days or a week later he was contacted by Principal Bell about a necklace. Mr. Okera explained that he did not know anything about that and that he did not jerk a necklace off of anybody [TR. 346.13-15,18,22].

D. Incident involving C.S. 68. Blanca Guevara Martinez is a parent of a child, C.S., who attended Kelso Elementary School during the 2017-2018 school year. Respondent was C.S.’s PE teacher for the 2017-2018 school year. (Tr. 109.8-20, 120.9-13).

69. Ms. Guevara made numerous complaints about Respondent during the 2017-2018 school year regarding the mistreatment of C.S. during Respondent’s class. Specifically, Ms. Guevara was concerned that C.S. was not being allowed to drink water during PE while in the sun and running, and that C.S. was being bullied by other students and Respondent did not intervene. Ms. Guevara attempted to communicate her concerns directly to Respondent, but was denied resolution. Ms. Guevara then directed her complaints to Ms. Bell. At least one of these complaints were in writing. [HISD Ex. 15; Tr. 109.21- 110.21, 112.11-113.11]. 70.Ms. Guevara testified that her C.S. daughter was becoming sicker and sicker

Page | 8

because she was running in the sun and not allowed to drink water. She said that C.S did vomit. [ 116.17-18,20-24].

71. C.S. is 9 years old in the third grade at Kelso Elementary. [ TR 119.16-20]. 72. C.S. said she tried to take notes to Mr. Okera that her mother wrote, but he

would not accept them, especially if they were in Spanish [TR 121.3-9]. 73. C.S. stated that when Mr. Okera speaks he always yells. He yelled at her when

she wanted to drink water. [ TR. 121.15,24-25]. 74. Mr. Okera does not remember C.S. bringing notes, but if she did he would

have done whatever the note said. [ TR 348.2-4]. 75. Mr. Okera stated when it was brought to his attention that someone hit C.S.,

he dealt with it in class and had the person sit out, and he spoke to the parent about it. [ TR 348.15-18].

76. Mr. Okera said that he does raise his voice, however, he is a coach and has to direct the students [ TR 350.15-17].

77. Mr. Okera denies raising his voice for disciplinary purposes [ TR 351.1-3]. 78. Because C.S. would cry and profess her desire to not return to Respondent’s

class, Ms. Guevara lost faith in Respondent as an instructor and requested her daughter, C.S., be removed from Respondent’s class. However, Ms. Bell denied that request. [Tr. 113.12-18].

E. Failure to maintain good rapport and professional conduct with students 79. Jennifer Whittie-Wells is an instructional specialist at Kelso Elementary

school. [ TR 126.14-16]. 80. Jennifer Whittie-Wells testified that she had concerns about Mr. Okera’s

professionalism when addressing staff, children, parents, and the principal [ TR 129.6-7,11-12,16-17].

81. Jennifer Whittie-Wells stated that she witnessed Mr. Okera yelling at the students. She has also witnessed him being confrontational and aggressive with the children. [ TR 130.6, 131.1].

82. Mrs. Whittie-Wells said that she observed Mr. Okera get into confrontations with other teachers and disallow students into his room if they were kept late due to academic interventions. [ TR 134.3-8].

83. Mrs. Whittie-Wells said she received multiple parent complaints this year between 10-12, regarding tone, children in the sun and children urinating on themselves. Mrs. Whittie-Wells said approximately 6 children were removed. [ TR 139.4-8,20].

84. Mrs. Whittie-Wells testified that Mr. Okera failed to look into Chancery to see that a student had medical alerts and that he denied a student his inhaler [ TR 147.14-16].

85. According to Ms. Whittie-Wells and Ms. Bell, so many parents lost faith in Respondent’s ability to safely and effectively teach their children that approximately ten to twelve sets of parents requested that their child be removed from Respondent’s classroom. The total amount of students that were able to be removed from Respondent’s class was approximately six. [Tr. 139.9-20, 191.11- 15].

Page | 9

86. On one occasion, Respondent was upset with a child who had not completed an assignment during his class. The child was dyslexic and was on an individualized education plan (IEP). Respondent called the child’s parent and told them their child had disobeyed him and was in jeopardy of being suspended if the parents did not show for a parent-teacher meeting the following morning. Respondent does not have the authority to suspend a student. In fear of this repercussion, the parents came to the school early the next day. Respondent did not show for the parent- teacher meeting. The parents were late to work and were extremely upset. This was very disrespectful and a waste of the parents’ time. [HISD Ex. 10; Tr. 210.13- 212.5, 212.6-213.3].

87.According to Ms. Bell, Respondent maintained a very aggressive tone with parents. (Tr. 185.8-10). 88.The number of parent complaints about Respondent far surpassed a normal quantity. In fact, the number of parent complaints against Respondent was the most Ms. Bell had seen against a single teacher in her 19 years with HISD. (Tr. 139.24-140.6, 184.1-12, 197.4-8). 89.No other teachers at Kelso Elementary School received parent requests to remove a student from their classroom. (Tr. 140.1-6). 90. Mrs. Bell states that the amount of parent complaints against Mr. Okera is not normal [ TR 184.11-12]. 91.In order for a school to run effectively, teachers must have a good working relationship with the parents of the children that they are teaching. (Tr. 197.14-17). 92.Mrs. Bell investigated an incident which occurred at the end of the 2016-2017 school year where a student lied on Mr. Okera for the purposes of getting him fired. Mrs. Bell concluded that the incident did not happen the way the student explained it [ TR 265.7.10]. 93.Mrs. Bell could not corroborate the story that Mr. Okera ripped the necklace off of the child’s neck as there were no red marks consistent with a necklace being ripped off of someone’s neck and there were no independent witnesses [ TR 278.14].

