Hearing officer`s report in the Joseph Hayes case

,-*
ILIJNOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
m2
In the Matter of
EAST ST. LOUIS SCHOOL DISTRICT #189
)
)
)
)
)
)
vs.
JOSEPH E. HAYES
"""*'
ISSUE: Teacher Discharge
HEARING OFFICER:
Cornelius J. McAuliffe
DATE: January 10, 1989
INTRODUCTION
^
This case is an appeal by an assistant principal from his discharge by
the school boafd.
The hearing was held pursuant to the provisions of
applicable state statutes and State Board of Education rules and regulations
governing the discipline of public school teachers in the state of Illinois.
The hearing was held by mutual agreement of the above parties at the
County Building in Belleville, Illinois on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday,
November 9, 10, and 11, and on Thursday, November 17, 1988.
Actual time
occupied over twenty-seven hours, or the equivalent of almost five full
days of hearing.
A written post-hearing position statement was submitted by the school
board.
The teacher did not submit one by the agreed deadline of December
9th, 1988.
FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD
«»
•
FOR THE TEACHER
K
Appearances
Edward L. Welch, Esq.
Welch & Bush, P.C.
523 Missouri Avenue
P.O. Box 2737
East St. Louis, Illinois 62202-2737
Telephone (618) 271-5100
Paul M. Storment, Jr., Esq.
Storment & Read
310 East Washington
P.O. Drawer J
Belleville, Illinois 62222
Telephone (618) 233-4846
Witnesses
Leroy J. Ducksworth, Supt.
Clarence Bradford, Marathon Runner
Delores Gathing, Juvenile Det.
Harold Robinson, Marathon Runner
Sgt. Gregory Cox, Sr.-Juv. Detective --.Todd Jancy,. Teacher-..,-..-.
..-.,--.Maxsimillion Quarles, Student ..
Elizabeth Tarpey, S.I.U. Counsellor:
Mary Wallhermfechtel, Mo-Ill Red Cross Wendell Johnson, Teacher/Contractor
Linda Campbell, Mother of Ms. Quarles
Albert Lockridge, Citizen
Mrs. Alice Hayes, Wife of Dr. Hayes
Joseph E. Hayes, Asst. "Principal
Mrs. Elizabeth Thompson, Parent
Mona Adobr Onyemelukwe., Asst. -Coach.*
1
--
- .
•
; ;y
«* ;?'
•-*•*•
Exhibits
Joint Exhibit #1: School Board's "Motion to Dismiss" the Teacher
I2:: Notice of Charges and "Bill of_ Pajit-ijauljars-, :...... .......,...„,,.
#3: Notice "of School Board's Hearing on the Charges
#4: Polygraph Lab Report on Maxsimillion Quarles, 2/27/86
#5: Polygraph Lab Report on Linda Campbell, 2/27/86
School Board Exhibit #1
#3:
#4:
#5:
#6:
#7:
#8:
#9:
#10:
#11:
#12:
#13:
#14:
#15:
#16:
Indictment
8/19/86 Discharge
7/15/86 Presuspension
Postponement of Hearing
Blood Report of 8/21/86
Linda Campbell Police Statement, 2/25/86
Maxsimillion Quarles 2nd Statement, 2/27/86
Sgt. Cox's Report re. Polygraph Visit of 2/27/86
Det. Gathing Report re. 2nd Quarles Statement
Hospital Certificate of Birth
Polygraph Records, 10/18/88
Polygraph Questions, 10/18/88
', .
August School Board Minutes
September School Board Minutes
Supt. Reply to Albert Lockridge
Lawyer's Instructions to School Investigator
*"
Teacher's Exhibit #1: Acquittal
#2: Criminal Complaint
#3: Lockridge Letter of 10/1/85
#4: Lockridge Memos Sent 9/12/86
#5: Reference to Blood Test Computations
#6: Maxsimillion Quarles1 1st Police Statement, 2/25/86
#7: Pictures of Hayes 1 Home
#8: Handwriting Specimen of 5/26/87
#9: Birth Certificate
#10: Eddie Campbell Statement (Part of Gathing Report)
#11: Same as S.B. #6
#12: Transcript, State vs. Hayes, 6/22/88
#13: Motel Registrations
#14: Reprint of Motel Registrations
#15: Lincoln High School Track Schedule, Spring 1985
#16: Sgt. Lawrence Brewer Report, 2/25/86
THE CHARGES
The charge against the teacher in this case appears in Joint Exhibits
#1 and 2.
