NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

RAFAEL CEZAR DANAM,

Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

ARIZONA BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Defendant/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 18-0668 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. LC2018-000093-001

The Honorable Patricia A. Starr, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Rafael Cezar Danam, N. Las Vegas, NV

Plaintiff/Appellant

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix

By Kim S. Anderson

Counsel for Defendant/Appellee

FILED 10-31-2019
DANAM v. AZ BOARD OF EDUCATION

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

J O H N S E N, Judge:

¶1 Rafael Cezar Danam appeals from the superior court's 

judgment affirming a decision by the Arizona State Board of Education 

("Board") to revoke his teaching certificates and to notify other states of that 

revocation. We conclude the Board's decision was supported by substantial 

evidence and was not contrary to law, arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of 

discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the superior court's judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 According to the record before the Board, Danam obtained a 

substitute teaching certificate and in August 2016, was working as a longterm substitute fourth-grade teacher at Diamondback Elementary School 

("Diamondback") in the Bullhead Elementary School District. Danam did 

not have a contract for the school year, but rather worked on a "day-by-day 

basis." A month into the school year, the principal met with Danam outside 

his classroom and notified him that his substitute teaching assignment was 

ending and that a fully certified teacher would be returning to the school to 

replace him.

¶3 Immediately after the meeting, Danam asked an instructional 

aide to accompany him back to his classroom and be "a witness"; inside the 

classroom, Danam told his students "he would no longer be their teacher" 

and was "being asked to leave." As he spoke to the students, Danam 

became emotional and told them to "go home and tell your parents what 

[the principal] and the School Board is doing to me." This upset the 

students, some of whom became "very distraught" and began crying. The 

principal eventually arrived, calmed the students and sent Danam home.

¶4 Over the next few days, Danam repeatedly emailed the 

students' parents, the principal, the district assistant superintendent and 

others, demanding hearings and threatening litigation. Danam suggested 

parents could receive monetary damages if a lawsuit were filed and 

encouraged them to obtain medical attention for their children so they 
DANAM v. AZ BOARD OF EDUCATION

Decision of the Court

3

could document "emotional and psychological distress." In one email, he 

suggested he would sue for $19,999.98 in damages in small claims court and 

would distribute $260 of that sum to each of his former students as 

compensation for their "emotional and psychological damages." Danam 

also recommended parents consider filing a class-action lawsuit for 

emotional and psychological damages exceeding one million dollars.

¶5 Damam also mailed a lengthy compilation of documents to

the superintendent, with copies to the school board, other school 

administrators, parents, the Board, the mayor of Bullhead City and other 

municipal officials. The packet of documents purported to seek 

"Authorized & Sanctioned Board Review for Wrongful Termination" and to 

constitute "Official Notice of Pending Litigation & Preparation for Civil 

Proceedings, Notification of Multiple Federal & State Laws, Statutes and 

Regulations Violations." One page of the packet was directed to the 

principal and assistant superintendent. In it, Danam asserted that the 

"current circumstances" were the "direct consequence of" actions by the 

principal and assistant superintendent and asserted, "Whoever sows 

injustice reaps calamity," "Be assured that exact and precise justice will be 

manifested," and "You will not escape the consequences." Another

document he later faxed to the school read "Justice, Vindication & 

Vengeance" and "Vengeance is MINE, I will repay." This last document 

prompted the principal to obtain an injunction against workplace 

harassment against Danam.

¶6 In October 2016, the Board notified Danam he was the subject 

of a formal professionalism investigation based on his conduct with the 

students on the day he was terminated and the threatening documents he 

sent to school officials thereafter. In March 2017, Danam applied for a 

teaching position at Laveen Elementary School District; on his application, 

he answered "[n]o" in response to the question, "Have you ever been the 

subject of a school district or Department of Education . . . investigation, 

inquiry, or review of alleged misconduct?" After the Laveen district hired 

Danam, it learned he was under Board investigation. When the district 

asked Danam about his apparent false statement, he resigned.