F. Failure to maintain good rapport and professional conduct with colleagues and

supervisors

94. Mrs. Bell has been with HISD for 19 years. She has been a principal at Kelso Elementary School for 2 years, during that time she has had occasions to observe Mr. Okera. [ TR 182.19-21,25,183.1].

95. Mrs. Bell has concerns about his tone and lack of respect for the staff. [ TR 183.12-14].

96. Mrs. Bell states that Mr. Okera’s tone is very aggressive towards her, her staff, the students and the parents at times. [ TR 185.7-10].

Page | 10

97. Ms. Whittie-Wells and Ms. Bell have continuously witnessed and experienced Respondent’s unprofessional tone with teachers and staff at Kelso Elementary School. (Tr. 129.16-19, 133.12-15, 134.2-12, 183.10-16, 185.5-10, 219.15-18).

98. On December 19, 2017, during a fire drill, Respondent used an inappropriate tone with his direct supervisor, Ms. Whittie-Wells. On that day, Ms. Whittie-Wells was walking around and checking that all teachers were following protocol by having a red folder with a roster of their students inside. While completing routine checks on the teachers, Ms. Whittie-Wells observed Respondent breaking protocol by not having a red folder nor his roster. Respondent only had a stack of progress reports. When questioned about the whereabouts of his roster, Respondent addressed Ms. Whittie-Wells in a loud tone of voice in front of other teachers, refused to take responsibility for not following proper protocol during a fire drill, and demanded Ms. Whittie-Wells, his supervisor, ask all the other teachers for their rosters and not him. (HISD Ex. 22; TR. 134.14-135.7, 356.3-13).

99. Mr. Okera stated that he had just stepped outside when the fire drill took place. He states did not have a red folder, and that his roster changed from day to day. Therefore, he grabbed the most current progress reports, which had all the students and their grades. [ TR 355.1-2,12-13,15-20,24-25].

100. Mr. Okera stated while he did not have the red folder, he did have a list of names of the children he had to account for during the fire drill [ TR 356.4-7].

101. Mr. Okera stated that he was not rude, but he felt that Mrs. Whittie-Wells was rude to him [ TR 357.15-17].

102. Mrs. Whittie-Wells testified about a memo that addressed Mr. Okera leaving campus without permission. [ TR 152.17-18].

103. Mr. Okera stated in his Exhibit 23, that he did leave campus briefly, but he did not leave any student unattended, and that he was told that his class was going on a field trip by Mrs. Alvarez and no one was scheduled for P.E. that day, so he left quickly to pick up lunch. [ TR 152.17-19, 366.17-19,23,367.1-3].

104. Ms. Bell attempted to direct Respondent on proper dress attire for a PE coach. Respondent responded to his superior by stating he did not see a problem with his clothing and that Ms. Bell was simply jealous of his dress. (TR. 194.3-12).

105. Because of Respondent’s aggressive tone and unprofessional conduct towards the custodians of Kelso Elementary School, the custodians do not want to clean certain restrooms for fear of interacting with Respondent. On one occasion, Respondent had entered a restroom which was being cleaned by a female custodian. The female custodian left the restroom, after that encounter a complaint was filed with the school. (HISD Ex. 10; Tr. 199.6-8, 214.1-16, 215.1-20, 215.24-216.1, 417.6-13).

106. Because of Respondent’s inability to communicate appropriately and act professionally with other teachers, the Head Start director for Kelso Elementary School requested that all pre-Kindergarten students not be taught by Respondent for the 2017-2018 school year. The Head Start director felt that Respondent would not be able to effectively and professionally work with pre-Kindergarten students because of his inability to communicate with the staff. Ms. Bell granted the request, and, therefore, approximately 60-70 kids were unable to participate in PE that year. (Tr. 191.16-24).

Page | 11

107. Mrs. Bell testified to keep the peace, the student in pre-k were not allowed to go to P.E. in the fall and in the spring, she believes they were taught by a certified teachers assistant Mrs. Martinez [ TR 281.4-5,282.3-4,14-15].

108. Due to Respondent’s inability to communicate appropriately and act professional with his colleagues, teachers stopped taking their students to PE all together because of the distrust felt towards Respondent. (Tr. 192.11-14).

109. Respondent has created such an unpleasant feel on the Kelso Elementary School campus that when teachers see Respondent in the hallway they feel the need to turn and walk the other way. (Tr. 199.2-5).

110. Mrs. Whittie-Wells said she did not write Mr. Okera up for his tone in 2017/2018 school year but did speak to him about it verbally [ TR 180.1-3,6,10-11,181.12-13].

111. Mrs. Bell stated that she spoke to Mr. Okera all year about being professional. [ TR189.15-16].

112. Mrs. Bell stated that towards the end of the year they had to regroup children for intervention regarding TEK prep and some kids went to PE and the administration felt it would be a reward, but the kids felt it was a punishment and it caused chaos [ TR193.2-9].

113. Mrs. Bell testified that she heard a lot of complaints in the PTO meeting from parents about Mr. Okera so she pulled his folder, and it was the thickest folder in the file cabinet [ TR196.17-19, 23,197.2-3].