It alleges, in relevant part, as follows:
A. While an Assistant Principal at Rock Junior High
School ... engaged in conduct which was unprofessional and contrary to the interests of the Board
of Education ... in that he had sexual intercourse
with one Maxsimillion Quarles, a female who was
not his spouse, who at the time was at least
thirteen (13) but less than sixteen (16) years
of age, and who was a student at said ... School.
B. ... conduct as set forth above constitutes violations of the criminal code ... namely, Chapter 38,
Section 12-15(b)(l) and ... Section 12-15(d).l/
-
-
C. On January 2, 1986, Maxsimillion Quarles gave birth
to a male child, and a paternity test ... reveals
that the relative chance of Mr. Hayes' paternity
of said child, assuming a 50% prior chance, is
99.995S.
The school board determined this conduct-to be irremediable'.
-••-•.—-—•
I/ This is a typographical mistake which appeared twice, once in the
dismissal action (Jt. Ex. #1) and once in the Notice of Charges CJt. Ex.
#2). The intended section of the law was 12-l£(d) (Note the underscore).
-2-
IF
At the outset of the hearing the parties agreed the following was the
issue to be decided in this case:
.
"Was Joseph E. Hayes appropriately dismissed in accordance
with the charges of September 22, 1986?"
.
PRELIMINARY ISSUES - MOTIONS BY THE TEACHER
Standard of Proof
Because the school board complaint against Hayes was also the subject
matter of a criminal charge against him in court, his counsel contends the
board must prove its allegations in this administrative hearing by "clear
and convincing" evidence rather than by a mere "preponderance" of the
evidence.
The teacher supplied a copy of Shallow vs. Chicago Police Board,
51 111. Dec. 204, 420 N.E. 2d 618, 1981 to support his contention.
The school board's attorney disagreed and cited Chicago Board of
Education vs. State Board of Education, 100 111. Dec. 715, 497 N.E. 2d
984, 1986 to support its contention that the standard in administrative
hearings remains a preponderance, whether or not a crime was or could have
been charged.
The former case was a 1981 Illinois Court of Appeals case.
But the
preponderance standard was enunciated by the Illinois Supreme Court in the
latter case in 1986.
Further, the earlier case involved a discharged police
officer who was simultaneously criminally charged v'^n receiving stolen
property.
The later case involved a dis^1--' &ed teacher who was criminally
*
charged with soliciting f^^-~_
uds
'"urder.
Thus, because the highest court in
ruled differently on the identical issue raised in this case
fthat is, the standard of proof in an administrative appeal from a
discharge when the grounds for discharge was also .made a criminal charge),
the standard of a "preponderance" of the evidence is all that must be met by
the school board in this hearing.
Motion to A d m i t ^Gquithai
Joseph E. Hayes was charged by the police with the commission of a
crime for the same actions for which he was fired.
A certified
copy of the
Acquittal by a jury was admitted into evidence (T.EX.//1).
By this Motion the teacher's attorney sought to have the hearing
;
officer accept the acquittal in a criminal: trial as presumptive evidence of;-
-3-
Hayes' innocence in this case (See Motion to Admit Acquittal).
The school's
attorney argued that it would be unfair to consider the acquittal on the
criminal charges without considering the entirety of tfre_ school board's
j
allegations.
First, it is inappropriate to raise this issue as a preliminary motion,
because there is already a presumption of innocence in this case in that
there is a burden of proof on the board, and not on the teacher, that must
be appropriately applied after all the evidence is heard.
This will be
dealt with in the "Analysis" portion of this written decision.
Second, as explained at the hearing, the standard of proof is less in
^
•
.
•
this administrative hearing (even if the standard were "clear and
convincing", as the teacher's counsel contends) than the criminal standard
of "beyond a reasonable doubt" which applied in Hayes' criminal trial.
.
$x^
" "
'
This
difference alone makes it possible for the identical evidence to result in a
finding of not guilty in the criminal case yet a finding of just cause for
discharge in this personnel appeal.
And third, a close reading of the school's Statement of Charges reveals
that they were not intended to commit the board to proving that a crime had
been committed in any necessary and technical - sense (Jt.Ex.#l and 2).
Regardless of the student's age, paragraph A of those charges (quoted on
page 2 herein) is sufficient to stand alone as a statement of irremediable
grounds for discharge and, if proven, as sufficient grounds for discharge.
Thus, the real charge of the school authorities is that Hayes had sex with a
student.
References to her age were surplusage and inapposite to the
board's fundamental concern.
