Teacher loses job after violating student confidentiality policies

A school district proposed the termination of a teacher's contract. The teacher requested a hearing, and after considering the evidence presented, the Board of Trustees voted to terminate the teacher's contract. The teacher filed an appeal.

The evidence introduced at the hearing showed that the teacher was a well-liked, very successful art teacher, with no employment issues or complaints. 

One of the teacher's former students made a complaint that during an art class two years prior, the teacher inappropriately touched the student while they were alone in the class's art supply closet. The student's complaint led to a report to Child Protective Services (CPS) and a report to the school district police department. The district placed the teacher on administrative leave with pay and opened an investigation. 

When the teacher was placed on administrative leave with pay, the Human Resources officer orally admonished him to maintain the investigation's confidentiality by not discussing it with others. She also gave the teacher a written notice of leave, directing him not to contact district personnel, parents or students to discuss his leave, including on social media, or "to engage in any behavior or activity that reasonably could be construed as retaliatory" toward those that the teacher believed made the allegations, noting that violating that directive could result in discipline, up to and including termination.

The teacher's brother, who was an attorney, began to assist him.* The teacher spoke with others about the nature of the allegations, including a co-teacher who knew the student. The teacher shared personal information about the student that he had obtained through his employment. 

The teacher's brother shared with the co-teacher a draft letter criticizing the school district investigation that contained a section titled, "Failure to Take into Account Contextual Considerations Regarding the Student's Behavioral and Identity History." That section included highly personal information about the student that questioned the student's credibility. 

The co-teacher communicated about the matter with more than 50 people, which led to a Facebook post that included some of the same information from the draft letter. The student, who was recognizable to the community from this description, withdrew from the district after receiving what the student's mother testified was "vicious" community feedback.

CPS completed its investigation and did not find that sexual abuse had occurred. The teacher was not charged with any criminal offense. However, the district proposed the termination of his contract based on violation of school board policies protecting student confidentiality. 

The district had adopted board policy DH (Local) and the Educator's Code of Ethics, Standard 3.1, which provides, "The educator shall not reveal confidential information concerning students unless disclosure serves lawful professional purposes or is required by law." 

Policy DH (Local) also incorporates Ethics standard 3.2, which provides, "The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly treat a student or minor in a manner that adversely affects or endangers the learning, physical health, mental health, or safety of the student or minor."

The teacher argued that by terminating his contract, the district unlawfully retaliated against him for communicating with his attorney to defend himself. However, the commissioner of education did not agree. 

The commissioner noted that many of the teacher's actions in building his defense were permissible. The teacher had the right to solicit relevant information from others who could help build his defense. He had the right to discuss his case with his attorney and with colleagues who may have had knowledge of relevant facts that could aid his defense. In doing so, he could share with counsel and with school employees the nature of the allegation, including the student's name. Such discussions would serve the legitimate purpose of helping him discover information pertinent to his defense and are a necessary part of addressing the claims against him. 

However, the teacher went beyond this by releasing private, personal information about the student into the community. Public disclosure of student information considered confidential is not part of a teacher's right to communicate with others to build a defense. Therefore, the commissioner ruled that the district properly terminated the teacher's contract for his actions. 

*Note: The teacher in this case was NOT represented by a TCTA attorney.