Physically harming students or placing students in danger of physical harm 114. . The HISD Board of Education has adopted the Educator’s Code of Ethics as board policy. Standard 3.2 of the Code of Ethics requires that teachers not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly treat a student in a manner that adversely affects or endangers learning, physical health, mental health, or the safety of the student. Similarly, Standard 3.5 requires that a teacher not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engage in physical mistreatment of a student. (HISD Ex. 33). 115.On or about January 25, 2018, Respondent refused to allow a student access to his inhaler. The student suffered from a legitimate medical condition of asthma. (HISD Ex. 12; Tr. 149.6-16). 116.The Respondent failed to obtain his CPR/First Aid certification for the duration of basically the entire 2017-2018 school year, placing all students at the Kelso Elementary School in danger. (HISD Ex. 21; Tr. 142.8-10, 143.9-17, 144.16- 145.11, 424.14-19, 425.8-13, 429.3-7, 429.10-17). 117. Mrs. Whittie-Wells stated that Mr. Okera’s job description is in the HISD portal and that

CPR certificate was a part of the job description, however, a formal document containing his job description was never presented at the hearing or listed as an exhibit [ TR 181.20].

118. Respondent testified that his documentation during the fire drill last school year was adequate for safety purposes and that his behavior with his campus administrator was appropriate. [TR354-358].

H. Inability to maintain student discipline management 119. Respondent is contractually required to perform his duties to the satisfaction of HISD. (HISD Ex. 3).

Page | 12

120.Throughout the school year, teachers are evaluated. A score of 2 is below expectations. One practice criteria when evaluating a teacher is Instruction Practice Criteria I-9. I-9 relates to a teacher’s ability to set and implement discipline management procedures. (HISD Exs. 8, 9, & 10; Tr. 229.11-12). 121.At the end of the 2016-2017 school year, Respondent had a Final Instructional Practice Rating of 2 and a score of 2 in practice area I-9. (HISD Ex. 8; Tr. 231.18- 24, 232.9-14). 122.In the middle of the 2017-2018 school year, Respondent had a mid-year evaluation. Respondent received a score of 2 for his Mid-Year Instructional Practice Rating. Respondent also received another score of 2 in practice area I-9. (HISD Ex. 7; Tr. 230.12-231.7). 123.At the end of the 2017-2018 school year, Respondent had an end-of-the-year evaluation. Respondent continued to receive a score of 2 for his Final Instructional Practice Rating and a score of 2 in practice area I-9. (HISD Ex. 6; Tr. 230.3-7). 124.Respondent did not show any growth or improvement from the beginning to the end of the 2017-2018 school year in discipline management skills. [HISD Exs. 6, 7, & 8; Tr. 231.14, 232.21-24, 233.3-5]. 125.At the time of the hearing, Ms. Whittie-Wells, Respondent’s direct supervisor, did not believe Respondent possessed any discipline management skills because he did not have the capability to handle the students. Ms. Whittie-Wells noticed that Respondent would request assistance from the administration for basic level 1 disciplinary actions as the students did not listen to Respondent. (Tr. 132.21-22, 133.2-8). 126.Ms. Bell, Respondent’s superior, noticed that Respondent would get into power

struggles with students and would lose control of his class. [Tr. 225.6-21, 226.4- 8]. 127.Because of the nature of a PE class, a PPA or growth plan was not functional or appropriate to effectively help Respondent. (Tr. 289.1-4, 289.7-20). 128. Instead, Respondent was offered support in the form of access to professional development seminars, personalized feedback and suggestions from Ms. Bell, and new equipment and smaller class sizes at Respondent’s request. (HISD Ex. 17; Tr. 228.2-13, 293.6-9, 316.23-317.13, 318.15-19, 319.17-25). 126.Respondent would always respond to feedback or instruction to better improve his professionalism or disciplinary management skills in the same manner: to either deny or remain quiet. (Tr. 317.20-318.1) 127.Despite all the support and patience given to Respondent, Ms. Bell still did not see improvement in his discipline management. (Tr. 318.23-25).

I. Breach of Contract

128.Respondent’s contract with HISD requires that he “shall faithfully perform to the satisfaction of the District all duties set forth in the job description or as assigned.” [HISD Ex. 3].

Page | 13

129.Respondent did not perform to the satisfaction of the District. [Tr. 245.19-22, 245.23-246.3, 246.4-5, 246.6-8, 246.9-11, 246.15-17, 246.19-25, 246.1-6]. 130.Mrs. Bell stated in her observations and checking the records, the majority of the children between 8-10 urinate on themselves and there was one common factor Mr. Okera’s P.E. class [ TR 208.5-8, 13-16, 22-23].

131. Mr. Okera sent a memo to Mrs. Hudson concerned about the children not being able to go to the restroom prior to entering his class room and being told to wait by other teachers [ P Exhibit 9].

132. Mrs. Bell stated she gave Mr. Okera directives to use good judgment when allowing children to go to the bathroom, and after those directives she was still receiving reports about children wetting themselves in his class [ TR 209.13-14]. 133. After many incidents Mrs. Bell gave Mr. Okera a written directive to stop exhibiting unprofessional conduct and to be courteous to colleagues and supervisors in October of 2017 [ TR 216.20-25]. J. Failure to follow directives, policies, procedures, and the District’s standards of conduct

134.HISD standards of conduct require employees to follow directives. The failure to follow directives, including board policy, can result in termination of employment. [(HISD Ex. 32].

