Teacher who sued county wants to be reinstated
By Jennifer Broadwater
jbroadwater@patuxent.com
Posted 10/08/08
The teacher, Michelle Maupin, filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in U.S. District Court in Baltimore Oct. 6, claiming that her placement on administrative leave is unjust and the conditions of the leave violate her First Amendment rights to the freedom of speech and association.
School officials placed Maupin on paid administrative leave Sept. 25 and escorted her off the property of the Columbia school, Maupin said.
Maupin and her lawyer, Dawn Martin, said they were told by a school official Oct. 2 that Maupin was placed on leave because she had created a hostile work environment for her colleagues, including physical threats, that she had violated the system’s civility policy and demonstrated hostility toward students.
When asked about Maupin’s status with the school system, spokeswoman Patti Caplan said Sept. 30 that Maupin was still employed, but declined to elaborate, citing the privacy of personnel issues.
Under the conditions of leave, Maupin was directed to have no contact with Wilde Lake students and staff, she said. Because she lives in close proximity to the school and some of its students, she said she feels the provision restricts her from everyday life and interactions in her community.
The motion seeking the injunction states the restrictions placed on Maupin are tantamount to a restraining order and gag order.
“It is clear that the school board is imposing this unconstitutional mandate on Ms. Maupin, for an indefinite period of time, ‘setting her up’ for the day that she speaks to a neighbor or friend who is employed or enrolled in the school system, so that it can fire her for insubordination,” the motion states.
The motion seeks a court order requiring school officials to revoke the restrictions placed on Maupin and to reinstate her to her classroom teaching job.
School system attorney Mark Blom was not immediately available for comment on the matter.
Maupin, who is black, sued the school system and administrators at Centennial High School in 2005, claiming that she had been subjected to racial harassment at the Ellicott City school. School officials denied the accusations.
After a trial in 2007, a jury found Maupin had been subjected to a “race-based hostile work environment.” School officials initially appealed the verdict, but eventually dropped the appeal and in April reached a $253,979 settlement with Maupin.
In August, Maupin filed a second suit against the school system accusing the school board and staff at Wilde Lake High School of unwarranted retaliatory actions stemming from the first lawsuit.
user comments (7)
user givemeabreak says...
violating her 1st AM rights???? wow, that is some creative lawyering. too bad it's complete BS. if she has something to say, 1st AM jurisprudence affords her an opportunity to speak her mind...but it does not guarantee a right to speak in front of a classroom.
this woman should not be allowed anywhere near our community's children because she is a terrible example. I don't care what 6 people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty determined...there is no way that this woman was ever subject to any racial hostilities at CHS or WLHS. if she was given a hard time, it's because she is incompetent and hostile in her own right. if we let her continue teaching here's what we are saying to every student she teaches: "here is your shining example, your role model...and if you happen to be a minority and you feel slighted, do exactly what Michelle has done...sue everyone in sight claiming racism. it's great, you can get paid a salary, get a nice settlement, and keep your job if you just sue."
allowing juries to hear these BS race-based civil suits is just like allowing a jury to hear the McD's "my coffee was too hot and burned me" case, rediculous. why? because people have yet to realize that we have allowed this BS perma-excuse of racism to persist b/c we fall for it each time in court. stop the non-sense people...this woman is laughing all the way to the bank at the county's expense...check that, OUR expense as taxpayers.
fight the power indeed...
Posted 3:39 PM, 10.07.08
user says...
givemeabreak:
Actually it's pretty standard lawyering. Try reading the Bill of Rights instead of blathering on about that which you are totally ignorant. The 1st Amendment has 6 separate and distinct rights. Her freedom of speech and association rights are infringed not because she's not teaching, but because the school system has prohibited her from speaking to any student or staff member (apparently on any topic), even though she lives in the immediate vicinity of the school. The student population is over 1300 students; do you really think she knows every one of them? Speaking to anyone in the high school age range at any time at any place could subject her to being fired for insubordination.
Apparently you also think that her claims of racism are totally baseless, and that the jury was incompetent as well. Really?! On what basis? And I suppose her witnesses were all lying as well. Sounds like you have your own set of prejudices driving this bias. If the charges were baseless, you can bet the school system would have pursued an appeal. It's just easier for them to fabricate something like this since the presumption operates in their favor and allows them to take action without providing any proof of their allegations, and it may take years for this to get properly sorted out.