In the same sense, paragraphs B and C (also
set forthe on page 2. herein) served merely as unnecessary
elaborations on the real charge contained in paragraph A.
and gratuitous
Fine distinctions
of whether a sexual "penetration" or whether sexual "intercourse" took place
within the meaning of the mentioned criminal statutes or any other criminal
statutes are not dispositive of these school board allegations.
In short, the school board's complaint against Hayes was directed at he
allegedly having had sex with her, regardless of whether the sex technically
amounted to a crime.
Of course, the acquittal is more than presumptive
evidence of innocence of the criminal complaint - it is conclusive.
However, it says nothing about whether Hayes in fact engaged in the sex with
Maxsimillion Quarles.
•" ' '". -
Yang vs. Peoria School District #150, 296 N.E. 2d 74, 111. App. 3d
-4-
..
239 was cited by the teacher's attorney to sup., Irt the Motion.
That 1973
case merely held that the acquittal should have been admitted into evidence
(which was done in this case)._ N_o_jnention is made, expressed or implied,
about it as a presumption.
Motion to Suppress the Blood Test
The teacher was forced, under a body arrest and search warrant, to
submit to a blood test for paternity.
His counsel moved that the blood test
be excluded from evidence because of the 14th Amendment (U.S.
Constitution)
protection against involuntary searches and seizures, and for the additional
reason that the blood test is authorized only under three specific
situations under Illinois law (Driving Under the Influence, Paternity Suits,
and certain criminal matters governed by Chapter 110A, Paragraph 413).
Counsel argued that, by implication, the blood test is prohibited in all
other proceedings, including this one.
The school attorney argued that the test was admissible to show the
basis upon which, in September 1986, the board modified its original notice
and charges issued in July of that year.
The hearing officer was not, and is still not, of the opinion that the
14th amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure or
against self-incrimination apply in a civil proceeding in the same manner as
in a criminal case, if they apply in this administrative appeal at all.
Further, the hearing officer did not, and still does not, accept the alleged
implication.
Rather, it is believed that there is no outside prohibition on
the admissibility of this evidence in this kind of quasi-judicial
proceeding, and thus the hearing officer was left with the State Board of
Education rules on the admissibility of evidence.
Section 51.60 of those
rules was quoted at the outset of the hearing and referred to when the
ruling was made.
That rule provides:
"... The parties may offer such evidence as they
desire ...",
and
"... The Hearing Officer shall have the power
to make rulings, including the power to exclude
irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious
evidence...".
Thus, because the paternity test was relevant it had to be accepted
into evidence.
The hearing officer volunteered, however, that by itself its
probative value would be taken as minimal.
This is because a negative
result would prove non-paternity, but a so called "positive" result cannot
-5-
be taken to be conclusive. Thus, it. is in .evi; -%nce to be weighed along with
.
•
"i
the rest of the evidence.
Indeed, the report itself (S.B.
Ex.#5) stated:
"It is impossible to
prove paternity with genetic testing alone", and "Inclusion estimates are
one tool to assist the courts in determining paternity based on all the
evidence" (underscores
added).
And to add more doubt, the blood test
witness admitted on cross examination that many males could test positive
for paternity through the blood test even though none had access to the
pregnant female.
The Polygraph
The teacher's attorney strenuously objected to the admission of the
results of the polygraph test which had been attempted to be given to the
accuser on February 27, 1986
(Jt.Ex.#4), to a second polygraph test
actually given to her on October 18, 1988
(S.B.Ex.#11 and 12),
to a third
test actually given on February 27, 1986 to her mother, Linda Campbell,
(Jt.Ex.#5), and to any references to these tests.
The school board attorney wanted these tests in evidence in order to
support the credibility of his principal witness, Maxsimillion Quarles, and
of her mother.
In the opinion of many courts, polygraph tests are unreliable.
hearing officer ascribes to that view.
This
Nevertheless, because there is no
known specific prohibition in Illinois law to the admissibility of the
polygraph results, the hearing officer once again reverted to the basic law
governing the admission of evidence in teacher tenure cases (that is,
section 51.60, quoted on page 5 herein).
Again, because the results of any credibility test are undeniably
relevant to weigh the testimony of a witness, the polygraph evidence had to
be admitted into evidence.
By itself, however, it establishes neither the
facts asserted during the tests nor the truthfulness of the persons tested.
THE MERITS OF THE CASE
TESTIMONY AND FINDINGS
The allegations in this case center around a Saturday afternoon in
mid-March of 1985.
At that time Dr. Joseph E. Hayes was an Assistant
Principal at Rock Junior High School in East St. Louis School District
#189.