135.On April 9, 2015, Respondent was directed to “always use a professional and respectful tone when communicating with students and staff.” [HISD Ex. 19]. 136. On October 6, 2016, Respondent failed to follow this directive when Respondent was found to have used an aggressive and disrespectful tone with dealing with a student. Respondent was again directed to use a professional tone when disciplining or correcting students. [HISD Ex. 4 & 16]. 137.And again, on January 24, 2018, Respondent failed to follow this directive when

Respondent yelled at a student in a rough, rude way. Respondent was also disrespectful to the student’s parent. [HISD Ex. 4].

138.HISD’s employee Standards of Conduct requires that every employee relate to colleagues and supervisors with respect, courtesy, and in a professional manner. [HISD Ex. 32].

139.Respondent consistently failed to follow this directive and did not interact with his colleagues and supervisors in a professional manner. [HISD Ex. 4; Tr. 129.16-19, 133.12-15, 134.2-12, 183.10-16, 185.5-10, 219.15-18].

140.As a staff member, Respondent was directed to follow all policies and operating procedures given by administration. As protocol, Respondent was directed to utilize a red folder and roster of students during all fire drills. On December 19, 2017, Respondent failed to follow this directive by not having a proper class roster and failing to keep an accurate count of students during the fire drill. [HISD Ex. 22; Tr. 134.14-25].

141.As an employee of HISD, Respondent is required to fulfill all duties and responsibilities of his position. Respondent failed to obtain his First Aid/CPR certification for the 2017-2018 school year in violation of his job responsibilities. [HISD Ex. 1, 2, & 21; Tr. 181.20, 424.14-19, 425.8-13, 429.3-7, 429.10-17].

Page | 14

142.Mrs. Whittie-Wells gave Mr. Okera time off to get his certificate, and he finally received it one day before the end of the school year [ TR 143.24-25,144.19-20].

143. Respondent had a duty to check the Chancery system for any students with medical issues. Respondent failed to utilize the Chancery system in violation of his job responsibilities. [Tr. 147.12-147.20, 179.9-23, 422.7-19, 423.5-10, 423.15-17].

144.On August 15, 2015, Respondent was directed to attend the Managing Problem Behaviors course by September 5, 2015. Respondent was reminded of this directive on March 22, 2016. And yet, by February 14, 2018, Respondent had not completed the course. During the cross examination at the hearing, Respondent stated he did not follow this directive and did not attend the Managing Problem Behaviors course because he felt he didn’t need the training. [HISD Exs. 4, 18; Tr. 378.14-23].

145.HISD’s Employee Standards of Conduct requires every employee to arrive to work on time every day and follow attendance procedures. [HISD Ex. 32].

146.On March 23, 2017, Respondent left campus without permission and did not clock out. Respondent admitted to leaving campus without permission. [HISD Exs. 4 & 23; Tr. 152.7-153.10; Tr. 367.1, 367.13-15].

147.On March 23, 2017, Respondent was informed that neglect of duties, repeated failure to follow administrative directives or policies can lead to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. [HISD Ex. 23].

148.On February 8, 2017, Respondent failed to comply with policies and procedures by not being at his door ready to receive students and was observed returning to campus late. Respondent had previously been given a directive to report to his duty station on time on October 19, 2016. [HISD Exs. 4, 25, & 26; Tr. 155.2-14,155.25-156.3].

149.HISD’s Employee Standards of Conduct requires every employee to complete the duties as specified in the job description and contract. [HISD Ex. 32)].

150.On October 19, 2016, Respondent received a directive instructing him to follow policies and procedures and turn in lesson plans. And yet, on February 16, 2017, failed to submit his lesson plan for the week of February 13, 2017. (HISD Exs. 4 & 24; Tr. 154.20-155.1).

151.On October 23, 2017, Respondent was instructed to use good judgment when allowing students to use the restroom. On February 12, 2018, Respondent failed this directive when he did not allow M.P. to use the restroom, causing M.P. to urinate on himself. [HISD Exs. 4 & 10].

152. A Conference for the Record was held on April 2, 2018. Ms. Bell, Mr. Okera, and Mr. Okera’s representative, Ms. Simmons, were present. Mr. Okera was advised that his performance and misconduct were unacceptable and did not meet district standards and expectations. Ms. Bell informed Mr. Okera that she was recommending termination of his contract at the end of the 2018 school year.

Page | 15

K. Failure to fulfill duties or responsibilities

153.Mrs. Bell stated that Mr. Okera became increasingly confrontational when he was given written memorandums so they stopped giving them, and they stopped meeting with him one-on-because of his tone and demeanor. [ TR 220.2-5,13,21-24,221.1].

154. Mrs. Bell testified that Mr. Okera had poor class room management skills due to lack of structure and not knowing how to effectively access systems, and because of the power struggle with the kids [ TR 225.61].

155. Mrs. Bell stated that his instructional practices regarding the 2017/2018 appraisals, and the overall score were below the districts’ expectation with no growth [ TR 231.5,15-16, 232.15-20, 233.5].

156. Mrs. Bell testified that she did not believe that Mr. Okera was performing his job duties in a satisfactory manner [TR 234.21-25].

157.Mrs. Whittie-Wells stated that she was not Mr. Okera’s appraiser for 2017/2018 year [ TR 172.7-9]

158. Mrs. Whittie-Wells did not put Mr. Okera on a growth plan in 2016/2017 school year when she was his appraiser [ TR 175.23-25,176.3].

159.There was no growth plan for 2017/2018 either by his current appraiser Ms. Hudson [ TR 176.4-7].

