Opinion ID: 4561258
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Duvall’s History of Misconduct

Text: Throughout Lester Duvall’s time teaching in the District, District employees and community members repeatedly reported that Duvall had physically abused students. Employees were trained to report serious teacher misconduct to the District Human Resources Department (“HR”) or to their immediate supervisor, who would in turn report it to HR. When employees suspected child abuse, they were also required to file a report with Child Protective Services (“CPS”) and notify the student’s parents. Upon receiving a report, HR’s responsibility was to investigate and determine what response was appropriate. Duvall’s first incidents of abuse reflected in the record took place in November 2003, when he was working at the Beekman Center (“Beekman”), a District school for students with special needs. Defendant Sheryl Bacon was principal of Beekman at that time. That month, an intern reported to her that Duvall had “slammed” a student into a table. (Pl. Ex. 1, R. 112-2 at PageID #2546.) A few days later, an aide in Duvall’s classroom reported that Duvall had “[y]anked” a child from a chair by the arm, “slammed” another child into a table, and forcefully grabbed and squeezed another’s face. (Id. at #2541.) The aide expressed concern that Duvall would eventually seriously hurt a student. The record does not reflect if or how Bacon responded to these reports. In April 2005, multiple teachers reported seeing Duvall slap a student across the face. This incident was also reported to Bacon, who told a teacher that the child’s parents would be informed and an incident report created. The record also does not reflect if or how Bacon actually responded to this incident. In March 2007, an aide reported that Duvall pushed a student to the floor, grabbed him by the mouth and yelled at him in order to force him to spit out a piece of candy. The child screamed and cried, and he was left with bloody scratches on his face. Again, the record does not reflect if or how Bacon responded to this incident. In mid-2011, Bacon retired, and Defendant Edna Robinson became principal of Beekman. Bacon told Robinson prior to her start that Duvall was “a very good teacher,” about whom she had received no complaints. (Robinson Dep., R. 112-32 at PageID #3248.) She also No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 4 said that she shredded her notes on anyone in the building prior to her departure. 1 Upon Robinson’s arrival, the school’s union representative presented her with a full envelope of statements regarding Duvall’s mistreatment of students and women in the building. When deposed, Robinson explained that she spoke with staff about the allegations, and some corroborated them, while others did not. She said that she did not have enough evidence to be sure the incidents had occurred, but sent the statements to HR anyway.2 The record does not reflect whether Robinson notified CPS or any students’ parents about these incidents or whether HR undertook any additional investigation. In April 2012, another Beekman special education teacher, Rezan Ellenwood, wrote to Robinson reporting multiple instances of abuse by Duvall and alleging that he had harassed her. Ellenwood stated that Duvall generally physically intimidated students and was excessively physically rough with them. More specifically, Ellenwood reported seeing Duvall “place his thumb under [a student’s] jaw line and apply pressure to get her to stop [making] noises.” (Pl. Ex. 2., R. 112-3 at PageID #2565.) She also saw Duvall “grab” a student by the shirt, “push him into the wall” and get up “nose to nose” with him. (Id.) Ellenwood explained that she had previously reported Duvall’s physical aggression toward students to Defendant Bacon, who had not addressed her report. After speaking with both Ellenwood and Duvall, Robinson referred the complaint to HR and requested an investigation by the District’s Director of Public Safety, John Parks. Parks later noted that Robinson said this was the first complaint she had heard about Duvall. The record does not reflect whether Robinson also reported these allegations to CPS or any student parents. Robinson also contacted her supervisor, Defendant Martin Alwardt, the District’s Director of Special Education, and told him that an investigation was pending. 3 Defendant Yvonne Caamal 1BecauseBacon shredded her notes, the record does not reflect any additional incidents of abuse that might have been documented in them. 2Itis not clear if these statements are included in the record. Plaintiff submitted a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request for all documented allegations of abuse by Duvall, but the only earlier reports apparently secured were the November 2003, April 2005, and March 2007 complaints previously discussed. These may be the same statements provided to Robinson in this envelope, or there may be other statements not reflected in the record. 3When deposed, Alwardt said that he first saw Ellenwood’s reports about Duvall years later, in a meeting with Ellenwood and other District administrators. It is not clear what information Robinson reported to Alwardt at No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 5 Canul, who was the District Superintendent beginning in 2012, likewise received a copy of Ellenwood’s statement and passed it on to Alwardt for follow-up. Parks investigated Ellenwood’s allegations that Duvall had harassed her. Regarding her student abuse allegations, Parks later explained that he asked Duvall if he was abusing students and that Duvall said no, but that he did not look any further into the incidents Ellenwood alleged because he had no other evidence of them. Although Robinson claims to have sent the previously mentioned envelope of reports against Duvall to HR, Parks said that his office had never received any other reports about Duvall from any source. Parks’ investigative report acknowledged Ellenwood’s abuse allegations and that, when interviewed, she said that she had “constantly” reported incidents of abuse to Defendant Bacon, who “refused to do anything about [them].” (Id. at #2557.) The report did not include any other information on the reported abuse. Parks gave the report to HR, and later explained that Alwardt