¶7 In August 2017, the Board served Danam with a complaint

that alleged professional misconduct based on his statements to his 

students and their parents, his harassing communications to school officials 

and the misrepresentation on his application for employment in the Laveen 

district.
DANAM v. AZ BOARD OF EDUCATION

Decision of the Court

4

¶8 The Board's Professional Practices Advisory Committee 

("Committee") conducted a hearing on the Board's complaint. In the 

hearing, Danam was permitted to testify, call and cross-examine witnesses 

and offer documents in evidence. After the hearing, the Committee 

concluded Danam engaged in three types of unprofessional conduct: (1) he 

failed to "make reasonable efforts to [protect] pupils from conditions 

harmful to learning, health, or safety," Arizona Administrative Code 

("A.A.C.") R7-2-1308(A)(1); (2) he "[f]alsif[ied] or misrepresent[ed] 

documents, records, or facts related to professional qualifications or 

educational history or character," A.A.C. R7-2-1308(B)(6); and (3) he 

"[e]ngag[ed] in conduct which would discredit the teaching profession," 

A.A.C. R7-2-1308(B)(15).1 The Committee recommended the Board 

discipline Danam by revoking his teaching certificates and informing "all 

states and territories" of the revocation.

¶9 The Board adopted the Committee's findings of fact with 

minor changes, adopted the Committee's conclusions of law, and ordered 

Danam's teaching certificates revoked and that other states and territories 

be notified of the revocation. Danam filed a motion for rehearing; the Board 

denied it, concluding he failed to establish any grounds for a rehearing as 

required by A.A.C. R7-2-709(B).

¶10 Danam filed a notice of appeal to the superior court, then, 55 

days later, filed in that court a "Motion for New Evidence and Witnesses for 

Judicial Review of Administrative Decision." The superior court treated 

Danam's filing as a motion for an evidentiary hearing and denied it.

¶11 The superior court then affirmed the Board's decision. It

concluded (1) the Board did not violate Danam's right to due process or his 

right to free speech, (2) the Board's decision was not arbitrary, capricious or 

an abuse of discretion, (3) substantial evidence supported the Board's 

decision and (4) the Board properly denied Danam's motion for rehearing.

 

1 Absent material revision after the relevant date, we cite the current 

version of a statute or rule.
DANAM v. AZ BOARD OF EDUCATION

Decision of the Court

5

Danam timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 

9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.")

sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2019) and -913 (2019).

2

DISCUSSION

¶12 We will affirm an administrative agency's decision unless it is 

"contrary to law, is not supported by substantial evidence, is arbitrary and 

capricious or is an abuse of discretion." A.R.S. § 12-910(E) (2019). "We defer 

to the agency's factual findings if they are supported by substantial 

evidence, even if other evidence before the agency would support a 

different conclusion." Waltz Healing Ctr., Inc. v. Ariz. Dep't of Health Servs., 

245 Ariz. 610, 613, ¶ 9 (App. 2018). "We consider the evidence in a light 

most favorable to upholding the agency's decision." Id. Nonetheless, we

apply our "independent judgment" to questions of law. See Webb v. State ex 

rel. Ariz. Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 202 Ariz. 555, 557, ¶ 7 (App. 2002).

A. The Board Did Not Violate Danam's Due-Process Rights.

¶13 Danam argues the Board violated his due-process rights by 

denying, ignoring or omitting evidence he wanted to offer at the Committee 

hearing. See generally U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 4. We 

review questions of law de novo. See Webb, 202 Ariz. at 557, ¶ 7.

¶14 Board rules set out the procedures that govern disciplinary 

hearings. The Board established the Committee to "conduct hearings 

related to certification" issues involving unprofessional conduct and the 

revocation of certificates. A.A.C. R7-2-701(8); see A.A.C. R7-2-205(A)

(Committee "shall act in an advisory capacity to the [Board] in regard to 

certification or recertification matters related to immoral conduct, 

unprofessional conduct, unfitness to teach, and revocation, suspension, or 

surrender of certificates."). At the hearing before the Committee, parties 

have the "right to submit evidence in open hearing and conduct cross 

examination." A.A.C. R7-2-705(C); see also A.A.C. R7-2-715(C). Upon 

request of a party, the Department of Education ("Department") may issue 

subpoenas for witnesses, documents and other evidence. A.A.C. R7-2-

712(A). After the Committee issues its recommendation following a

 

2 Although § 12-913 expressly allows a party to appeal to the "supreme 

court," we have construed this provision as "also allowing an appeal to the 

court of appeals, which was created after § 12-913 was enacted." Svendsen 

v. Ariz. Dep't of Transp., Motor Vehicle Div., 234 Ariz. 528, 533, ¶ 13 (App. 