Also at that time, Maxsimillion Quarles was a fourteen year old 7th
grade student at Rock Junior High.
She was active in basketball,
-6-
volleyball, student council, and she was on tht 'ihonor roll.
In September of 1986 Hayes was fired for allegedly having sex with Miss
Quarles in March of 1985^__ L^L.ev^nJL§J^aAins. to the discharge fill the
period between those two dates.
At the time of the discharge Hayes had a
total of fifteen years of service as an educator in the school district,
eleven of them as an administrator.
say
Maxsimillion Quarles tells the following story about her involvement
with Dr. Joseph E. Hayes:
During that school year (1984-85), Maxsimillion and other female
student-athletes frequently visited the office of Dr.
girls frequently talked about sports.
Hayes.
Hayes and the
Miss Quarles says that during this
time she and Hayes engaged in flirting.
He used to wink at her. She says
Hayes sometimes questioned her about whether she had a boyfriend and
whether she was a virgin.
After a while she believed she and Hayes had a
"relationship", which she considered "something important".
According to Quarles, on a particular occasion Hayes called her to his
office.
His secretary, Ms.
Ward, was not there at the time.
She says
Hayes asked her if she liked him as a boyfriend, and whether she would like
to meet with him.
She answered yes to both of these.
On another occasion
he told her to call him at his office after hours when the secretary would
not be there.
She did so, and she says he asked her where they could go
for sex and she suggested a motel.
They agreed to meet at the Miles Davis
School on a Saturday in mid-March.
According to Maxsimillion, much negotiation occurred before this
liaison took place.
mean:
She says Hayes asked many questions which she took to
"Could I handle it ...
keep it secret?".
According to Maxsimillion, she and Hayes did meet on a Saturday
afternoon in mid-March, 1985. Hayes took her from the Miles Davis School
directly to his residence in East St. Louis.
She did not directly testify
about the interior of his house, but on cross examination she acknowledged
previous statements she had made describing the interior as having "dark
furniture ...
a trophy stand ...
and a picture in the living room" (There
is an abundance of such hearsay upon hearsay contained in police statements
that were accepted into evidence - accepted because of the relaxed rules of
admissibility cited elsewhere herein - but were not valued very highly
because of lack of probative reliability).
-7-
She says no one was home and
that they remained in the house only about fiv, iminutes.
She was nervous
because it was his home, and they left and went to a motel.
She did not
note the name of the motel at jthe__time because they did not enter the
premises from the main entrance and she did not notice any signs.
However,
she testified that she recently learned it had been the Lakeside Motel.
She said this occurred on a Saturday afternoon in mid-March of 1985 at
about. 12:30 or 1:00 P.M., maybe later.
She acknowledged, however, that on
previous occasions she had related 4:00 or. 5:00 P.M.
as the time of
occurrence.
Quarles says Hayes went to the office of the motel (apparently to make
arrangements to rent a room and obtain a key), and then they went to the
room together.
She asserts they had sexual intercourse in' the motel room
and each reached a climax.
In all she said they remained in the room
approximately an hour, after which they left.
Hayes then dropped her off
back at the Miles Davis School.
According to Ms. Quarles' testimony, that was the one and only
occasion that she had sex with Dr.
Hayes.
Indeed, according to her
testimony, she never saw him again for sex.
According to the girl's mother, Linda Campbell, some time during the
following summer of 1986 she witnessed her daughter joking with some
girlfriends to the effect that Dr.
Hayes was going to take care of her with
gifts, with grades, and with other benefits.
Mrs.
Campbell says she
thought lightly of the jesting at the time.
In the summer of 1985 Mrs. Campbell learned of her daughter's
pregnancy.
The girl told her mother that the father was a teen-ager named
Keith Williams.
However, by the fall of that year several of Maxsimillion 1 s
friends had led Mrs. Campbell to suspect the real father of the child might
be Dr. Joseph E. Hayes, the Assistant Principal at her school, or some
other educator at Rock Junior High.
She visited the principal as well as
the superintendent, informing them of what she was being told about Hayes
and her daughter.
She also told those officials that she thought
Maxsimillion might have been "messing around" with certain other faculty
members as well.
During the fall of 1985, Mr.
Albert Lockridge, an avid follower of
local school board affairs, and a two time unsuccessful candidate for the
school board, heard rumors of sexual activity between staff and students at
the school.
He began to write and keep memos about it to himself.
-8-
He sent
a letter (T.Ex.?'3) and three of these memcs (T.lx.#4) to the superintendent.