160. Mrs. Bell stated that she sent Mr. Okera to professional development classes to help improve his performance, but she did not see any improvement in discipline management. [ TR 318.14-16, 23-25].

161. Mr. Okera did not feel that he was supported by the administration [ TR 361.21-25]. 162. Mr. Okera said that he sent the children to the office only when they did not listen, he did

not make a practice of just sending students who listened to the office [ TR 362.24-24,363.2-4].

163. Mr. Okera filed a grievance during the 2017/2018 school year regarding class size, and discipline [ TR 363.18-23].

164. Mr. Okera said he sent M.P. to the restroom, but he did not know that he had already wetted himself. He wanted M.P. to finish the assignment first, but he admits that the student did ask him a few times [ TR 406.12-14,17-19, 408.19-21].

165. Mr. Okera said that some students used the restroom on themselves but never ask for permission to go prior to doing so. [ TR 405.18-20].

166. Mr. Okera went to the rest room and a female custodian was cleaning it, he asked her to step out and she disappeared, he could not use a different rest room because the other one was locked. [ TR 417.6-7,19-20].

167. Mr. Okera said that he did not know that information concerning the medical conditions of the students were in Chancery, because the nurse would always put a note in his box, or send an email letting him know about the condition that was the protocol. [ TR 422.1-5,1416,423.6].

168. Mr. Okera testified that Mrs. Whittie-Wells told him that they were cited because he did not have his current CPR certificate on file. Mrs. Whittie-Wells confirmed that they were cited during her testimony. [ TR 424.14-15,20-25].

169. Mr. Okera stated that he got recertified on May 2018 [ TR 429.5].

Page | 16

170. Mr. Okera stated that he did have a red folder, however, his roster would constantly change, so he had the clerk print a list of students that came to him but that list would change frequently and sometimes his list was wrong. He stated he did not get an email when the roster would change and some children were not even in his class [ TR 430.23,431.8-10, 432.23-24,433.7-8,16-19].

171. Mr. Okera said the most important part about a progress reports is being able to account for the children during the fire drill. [ TR 436.7,17-18,22-24].

172. Mr. Okera said that Mrs. Whittie-Wells used a tone that was unpleasant to him while questioning him about the progress reports [ TR 438.17-18].

173. Mr. Okera was given a directive to go to training, but he did not go because he did not believe that he needed training [ TR 378.14-15,22-23].

174.Any Finding of Fact deemed to be a conclusion of law is hereby adopted as such.

IV. DISCUSSION

After reviewing all of the evidence, listening to live testimony, and examining the

exhibits presented by both sides, I do find that Mr. Okera violated provision 22 of DFBB Local,

when he failed to maintain an effective working relationship, or maintain good rapport, with

parents, the community, or colleagues. During Mr. Okera’s 2017-2018 Term contact, he did not

maintain an effective working relationship with the parents. Many parents were frustrated and

believed that they could not communicate with Mr. Okera. Some parents expressed frustration

in writing, and by visiting Principal Bell’s office to complain that their requests were not being

honored. There was testimony that Mr. Okera yelled at a parent which is unprofessional and a

violation of provision 22 as well as provision 16. It was unreasonable for Mr. Okera to address

the parents in such a manner. Because of his behavior, Mr. Okera had a reputation at the school

for, “being that way.” That meant he was difficult with the students and the parents. Some

parents tried to send notes to communicate with him, yet there was testimony that he never

accepted or responded to these notes, and many parents felt that their concerns were not being

addressed. Out of desperation, some parents demanded that their children were completely

removed out of Mr. Okera’s class because they did not want the situation to escalate. The

children were unhappy, and P.E. was no longer fun. The school saw P.E. as a reward, and the

children saw it as a punishment, because he would yell often despite being given many

directives regarding tone in the current and previous terms.

Page | 17

There was consideration given of false allegations lodged against Mr. Okera. Because of

that careful consideration and weight was given to the testimony regarding the current

allegations. I believe that the school performed very thorough investigations into the

complaints lodged against Mr. Okera. This tribunal was not privy to any frivolous allegations

during the present hearing. Allegations that were lodged against Mr. Okera, I found to be

credible, with extensive documentation, and live testimony to corroborate and or clarify the

alleged incidents, including but not limited to, the interaction with Mrs. Camacho, and Mr.

Okera’s interaction with A.G., C.S., C.P., and M.P. Because this is a school, it is imperative for

parents to feel that their children will be treated fairly and kept safe. However, because of the

aggressive nature of Mr. Okera’s character, and the reputation he had for treating the children

harshly, many parents did not want to subject their students to such punishment, and the only

viable option in their minds was for them to remove their children and so multiple parents

plead with the principal to have their child from his classroom. Moreover, his actions did not

create and effective working relationship with the parents. Likewise, Mr. Okera did not have

nor maintain an effective working relationship with the parents, as there were several parents

that lodged complaints against Mr. Okera in 2017-2018, and prior years, including but not

limited to Ms. Camacho, Ms. Guzman, Ms. Guevara, and Mr. Delagarza.

I strongly considered Mr. Okera’s testimony regarding C.P. and I conclude regarding that

incident the child disobeyed several requests for compliance with the rules of obeying the

teacher in class. C.P. was asked several times to remain in line and stop cutting the line. C.P.

disregarded those requests. C.P. also, left the class altogether butting himself in danger and the

rest of the class by going outside of the gate during school hours unsupervised. He failed to

follow any directives given by his teacher. C.P. used language that was disrespectful to a teacher

when he told him to “Get out of his Face” TR 336.5-6. It was upsetting to a reasonable teacher

for a child to leave the presence of the class room, so I believe that Mr. Okera’s actions and

language during this particular occasion was justified with respect to CP. He stated that he did

not curse the parent and that fact was substantiated by CP. It was an intense situation and given

the totality of the circumstances, I do not believe that Mr. Okera threatened, the student. I do

believe that Mr. Okera was concerned because he had to follow the student outside of the gates.