As a white woman who lived with a black man, I was subjected to repeated harassment when working for Howard County, and it wasn't until years later that I was told by one of the participants that my relationship was the root cause of the torment I suffered, which led to my life essentially being ruined. Since I didn't know what was going on in sufficient time to sue, I never got so much as an acknowledgement of the damage it caused me, much less compensation. Anyone who thinks that racism doesn't exist in Howard County, or that someone should have to choose between working in a hostile environment that will only get worse if they don't take legal action, nd not working at all, is delusional. The law specifically protects people from this type of behavior, and allowing those few cases that will meet all of the necessary criteria to go forward discourages bad behavior of others who might go after someone who might not realize they're being targeted because they don't fit the normal profile of a victim of racism.
I also cannot let your snarky comment about the McDonald's coffee case slide. Your ignorance is showing. McDonald's behavior was beyond the pale in that case, even more so when they lost and thought there was no downside to libeling a 78 year-old woman.
Try on the facts: At the time of that case, the average market temperature of coffee sold by retail establishments was in the range of 150-160 degrees. McDonald's thought it was a good idea to sell it at close to 200 degrees (remember, boiling is 212 degrees), without warning anyone that it was significantly hotter than everyone was used to. Additionally, they used super-insulated cups that fooled people's sense of touch into thinking the liquid in the cup was not as hot as it actually was. [I don't drink coffee, but at the time, I often bought hot chocolate from McDonald's and was puzzled as to why I wasn't noticing how hot the liquid was until after taking a sip and having burned tissue hanging down from the roof of my mouth.] Additionally, they served this very hot liquid to people going through the drive-thru, without informing them, and knowing full well that someone who spills such hot liquid on them has only seconds to stand up and brush it off before getting third degree burns, an impossibility when their customers are obeying the law and are belted in. I say they knew this because they had already been successfully sued once before when a child was burned by their super-hot liquids and still did not see the need to change their ways to protect their customers or even warn them so they could protect themselves.
In this case, the elderly woman was in a car driven by her grandson, and the coffee was spilled into her lap before they moved away from the window. She was severely burned in the genital area. As a former MD and HI certified EMT, I can tell you that the protocol for patients burned in the genital area is that they are to be immediately transported to the nearest burn unit. After several surgeries, the woman asked McDonald's to simply pay her medical bills. Since she was a Medicare patient, this meant they would be reimbursing the American taxpayers. McDonald's refused. The woman's family retained the attorney who had handled the initial case, and after the jury heard that McDonald's had had notice of the harm they were causing yet refused to alter their behavior in any way, and further, refused the modest request to pay her bills (nothing else!), they hit McDonald's for medical bills, pain and suffering (and trust me, burns are the worst injury you can have), as well as significant punitive damages. McDonald's, poor losers that they are, omitted the facts to make this woman an object of public ridicule, knowing full well that most people are too ignorant to try to ascertain the facts BEFORE offering their opinions. My personal opinion is that people who patronize McDonald's after this incident have no values worth emulating.
Posted 5:06 PM, 10.08.08
user givemeabreak says...
Actually, I am very familiar with the Bill of Rights. In particular I know that the first amendment is made applicable to the states through the 14th amendment. Did you?
I also know that the restrictions placed on this jerk's speech are not content based, viewpoint based, nor is it a restraint on core commercial speech. It is essentially a time, place, and manner restriction. As such, the level of scrutiny that would be used to adjudicate this claim would be what is known as the rational basis test. The rational basis test is the lowest level of scrutiny used in 1st amendment jurisprudence. The state action in question need only be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. Here, the legitimate government purpose is preventing this jerk from continuing to abuse the students and staff of WLHS. Moreover, the restrictions can easily be construed as rationally related to achieving said legitimate purpose. Therefore, her 1st amendment claim is complete BS.
Secondly, yes, I do think that her claims are totally baseless. Like I said, 6 people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty buying her lies doesn't sway my opinion at all. I was a K-12 HoCo student. I've lived in Columbia for most of my life, and I know that there are some a-hole teachers; but to have an entire staff of racists at TWO DIFFERENT schools is BS. In addition, the school didn't pursue an appeal because it was cheaper to settle (it's pretty standard lawyering...). And as far as fabircation is concerned, try this one on for size:
"She also alleges that Wilde Lake Principal Restia Whitaker, an African-American, instructed employees to make up incidents to make it appear as though Maupin has harassed them."
"Blacks are capable of discriminating," Martin said. "Sometimes African-Americans in high positions get threatened by other African-Americans."
I pasted these quotes straight from the Baltimore Sun's story on this case from yesterday. You still think that this isn't a sham? You don't think that she smells another pay day? Just like my moniker states, give me a break.
I will admit, however, that you have made me see the light regarding the McD's case. I was completely wrong about making that comparison if those are indeed the facts.
Lastly, I am really sorry that you had to put up with the torment of living with a black man as a white female, I'm sure that was rough. But the fact remains that these suits are BS, and she is getting over on the taxpayers because we allow people to abuse the system.