2014).
DANAM v. AZ BOARD OF EDUCATION

Decision of the Court

6

hearing, the Board reviews the hearing record and the Committee's 

recommendation and issues its decision. See A.A.C. R7-2-718. 

¶15 The right to procedural due process "includes the right to 

notice and opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a 

meaningful manner." Salas v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 182 Ariz. 141, 143 

(App. 1995). Here, the Board provided Danam with adequate opportunity 

to be heard at the hearing before the Committee. In its complaint, the Board 

notified Danam of the factual allegations against him, the three grounds on 

which the charges of unprofessional conduct were based, and the nature of 

the discipline the Board proposed to impose. The complaint also listed the 

witnesses and exhibits the Board anticipated offering at the hearing.

¶16 When the hearing commenced, the hearing officer asked 

Danam if he had any exhibits to offer; Danam replied that he had submitted 

documents to the Department's Investigation Unit, but "nothing has been 

done . . . on those at all." The hearing officer then told Danam he "ha[d] the 

opportunity to submit relevant documents." Danam then offered, and the 

hearing officer admitted, Danam's response brief and two letters signed by

the Diamondback school principal. During the hearing, Danam testified 

and cross-examined each of the State's witnesses.

¶17 Although Danam expressed concern at the hearing that he 

was unfamiliar with the Committee's "protocol" and that he could not bring 

the students' parents to testify for lack of financial resources, Danam had 

the option to, and contends he did, obtain affidavits from some of the

parents. He did not, however, offer the affidavits in evidence at the hearing.

¶18 As noted, Danam filed a "Motion to Rehear Case," but he did 

not argue in that motion that the hearing officer rebuffed any attempt he 

had made to call witnesses or offer affidavits at the hearing. The same day 

Danam filed his motion for rehearing, he also filed with the Board an 

"Appeal Brief" to which he attached several documents he characterized as

affidavits. But he did not argue the hearing officer had precluded him from 

calling witnesses on his behalf. Nor did he argue that the hearing officer

refused to admit or the Committee or the Board failed to consider any 

affidavits he offered in evidence. Instead, in his "Appeal Brief," Danam 

cited as an error the Department's "[f]ailure . . . to provide official record of 

affidavits obtained by current and former parents of Diamondback 

Elementary School." But it was Danam's choice to offer evidence on his 

behalf, not the Board's obligation to do so. When a party is provided the 

opportunity to be heard and "chooses not to exercise it," that party cannot 

later claim to have been denied procedural due process. Watahomigie v. 
DANAM v. AZ BOARD OF EDUCATION

Decision of the Court

7

Ariz. Bd. of Water Quality Appeals, 181 Ariz. 20, 27 (App. 1994). Moreover, 

unrepresented parties such as Danam are held "to the same standards as 

attorneys." Flynn v. Campbell, 243 Ariz. 76, 83, ¶ 24 (2017).

¶19 Because the Board provided Danam with meaningful notice 

and opportunity to be heard at the hearing, it did not violate his dueprocess rights.3

B. Substantial Evidence Supported the Board's Factual Findings.

¶20 "We will not disturb an agency's factual findings that the 

evidence substantially supports." JH2K I LLC v. Ariz. Dep't of Health Servs., 

246 Ariz. 307, 310, ¶ 8 (App. 2019). "If two inconsistent factual conclusions 

could be supported by the record, then there is substantial evidence to 

support an administrative decision that elects either conclusion." DeGroot 

v. Ariz. Racing Comm'n, 141 Ariz. 331, 336 (App. 1984) (citation omitted).

¶21 The Board found Danam (1) upset his students by 

emotionally telling them that he would no longer be their teacher, (2) later 

sent emails to parents encouraging litigation and documents to school 

officials threatening vengeance, then (3) still later, lied on an employment 

application about not having been under Department investigation.