Those writings also alleged Hayes 1 paternity of a student's child.
As a consequence pf_Mrs_._ Campbell' s complaints and Mr. Lockridge's
writings, the superintendent directed that an internal school department
investigation be conducted by another staff member, Stephanie Teer (also
known as Stephanie Krider), in consultation with the school department's
attorney.
Following this investigation, and upon legal advice, the matter
was referred to the East St. Louis Police Department.
Meanwhile, Maxsimillion Quarles delivered a baby boy on January 2,
1986..
As part of the police investigation, Maxsimillion and her mother were
interviewed.
They each gave signed statements (T.Ex.#6 and S.B.Ex.#6) on
February 25, 1986.
Even though her mother knew at that time of the rumors
that Hayes was the father of Maxsimillion's
child•(S.B.Ex.#6), the girl
denied she had any sexual involvement with Dr. Hayes (T.Ex.#6).
Instead,
she told police the father was one Keith Williams, who - she claimed at the
time - had since moved out of town.
The police investigation obtained other statements from Maxsimillion's
stepfather, Eddie Charles Campbell, on February 26, 1986, and from
Superintendent
Ducksworth.
Police then asked both the girl and her mother to submit to polygraph
examinations.
On February 27, 1986, just prior to taking the test, the girl
broke down and stated that she had sex with Hayes in March of 1985
(Jt.Ex.#4).
Later that day she told police she believed Hayes was the
father of her child (S.B.Ex.#7).
In both statements she also named Keith
Williams as a teenager with whom she was having sex in March of 1985.
It is
now clear from police testimony and her own testimony that there was, in
fact, no person by the name of Keith Williams.
Later, however, there was
another youth named Brian Smith (sometimes referred to as Roger Smith) with
whom Maxsimillion admits she had sex on July 4th of that year.
She and
Smith continued to see each other thereafter.
Ms.
Quarles testified that her reason for not naming Dr. Hayes
previous to February 27, 1986 was because "I was trying to protect him".
She says that at the time of the first police statement
thought their "...
(February 25th) she
relationship was something important, but I guess to him
it was just something to do" (Transcript Page
-9-
224).
Dr. Haves' story is quite different.
He • •; ^nies any sort of improper
actions with Maxsimillion Hayes whatsoever.
He says he never flirted with
her, never talked to her about her__sex life, and was never alone with her in
his office nor elsewhere.
He asserts that his winking is only a friendly
gesture he uses frequently with students.
With respect to his Saturdays in March of 1985, Hayes explained as
f ollaws:
He says he is wedded to scheduling and regimented to a routine.
During
March of 1985 and since that time, his Saturdays were pretty much the same.
He arose about 7:00 a.m., and by 8:30 a.m. he would be on his way over the
Mississippi River to Forrest Park in St. Louis.
marathon running group.
ten or twelve people.
There he would meet his
This group consisted of a varying number of about
After some morning talk, the group would proceed to
its long distance run of eight or ten miles.
The marathoners would typically finish their Saturday run by having
breakfast at the Pancake House in Clayton, Missouri near Forrest Park.
When this Saturday ritual was completed, he would drive home, returning
about 12:30
or 1:00 p.m..
At this time his weekly routine would be to
perform his Saturday chores from a list compiled by his wife during the
week.
These assignments might include washing the car, vacuuming, or the
like.
Two witnesses from the running group testified that Hayes was very
consistent and reliable in his Saturday exercising with them.
Neither
could pinpoint his attendance on specific dates in March of 1985, however.
Alice Hayes, Joseph's wife, testified that, to the best of her
knowledge, such indeed was his Saturday routine during March of 1985.
Hayes described variations in his routine that took place on Saturday,
March 9th, and on Saturday, March 16th, of 1985.
He recalls what he did on Saturday, March 16, 1985, because "...
when
something like that traumatic in your life happens, you have a tendency to
check, 'What did I do on that date. 1 ..."
(Tr. pg. 543).
He claims he attended a track meet at Eastern Illinois University in
Charleston, Illinois, a two hour drive away.
there with a passenger named Elaine Thompson.
He testified that he drove
Mrs. Thompson attended most
of the meets because her daughter was an outstanding member of the track
team, and Hayes attended some of the meets because of an overall interest in
the sport.
He says they left around 8:00 a.m., they drove for two hours,
-10-
they attended the meet all day except -for one hour during which he visited
his daughter who was a student at Eastern Illinois University at the time,
and they returned after the meet, stopping for dinner in Effingham with the,
coaches and the team.