Posted 9:12 AM, 10.09.08
user goldielocks says...
As a teacher at Wilde Lake, I can tell you first hand that Maupin is the joke of the school - to people of all colors.
!. She is a lousy teacher - students do pretty much nothing but worksheets in her class.
2. She openly talks/texts/communicates on her phone all day - during class (with students there!), during faculty meetings.
3. She doesn't pull her load as far as the "crap" that we all have to do as regards to giving up planning time during HSAS, etc.
4. Administration has been over backwards to this woman, and she slapped all of us in the face last year with her public comments about the Lake beinga a "less prestigious" school.
5. She has worked hard to earn the disrepect and ridicule of students & teachers. She has no friends because she is indeed hostile and difficult.
6. Her attorney msut really be struggling with this second suit. The principal and 3 of the 4 APs at the school are african-american.
7. Mr. Whitaker is one of the fairest administrators I've had the pleasure to work for. Robyn McDonald is an angel is human form. That Maupin can't get along with these 2 people, and now suspects a conspiracy points to either desperation or delusions. I honestly don't see how the woman can walk upright with that large a chip on her shoulder
Posted 1:12 PM, 10.09.08
user givemeabreak says...
on second thought, maybe you should try on the facts...
I did a little research into the McD's coffee case, and your recital of the facts is a tad off. The name of the case is Liebeck v. McDonald's, and McDonald's had never lost a "my coffee is too hot" case before it. From 1982-1992, it had received reports of people having been burned by its coffee, but had never been successfully sued so you're wrong there. In addition, the rediculous jury award that she received was significantly reduced by the judge, and the parties settled this case for way less than the judge-based award while an appeal was pending. Again, a collection of people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty decided this case. McDonald's had warnings on its coffee at that time, and the range in which it heated its coffee is actually similar to the temperatures used today by Dunkin Donuts, Burger King, and Starbucks. Moreover, what type of idiot holds a cup of steaming hot coffee in her lap anyway? She did realize that they had to boil the water to make her HOT coffee? Or should we give her a pass because she's old? Seems like that is what the jury did.
McDonalds and the above mentioned coffee competitors have been sued numerous times since the Liebeck case, and they all have been thrown out as frivilous. Specifically, the 7th circuit rendered an opinion in a coffee burn case against Bunn-O-Matic that stated, "hot coffee (179 °F (82 °C) in this case) is not "unreasonably dangerous." McDonald's locations were instructed to keep coffee for the drive-thru customers at 180 degress F. Therefore, when one looks at the real facts, a reasonable mind would conclude that your view of the Liebeck case is contrary to popular opinion, and more importantly, contrary to the law. Nice try though.
Posted 1:20 PM, 10.09.08
user justthefacts says...
ha, lol...how funny is it that "user" posted a reply to givemeabreak, calling him/her ignorant, when it turns out that she is the ignorant one. "As a former MD and HI certified EMT" you should stick to making statements regarding medical services, you obviously know what you're talking about. on the contrary, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to consitutional rights. givemeabreak is 100% correct, and "user" is the ignorant one.
and goldielocks isn't the only co-worker of poor little mrs. maupin who has come forward with the truth. maupin is a no-good bum and she was called on it. instead of doing the right thing and moving along to another career (or school district at least), she filed a nonsense lawsuit that we all paid for. "user," you are just plain wrong and I'm glad you life was "essentially ruined."
and one more thing...do you think that when maupin was texting her "homegirls" when she should have been teaching, that she was using a boost mobile phone??? "where you at?"
Posted 3:27 PM, 10.09.08
user drroberts49 says...
This was my personal experience with Ms. Maupin. My daughter had her last year. My daughter is an honors student and has always been a good student. She also participates in band and art. Her older siblings were also former students of Wilde Lake. Her mother and I (we're divorced) are college graduates. I have degrees in Anthropolgy and Geology from California State University, Fresno. my x-wife holds an MBA from Johns Hopkins and is completing her Phd while working as an Executive Director at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. We both were confused by the reports our daughter was bringing home to us. we found the assignments without focus or purpose and in many cases outright wrong. Ms. Maupin has no idea how a thesis should be presented. Her corrections and comments on some of our daughter's assignments were without merit. At one point I was tempted to have my daughter submit a paper I had done in college as her own to see what comments Ms. Maupin would have made. We made various attempts to communicate with this teacher to no avail. We finally decided to just ride out the year as a bad experience. Our daughter is in her senior year at Wilde Lake and is in the English Honors program where she is currently holding an A average.
Posted 12:32 AM, 10.11.08
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement