Opinion ID: 2544598
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: T.Y.`s accusation

Text: Shortly into the 1991 fall semester, a fourth grade student, identified throughout these proceedings as T.Y., accused Norton of fondling her breast and touching her bare thigh. It appears that Norton (1) routinely issued hall passes to students so that they could visit him in his classroom during their lunch recess and (2) routinely hugged them as they left to start their afternoon classes. T.Y. asserted that Norton had fondled her in the course of giving her one of these routine hugs while she was alone with him during a lunch recess. Eventually, on February 19, 1992, Norton was indicted in connection with T.Y.'s allegation and charged with committing the offense of sexual assault in the third degree. [6] During this five-month period, the DOE's administrative investigation into T.Y.'s allegation was conducted primarily by Donna Estomago, M&omacr;kapu's vice-principal at the time the allegation was made. After Norton was indicted, John Sosa, the DOE Windward District Superintendent, conducted a second DOE administrative investigation into T.Y.'s allegation. Sosa sought to determine what action, if any, the DOE should take, including whether to recommend to the DOE's Superintendent, Charles Toguchi, that Norton be terminated or reinstated to a teaching position. In conducting his investigation, Sosa solicited and received information and recommendations from Emiko Sugino, the DOE's Personnel Director, Jacquelin Gordon, the DOE's Windward District Personnel Specialist, and M&omacr;kapu's principal, James Schlosser, and vice-principal, Estomago. After a jury acquitted Norton on January 11, 1993 in the criminal trial arising out of T.Y.'s allegations, the DOE reinstated him to a teaching position without conducting any further administrative investigation into the matter. The remainder of this subsection details Estomago's initial school-level investigation and Sosa's subsequent district-level investigation of T.Y.'s accusation. [7]
Donna Estomago was M&omacr;kapu's vice-principal in September 1991, and, at that time, Carol Ching was the school's principal. Late in the afternoon of September 23, 1991, at approximately 4:30 or 5:00 p.m., a military Criminal Investigation Division (CID) investigator, Michael Crecelius, who was also a parent of a M&omacr;kapu student, informed Estomago of T.Y.'s accusation and that CID was referring the matter to the Honolulu Police Department (HPD) for further investigation. According to Estomago, Crecelius informed her of the allegation as a heads-up, rather than as a formal matter, and forewarned her to expect a request from T.Y.'s parents that the girl be removed from Norton's fourth grade class. Estomago informed Ching of T.Y.'s allegation that evening. Also during the evening of September 23, 1991, Estomago telephoned Norton. According to Estomago, it is typical procedure to talk to the staff member involved when something arises. According to Norton, there were usually numerous children in his classroom during recesses when his class was not in session, and, thus, he did not specifically recollect T.Y. being alone with him. Norton confirmed, however, that many of the children hugged him often, usually when he was seated at his desk, and that, as he spoke to a child, his arm would occasionally encircle the child's waist. Unbeknownst to Estomago, the HPD detective assigned to the case had instructed T.Y.'s parents not to speak to school officials until he notified them that they were free to do so. Consequently, when Estomago observed T.Y. and her mother at the school bus stop on the morning of September 24, 1991, approached them, and inquired whether she would be seeing T.Y.'s mother later that morning, the mother shook her head negatively, appearing to Estomago to be confused. Similarly, T.Y.'s parents attended an evening open house in Norton's classroom on September 25, 1991, but said nothing either to Norton or Estomago about their daughter's allegations. On September 26, 1991, Estomago telephoned Crecelius in an effort to discover why she had not been contacted by either T.Y.'s parents or the HPD. After checking with the HPD, Crecelius informed Estomago that the HPD detective assigned to the case had instructed T.Y.'s parents not to speak to anyone about the matter until the detective directed them to do so. Subsequently, on September 27, 1991, T.Y.'s mother requested that her daughter be removed from Norton's classroom. Estomago granted the mother's request, but asked her to meet with Norton and school administrators to discuss T.Y.'s allegations. T.Y.'s mother replied that she first wished to discuss Estomago's request with her husband. On September 30, 1991, as T.Y. was in the process of moving her belongings out of her desk in Norton's classroom, Norton attempted to explain his side of the story to T.Y.'s mother; T.Y.'s mother did not react to Norton. Norton reported the incident to Estomago, but Estomago apparently did not report it to Ching. However, Norton did report to Ching that T.Y. later visited