":
Mrs. Thompson verifies the trip to Eastern Illinois University on the
16th.
She recalls that her daughter set track records that day.
She says
she and Hayes drove from East St. Louis to Charleston, Illinois in about
two hours, that they were at the .meet all day, that Hayes never left the
building except with her to visit his daughter in the dormitories, that
they returned together, stopping in Effingham for dinner with the coaches,
and that he dropped her off at her home in East St. Louis around 8:00 p.m..
Mona Adobr Onyernelukwe is a substitute teacher and the Assistant Track
Coach for hurdles.
In March
of 1985 she was a regular full time teacher as
I*6-'
well as the hurdles coach for Mrs. Thompson's daughter, Nicole. This
witness also verifies the presence at the Charleston track meet of Hayes and
Mrs. Thompson from 10:00
a.m. "when they walked in together" until the
dinner in Effingham that evening.
Ms.
on him".
Onyemelukwe acknowledged that she "cared for him" and "had a crush
She said she and Hayes had "dated" several times for dinner,
drinks, and talk.
She said he was a "good friend" to her and her family,
had loaned them money, and had dated her sister as well.
With respect to physical evidence obtained either during the police
innvestigation or during the school board investigation, apparently no photo
of Hayes was ever shown to the motel staff.
Copies of the motel's
registration cards were obtained, but none appeared with his name or auto
registration (the school attorney perceptively pointed out that such would
be unlikely), none could be established as having been written or printed by
him using another name, and there was prior recorded testimony from a
handwriting specialist that the cards that were obtained were not written by
him.
There was also hearsay that motel guests are required to sign in, but
that it sometimes occurs that one will get through without doing so.
The evidence also indicates that the superintendent was aware of the
results of Hayes 1 blood test, even though he may not have received official
word in writing, before the school board suspended
Hayes.
It also bears mentioning that the school board's investigation did not
include an interview with Hayes himself.
-11-
However, when he was provided with
; ,'J •;• •'•^-•••-/•
the opportunity to be heard, in 'a "pre-sus.per.sion hearing", he did no'
participate.
CONTENTIONS OR POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
Contentions of the School Board
The school board bases its case upon the direct accusations of the
alleged victim in the case, supported by some circumstantial evidence, and
hearsay and reputation evidence.
The school board asserts that since her
second statement to police on February 27, 1986, Maxsimillion Quarles has
been clear and unshakeable in her accusation that she and Dr.
*•-
Joseph E.
i,
Hayes had sex with each other on a Saturday afternoon in mid-March of 1985,
that there is nothing in the case that would indicate a motive for her to
lie about that, that Hay<j$._himself could not offer a reason for Miss Quarles
to falsely accuse him even though he was given plenty of opportunity to do
so on cross examination by the school attorney, that school and community
rumors were abundant about illicit sexual activity between he and
Maxsimillion Quarles, that Hayes' relationship with Assistant Track Coach
Mona Onyemelkekwe shows a pattern of encouraging the infatuation of young
females toward him and shows how he might have acted with the even younger
and less experienced fourteen year old seventh grade student, Maxsimillion
Quarles, and that Hayes does not account for all of his Saturday afternoon
time during mid-March of 1985.
Further, the school board argues that charges such as these are not
ordinarily verifiable through corroborating witnesses.
This is good
reason, it says, to give weight to the results of Hayes' blood tests and
'
Quarles' polygraph test, which are consistent with the accusations and
rumors about him.
The school board believes that given all of this information, the
action it took in firing Hayes was in the best interests of the school
district and its children.
Contentions of the the Teacher
The teacher did not submit a post-hearing written position, as did the
school board.
His denial at the hearing, however, was accompanied by his
assertion that he was otherwise occupied on all Saturdays in March 1985, and
by his emphasis on the contradictions appearing in Maxsimillion Quarles'
recitals over the course of the last nearly four years.
-12-
.
- .
....
ANALYSIS 'AND'.DECISION
The most striking aspect of the: evidence in this case is that the
pr i nc i pa] opposing witnesses contradict each other so tptalJL y_._
:..„... .__., „., '.'._.^:. „
Maxsimillion Quarles says she had sex with Dr. Joseph Hayes when she
was a fourteen year old student on a Saturday afternoon in mid-March o f ;
1985.
Hayes not only denies it, he totally denies any connection whatsoever'
with this girl, other than in legitimate activities on the job.
It is noted that Hayes' defense leaves no explanation whatsoever for
these accusations.
Admittedly, Hayes is under no compulsion to guess a
motive if lies are being directed against him.