was then responsible for reviewing and evaluating the report and recommending follow-up as appropriate.4 HR informed Robinson of the results of the investigation and that HR would respond to it. No other action was taken. In October 2012, Ellenwood wrote to Parks, copying Alwardt. She expressed concern that her abuse allegations had not been investigated and requested that the investigation be reopened so that “[her] main, and most significant point (that Mr. Duvall physically mishandled students at the Beekman Center)” could be addressed. (Pl. Ex. 3, R. 112-4 at PageID #2597.) The record does not reflect any response to this follow-up complaint. Later in October 2012, another Beekman aide, Emily Dove, requested to be removed from Duvall’s classroom after working there for only four days because she was so disturbed by the abuse she had witnessed in that time. She detailed three incidents. First, when a student spilled juice, Duvall angrily threw the juice carton at the student. The next day, Duvall “grabbed” a student by the arm, “YANKED him up,” and “yell[ed] at his face to stop making this point, but viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff and making reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor—as we must at this juncture—we assume that he heard about Ellenwood’s allegations of physical abuse because Robinson says that she told him about the complaint. 4Alwardt asserts that he never received a copy of any investigative report completed by Parks. Again, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff and making reasonable inferences in her favor, we infer that he did receive a copy of these reports as alleged and as Parks’ deposition suggests. No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 6 noise.” (Pl. Ex. 4, R. 112-5 at PageID #2637.) The student tried to sit down, but Duvall “yanked again at his arm” and when the student made more noise, Duvall “push[ed] the student and yell[ed] at him to stop.” (Id.) Two days later, on October 4, 2012, a student got up from her chair after being told not to, whereupon Duvall started “yelling very rough,” and “pushing, shoving, yanking to get the student back to her seat.” (Id.) “[W]hen he got her in her seat[,] he placed his left hand on her [forehead] and pushed back and placed his right hand at her neck” and “push[ed] so hard that you could see the muscles in his arm tighten” for about fifteen seconds, “[t]he entire time while yelling at her to stay sitting and not to get up.” (Id.) The student did not resist or fight back and “appeared to be in physical distress, because her eyes were bulging out of her face.” (Id. at #2604.) This student was nonverbal. Robinson submitted a report on Dove’s statements to Parks, requesting another formal investigation, and further reported the incident to CPS. She also informed HR and Alwardt, who also referred the incident to Parks and HR. She then spoke with Duvall, who said that Dove had lied, but admitted using a pressure hold on a student. Robinson told him not to use force with students and reminded him that they had already spoken about his “inappropriate hands on techniques with students.” (Id. at #2613.) Duvall responded that other Beekman administrators had allowed him to “handle students with behaviors” and that “he was not going to stop what he was doing.” (Id.) Robinson later relayed a summary of this conversation to Parks and Alwardt. Duvall was placed on paid administrative leave while the October 4, 2012 incident was investigated. This time, Parks’ investigative report concluded that Duvall’s actions were “punitive and in violation of [District policy on] discipline and use of physical force upon students.”5 (Id. at #2609.) 5That district policy established: A. Physical restraint is appropriate only when a student is displaying physical behavior that presents substantial imminent risk of injury to the student or others. 1. The student is demonstrating the intent and the ability to cause injury within a matter of minutes. B. Physical restraint should only be employed as a last resort after other methods of de- escalating a dangerous situation have been attempted without success. C. Physical restraint should only be employed by staff members who have received specific district approved crisis intervention training in the use of physical restraint procedures. No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 7 Parks’ report also indicated that he had uncovered additional allegations against Duvall, which should be addressed “due to liability concerns.” (Id.) To start, staff reported that Duvall had “a habit of refusing students’ request to use the bathroom,” leading in at least one instance to a student having a bowel movement in his clothes. (Id. at ##2651–52.) Parks next uncovered an email to Robinson from October 8, 2012, in which an employee of the Community Mental Health Authority (“CMH”) reported the following incidents. First, in a 2010 meeting, Duvall told CMH that if a student became “too loud” while in the pool, “he dunks her head under water ([because] she hates the water).” (Id. at #2654.) In March 2011, a student returned from school with bruises and scratches, which she said were inflicted by Duvall. In April 2011, another student said that a “Ms. Reno” had touched her breasts and private areas, later identifying “Ms. Reno” as Duvall. (Id.) In May 2011, another student came home with an abrasion on their cheek, saying Duvall did it. Parks also attached a follow-up letter from October 10, 2012, in which CMH requested that a student not be placed in Duvall’s classroom based on his repeated use of “physical force, control tactics and verbal threats” and indicated that numerous instances of Duvall’s suspected abuse had been brought to the attention of protective services, Bacon and Robinson, and the Lansing Police Department. Parks did not receive authorization to investigate these allegations. Upon receiving CMH’s complaints, Robinson met with Duvall and passed them along to Defendant Alwardt. On October 12, 2012, an employee from Mid-Michigan Guardianship Services wrote to Robinson, copying Alwardt and Caamal Canul, to express support for CMH’s concerns. The employee requested that a student not be placed in Duvall’s classroom, a request 1. Other school personnel may employ physical restraint procedures only in rare and clearly unavoidable emergency circumstances when fully trained school personnel are not immediately available. Untrained staff should request assistance from trained staff as soon as possible. 