Furthermore, I conclude that Mr. Okera conducted himself in professional manner during the

Page | 18

interaction with the student. I do not believe that Mr. Okera was professional when he got into

the personal space of the mother and used such a loud tone. Mr. Okera explained his side of

the story to Principal Bell and left. He was given specific directives to use a professional tone

when discipling or correcting students. He was further told that when the students were not

following directives then he should set up a conference immediately. He was told not to reach

or contact students, revisit the standards of conduct and implement student management

systems (Champs). These directives were given on February 14,2018. There was never any

testimony developed for or against whether Mr. Okera implemented these directives. However

Principal Bell did state that there were more infractions after the memo was generated but

were not included in the file because the file was being prepared to recommend termination.

Mr. Okera did not maintain an effective working relationship or maintain a good rapport

with staff and colleagues. There was testimony that entire departments refused to allow their

students to interact with Mr. Okera. Accommodations had to be made to teach students during

his planning period. There was testimony that other teachers often refused to interact or share

the same space as Mr. Okera. Such occurrences do not make for an effective working

relationship. In fact, this kind of behavior hurt the children. The students were negatively

impacted because of this lack of cooperation and communication with other teachers.

The evidence also illustrates that Mr. Okera did not meet the district standards of

professional conduct because of lack of respect for his children regarding his tone. There is also

testimony that Mr. Okera yelled at the children all the time, not just when he was outside. He

yelled at the children when they did not follow directions. He yelled at the children when they

asked to get water or go to the restroom. According to testimony, he would often lose himself

in the power struggle with a kid and become aggressive. There are complaints that he pushed

children both during this school year and years prior, not to have any physical contact with the

children, 3/22/2016 and 2/14/2018, Actions in prior school years usually cannot be used as

the basis for terminating a contract, but the fact that a teacher was disciplined in a prior year

for similar behavior indicates that the teacher was aware that the action was improper and was

given time to correct the problem, making the behavior more culpable. See Clark v. LaMarque

Independent School District, TEA Docket No. 238-R2-897 (Sept. 1997); Anderson v. Jacksonville

Independent School District, TEA Docket No. 142-R1-397 (Feb. 1997).

Page | 19

Moreover, the fact that a teacher was aware that the action was improper and was given

time to correct the problem makes the behavior more culpable and “shows willfulness.” Burnett

at pp. 3-4, citing Clark v. LaMarque and Gwozdz v. Fort Worth Independent School District, TEA

Docket No. 154-R8-497 (May 1998). Although not admissible as independent grounds for

finding good cause for termination, evidence of an employee’s conduct in years preceding the

notice of termination is admissible to demonstrate the District’s employee’s continuing

patterns of conduct, Burnett v. Houston Independent School District, TEA Docket No. 172-R2-898

(Oct. 1998).

Using this line of reasoning, clearly Mr. Okera knew not to scream at the children, and

yet several students testified that he was always screaming. He clearly knew not to touch a

student or reach for a student, and there was testimony that Mr. Okera got in someone’s

personal space, and that he pulled a necklace off of a student and broke it. The file has several

parent complaints about inappropriate, aggressive touching by Mr. Okera which is a direct

violation of District policies. Mr. Okera’s response at times was that he did not recall those

incidents, therefore, one must give greater weight to the testimony of the student who did recall

the incident clearly. A.G. testified that Mr. Okera tried to assist A.G. in taking off the necklace

after she tried several times. A.G. has long hair and it is possible that the necklace got caught in

her hair. A.G. says someone witness Mr. Okera assisting her in taking off the necklace, however,

Principal Bell did not have any statements to corroborate that Mr. Okera pulled the necklace off

of A.G.’s neck and threw it to the ground. A.G. said that it did not hurt when the necklace came

off initially, but that it hurt the next day. Ms. Guzman did not complain that there were any

marks left on A.G.’s neck because of the necklace. A.G. said that she knew about the rules for

jewelry and earrings, yet she wore the chain anyway. She did not go to the nurse and no other

teachers saw or reported any red marks on her neck where the necklace had previously been.

I do not find that Mr. Okera broke the necklace intentionally or that he threw it to the ground.

The evidence has shown that he failed to follow the most basic directives. There is

testimony that Mr. Okera was given directives to take classes, or get his certificate and

according to testimony, his testimony, he did not take the class because he did not feel he

needed to. There was testimony that Mr. Okera did not receive the CPR certificate until the last

week of school, despite being given time off to take the class. This class was a part of his job

Page | 20

description even though there was not a formal exhibit showing that requirement, Mr. Okera

admitted that he had been certified in the past and that his certificate had expired. He was also

told that the school was written up and cited because he did not have his CPR certificate.

I do find that Mr. Okera did not perform his duties to the district’s satisfaction as outline in

provision 7 of his employment contract because his evaluations were below expectation

for two years. Such performance represents good cause for termination. Moreover, The

Respondent’s duties during the 17/18 school years was that he was supposed to maintain

good class room environment, turn in lesson plans, and have the students enjoy working

out [ TR 328. 18-24]. There is evidence that shows that during the 17/18 school year, Mr.