But a motive to falsify
;
affects credibility, and it is difficult to believe that he, his family, and
his advisors would not have examined why he is under attack by this young
girl and drawn some conclusions.
On the contrary, the teacher offered no insight or accounting
• •
"
•
' "
•
7i
• -
/hatsoever to support a motive in Ms. Quarles to falsely name him as the
father of her child - to accuse him despite the risk that he might be able
to debunk her story and expose her as a liar by proving his total
inaccessibility to her throughout all Saturdays during which conception
could have occurred.
Indeed, Hayes admitted to no facts whatsoever that might have given
Maxsimillion Quarles reason to single him out - no flirting, no "double
entendre", no talks about sex, no discussion of her and her boyfriend, not
even in a professional role.
Hayes admits to no common facts between her
accusation that they had private talks in his office and over the phone,
and his total denial.
According to him, he gave this girl no basis
whatsoever to view him romantically or sexually, not even in the privacy of
her own mind.
The only exception he makes to this is his winking, which he
dismisses as a personal but professional technique he employs generally in
communicating with young people.
As Hayes said at the hearing, "When you are accused ..., you tend to
recall ...".
So also he might be expected to think about why all this has
happened to him, and to offer it.
Instead, he opined that Albert
Lockridge's letter writing campaign created pressure on school authorities.
This hearing officer fails to see how Mr. Lockridge's activities resulted
in Maxsimillion Quarles accusing him of having sex with her.
This failure to provide insight or accounting to why he is accused by
her is not evidence in any sense.
It does, however, leave her accusation
,*^fe:Hfl
^
intact.
It remains that there is nothing in the record except her own
words that might be used to provide -.. a motive for falsely accusing him,.: and
t o cause anyone-to~.-txel-i.eve hi'm nver her.
:—;•'...' .:
Of course, the accused has every reason to falsify.
_.._..—.:; '.„:._.-.
,.._-_.—:-,_.—-:.
He was faced with
criminal charges, is faced with a paternity suit, and is fighting to regain
his career as an educator.
Thus, his complete denial, by itself, is not
more persuasive than the accusations.
,
Turning, then, to Ms. Quarles' recitations;
believable by themselves.
portions of her story are
However, it is noted that on February 27, 1936,
even when she claims she came clean (to implicate Hayes for the first time)
.',
*'
".,""'••',after -naming another young male for almost eleven months, she twice again .
made mention of Keith Williams as though he indeed existed (Jt.Ex.#4 -.at
the polygraph examiner's^gffice, and S.B.Ex.#7 - at the police station).2/
That is, even after she broke down on that date when faced with the
polygraph test (which she did not take at the time), she returned to the
police department and stil-l-told Detective Delores Gathing that she had sex
with Keith Williams.
She even told of a meeting with Keith Williams' uncle
Carl at the market.
Yet at the hearing in this case she said unequivocally
- more than once - that there never was a Keith Williams, that he "never
existed".
There are other inconsistencies in her story.
She agreed on cross
examination that she had said on previous occasions that the alleged
rendevous had taken place at 4:00 or 5:00 p.m..
But after telling her story
to police and to the grand, jury, and after hearing her story contested at
the criminal trial, she now testifies it took place around 12:30
or 1:00
p.m..
As a consequence of these internal inconsistencies, the hearing officer
has no way of knowing which portions of Ms. Quarles1 story should be
believed and which should not.
On the other hand, examining Hayes' story, even though only his wife
can verify his alibis for all of the Saturday afternoons in the month of
March of 1985, there is nothing in this case that indicates Hayes has told
't. -
different stories at different times.
"
By comparison, Quarles has done
'''.,"-
exactly that.
2/
'•'" *"' * ' ---v
.
Of course, one of these exhibits is not authenticated, and the
contents of both are hearsay; but these prior hearsay statements
may appropriately be used to assess the credibility of the witness's
present testimony.
:-,; ;
, ; , ; , :
'
'
Thus, based on what was heard during the course of this hearing, it is
not persuasive by a preponderance nor by any other objective standard that
Dr. Joseph E. Hayes did what the school board came to believe.
.;
This hearing officer recognizes that although the school board acted
upon untrue information, its action in firing Hayes was nevertheless
sincerely motivated for the benefit of the school children.
It proposed to
suspend him (S.B.Ex.#3) only after nearly a year of complaints, and it
proceeded to suspend him only after Hayes failed to use his pre-suspension
opportunity to be heard and it learned (however informally) of the blood ,
test results.
Nevertheless, denial of the school's allegations follows
unavoidably from the failure of proof.
