STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA



STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

COUNTY OF GUILFORD 09 EDC 4435

| | |

|Sandra Chesser | |

|Petitioner, | |

| |DECISION |

|v. | |

| | |

|State Board of Education | |

|Respondent. | |

Upon Motion of Respondent, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), 12 (b)(6), and 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, for summary judgment on the grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel and, it appearing to the Court that Summary Judgment should be granted for Respondent, the Court makes the following:

FINDING OF FACT

1. Petitioner was employed as a teacher by the Alamance Burlington School System during the 2006-07 school year and by Guilford County Schools for part of the 2007-08 school year.

2. During this time period it was discovered that Petitioner had submitted falsified transcripts from Xavier University purporting to indicate the completion of a Master’s degree.

3. Petitioner was interviewed by the Superintendent’s Ethics Committee, a committee of professional educators appointed by Superintendent June Atkinson to interview teachers accused of misconduct.

4. The Ethics Committee determined that Petitioner had violated State Board of Education rules governing the conduct of teachers, and that grounds existed to revoke Petitioner’s teaching license. In fact Petitioner admitted submitting falsified documents but stated she was “desperate”.

5. Superintendent Atkinson accordingly initiated revocation proceedings against Petitioner’s license.

6. Petitioner filed a Petition for Contested Case Hearing in OAH and the matter was heard on April 21, 2008, before the Honorable J. Randall May, Administrative Law Judge.

7. Judge May entered a decision on April 30, 2008, upholding the decision to revoke Petitioner’s license.

8. On October 8, 2008, the State Board of Education unanimously voted to adopt the ALJ’s decision.

9. No further appeal was taken by Petitioner.

10. Petitioner applied for reinstatement of her license. She was again interviewed by the Superintendent’s Ethics Committee, on July 10, 2009.

11. Petitioner presented no new evidence in conjunction with her application for reinstatement or at her Ethics Committee interview. The Ethics Committee again determined that Petitioner had falsified the transcript from Xavier University and that she was guilty of misconduct and should not have a license to teach in North Carolina. Superintendent Atkinson adopted the Ethics Committee recommendation and denied reinstatement.

12. In his Order of April 30, 2008, the ALJ found and concluded that Petitioner had falsified the Xavier transcript and that such conduct was in violation of the code of ethics for professional educators.

13. In addition, the ALJ found and concluded that such conduct bears “ a reasonable and adverse relationship” to Petitioner’s ability to perform her professional functions in an effective manner.

14. Respondent moved for Summary Judgment, arguing that under the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel, Petitioner should now be barred from re-litigating the issues that were litigated in the earlier proceeding.

15. This court served upon Petitioner a Request for Response to Motion dated September 1, 2009. To date Petitioner has not responded.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

1. Under principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel, the findings of the ALJ regarding Petitioner’s conduct are binding and may not be re-litigated. Respondent is entitled to the benefits of collateral estoppel as to the facts found by the previous tribunal. McInnis & Assoc. V. Hall, 318 N.C. 421, 349 S.E.2d 552 (1986).

2. Petitioner has presented no evidence to support a decision by the Superintendent to reinstate Petitioner’s license. Her past conduct, already legally established, clearly violates the code of ethics for teachers, and clearly warranted the prior revocation. Nothing has been forthcoming to change that decision.

3. There is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and Respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

DECISION

Judgment is entered in favor of Respondent based upon principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel.

ORDER

It is ordered that the agency serve a copy of the final decision on the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-6714, in accordance with the North Carolina General Statute 150B-36(b).

NOTICE

The decision of the Administrative Law Judge in this contested case will be reviewed by the agency making the final decision according to the standards found in G.S. 150B 36(b), (b1) and (b2). The agency making the final decision is required to give each party an opportunity to file exceptions to the decision of the Administrative Law Judge and to present written arguments to those in the agency who will make the final decision. G.S. 150B-36(a). The agency that will make the final decision in this contested case is the North Carolina State Board of Education.

This the 1st day of October 2009.

J. Randall May

Administrative Law Judge

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download