DOCKET NO.

054-R10-08-2015
RICHARD D. YOUNG
V.
DALLAS INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT

BEFORE THE

COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

THE STATE OF TEXAS

PETITIONERS EXCEPTIONS AND REPLIES TO PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

COMES NOW, Petitioner Richard D. Young, pro se, Pursuant to 157.1059 serves this
Filing of Exceptions and Replies to Proposal for Decision to Respondent Dallas Independent
School District, by and through its Party Representative, on this 22nd day of April, 2016.

Respectfully Submitted,

Richard D. Young (pro se)

3810 Inwood Rd. #116
Dallas, TX 75209
(972)201-6681 cell
(469)914-2240 home
YoungRichardD@yahoo.com

PETITIONERS EXCEPTIONS AND REPLIES TO PROPOSAL FOR DECISION TO RESPONDENT DALLAS I.S.D.

PAGE 1

I.

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Young submitted a Petition for Review to Texas Education Agency as a result
of the Level III Grievance Hearing, which took place on Thursday, August 20, 2015, in camera,
before Respondents (Dallas ISD) School Board Sub Committee Trustees Dr. Lew Blackburn,
Mike Morath, and Nancy Bingham. The Sub Committee voted unanimously in favor of the
Respondent, denying Petitioners Grievance in its entirety. Pursuant to 157.1053, a Prehearing
Conference took place via telephone between Petitioner Young, Party Representative for
Respondent Kathryn E. Long of Thompson & Horton Law Firm of Dallas, TX, and TEA
Administrative Law Judge Christopher Maska on March, 8, 2016. Maska, in his capacity as
Administrative Law Judge, has determined that motion is ripe for determination by
recommending to the Commissioner of Education to adopt the foregoing Findings of Fact and
Conclusion of Law and enter an order consistent therewith, which was signed and issued
Monday, March 28, 2016.
II.

ARGUMENT

Grievance
Petitioner filed his original Level I Grievance, [o]nly contesting [his] TEI evaluation
scores and the improper growth plan he was placed on. Petitioner was notified of his dismissal
ten days [a]fter he filed [his] Level I Grievance and two and a half months [b]efore [he] ever
received his official probationary contract termination notice from the Board. Petitioner [n]ever
filed a grievance challenging the Boards May 18th decision to terminate Petitioners contract.
Petitioner however challenged the dismissal in [his] Level II Grievance after he was notified by
Mary Gomez in Employee Relations that he could amend [his] Level II Grievance.

PETITIONERS EXCEPTIONS AND REPLIES TO DECISION FOR PROPOSAL TO RESPONDENT DALLAS I.S.D.

PAGE 2

Exhaustion
Petitioner respectfully [a]rgues to the exten[t] that he exhausted all administrative
remedies in a timely manner, pursuant to Respondents grievance procedure. Petitioner
[m]itigated [his] claims to Kindergarten Team Leader Maria Rodriguez of Foster Elementary,
whom he addressed [his] concerns to regarding the provisions of the growth plan. Petitioner filed
a Level I Grievance to [his] principal, Zachary Hall. Petitioner then filed a Level II Grievance to
[his] principals immediate supervisor, Timothy Hise. Petitioner finally filed a Level III
Grievance to the districts School Board Sub Committee. And Petitioner then filed a Petition for
Review to the Texas Education Agency. Petitioner [h]as exhausted al[l] remedies.
Termination of Probationary Contract
Petitioner was [d]ismissed from the district as of Monday, April 1, 2015, which was one
month and a half [b]efore the Board ever issued a decision to terminate Petitioners probationary
contract. Petitioner was [n]ever issued a reason why he was dismissed from the district [o]r why
his probationary contract was terminated. Although Petitioners claims relate to the ending of
[his] employment, Petitioner [p]roclaims that all of those claims occurred [b]efore the Board ever
terminated [his] contract. The reason[s] issued to Petitioner of why [his] employment ended were
[n]ot issued to [him] until the Level II hearing in May, which were heard under tape recording.
Petitioner was not allowed to amend [his] Level III grievance or add any additional claims in the
Level III Grievance per Mary Gomez and Norman Cannon in Employee Relations pursuant to
district policy governing grievances. Texas Education Code 21.103(a) provides that a school
boards decision that its best interests are served by a decision to terminate a probationary
contract at the end of the contracts period is final and may not be appealed does [n]ot apply
PETITIONERS EXCEPTIONS AND REPLIES TO DECISION FOR PROPOSAL TO RESPONDENT DALLAS I.S.D.