Okera failed to turn in lesson plans on time. There is also a write up that Mr. Okera reported

for duty late, and that he left campus without permission.

Even though Mr. Okera’s overall rating in his appraisal remained a 2, which is

considered below expectation, it does appear that he did try to try to improve. This 2017-2018

appraisal showed growth in some areas. In 2017, Mr. Okera received an 18 out of 33 for

professional expectation. He also received a 20 out of 52 in instructional practice, which again

was below expectations. In 2018, Mr. Okera received 31 instructional practice which was an

11-point rise from 2017. Moreover, his professional expectations score improved by 2 points

over 2017 appraisal. However, his overall rating still remained a 2. There was testimony that

Mr. Okera was not given a growth plan because of the type of class that he taught. Yet there was

testimony that Mr. Okera rejected some of the directives to enroll in more professional

development classes. There was no evidence presented by Mr. Okera showing any certificate of

completion or any additional professional development classes that could have enhanced his

teaching abilities. Therefore, his failure to maintain a satisfactorily rating was a breach of

provision 7 of his employment contract.

I do find that Mr. Okera posed a danger to C.S., and violated provision 24 of DFBB Local

when he allowed her to run in the sun without water. She did get very sick according to the

testimony of her mother. Moreover, said violation is good cause for non-renewal as his behavior

presented a danger of physical harm to at least that student. Moreover, Ms. Guevara stated that

she sent notes to Mr. Okera asking him to allow her to drink water and refrain from allowing

her to run in the sun; yet he never responded to the notes, and her daughter continued to get

Page | 21

sicker and sicker. Given the climate in Texas, it is foreseeable, that C.S. could be harmed by

running in the sun and not being allowed to properly hydrate. Mr. Okera had been given

directives in the past that instructed him to refrain for placing the children in the hot sun.

I find that Mr. Okera violated 24 of DFBB Local when he failed to look into the Chancery

system before he denied a student the use of his inhaler. It was his responsibility to double

check Chancery and or send the student to the nurse. When he failed to do so, his actions placed

that student in danger of suffering complications that occurred as a result of being denied the

use of his inhaler. Although the nurse would sometimes give him notes, there was testimony

that the nurse was part time during a portion of the 2017/2018 school year, therefore, Mr.

Okera had a responsibility to access the systems that contained medical information. When he

failed to do so, said actions placed at least one student in physical danger.

V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW After due consideration of the record, matters officially noticed, and the foregoing

Findings, I make the following Conclusions of Law: 1. Sections 21.251 through 21.257 of the Texas Education Code confers jurisdiction

on the Hearing Examiner to conduct a hearing on HISD recommendation to terminate/Non-Renew the Respondent’s, Jawanza Okera’s, employment contract and to make written findings of fact, conclusion of law, and a recommendation on the facts. As a result, the Texas Education Agency has jurisdiction of this matter.

2. Pursuant to § 21.256(h) of the Texas Education Code, at this hearing, the Petitioner, HISD must prove by a preponderance of evidence at least one of the nonrenewal reasons stated in Board Policy DFBB (Local). See Wood v. Post Indep. Sch. Dist., Dkt. No. 335-RI-794 (Commn’r Educ. 1996).

3. Violation of even one official directive constitutes good cause for termination. See Sylvia Ortiz v. Plano Indep. Sch. Dist., TEA Docket No. 012-R2-10-2013 (Comm’r Educ. 2014); Anthony Wayne Allen v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., TEA Docket No. 014-R2-1001 (Comm’r Educ. 2001).

4. Violations of HISD Board Policies and the Code of Ethics and Standard Practices for Texas Educators, individually and collectively, constitute good cause for termination. See Gibson v. Karnack Indep. Sch. Dist., TEA Docket No. 037-R2-101 (Comm’r Educ. 2001); Harlow v. Pasadena Indep. Sch. Dist., TEA Docket No. 177-R2-898 (Comm’r Educ. 1998); Lane v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., TEA Docket No. 288-R2-495 (Comm’r Educ. 1997); Perez v. Laredo Indep. Sch. Dist., TEA Docket No. 048-R2-1196 (Comm’r Educ. 1996); Everton v. Round Rock Indep. Sch. Dist., TEA Docket No. 070-R2-1091 (Comm’r Educ. 1996); Closs v. Goose Creek Indep. Sch. Dist., TEA Docket No. 005-R2-989 (Comm’r Educ. 1992).

Page | 22

5. Pursuant to § 21.211 of the Texas Education Code, the Board of Trustees may terminate a term contract and discharge a teacher at any time for good cause as determined by the Board.

6. Mr. Okera has a valid and existing term contract with HISD. 7. Good cause is defined in §21.156(a) of the Texas Education Code as the failure to

meet the accepted standards of conduct for the profession as generally recognized and applied in similarly situated school districts in the state. Pursuant to §21.211 of the Texas Education Code, good cause may be determined or defined by the Board of Trustees.

8. An employee’s act constitutes good cause for discharge if it is inconsistent with the continued existence of the employer-employee relationship.” Lee-Wright, Inc. v. Hall, 840 S.W.2d 572, 580 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist] 1992, no writ).

9. Speaking in an aggressive tone is not an appropriate manner to speak one’s superior, and is unprofessional.

10. The preponderance of the evidence in the record supports a finding that Mr. Okera failed to fulfill duties or responsibilities regarding his employment with HISD.