¶22 In support of those findings, Diamondback's principal 

testified that after he told Danam his teaching assignment was ending, the 

principal entered Danam's classroom and found the fourth-grade students 

"look[ing] disheveled" and saw "a lot of kids crying, a lot of people upset 

[and] a few kids yelling." The instructional aide in the classroom testified 

that Danam became "emotional" when telling the students he would "no 

longer be their teacher" and was "being asked to leave." She testified that 

an "agitated" Danam then insisted the students "go home and tell their 

parents what [the principal] and the School Board was doing to him," and 

that the students "were very distraught" and started crying. The aide 

 

3 Danam also argues the Board violated due process by relying on 

"false and perjured testimony," but for that proposition he relies only on 

evidence not offered at the hearing. See A.R.S. § 12-910(D) (review by 

appellate court limited to "record of the administrative proceeding" unless 

superior court holds evidentiary hearing or trial de novo); GM Dev. Corp. v. 

Cmty. Am. Mortg. Corp., 165 Ariz. 1, 4 (App. 1990) ("An appellate court's 

review is limited to the record before the trial court."). He also argues that 

the Board and the superior court violated due process because they were 

biased, but he offers no evidence to support this argument.
DANAM v. AZ BOARD OF EDUCATION

Decision of the Court

8

explained she then took the students to the bathrooms to "calm themselves 

down."

¶23 Further evidence showed Danam sent written threats to the 

school principal and the district's assistant superintendent, which 

prompted the principal to obtain a workplace harassment injunction 

against Danam. See supra ¶ 5. Danam also repeatedly emailed parents, 

urging them to seek medical attention for the emotional distress their 

children purportedly experienced and encouraging a multimillion-dollar 

lawsuit on their behalf. One parent testified Danam left her multiple latenight voicemails and asked her to "set fire on his behalf" and "write papers."

¶24 Finally, the Committee heard evidence that in Danam's 2017 

application to Laveen Elementary School District, he falsely answered 

"[n]o" when asked whether he has "ever been the subject of a school district 

or Department of Education . . . investigation, inquiry or review of alleged 

misconduct." At the hearing, Danam admitted he received and responded 

to the Department's "Notice of Investigation" letter in 2016.

¶25 As reflected by this account of the evidence, the Board's 

factual findings were amply supported by substantial evidence. See A.R.S. 

§ 12-910(E).

C. The Board's Legal Conclusions and the Discipline It Imposed 

Were Not Arbitrary, Capricious or an Abuse of Discretion.

¶26 We also conclude that based on the Board's factual findings, 

its conclusions that Danam acted unprofessionally under R7-2-1308(A)(1), 

(B)(6), and (B)(15) and its decision to revoke his teaching certificates were 

not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion. See A.R.S. § 12-910(E). A 

decision is "arbitrary" if it is "unreasoning action, without consideration and 

in disregard of the facts and circumstances." Maricopa County Sheriff's Office 

v. Maricopa County Emp. Merit Sys. Comm'n, 211 Ariz. 219, 222, ¶ 14 (2005)

(citation omitted). "An 'abuse of discretion' is discretion manifestly 

unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable 

reasons." Torres v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., 135 Ariz. 35, 40 (App. 1982). "A 

decision supported by substantial evidence may not be set aside as being 

arbitrary and capricious." Smith v. Ariz. Long Term Care Sys., 207 Ariz. 217, 

220, ¶ 14 (App. 2004).

¶27 On the record presented, the Board did not err by concluding 

Danam acted unprofessionally by failing to "[m]ake reasonable efforts to 

prevent pupils from conditions harmful to learning, health, or safety," R7-

2-1308(A)(1); "[f]alsify[ing] or misrepresent[ing] documents, records, or 
DANAM v. AZ BOARD OF EDUCATION

Decision of the Court

9

facts related to professional qualifications or educational history or 

character," R7-2-1308(B)(6); and "[e]ngag[ing] in conduct which would 

discredit the teaching profession," R7-2-1308(B)(15). The Board's decision 

was reasonable and well-supported by the evidence. See Smith, 207 Ariz. at 

220, ¶ 14; Torres, 135 Ariz. at 40.

