She claims the board only addressed some of the issues raised in her appeal, and did so in a cursory fashion. Petitioner contends that Superintendent Giles abused his discretion and was arbitrary and capricious in reaching his findings and taking the actions he did. Petitioner further contends that respondent board abused its discretion and was arbitrary and capricious in reversing the superintendent's findings to the extent that it found no hostile work environment. Respondents contend that the superintendent's investigation was comprehensive and competent. They further contend that his findings were appropriate, reasonable and rational.
Respondents also contend that the board's review of the superintendent's report was appropriate.
Respondents maintain that the board extensively reviewed petitioner's appeal and gave it serious consideration. Respondents assert that the board was not required to agree with the superintendent's determination. They contend that the board's finding that Ms. Arnone-Ippolitti's conduct did not constitute hostile work environment sexual harassment was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or a violation of law. Before addressing the merits, I must first address a procedural issue. In essence, petitioner is dissatisfied with what she perceives as the superintendent's and the board's lenient treatment of Ms. Arnone-Ippolitti.