PAGE 3

to Petitioner, because Petitioner did [n]ot explicitly grieve the contract termination and Petitioner
filed his original grievance over two months [b]efore the Board ever voted to terminate his
probationary contract. Since Petitioner was dismissed [p]rior to his probationary contract
termination, this allows him to appeal to Commissioner that termination procedures of the
district were improper. Petitioners 2014-2015 probationary contract was still a valid contract
when [he] was released from the district April 1 and Respondent did not properly end the
contract, still making Petitioner an employee of Respondent. See Tomas Martinez vs. United
I.S.D., See Deirdre Fields vs. Alief I.S.D., See Texas Education Code 21.206(b). Terminating
Petitioners contract violates his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights if it is in retaliation of
exercising free speech. Grievance redressing is governed and protected under the First
Amendment. While Commissioner may not have jurisdiction over Title VII retaliation claims,
denying Petitioner due process of his grievance redressing or contract termination still violates
the Fourteenth Amendment. See Perry vs. Sindermann 408 U.S. 593 (1972). Petitioner redressed
his grievance [b]efore his probationary teaching contract was terminated.
Improper Delivery Method of Contract Termination
Petitioner claims that [he] was notified by, and confirmed, members of his teachers
union on Tuesday, December 29, 2015, that the delivery method of his probationary contract
termination was improper and violates Texas Education Code Section 21.103(a), which was the
same day he produced and mailed his Brief in Support. Petitioner did timely file another
grievance on Tuesday, January 5, 2016 to Respondent that the delivery method of his
probationary contract termination was improper. Petitioner received the results of that particular

PETITIONERS EXCEPTIONS AND REPLIES TO PROPOSAL FOR DECISION TO RESPONDENT DALLAS I.S.D.

PAGE 4

grievance from Respondent, which stated that his grievance is [n]ot grievable. Petitioner
respectfully argues that the districts employee handbook does [n]ot state that a [f]ormer
employe[e] cannot file a grievance. Petitioner timely filed another Petition for Review to the
Texas Education Agency, see Docket no. 019-R10-03-2016. In the March 28 Proposal for
Decision, it is noted that Petitioner is no longer an employee of Respondent and that he cannot
challenge either the best interest determination or the procedures used to terminate his contract,
in addition to this case being moot. The Proposal for Decision [d]oes not stat[e] any specific
Education Code, Statute, or Provision that a [f]ormer employee such as Petitioner cannot
challenge such a determination or procedure. [F]urther, the Proposal for Decision [d]oes not
stat[e] any specific Education Code, Statute, or Provision how Petitioners claims or the case is
moot. In [e]ither case, no other similar decisions or cases were cited or quoted.
III.

EXCEPTIONS

After due consideration of the Administrative Law Judges Proposal for Decision,
Petitioner replies to the said Proposal for Decision with the following exceptional abnormalities,
which have a significant impact of Petitioners case:
1.

Petitioner never filed a grievance contesting the actual probationary contract termination.

2.

Petitioner was already dismissed by Respondent long before his probationary contract

was terminated.
3.

Petitioner filed his original grievance contesting the TEI evaluation scores and the growth

plan provisions.

PETITIONERS EXCEPTIONS AND REPLIES TO DECISION FOR PROPOSAL TO RESPONDENT DALLAS I.S.D.

PAGE 5

4.

Petitioner filed his original grievance three months before his probationary contract was

ever terminated.
5.

Petitioners prior dismissal from Respondent is raised in his Level II and III Grievances.

6.

Petitioner was already dismissed from the district when he was notified of the improper

delivery method of his contract termination notice.

7.

Petitioner timely filed a separate grievance contesting the improper delivery method of

the contract termination notice, and is pending with the Texas Education Agency. Docket no.
019-R10-03-2016.
8.

Petitioner timely exhausted all administrative remedies.

9.

Petitioners case lacks mootness in all instances.

10.

Commissioner has jurisdiction over Petitioners claims.

IV.

PRAYER OF RELIEF

Petitioner prays and respectfully asks Commissioner to take all claims and exceptions
into consideration. Petitioner seeks any and all other relief governed under Texas Education
Code Sec. 21.304(e). Petitioner seeks all other legal and equitable relief the Commissioner
deems proper.

PETITIONERS EXCEPTIONS AND REPLIES TO DECISION FOR PROPOSAL TO RESPONDENT DALLAS I.S.D.

PAGE 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to 157.1050, I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was submitted to
Respondent Dallas Independent School District, by and through its party representative of
record, via regular U.S. postal mail on this 22nd day of April, 2016.
Respectfully Submitted,

Richard D. Young (pro se)