him in his classroom during the lunch recess with a group of other children and had solicited a hug from him; Ching told Norton that T.Y.'s mother should be informed of the visit and appears to have relayed Norton's report to Estomago. Later that evening, Ching returned a telephone call from T.Y.'s mother and informed her of T.Y.'s visit to Norton during recess. October 4, 1991 was Ching's final day as principal and, the following day, Estomago became acting principal until sometime in November, when James Schlosser was appointed M&omacr;kapu's principal. HPD Detective Tejada first contacted the school with respect to T.Y.'s allegations on October 11, 1991; Detective Tejada informed Estomago that he would be interviewing both Norton and T.Y. in connection with his investigation of the matter. The detective cautioned Estomago that Norton should not remain in the classroom pending the criminal investigation. However, surprised that the HPD was investigating the matter and believing T.Y.'s allegations to be false, Estomago surmised that the detective's admonition was based upon caution rather than necessity (insofar as Tejada had not yet investigated the matter), disregarded the detective's suggestion, and did not communicate it to any of her superiors. The following week, on October 18, 1991, Estomago first informed her superiorโthe DOE's Deputy District Superintendent, Jacqueline Heupelโof the HPD's investigation; Heupel instructed Estomago not to discuss the incident further. However, on October 30, 1991, Estomago contacted Deputy Attorney General Russell Suzuki, as well as the DOE's Personnel Director, Sugino, because a school counselor had received a telephone call from a parent regarding T.Y.'s allegations. Yet, when Schlosser became M&omacr;kapu's principal in November, neither Estomago nor anyone else informed him that the HPD was investigating Norton or that T.Y. had accused him of molesting her. Meanwhile, Norton remained teaching, and the DOE granted him tenure on January 22, 1992, while the HPD's investigation was still pending. Indeed, according to Estomago, nothing more happened or was said about the matter from mid-October 1991 until Norton was indicted in mid-February 1992.
An indictment in the T.Y. case was returned on February 19, 1992, which, as we have noted, accused Norton of committing third degree sexual assault. According to Sosa, at around the time of the indictment, he obtained jurisdiction over the DOE's administrative investigation into Norton's alleged misconduct. Sosa had learned of the indictment as the result of a media inquiry late in the afternoon of February 19, 1992. Shortly thereafter, he discussed the situation with Donald Nugent, the DOE's Assistant Superintendent of Personnel Services, and, subsequently that evening, with District Personnel Specialist Gordon. Gordon had learned of the indictment as a result of Sugino's inquiries that afternoon. After unsuccessful attempts to contact Schlosser and Estomago, Gordon spoke with M&omacr;kapu's former principal, Ching, who related that Estomago had investigated the incident and that Estomago's investigation indicated that the accusation was unfounded. Ching asserted that she believed the military CID had investigated the matter and had dropped it. Even so, Ching informed Gordon that, [t]o be on the safe side, T.Y. had been transferred to another fourth grade class and that T.Y.'s mother seemed to be satisfied with this solution. Because Sosa and Gordon were unable, despite their repeated attempts, to contact Schlosser until later that evening, Sosa instructed Gordon to contact Norton directly and to inform him that he would be placed on administrative leave. [8] Gordon promptly did so. [9] Shortly after 7:00 p.m., Sosa succeeded in contacting Schlosser and discussed with him what steps to take regarding [the] school, parents, teachers[,] and students, and the need to review [the] records with Estomago. Estomago first learned of the indictment from Schlosser, and her reaction was one of horror because she believed in [her] heart that there was nothing that had transpired[.] When Schlosser learned of the indictment from Sosa, it was the first he had heard of T.Y.'s accusation against Norton. While discussing the indictment, Estomago informed Schlosser that her investigation of the initial allegation during the fall semester had unearthed no evidence to substantiate T.Y.'s allegations. The following morning, on February 20, 1992, Sosa contacted Estomago, who briefed him on the incident from her perspective. Also that morning, Schlosser spoke with the students in Norton's class and, subsequently, conducted two assemblies, during which he noted that it was important not to judge or gossip about the matter and that the school counselor would be available throughout the day for the students. During the assemblies, some children became upset at the allegations and scrutinized their fellow students to determine who had accused Norton, a beloved teacher. Parents also became upset upon learning that Norton had been removed from his teaching position. No other student came