Petitioner's request for interim relief was denied on August 22, 2000. Petitioner contends that A.E. was denied due process because respondent failed to provide adequate notice of the charges against him and that respondent failed to allow A.E.'s attorney to cross-examine K.P. during the hearing. Petitioner further contends that the hearing officer was biased and inappropriately relied on respondent's counsel to make rulings. Petitioner accuses respondent's attorney of violating the confidentiality of the hearing by revealing information to K.P.'s attorney. Petitioner argues that discrepancies in testimony given by K.P. and other witnesses indicate that K.P. was not truthful in her accusations and that the punishment imposed upon A.E. was excessive.
Petitioner requests that the suspension be overturned.
Respondent argues that A.E. received all necessary due process, that petitioner was provided with full notice of the charges against A.E. and that A.E.'s attorney was allowed to question K.P. at length during the hearing. Respondent denies that its attorney violated the confidentiality of the hearing or that the hearing officer inappropriately relied on her to make rulings. Respondent states that, despite some minor inconsistencies in the witness testimonies, the weight of the evidence and testimony shows that A.E. committed the acts he was accused of and that the punishment imposed is appropriate. Initially, I will address the procedural issues raised by petitioner. Petitioner claims that the written notice provided to her was deficient because it lists general charges without sufficiently specific information to enable A.E. to mount a defense.