11. The preponderance of the evidence in the record supports that the Respondent failed to maintain an effective working relationship with his colleagues and failed to treat his colleagues in a professional manner. These actions represent good cause for nonrenewal. [HISD Exs. 1 & 2].

12. Respondent’s behavior presented a danger of physical harm to students because he did not maintain his CPR certificate and he disallowed a student access to his inhaler, these actions represent good cause for nonrenewal. [HISD Exs. 1 & 2].

13. A preponderance of the evidence in the record illustrates Respondent failed to fulfill his duties or responsibilities to the satisfaction of HISD. These actions constitute good cause for nonrenewal. [HISD Exs. 1 & 2].

14. The preponderance of the evidence in the record does not support a finding that Mr. Okera was unable to maintain discipline in any situation in which he was responsible for the oversight and supervision of students.

15. The preponderance of the evidence in the record supports a finding that Mr. Okera failed to comply with official directives.

16. The preponderance of the evidence in the record supports a finding that Mr. Okera failed to meet the District’s standards of professional conduct.

17. The preponderance of the evidence in the record supports a finding that Mr. Okera failed to maintain an effective working relationship, or maintain good rapport with parents, the community or colleagues.

18. The preponderance of the evidence in the record supports a finding that Mr. Okera failed to meet the District’s standards of professional conduct.

19. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Mr. Okera breached the employment contract with HISD when he violated directives, and performed below District’s standards by receiving a 2 on his appraisals for two years in a row.

Page | 23

20. The Respondent has consistently exhibited a pattern of aggressive and unprofessional behavior towards students and staff, in violation of directives given to him. (HISD Ex. 4).

21. HISD has demonstrated by the preponderance of evidence that the Respondent has a pattern consistently failed to comply with HISD Board Policy DFBB LOCAL and official directives issued by the District during current and previous contracts, including but not limited to 2,5,16,22 and 24. This conduct constitutes good cause to terminate Respondent’s contract.

22. policies, procedures, and directives given to him. [HISD Ex. 4]. 23. The preponderance of the evidence in the record does not support a finding that Mr.

Okera voided his employment contract by violating federal, state, or local laws. 24. The preponderance of the evidence in the record supports a finding that HISD had

good cause for terminating Mr. Okera’s employment contract during its term.

25. The preponderance of the evidence in the record does supports the nonrenewal of Mr. Okera’s term contract with HISD.

26. The preponderance of the evidence in the record supports a finding that Mr. Okera was insubordinate because he refused to obey official written directives regarding tone despite several written and verbal directives.

27. HISD has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that Respondent failed to fulfill his duties or responsibilities.

28. HISD has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent failed to comply with official directives.

29. HISD has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent failed to meet the District’s standards of professional conduct.

30. HISD has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent failed to perform his duties to the satisfaction of the District and, thus, breached his employment contract.

31. HISD has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent failed to maintain an effective working relationship, or maintain good rapport, with parents.

32. HISD has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent failed to maintain an effective working relationship, or maintain good rapport, with the community.

33. HISD has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent failed to maintain an effective working relationship, or maintain good rapport, with colleagues.

34. Respondent failed to maintain an effective working relationship, or maintain good rapport, with parents, as listed in the reasons for nonrenewal. (HISD Exs. 1 & 2).

35. HISD has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent engaged in behavior that presented a danger of physical harm to a student, when he failed to remain current on medical records of students and check Chancery.

36. HISD has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that sufficient grounds exist

Page | 24

to support the nonrenewal of Respondent’s employment contract.

37. It is the burden placed upon the Petitioner to establish, by a preponderance of the credible evidence that Respondent violated Board policy. A violation of Board policy may constitute sufficient grounds for termination. After careful review, I do find that the Petitioner has met that burden.

38. Any conclusion of law deemed to be a finding of fact is hereby adopted as such.

VI. RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the documentary evidence, findings of facts as presented by both

Petitioner and Respondent, testimony elicited at the hearing of this matter, and

conclusions of law, it is the recommendation of this Hearing Examiner that the

employment of Respondent, Jawanza Okera, is terminated for 2017/2018, and the

recommendation of the Houston Independent School District to non-renew the term

contract 2018/2019 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SIGNED and ISSUED this 10th day of August 2018.

Trina Perkins-Mouton Certified Independent Hearing Examiner

Page | 25

VII. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 10TH day of August 2018, a true and correct copy of the foregoing

was served on Respondent’s via e-mail and express mail and addressed as follows:

VIA EXPRESS MAIL AND EMAIL CLAY T. GROVER

5718 Westheimer, Suite 1200

Houston, Texas 77057

Telephone:713/960-6033

Facsimile: 713/960-6025

cgrover@rmgllp.com

ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER HISD

VIA EXPRESS MAIL AND EMAIL

JAMES FALLON

Attorney at Law

3401 Allen Parkway

Houston, Texas

(713)224-0284;(713)224-0109

james@jtfallon.com

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT JAWANZA OKERA

VIA EXPRESS MAIL AND FAX

HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

HATTIE MAE WHITE EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT CENTER

GRENITA F. LATHAN

INTERIM SUPERINTENDANT OF SCHOOLS

4400 WEST 18TH STREET

HOUSTON, TEXAS 77092-8501

VIA EXPRESS MAIL AND FAX 512-475-3662

TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY

Commissioner Mike Morath

1701 North Congress Avenue,

Austin, Texas 78701-1494

Trina Perkins-Mouton Certified Independent Hearing Examiner