forward with any additional allegations against Norton after learning of the indictment. [10] That afternoon, Sosa arranged a meeting with Gordon, Schlosser, Ching, and Estomago in order to clarif[y] notes and statements; in the course of the meeting, Sosa stressed the seriousness of the matter and pointed out the importance of DOE personnel to bring these types of cases to closure. The circuit court inferred that Sosa had faxed the results of this meeting to DOE Personnel Director Sugino. In a memorandum prepared by Sugino, dated February 20, 1992 and directed to DOE Superintendent Toguchi, Sugino asserted that [i]nitial review of the situation indicates that this concern surfaced last fall . . . and an investigation was conducted by the school. It was determined at that time that the concern was adequately resolved. [11] Also on February 20, 1992, Sosa transmitted a memorandum to Norton, which confirmed that Norton was being placed on a ten-day administrative leave with pay and that he would be contacted by [Sosa's] office during this leave to report[] to a specified place as part of [the DOE's administrative] investigation. It appears that nothing further occurred, however, until the ten-day period was due to expire, on March 4, 1992, at which time it was necessary for Sosa to determine whether to maintain Norton on administrative leave. On March 2, 1992, Schlosser transmitted Estomago's Summary of Teacher/Parent Response to Larry Norton to Gordon, see supra note 10. On March 3, 1992, Sosa transmitted a request to Toguchi that the DOE extend Norton's administrative leave until the investigation is completed and a decision is made regarding Norton's employment status. Toguchi appears to have approved Sosa's request either that day or on March 4, 1992, and, in any event, approved Sosa's request in writing a week later, on March 10, 1992. Also on March 4, 1992, presumably before Toguchi had approved his request, Sosa presided over a conference with Gordon, Norton, and Norton's Hawai`i State Teachers' Association (HSTA) representative, Samuel Moore, the purpose of which was to determine what[] action would be appropriate. At the conference, Norton informed the others that an [arrest] warrant was issued on March 3, 1992 and that his arraignment was scheduled to occur on March 12, 1992, at which time he would enter a plea of not guilty and a trial date would be set. Norton reiterated, as he had previously related to Estomago, that he did not recall any circumstances that would have given rise to T.Y.'s accusations. Norton related that, on the advice of his attorney, he had refused to take a lie detector test and refused to answer any questions during the HPD's investigation. Norton queried why he had been placed on administrative leave, which he felt was a judgment that he was guilty. In response, someone at the conference told him that the administrative leave was to protect him and the DOE from further problems. Gordon's minutes of the conference conclude with an entry, which asserts that [i]t was agreed that the [DOE] and [the] HSTA would pursue avenues to expedite [Norton's criminal] trial. This is important because of the transiency of the population of M&omacr;kapu Elementary School. If delayed for a long time, many potential witnesses would no longer be in Hawaii. Mr. Norton was advised to have his attorney get depositions from potential witnesses. [12] On May 11, 1992, Sugino informed Sosa that the prosecutor assigned to Norton's case would be providing the DOE with a copy of a videotaped interview of T.Y. that had been conducted at the Children's Advocacy Center, as well as a transcript of the grand jury proceedings. Sugino's memorandum to Sosa notes that Sugino would inform Sosa when the DOE had actually obtained the videotape in order to make the arrangements for the viewing by you and your principal. Sugino remarked that, [w]ith this additional information, the [DOE] will be in a better position to determine the appropriate action. In closing, Sugino conveyed the importance of Sosa's investigation of Norton's alleged misconduct and reassured Sosa that, [b]ecause we recognize the individual's rights balanced with our concerns for the welfare of the students, every effort shall be made to assist you in your investigation of this matter, so that a proper decision can be determined. Subsequently, Sosa received and reviewed the videotape. At trial, Sosa asserted that he was objective about looking at what was presented on the [video] tape and acknowledged that it made him concerned enough that [he] wanted to sit down with Mr. Norton[,]... have him view [it,] and hear Norton's side of the story. On June 18, 1992, Schlosser sent a memorandum to Sosa, recommending that any action on Lawrence Norton by the [DOE] be postponed until the outcome of his [criminal] trial[,] which is scheduled this month. In the memorandum, Schlosser stated that he had contacted Norton, requested an interview with him and his HSTA representative, and offered to share a viewing of the videotape with Norton. Norton initially replied that he would consult his attorney, but