 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Q. NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, 2001
MAURA LARKINS WROTE LETTERS TO ONE COLLEAGUE,
ADMINISTRATORS, AND SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS,
ATTEMPTING TO PREVENT A LAWSUIT BY:
1) ASKING THE DISTRICT TO AMELIORATE THE EXCEEDINGLY
HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT TO WHICH SHE HAD BEEN
ASKED TO RETURN;
SHE WAS IGNORED BY ALL;
2) BY ASKING THE DISTRICT TO MITIGATE HER DAMAGES BY
PAYING HER SALARY;
3) ASKING THOSE WHO KNEW THE TRUTH TO REVEAL THE
REASONS FOR FALSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HER; TEACHERS
PREFERRED TO PROTECT THE GUILTY RATHER THAN THE
INNOCENT.
R. DECEMBER 2001
MAURA LARKINS' GRIEVANCES (AGAINST MR. WERLIN) WERE
SUMMARILY DENIED BY (GUESS WHO?) MR. WERLIN.
MAURA LARKINS WROTE LETTERS TO ONE COLLEAGUE,
ADMINISTRATORS, AND SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS,
ATTEMPTING TO PREVENT A LAWSUIT BY:
1) ASKING THE DISTRICT TO AMELIORATE THE EXCEEDINGLY
HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT TO WHICH SHE HAD BEEN
ASKED TO RETURN;
SHE WAS IGNORED BY ALL;
2) BY ASKING THE DISTRICT TO MITIGATE HER DAMAGES BY
PAYING HER SALARY;
3) ASKING THOSE WHO KNEW THE TRUTH TO REVEAL THE
REASONS FOR FALSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HER; TEACHERS
PREFERRED TO PROTECT THE GUILTY RATHER THAN THE
INNOCENT.
R. DECEMBER 2001
MAURA LARKINS' GRIEVANCES (AGAINST MR. WERLIN) WERE
SUMMARILY DENIED BY (GUESS WHO?) MR. WERLIN.
| Maura Larkins' grievances (against Mr. Werlin) were summarily denied by Mr. Werlin! |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| What happened at CVESD? |
| Page 13 |
S. FEBRUARY 2002
MAURA LARKINS FILED A PERB CHARGE AGAINST THE
DISTRICT.
T. MARCH 2002
MAURA LARKINS FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE DISTRICT.
U. MAY 7, 2002
THE SCHOOL BOARD VOTED TO DISMISS PETITIONER—
SEVEN MONTHS AFTER SHE REFUSED TO REPORT TO
WORK; IT HAD NO REASON TO DISMISS HER SINCE SHE
WASN’T WORKING AND WASN’T BEING PAID; ITS MOTIVE
WAS CLEARLY RETALIATION FOR FILING THE LAWSUIT.
The District was happy to keep everything quiet, as long as
Mrs. Larkins stayed home and wasn’t paid. But when Mrs.
Larkins filed suit, the District figured that a good offense was
the best defense.
MAURA LARKINS FILED A PERB CHARGE AGAINST THE
DISTRICT.
T. MARCH 2002
MAURA LARKINS FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE DISTRICT.
U. MAY 7, 2002
THE SCHOOL BOARD VOTED TO DISMISS PETITIONER—
SEVEN MONTHS AFTER SHE REFUSED TO REPORT TO
WORK; IT HAD NO REASON TO DISMISS HER SINCE SHE
WASN’T WORKING AND WASN’T BEING PAID; ITS MOTIVE
WAS CLEARLY RETALIATION FOR FILING THE LAWSUIT.
The District was happy to keep everything quiet, as long as
Mrs. Larkins stayed home and wasn’t paid. But when Mrs.
Larkins filed suit, the District figured that a good offense was
the best defense.
| It is a violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 to dismiss an employee for filing a lawsuit or a PERB charge. |
| Do San Diego and Chula Vista public officials choose lawyers who will benefit them personally at the expense of the taxpayers and voters? |
| The California Office of Administrative Hearings Itself Violated Labor Code section 1102.5 |
| The Judge Boldly Stated that Maura Larkins Was Dismissed for Reporting Wrongdoing! |
| Page 14 |
| Illegal OAH Decision |
| Home Why This Website SDCOE CVESD Castle Park Elem Law Enforcement CTA CVE Stutz Artiano Shinoff Silence is Golden Schools and Violence Office Admin Hearings Larkins OAH Hearing |