¶28 The Board also did not err in revoking Danam's teaching 

certificates and notifying other states of the revocation. Contrary to 

Danam's contention that the revocation violated A.R.S. § 15-203(A)(20) 

(2019) as an excessive penalty, the Board's discipline fell squarely within its 

statutory authority to "supervise and control the certification of persons 

engaged in instructional work" and "[i]mpose such disciplinary action, 

including the . . . revocation of a certificate, on a finding of immoral or 

unprofessional conduct." A.R.S. § 15-203(A)(14), (20); see also A.A.C. R7-2-

1308(C) ("Individuals found to have engaged in unprofessional or immoral 

conduct shall be subject to, and may be disciplined by, the Board."); Petras 

v. Ariz. State Liquor Bd., 129 Ariz. 449, 452 (App. 1981).

¶29 In sum, we conclude the Board's conclusions and the 

discipline it imposed were not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of 

discretion.

4

D. The Board Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Danam's 

Motion for Rehearing.

¶30 Danam argues the Board improperly denied his motion for 

rehearing. We review the Board's denial of a motion for rehearing for abuse 

of discretion. See O'Neal v. Indus. Comm'n, 13 Ariz. App. 550, 552 (1971).

 

4 Danam also argues the decisions of the Board and the superior court 

defamed him in violation of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(2018). Any cause of action for defamation or claim under § 1983 falls

outside the scope of our review. See A.R.S. § 12-910(E) (limiting superior 

court review to whether agency action was "contrary to law, . . . not 

supported by substantial evidence, . . . arbitrary and capricious or . . . an 

abuse of discretion"); A.R.S. § 12-913. In any event, to be defamatory, a 

publication must be false, Turner v. Devlin, 174 Ariz. 201, 203 (1993), and we 

already have determined that substantial evidence supported the Board's 

factual findings. See supra ¶¶ 21-25. 
DANAM v. AZ BOARD OF EDUCATION

Decision of the Court

10

¶31 Arizona Administrative Code R7-2-709(B) provides:

A rehearing of a decision by the Board may be granted for any 

of the following causes materially affecting the moving 

party's rights:

1. Irregularity in the administrative proceedings of the 

hearing body, or abuse of discretion, whereby the moving 

party was deprived of a fair hearing.

2. Misconduct of the hearing body or the prevailing party.

3. Accident or surprise which could not have been prevented 

by ordinary prudence.

4. Newly discovered material evidence which could not with 

reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at 

the hearing.

5. Excessive or insufficient penalties.

6. Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other 

errors of law occurring at the administrative hearing.

7. That the decision is not justified by the evidence or is 

contrary to the law.

¶32 A motion for rehearing must "specify[] the particular grounds 

therefor." A.A.C. R7-2-709(A). Here, Danam's motion for rehearing did not 

cite any grounds under R7-2-709(B); rather, it generally alleged due-process 

violations and discrepancies in the hearing. As we discussed above, see

supra ¶¶ 13-19, no due-process violation occurred. In the "Appeal Brief" he 

filed at the same time, Danam offered an extensive list of evidence he 

wanted to use at the rehearing but failed to show any of it was "[n]ewly
DANAM v. AZ BOARD OF EDUCATION

Decision of the Court

11

discovered material evidence" that he could not have discovered and 

offered at the original hearing with reasonable diligence. A.A.C. R7-2-

709(B)(4).5 Danam also failed to substantiate the other numerous grounds 

he cited for rehearing.

¶33 Because Danam failed to establish any grounds for a 

rehearing under R7-2-709(B), the Board did not abuse its discretion by

denying his motion for rehearing.

E. The Superior Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Denying 

Danam's Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing.

¶34 Danam argues the superior court erred by denying his motion 

for an evidentiary hearing. We review the court's denial of a motion for an 

evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion. Am. Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK 

Auto, Inc., 239 Ariz. 151, 154, ¶ 10 (2016).

¶35 The superior court properly denied Danam's motion as 

untimely. Arizona Rule of Procedure for Judicial Review of Administrative 

Decisions 10(c) required Danam to file his motion for an evidentiary 

hearing "within 30 days after the filing of the notice of appeal." Danam filed 

his motion 55 days after filing his notice of appeal. Even though he was 

representing himself, he still was required to comply with applicable 

procedural rules. See Flynn, 243 Ariz. at 83, ¶ 24.

¶36 Timeliness aside, the superior court also did not abuse its 

discretion by denying Danam's motion because he failed to "identif[y] why 

new evidence and/or witnesses [were] required in order for the Court to 

make its determination on appeal." See A.R.S. § 12-910(A) (instructing court 

to hold evidentiary hearing "to the extent necessary to make the 

determination required by subsection E") (emphasis added).

