Copyright © 2006 San Diego Education Report. All Rights Reserved.
Chula Vista Elementary School
District WANTED Maura Larkins to
stay away from the district during the
2001-2002 school year.
Yet the district falsely stated in the hearing that
Maura Larkins disobeyed its DAILY OPPOSITON to
her not reporting to work!
There was NO opposition to Mrs. Larkins
not reporting to work!
The evidence shows that what Werlin writes for the record
and what he says in person or on the phone are completely
different, for example the shocking contradiction between
his April 4 letter and his concurrent personnel action.
Maura Larkins was not "persistent in the face of
The district asked Maura Larkins on only one occasion,
October 5, 2001 to report to an assignment, and at the
same time refused to lift the ban against her setting foot
on district property, refused to retract the allegations
against her, and refused to investigate the allegations
The events of October 5, 2005 are described in Maura
Larkins' transfer grievance, stop pay grievance, and safety
|There was no finding
about whom or what
Mrs. Larkins was
supposed to forgive and
did not forgive.
|Maura Larkins filed
suit in order to get her
job back, not because
she was "unforgiving."
|By the fall of 2001,
Mrs. Larkins was
fully aware of how
hazardous her work
Neither the findings nor the evidence support the
conclusions of the judge's LEGAL CONCLUSION 11:
Judge Ahler wrote:
“To the extent that Mrs. Larkins experienced difficulty at Castle Park
Elementary School, Principal Dr. Donndelinger and Assistant
Superintendent Mr. Werlin made reasonable and sincere efforts to
accommodate Mrs. Larkins’ situation.”
When Mr. Werlin and Dr. Donndelinger asked Mrs. Larkins to return to
school in April, 2001, they did not even assure teachers that Mrs.
Larkins didn’t have a gun. They did not admit that the accusations
against her were false. Teachers had expressed worries; they were “on
eggshells,” but the administration encouraged their hostility to Mrs.
When Mrs. Larkins was asked to return in April of 2001, she didn’t know
she was returning to a hazardous duty, but it became clear within a
week that Werlin would do whatever he had to to find an excuse to
remove her again.
By the fall of 2001, Mrs. Larkins was fully aware of how
hazardous her work environment was.
IV. THE COMMISSION’S DECISION IS NOT BASED ON ITS FINDINGS.
The COMMISSION’s decision is not supported by its findings. The decision is
supported by implied findings.
Legal Conclusions 8, 11, and 16 contain allegations by the COMMISSION
which are not based on findings. Legal Conclusion 8 states that Mrs.
Larkins has a “stubborn, unforgiving nature, a trait of character was not
But there is no finding about whom or what Mrs. Larkins was supposed
to forgive and did not forgive.
Maura Larkins filed suit in order to get her job
back, not because she was "unforgiving."
The findings are supported by implied findings.
The COMMISSION has not found that there
were specific words or actions of Mrs. Larkins
to support its conclusions about her character.
|"Persistent in the Face
|The district's case
was built on Richard
|The COMMISSION’s legal
conclusions contradict each other.
According the COMMISSION, no harm was done to Mrs. Larkins;
there was no hostile environment, no violation of the contract, no violation
of the law against her.
But the conclusion that Mrs. Larkins was “unforgiving” implies a finding
that there was something to forgive.
The COMMISSION not only based its Legal Conclusion 8 on implied
findings, but those findings don’t even support the conclusion—they
contradict it. The finding of an “unforgiving nature, a trait of character that
was not remediable” is a virtual admission that Maura Larkins suffered
harm, that Maura Larkins did indeed have a hostile environment. This
contradicts the statement in the very same Legal Conclusion 8 (and in
legal conclusions 7 and 9) that Mrs. Larkins was insubordinate.
Legal Conclusion 11: “A reasonable person in Mrs. Larkins’ situation
would have continued working and would have reported to work
when directed to do so by the Superintendent of Schools.” Mrs.
Larkins had reported back to work in April of 2001, which seemed
reasonable at the time. Within a week Mr. Werlin made his true intentions
clear. He was determined to remove her from her classroom, using any
flimsy excuse he could come up with. What he came up with was Exhibit R-
24, Al Smith’s notes, and Exhibit 20, Linda Watson’s notes. In the summer
he told her that she would not be allowed to teach in any school in the
district the following year. When he asked her back in the fall, without an
investigation or a single retraction, she knew that it would be downright
foolish and unreasonable to expose herself once again to Mr. Werlin’s
extreme hostility, and absolute, arbitrary power over every aspect of her
To be banned from every school in the district but one is a mark of
Cain which has never been placed on any employee of any school
district to Petitioner’s knowledge. It is a clear signal that MRS.
LARKINS was considered a persona non grata in the district, that
she was falsely believed to be dangerous and disruptive. This was
not a hostile environment?
How did the COMMISSION determine how a reasonable person would
respond? The behavior of teachers and administrators was so
malicious and dishonest that it is difficult to find anything to
compare it with, but it is certainly comparable to the forms of
harassment which have been ruled illegal in countless cases.
|To be banned from every school in the district but one is a mark of Cain.
Werlin and Gil's plan was abusive.
|Richard Werlin and Libia Gil claimed they wanted Maura Larkins to come
back to work, but they refused to conduct an investigation, or to retract the
allegations against her, and they banned her from every school in the
district except one.
|Maura Larkins would not go back a second time under these conditions.
The first time she agreed to this, new allegations had been made against
her and never investigated.
SAN DIEGO EDUCATION REPORT