2. A physical restraint of a student should be conducted in a manner consistent with the techniques prescribed in the District approved crisis intervention training program. . . . H. For students with disabilities, the use of physical restraint should not be included in a student’s IEP, or Behavior Intervention Plan. . . . E. Restraint should never be used as a punishment, or to force compliance with staff commands. (Pl. Ex. 5, R. 112-6 at PageID ##2661–62.) Duvall had not received training on how to use restraints. There were six exceptions to this policy, none of which applied in this incident. No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 8 Alwardt later confirmed that multiple parents and court-appointed guardians had also made. On October 16, 2012, Alwardt received another letter from CMH requesting additional investigation into Duvall’s conduct. CMH noted that the non-verbal student who Duvall had choked had previously been removed from his classroom based on allegations of abuse that had been reported to protective services, the police, and Bacon. CMH further noted that it had not received word about the October 4 incident, nor had the incident been reported to protective services or the student’s guardian, as required by law. In the same letter, CMH reported that a student had recently returned from Beekman with bruises on his neck, that Beekman had not responded to his guardian’s request for information about the bruises, and that Robinson had not reported the bruises to CPS. When deposed, Alwardt explained that he referred CMH’s complaints to HR. He said that he met with CMH representatives and looked for documentation on the allegations, but did not find any. The record does not reflect whether any additional investigation took place. Following the October incidents, Alwardt said in his deposition, he recommended that Duvall be suspended and required to take anger management training. Initially, Duvall was suspended for three days without pay. The District later reduced this suspension from three days to one day, with an agreement that if Duvall was not disciplined for similar conduct before the end of the 2013–2014 school year, it would be further reduced to “a formal counseling statement.” (Pl. Ex. 7, R. 112-8 at PageID #2672.) When deposed, Duvall said that the suspension had ultimately been reduced to a letter of reprimand. Alwardt said in his deposition that he also told Duvall that this conduct would not be tolerated, reminded him of the District’s restraint policies, and ordered him to take additional Crisis Prevention Intervention training. Duvall himself said that Alwardt never discussed any complaints with him prior to the incident with C.G., but instead actually chastised him twice while he was at Gardner for failing to use physical restraints. At some point during her tenure at Beekman, Robinson spoke with Alwardt about a separate report from a parent whose child had bruising apparently inflicted by Duvall. Upon receiving the parent’s complaint, Robinson conducted her own building-level investigation, and met with Duvall, the parent, and the student. Robinson’s investigation was “inconclusive,” and No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 9 she did not send her internal report about this incident to anyone. (Robinson Dep., R. 112-32 at PageID #3246.) She, like Bacon, shredded her notes upon her later retirement. Following the “firestorm” of complaints CMH made about Duvall, Alwardt transferred Duvall from Beekman to Gardner beginning in the 2013–2014 school year. (Alwardt Dep., R. 112-24 at PageID ##2896–98.) Before Duvall started at Gardner, Alwardt reached out to Defendant Connie Nickson, who was the principal at Gardner. Alwardt says he told Nickson that Duvall had been accused of physical abuse, but that the District “had no documentation, no witnesses, no statements, nothing in the HR file” to support these allegations, and that “[e]verybody else says he’s a good teacher.” (Id. at #2890.) Nickson did not ask for details about those incidents. Duvall’s abuse continued at Gardner. In February 2014, Duvall’s assistant reported that when a student became unruly, Duvall grabbed her by the arms and threw her ten feet across the room into the corner of a bookcase, leaving her with large bruises on her arms. (Pl. Ex. 12, R. 112-13 at PageID #2719.) The assistant stated that Duvall had thrown this student several times previously, was violent with other students, “brag[ged] about the mishandling” of a student, and generally “ha[d] an anger issue.” (Id.) A student witness also stated that Duvall had thrown the student to the floor “[a] lot of times,” and that Duvall had also thrown him to the floor before. (Id.) Nickson informed HR about this incident. A District employee investigated and concluded that although two witnesses agreed that Duvall had thrown the student, and although there were indeed bruises on the student’s arms, because it was “not known whether [the student] clearly understands the difference between being legitimately restrained and ‘thrown,”’ the investigation was “inconclusive.” (Id. at ##2722–23.) When deposed, Alwardt stated that in response to this incident, he recommended that HR monitor Duvall closely, but he could not confirm whether it did. Nickson did not take further action, later explaining that because “HR cleared him to continue to work, I assumed that he was okay to work.” (Nickson Dep., R. 112-30 at PageID #3179.) In May 2014, a student was pulled from Duvall’s classroom because her mother perceived it to be an unsafe environment. That same month, Nickson evaluated Duvall’s No. 19-1645 Garza v. Lansing Sch. District, et al. Page 10 performance for the year. She gave him a perfect score in classroom management and recommended that his employment be continued. In August 2014, Ellenwood again renewed her complaints about Duvall’s conduct to District administrators. In a meeting with Defendant Alwardt and other District executives, she provided them with a timeline of the incidents she witnessed, her reports, and the actions—or lack thereof—taken by the District.