 

5 We note that the affidavits Danam attached to his motion for 

rehearing did not refute any material findings of fact underlying the Board's 

decision. The affidavits purportedly were authored by students and their 

parents or caretakers; they said Danam was a good, well-liked teacher and 

that students were sad and upset when he left. They also expressed 

displeasure at Danam's termination. These affidavits were not material to 

the issues of whether Danam acted unprofessionally after he was 

terminated and what discipline, if any, was appropriate. See A.A.C. R7-2-

709(B)(4).
DANAM v. AZ BOARD OF EDUCATION

Decision of the Court

12

F. The Board and the Superior Court Did Not Violate Danam's FreeSpeech Rights.

¶37 Danam argues the Board and superior court violated his

rights to free speech under the federal and state constitutions. See generally 

U.S. Const. amend. I; Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 6. Specifically, he contends that 

because his statements addressed issues of public concern and he was not 

unprofessional in criticizing Diamondback's principal, the Board's 

discipline violated his free-speech rights. In support of this argument, he 

cites Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205, 391 

U.S. 563 (1968). We review questions of law de novo. See Webb, 202 Ariz. at 

557, ¶ 7.

¶38 Danam's reliance on Pickering is misplaced. In that case, the 

board of education fired a teacher after the local newspaper published the 

teacher's letter criticizing the board's handling of bond proposals and 

resource allocation and accused the superintendent of preventing teachers 

from criticizing the bond proposal. 391 U.S. at 564-66. The Court held the 

board violated the teacher's First Amendment rights by firing him for the 

letter. Id. at 565.

¶39 In concluding that the teacher's letter constituted protected 

speech, the Court made clear that the teacher's statements concerned school 

funding, an issue of "legitimate public concern," and were "neither shown 

nor [could] be presumed to have in any way either impeded the teacher's 

proper performance of his daily duties in the classroom or to have 

interfered with the regular operation of the schools generally." Id. at 569, 

571-73 (footnote omitted). Thus, as Danam himself acknowledges, the 

proper free-speech analysis under Pickering hinges on whether the speech

at issue was "inappropriate and unprofessional."

¶40 Here, Danam's statements are a far cry from the teacher's 

letter to the editor in Pickering. First, the statements Danam made to his 

students, the threatening documents he sent to school officials and his 

communications to parents all concerned a private employment matter, not 

an issue of public concern. Second, the evidence showed Danam

interrupted and impeded the school day by making students distraught, 

required the instructional aide to calm the students down by taking them 

outside and forced the principal to have a discussion with students about 

the situation in the middle of the school day. Further, Danam's threatening 

communications to school officials prompted the principal to obtain an 

injunction against workplace harassment, and Danam's emails, late-night 

calls and voicemails to parents were inappropriate and caused concern.
DANAM v. AZ BOARD OF EDUCATION

Decision of the Court

13

¶41 In short, the Board disciplined Danam not for what he said, 

but for what he did: He failed to protect students from "conditions harmful 

to learning, health, or safety," he lied on his 2017 employment application

about having been under Department investigation, and he acted in a 

manner which "discredit[ed] the teaching profession." A.A.C. R7-2-

1308(A)(1), (A)(6), (B)(15). For these reasons, Danam's claimed free-speech 

violation fails.6

CONCLUSION

¶42 We conclude substantial evidence supported the Board's

decision and the decision was not contrary to law, arbitrary, capricious or 

an abuse of discretion under A.R.S. § 12-910(E). Accordingly, we affirm the 

superior court's judgment upholding the Board's decision.

 

6 Danam also argues the Board and the superior court violated his 

right to petition for redress of grievances. See generally U.S. Const. amend. 

I; Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 5. As relevant here, this right "bars state action 

interfering with access to . . . the judicial branch." Ruiz v. Hull, 191 Ariz. 

441, 457, ¶ 61 (1998). Danam offers no evidence that the administrative or 

appellate process unconstitutionally interfered with his access to the 

judicial branch. As we have discussed, see supra ¶¶ 13-19, Danam received 

adequate opportunity to be heard at the Committee hearing and he has 

availed himself of his right to appeal the Board's decision.