As a consequence, Hayes must be reinstated to his former position with
full back pay and restitution of all benefits, less any outside earnings
during school time during the period (It is noted there was testimony that
Hayes had some other employment during'this period).
Benefits include, but .
are not limited to, contributions to the retirement system, to restoration
of any rights of seniority, and reimbursement for any out of pocket medical
expenses incurred that would have been covered by employer paid health
insurance.
Hayes should provide the school board with copies of his 1986,
1987, and 1988 federal and state tax returns along with a separate statement
signed under oath, prepared by his attorney, that shows four columns:
his
sources of earned income since the discharge, the amount reported on the tax
returns, any amounts earned but not so reported, any amounts from columns 2
and 3 that were* earned during hours he would have been required to work had
he remained a school administrator during the period.
The total of the
amounts in column 4 shall be deducted from his monetary recovery.
Because of the very superior advocacy supplied by both attorneys, a
number of complicated issues have been raised and resolved in this case.
There remains, however, one last matter upon which this hearing .officer
feels the need to elaborate to the parties.
The teacher's failure to use
his opportunity to be heard at the pre-suspension stage might very well be
held against him in the determination of his back pay and benefits.
After
all, even though the school board is found herein to have insufficient
• -
proof to substantiate its charges, one purpose of the pre-suspension hearing
is to give the teacher the opportunity to show them so before the gauntlet
is thrown.
For all we know, Hayes might have convinced the board at that
'-15-
-
-•=,>'V- /-'^^;^7\;^-S.
stage; and his two and one half years of unempl Jyment, the attendant strain
on him and his family, and now the school district's very substantial
."-"•'
•
..:,."/;•
payment for service_s_nolL^rAcejL,Y..ed_t__migh±t._all have been avoided from the
outset.
At first blush it might seem unfair that the school district should
now have to pay for what Hayes himself permitted to occur when he did not
contest the suspension at the earliest possible stage.
After all, the board
mightr reasonably have taken his lack of response as lending credibility to
its information and belief, thereby giving it the basis upon which to
proceed.
Such is contemplated by the governing rules, and consequently the
board might well feel that it got mousetrapped by Hayes' when he "waived"
his pre-suspension hearing.
Also, at one point the school board thought it had an agreement with
Hayes whereby the school district would consent to postpone this case until
after the criminal case and Hayes would forego any right to back pay if he
won.
When that arrangement fell apart, and again since the criminal case
was concluded, the school attorney has continued to insist on an early
hearing.
The board might also feel it unfair to be responsible for back pay
because Hayes refused to schedule this case until the criminal case was
heard first, and because it took another four and one-half months after the
criminal trial to bring this employment case to a hearing in November, 1988
(the school's attorney has persistently pressed for an immediate hearing
during all that time).
Despite these legitimate considerations of the school board, on full
balance it would be even more unfair to deprive Hayes of his retroactive pay
and benefits simply because of his procedural error in judgement in August
of 1986, because of his later need to defend his criminal case first, or
because of his attorney's inability to turn his attention to this case
immediately after the criminal case was over.
These procedural twists and
inconveniences would never have occurred ir not for the much more
substantial and fundamental mistake made by the board.
Thua, after serious extra deliberation it is determined that Hayes
should receive his full remedy.
-16-
WAI
The school board's charges are denied.
Dr-... Jo ae ph- E.—Hay-es—ah a 11 he—reinstated to his--f-&F-me-F--posat-ion^as- - - —
Assistant Principal of Rock Junior High School.
He shall be granted all pay
he would have earned, including any increases, and he shall be restored to
all benefits, rights, and privileges he would have attained had he remained
<*
.-
->
in that job.
Back pay shall be reduced, however, by any outside earnings during
administrators' work days since the discharge. This information shall be
submitted to the school department in .a written statement, prepared by his
attorney, signed and sworn to by Hayes, showing the sources of his earnings,
the amounts reported on U.S.
1040 and, II.
1040 for 1986, 1987, and 1988
with copies attached, anj|^earnings by him not so reported, and any amounts
from columns 2 and 3 which was earned during administrators' work time.
The
total of the amounts in column 4 shall be deducted from his payment.
The school department shall comply with this Award within fifteen days
of receipt of the sworn statement.
CORNELIUS X- McAULIFFE
ATTORNEY-ARBITRATOR
1155 SMITH STREET
PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND 02908
.
Telephone (401) 331-0009
Social Security No. 036-22-6270
cc:
6 originally signed copipes to Virginia Geis of I.S.B.O.E.
-17-