...
Section 15 - Hold Harmless Clause
Contract View
Association Rights
Created by SuperUser Account in 1/21/2010
12:48:34 PM

The Association [CTA] shall indemnify, defend and
hold harmless the District, the District's Board of
Education, including each individual School Board
member,
the employees acting within the scope of their employment, agents and
representatives of the District
against any and all claims,
demands, suits or other forms of liability
, including
but not limited to,
wages,
damages,
judgments,
fees,
fines,
court costs,
attorney fees,
and any back pay,
penalties or
awards resulting from any court, arbitrator or PERB order, judgment or settlement
which may arise by reason of, or resulting from the operation of this Article.

The Association shall bear all costs of defending against any and all such claims,
demands, suits, or other forms of liability, including, but not limited to, court costs, attorney
fees and all other costs of litigation. Upon commencement of such legal action,
the
Association shall have the exclusive right to decide and determine whether any
claim, liability, suit or judgment made or brought against the District or
Association because of such action shall or shall not be compromised, resisted,
defended, tried, or appealed. The Association's decision thereon shall be final
and binding upon all parties protected by this Section.
This paragraph shall not be
construed as a waiver on the part of the District, Board of Education or any individual
protected by this Section of any claim against the Association for failing to act in good faith
in settling a claim or any failure to competently defend and hold them harmless, or in cases
where the Association seeks redress for the District's alleged failure to comply with the
operation of this Article.

Within ten (10) days of proper service of a claim, demand, suit, or other legal action
against any protected party, the District shall inform the Association and provide the
Association with copies of any documents received as a result of the legal action. Upon
request, the District shall provide the Association's legal counsel with documents and
information reasonably related to providing a defense.
NEA/CTA local indemnifies a school district:
San Diego County Office of
Education (SDCOE)
Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz
Indemnifying Lawyers
Part 1 Proof of indemnity
Part 2 Opposing indemnity
Part 3 SDCOE lawyers
San Diego Education
Report Blog
SITE MAP
Why This Website

Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation

SDCOE

CVESD

Castle Park
Elementary School

Law Enforcement

CTA

CVE

Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz

Silence is Golden

Schools and Violence

Office Admin Hearings

Larkins OAH Hearing
HOME
NEA-Jurupa Office Information
4651 Brookhollow Circle, Suite A
Riverside, CA. 92509
Phone: 951-681-7997
FAX: 951-681-7999
It looks like the NEA/CTA local affiliate in Jurupa has decided that it will do all it can to stop
any teacher from suing the district.
 
Jurupa School District Class Action Suit
By  Dianne Anderson
Precinct Reporter Group

African Americans, part of a 26-employee class action lawsuit against the Jurupa School
District, continue to wage a long list of accusations of widespread discrimination,
harassment, retaliation, getting unfairly passed over for promotions, and administrative
leave without due process.

Jeff Norman, a seventh grade math teacher, said the school district is improperly

dealing with their employees, and that he and others are being punished for bringing the
problem to light.

After signing onto the complaint, he said that he was wrongly placed on administrative leave
two weeks ago, and he’s not sure why.

“Instead of a specific reason, I've been given 25 reasons. None of them is the original
reason for letting me go,” he said.

He said if the district felt sincerely justified, he should have been put on unpaid
administrative leave.

“Once they figured out we were filling a lawsuit, all hell broke loose,” he said. “Once they
got the lawsuit and saw our names, we could no longer hide.”

He also plans to petition the District Attorney’s office and the Grand Jury about the
harassment and retaliation.
Originally, he was placed on administrative leave for saying something inappropriate to a
student, he said, but he was not told what exactly what was inappropriate.  Since then, he
said the school's accusation has been “dumbed down” to him not helping the student solve
a problem in class.

He was also denied due process when the district went against the teachers’ union
collective bargaining agreement by not letting him gather and question witnesses in his
defense.

Norman, employed there for ten years and just one of a handful of Blacks working in the
district, said technically that he’s unable to claim blatant discrimination, according to the
Department of Fair Housing and Employment, and EEOC guidelines. But he said it’s more
obvious than the guidelines suggest.

“I haven’t experienced any blatant racism where it just smacks you in the face, but it’s
subtle,” he said.

So far, there are six African Americans in the growing lawsuit, not counting a number of
additional anonymous litigants. Others are expected to join with the complaint that was filed
in August of last year.

Richard Ackerman is the attorney for the class action lawsuit against Jurupa Unified District.
He said that the level of abuse at the district seems directly proportionate to the amount
melanin of its employees.

On December 13, when he returns to court, he’s hoping for a trial. He said that the best
outcome would be that the unions advocate for their members, get an equal playing field
between minority and non-minority employees, and establish diversity at the district.

At the last board meeting, he didn’t see any minorities on the board or on the staff of
supervisory employees.

