Opinion
C.A. No. 07A-08-007(RBY).
Submitted: December 6, 2007.
Decided: March 4, 2008.
Upon Consideration of Appellant's Appeal from the Board of Education of the Caesar Rodney School District. AFFIRMED.
James E. Liguori, Esq., Liguori, Morris Yiengst, Dover, Delaware for Appellant.
Noel E. Primos, Esq., Schmittinger Rodriguez, P.A., Dover, Delaware for Appellee.
ORDER AND OPINION
Because of Appellant's posture as a role model, as stated by case law; and because evidence is in the record of adverse community reaction permeating into the community of students (though not specifically, as of the hearing, to Appellant's students); and because the association was part and parcel of teacher's mentoring his former student; substantial evidence exists to support the Board's decision to terminate Appellant on the basis that his undisputed conduct constituted 14 Del. C. § 1411 immorality in that it may impair his teaching effectiveness. The decision of the Board is AFFIRMED.
FACTS
This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Education of the Caesar Rodney School District to terminate Christopher Lehto ("Appellant") for immorality as defined in 14 Del. C. § 1411. Appellant was determined to have had a sexual relationship with a school aged former student.Appellant had previously taught the girl when she attended Star Hill Elementary School, and they were re-acquainted when the girl entered the grounds of the Elementary School to pick up her younger sibling, at that time, a student of Appellant's. At the time of the incidents, the girl was a senior student at Polytech High School. Appellant began a mentoring relationship with the seventeen year old. At some point, this mentoring relationship became sexual. Though a crime was charged, the elements did not exist, leading to the criminal action's being dismissed. On July 2, 2007, Appellant was notified of the Board's intention to terminate his services as a teacher due to immorality and/or misconduct in the office.
At Appellant's request, the Board held a hearing on August 15, 2007. On August 27, 2007, the Board issued a decision terminating Appellant from his employment. The Board found no factual dispute regarding Appellant's relationship with the student. It concluded that the relationship was just cause for Appellant's termination. The Board specified that the Appellant's actions violated the common mores of society by threatening the moral and social orientation of the students, and by sending the wrong message to the students about the appropriate student-teacher relationships. The Board further found the relationship to evidence "a serious lack of judgment that is far below the standard of such judgment acceptable for teachers employed by the Caesar Rodney School District."
Bd. Decision at 6.
Id at 8.
Standard of Review
Discussion
Bd. of Educ. v. DiNunzio, 602 A.2d 85 (Del. 1990).
Bd. of Educ. v. Shockley, 155 A.2d 323, 328 (Del. 1959)
Lawrence v. Bd. of Educ., 1994 WL 315221 *5 (Del.Super. May 31, 1994).
Id at *6, 14 Del. C. § 1414.
Mulstay v. Bd. of Educ., 2003 WL 23219646 *6 (Del.Super. Dec. 8, 2003).
Appellant stresses that the relationship, in addition to being "legal," was also consensual. That, too, is of no consequence. The context of the academic or school setting is the controlling factor. As an aside, recognizing that it has no factual relationship to the case under consideration, one can note that a 29 year old college professor cannot date a 22 year old student at the college, though the relationship — absent the campus aspect — could not be more moral, normal and acceptable in the community.
The school setting is the concern of primacy.
Returning to the case at hand, the matter is somewhat attenuated. The Appellant is not a teacher at a school attended by the girl. She previously had been a student of his, though the time gap between his teaching her and these events was extended. No suggestion of any continued association during that period exists. No sexual activity ever occurred on Appellant's school's property. The renewal of the association did take place on Appellant's school property, in that it began with the girl's collecting her younger sister at Star Hill. While much of that is made by the Board, that is probative of nothing significant.
On the other hand, the commencement of the relationship did take place there. Appellant began mentoring the girls regarding a science project. That mentoring, while between a teacher in one school district and a student in another, was, nevertheless, very much a student/teacher relationship out of which grew a sexual relationship. This is an element of evidence.