that he wanted to cooperate with the DOE. However, Norton's HSTA representative subsequently informed Schlosser that Norton's attorney had advised Norton not to talk to anyone about the case. Schlosser's memorandum closed with the observation that [o]ur consideration of the outcome of the court case will allow the [DOE] to fairly judge Mr. Norton's conduct with regard to this accusation. [13] On June 26, 1992, Sosa mailed a memorandum to Norton that reiterated the substance of Schlosser's June 18, 1992 memorandum, renewed his offer to view the videotape, and invited Norton to a conference about the matter: As part of the [DOE's] administrative investigation of the alleged sexual assault, I viewed the videotape, and I would like to afford you the opportunity to view this videotape, and to give your version of the facts giving rise to the allegations, and to respond to the questions which I have concerning the statements made by the student. . . . Please call my secretary . . . on or before July 9, 1992 to schedule or decline this conference. Norton accepted the offer to participate in a conference with Sosa, and, consequently, on July 7, 1992, Sosa and Gordon met with Norton, Moore (Norton's HSTA representative), and Norton's attorney, Clifford Hunt. Sosa opened the meeting by noting that he could support Schlosser's recommendation to table the investigation until the conclusion of Norton's criminal trial, or he could recommend to the DOE Superintendent such disciplinary action as suspension, reassignment, or termination. Sosa asserted that he wanted to hear what [Norton] had to say, so that his decision would, hopefully, be better informed. Those present at this meeting initially clarified the particular documents that had been shared with Norton up to that time, after which Gordon agreed to produce documents that Norton and his attorney believed had not yet been provided to them. [14] Norton's attorney supported Schlosser's recommendation and remarked that Norton's trial was scheduled to commence on August 24, 1992, but that a delay was possible. Moore also supported Schlosser's recommendation, remarking that, earlier[,] the school did an investigation and found the charges at that time to be groundless and that the Marine Corps[,] through whatever mechanism that they [use to] investigate things, did so and found the charges to be groundless[.] Moore advocated that Norton should be kept on full pay and benefits until this thing has been adjudicated through a competent court. Norton declined to view the videotape, his attorney remarking that they had already done so. During the remainder of the meeting, Sosa posed a number of specific questions to Norton, which he had formulated after viewing the videotape, in connection with T.Y.'s accusation and Norton's attempt to confront T.Y.'s mother on the day that T.Y. had removed her belongings from Norton's classroom. [15] Norton declined to answer any of Sosa's questions, invoking his constitutional right to remain silent in light of the pending criminal charge against him. Sosa concluded the meeting by indicating that he would notify Norton of his decision regarding Schlosser's recommendation, but that further review would be necessary in the event that any additional information was obtained. At trial, Sosa acknowledged that, at this point in his administrative investigation, Norton had pretty much stonewalled his attempt to obtain information. On August 13, 1992, Superintendent Toguchi notified Norton that he would remain on administrative leave with pay until a decision is made regarding the investigation of the serious complaint made against you by the parents of one of your students and that he should be available for meetings regarding the matter. As of August 14, 1992, Sosa had no information at all, other than T.Y.'s videotaped allegations. Consequently, upon a deputy attorney general's suggestion, relayed to Sosa by Sugino, Sosa contacted Norton to offer[him] the option of obtaining a medical examination to determine [his] fitness to resume teaching duties. [16] During the telephone conversation, Sosa made it clear to [Norton] that [he] needed additional information upon which to base [his] decision to return [Norton] to the classroom. Sosa also informed Norton that, in the event Norton declined to submit to such an examination, he would re-think [his] options and inform [Norton] of [his] subsequent decision. [17] Norton opted to discuss Sosa's offer with his attorney and, after doing so, refused it without explanation. Regarding the foregoing, Sosa testified at trial as follows: Well, we were faced with a situation of where we had had an employee that's been out of the classroom for that period of time. I'm not sure how many months it was alreadyโon paid leave. We had no information or little information other than the videotape regarding the allegations, and we were not able to conduct a thorough investigation. At that point in time, the other issues were going through the process in terms of the other trial [ i.e., Norton's criminal trial] and that sort of thing and on those charges. So