“Given the racial demographics at the district, I would certainly think the kids could be better
represented in district leadership than they are,” he said.

Leslie Braden, employed with the district for 23 years, said she was overlooked for several
promotions in various positions. She said the district had been trying to fire her on false
allegations, but her arbitration found the district’s witnesses were untruthful.

“Some of the reasons they gave the EEOC about why they didn’t promote me are felonious,
really,” she said.

As a bus driver trainer, she was the longest employee in the transportation department, but
her hours were reduced by 50 percent two years ago. She said she’s the only employee hit
with such a drastic reduction.

Braden, off work now for nearly a year, claims she was on administrative leave for five
months without knowing why, and banned from talking to employees on the district property.
She couldn’t pursue investigation to defend herself.

Eventually, she learned that she was accused of training someone using the school’s
equipment, which she denies. She trained freelance on weekends, using another company’
s bus, which is legal.

“They’re trying to terminate me for that; I don’t know how they can. That was on my time,”
she said.

A few classes away from a Bachelor's degree in English, Braden contends she has more
education than other employees promoted around her, while she’s been consistently
denied opportunities.

Since 1989 when she started there, she said she’s always been the only African American
employed out of about 60 transportation employees, except for one other who died 15
years ago. Most all promotions went to whites, but she said they lacked proper experience,
education or background.

“I think there’s one African American that works in the entire district office,” Braden said.
“There are none in food services, grounds, maintenance, transportation, warehouse, print
shop -- there are none.”



NEA-Jurupa Prevails in Grievance
NEA Jurupa
2009

Although the wheels of justice turn slowly, NEA-Jurupa member Jeffery Norman was
successful [in 2008] in his argument before arbitrator Robert Bergeson, that Jurupa Unified
School District officials had violated...

[This page was removed by the teachers union, but I found it cached here:

NEA-Jurupa Prevails in Grievance Arbitration

Although the wheels of justice turn slowly, NEA-Jurupa member Jeffery Norman was
successful in his argument before arbitrator Robert Bergeson, that Jurupa Unified School
District officials had violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement by
involuntarily
transferring him out of the Mission Middle School P.E. Department and
reassigning to  the Math Department.

Article XII, Section 7 B. states "Reassignment shall not be punitive in nature.  It shall be
based on the legitimate, educationally-related needs of students."

During the course of the proceeding, CTA attorney Marianne Reinhold contended that the
decision to move Mr. Norman was directly related to an earlier incident on the campus, and
despite arguments put forth by the District's attorney, the arbitrator found assertions by
Assistant Superintendent Tammy Elzig to be "unpersuasive".

NEA-Jurupa President Maudie Gooden stated, "There are really two victories here.  The
first one vindicates Mr. Norman and is a testament to his willingness to see this process
through to its conclusion. The second victory is for all our unit members, because through
his actions, we are all better protected against this kind of punitive reassignment."
JURUPA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA ... Ms. Lenore Boykin, JUSD Employee,
addressed the Board on a personnel matter
Lenore Boykin wins peremptory writ of madate against
Jurupa School District
Decision of Office of Administrative Hearings is overturned

Case RIC10019006
12/02/2011 10:00 AM DEPT. 06         
HEARING ON PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE         Granted           

HONORABLE JUDGE RONALD L TAYLOR, PRESIDING
CLERK: S. PORTILLO
COURT REPORTER: L. LAVITT

LENORE ANN BOYKIN REPRESENTED BY RICHARD D. ACKERMAN - RICHARD
ACKERMAN PRESENT.

JURUPA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY FAGEN FRIED MAN & FULFROST
- KERRIE TAYLOR & CHRISTOPHER KEELER PRESENT.
COUNSEL ARGUE.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE GRANTED
PROPOSED ORDER TO BE PREPARED, SERVED AND SUBMITTED BY ATTORNEY
ACKERMAN.
Blog posts Jurupa Unifed
Jurupa Unifed School District
San Diego Education Report
SDER
San Diego
Education Report
SDER
SDER
SDER
PERB decision against
Jurupa Unifed
(represented by Fagen,
Friedman, Fulfrost) in the
case of Ermine Nelson
PERB Decision 2283
August 21, 2012
Indemnifying Lawyers
Part 1 Proof of indemnity
Part 2 Opposing indemnity
Part 3 SDCOE lawyers
FFF lawyers JUSD (Taylor &
Keeler) 2013

Jurupa Unified School District
- Public Employment Relations
Board
www.perb.ca.
gov/decisionbank/pdfs/2309E.pdf‎
Mar 8, 2013 - Fulfrost by
Kerrie Taylor, Attorney, for
Jurupa Unified School District.
Before Martinez, Chair;
Huguenin and Banks,
Members.
Blog posts Jurupa Unified