Additionally, the recognition of the relationship by others began, probably inevitably, to occur. Ultimately, it spread to friends and to parents of friends and to the police authorities. Whether prudish or archaic or representative, this was a community reaction. That is not dispositive, but it is substantive evidence.
The definition of immorality does not lend itself to methodical application. The case law is limited, and not entirely on all fours, but it does exist. For instance, allowing home to be an illicit drug store qualifies as immorality. The behavior was determined to be evidence of an inability to teach an anti-drug curriculum effectively. This was true even after acquittal, because the standard in employment termination cases is far lower than criminal cases.
Lawrence, 1994 WL 315221 *4.
Id.
Teacher/student relationships can cross over into the realm of inappropriateness for many different reasons. In Mulstay, the teacher had a relationship with an eighth grade student who had been a student of his the previous year, and was a member of the basketball team he coached. The relationship never became physical sexually, although the teacher did attempt to initiate "sex talk" with the student. Several letters and notes written by the teacher to the student were entered into evidence. In the writings, the teacher professed love for the student. The Board found these actions immoral within the meaning of the statute. The receiving Court said "[t]he bottom line is the Appellant is unable to recognize the boundary between students and teachers."
Mulstay, 2003 WL 23219646.
Id at *3.
Id.
Id at *7.
Id at *8.
Turning to examples outside of Delaware, some cases are instructive. Each of these jurisdictions applies similar standards to employment termination proceedings. A junior college teacher's actions of dismantling an intercom system and using vulgar language were held not immoral. The California court considered the age of the students and the magnitude of the vulgarity in making this determination. An Ohio court found that an adulterous affair between two adult co-workers did not constitute immorality having an impact on the teacher's duties. A private act with no impact on the teacher's job did not constitute immorality sufficient to justify a termination. Even without evidence of a mature sexual relationship, an Oklahoma court said that a romantic relationship between a teacher and a seventeen year old student was contrary to good morals. The problem was the teacher's inability to recognize and adhere to appropriate boundaries.
Palo Verde v. Hensey, 9 Cal. App3d 967 (Cal.App. 1970).
Bertolini v. Whitehall City School District Bd. of Educ., 744 N.E.2d 1245, 1252 (Ohio App. 2000).
Florian v. Highland Local School Bd. of Educ., 493 N.E.2d 249 (Ohio App. 1983).
Andrews v. Ind. Sch. Dist. No. 57, 12 P.3d 491 (Okla.Civ.App. Div. 2000).
A seventeen year old person is a minor in the State of Delaware notwithstanding an ability to consent legally to a sexual relationship. The Board decided to draw the line of appropriateness at student status rather than age. Forcing a different distinction would lead to the ridiculous result that sexual relationships with some students are permitted.
1 Del. C. § 701, Lawrence, 1994 WL 315221 *6 n. 5, S.S. v. State, 514 A.2d 1142, 1144 (Del.Super.Ct. 1986).
Though the relationship did not violate Delaware criminal laws, it may fail, nonetheless to muster with community mores. Teachers, in their capacity as teachers, are held to a higher standard, due to the unique significance of the job and its circumstances. It is not enough merely to abide by the law. A teacher must be a person children can look to as a mentor and role model.
Lawrence, 1994 WL 315221.
Teachers are more than employees who regurgitate information to students. As previously stressed, in Delaware, teachers are regarded as role models. The Board here determined that Appellant could no longer serve as an effective role model to the students in his school due to his conduct. The Board determined that the relationship sent the wrong message to the District's students about the appropriate relationships between students and teachers. That finding is the result of the enforcement of the Board's determination of the community mores, which is the Board's responsibility. The record does contain substantial evidence to support Appellant's termination for immorality, which would impair Appellant's ability to teach effectively and to serve as a role model to impressionable young students. The Board's decision is AFFIRMED.
Mulstay, 2003 WL 23219646 *8.
Bd. Decision at 8.