the issue wasโand if I remember somewhere along the lineโduring that summer, the union asked if we would be placing him back into the classroom position. So we needed to make some determination as to whether or notโobviously, our concern was for the safety of the kidsโwhether or not we should put him back in the classroom. So then the discussion came around to the possible examination of a medical physician to give us some information regarding this person's state of mind and functioning ability at that point. So that's the context as to how the discussion came about to consider that as an option. However, Sosa denied being aware that the purpose of such an examination would have been to determine whether Norton was in fact a pedophile or that the two psychologists proposed by the DOE to perform the examination, see supra note 16, were specialists in deviant sexual behavior. At trial, Sosa acknowledged that, so far as he knew, the DOE made no further attempts to investigate the matter once Norton refused to submit to the offered examination. Nevertheless, on September 22, 1992, Sosa informed Norton that he would be reassigned for the 1992 fall semester to a non-teaching position, rather than being subjected to disciplinary action, because our investigation of the concerns regarding the allegation of your misconduct . . . indicates insufficient evidence to take any disciplinary action at this time.

On January 11, 1993, the jury in Norton's criminal trial rendered a not guilty verdict. Effective January 25, 1993, the DOE reinstated Norton to his previous fourth-grade teaching position without conducting any further investigation. Each of the DOE administrators involved appears to have believed that the jury's not guilty verdict was synonymous with a determination beyond a reasonable doubt that Norton was, in fact, innocent. [18] Indeed, in a letter to KMCAS base command, dated February 2, 1993, Sosa noted that, [i]n view of [his] acquittal, the fact that T.Y. was no longer a student at M&omacr;kapu, and indications of support by other parents at the school and the school administration, Norton was reinstated to his former teaching position, because, [i]n summary, both the administrative and criminal investigation/prosecution processes have essentially absolved Mr. Norton[.] [19] In the interim between Norton's acquittal and reinstatement, the DOE made no attempt, despite the fact that his right against self-incrimination no longer obtained, to question Norton or to have him submit to the proposed psychological examination. [20] Nor, indeed, had the DOE, at any time during its investigation, sought Norton's medical records or attempted to interview his friends or family members. [21] In sum, and despite his representations to the contrary to Lt. Col. Messere, Sosa acknowledged at trial that Norton had stonewalled the DOE's investigation and that the investigation had not produced any evidence in favor of him and had failed to absolve him.
Soon after Norton was reinstated, Schlosser cautioned him, because it was the judicious thing to do, against physically touching students in any manner that might be misinterpreted. Indeed, when Schlosser became aware that Norton had been seen hugging students, he remarked to Norton that, if it had been he that had been accused, he wouldn't be anywhere near a kid. However, because he thought that Norton's union contract precluded any differential treatment among teachers, Schlosser did not impose any restrictions upon Norton's conduct or subject him to any special supervision. Norton resumed his practice of issuing hall passes to students, including fourth and fifth grade girls with light colored hair (as had been T.Y.'s), so that they could visit him during lunch recesses. While the students were visiting him, Norton would offer them candy and solicit hugs from the girls before they left to attend their afternoon classes; he would not, however, routinely hug the boys that visited him. Apparently, Norton was the only teacher to issue hall passes for the purpose of simply visiting with children during lunch recesses, as opposed to ensuring that they completed unfinished homework assignments. In early January 1995, approximately one or two weeks into the spring semester, Schlosser became aware that Norton had recommenced issuing hall passes to students. Schlosser was concerned about the passes because, according to his deposition testimony, they caused confusion, as students would collect them and use them without proper authorization. He was not concerned, however, about Norton using the passes in order to be alone with a female student; this was because he would frequently roam the halls during lunch recess and observe numerous children in Norton's room. Moreover, Schlosser harbored no concern about [Norton] being inappropriate with the children. To the contrary, it appears, as Schlosser conveyed to Norton in early January 1995 (before any further allegations against Norton surfaced), that Schlosser believed that teachers should have the prerogative of physically interacting with and touching students. [22]