RAYMOND LANZO v. CAMPBELL CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION
CASE NO. 09 MA 154
STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT
Dated: September 24, 2010
[Citе as Lanzo v. Campbell City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2010-Ohio-4779.]
Hon. Mary DeGenaro, Hon. Joseph J. Vukovich, Hon. Cheryl L. Waite
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court, Case No. 08 CV 3229. JUDGMENT: Affirmed.
For Plaintiff-Appellant: Attorney James E. Lanzo, 4126 Youngstown-Poland Rd., Youngstown, OH 44514
For Defendant-Appellee: Attorney James E. Roberts, 100 Federal Plaza East, Suite 600, Youngstown, OH 44503
DeGenaro, J.
{¶1} This timely appeal comеs for consideration upon the record in the trial court and the parties’ briefs. Appellant, Raymond Lanzo appeals the August 4, 2009 decision of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas, which adopted the June 24, 2009 magistrate‘s decision upholding the decision of Appellee, Campbell City School District Board of Education, to terminatе Lanzo‘s teaching contract.
{¶2} Lanzo argues that his use of corrective actions, such as the incident involving a disruptive student that precipitated the Board‘s review, are appropriate and necessary in order to maintain a productive and safe learning environment. Lanzo argues that the trial court abused its discretion in upholding the termination decision when Lanzo‘s actions did not constitute “good and just cause” pursuant to
{¶3} Lanzo‘s physical intervention with a student merely for the purpose of redirecting the student‘s attention was a violation of school policy and disproportionate to the misbehavior involved. More importantly, the Board‘s termination decision was based on Lanzo‘s cumulative misconduct over three years and not just on the “last straw” incident. Lanzo‘s repeated misconduct constituted “good and just cause” for termination, thus the trial court‘s decision was not an abuse of discretion and we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶4} Lanzo is a middle school teacher who was employed by the Boаrd for the 2003-2004 school year and subsequent years, pursuant to renewed one-year limited teaching contracts. The Board placed Lanzo on administrative leave on November 30, 2007, after the parent of a student filed a complaint that Lanzo had used inappropriate physical discipline with her son three days earlier. During the Board‘s investigation of the incident, it was also alleged that during the 2007-2008 school year, Lanzo had frequently pulled the ears of his male students and twisted their hair.
{¶5} On January 31, 2008, the Board adopted a resolution suspending Lanzo‘s employment effective February 1, 2008, and scheduling a termination decision in the event that Lanzo did not request a hearing. Lanzo requested a public hearing and the
{¶6} The referee found that on November 27, 2007, Lanzo‘s fifth grade class and another teacher‘s fifth grade class were viewing a video together, during which one of the othеr teacher‘s students was talking. The other teacher called out the student‘s name, but the student did not cease talking. Without the other teacher‘s permission, Lanzo grabbed the student by the arm or shirt, forcing him to stand, pulled the student to the front of the room, put his hand on the student‘s chin and pointed the student‘s face toward the video screen. The referеe found that Lanzo‘s use of physical force violated the Board‘s policy against corporal punishment. The referee also found that Lanzo had twisted the hair and pulled the ears of some male students on several occasions during the school year leading up to November 27, 2007. The referee found that Lanzo‘s actions were in direct violation of the Board‘s policy against the inappropriate touching of students.
{¶7} The referee‘s findings of fact included the Board‘s prior discipline and corrective actions against Lanzo for four previous instances of misconduct. First, on September 6, 2005, Lanzo had been reprimanded for misconduct and disrespect at a school function, specifically, raising his voice to a student‘s grandparent. Second, on March 13, 2006, Lanzo had been reprimanded for misconduct, disrespect and insubordination, specifically, leaving his classroom unattended and interrupting a private meeting between the principal, a teacher and a parent, and leaving his classroom unattended a second time and twice interrupting another teacher‘s class. Third, on March 17, 2006, Lanzo was placed on administrative leave pending investigation, after the teacher‘s union president reported to the principal that Lanzo had indicated to the president that Lanzo would slash the principal‘s tires. This resulted in Lanzo signing a “last chance” agreement with the school on April 26, 2006, consenting to possible termination without the right to appeal, for any further misconduct through the end of the 2006-2007 school year. Although the termination provisions of the agreement were to
{¶8} The fourth and final prior disciplinary incident occurred on June 7, 2006, when Lanzo left his class unattended, and an altercation between students occurred. Lanzo equivocated in his explanation to the principal regarding the sequence of events that led up to the altercation, and his explanation of his exact whereabouts was contradicted by security camera footage. The Superintendant allowed Lanzo a “second last chance,” and negotiated twenty days of unpaid administrative leаve, rather than immediate termination. Lanzo was not cited for any further misconduct until the present citations during the 2007-2008 school year.
{¶9} The referee concluded that Lanzo‘s most recent incidents of misconduct involved the physical mistreatment of students in violation of the Board‘s policies, which constituted good and just cause for terminating his teaching contract. The referee further found that the cumulative impact of Lanzo‘s ongoing misconduct necessitated his termination. On July 9, 2008, the Board unanimously adopted the referee‘s findings and recommendation, and terminated Lanzo‘s teaching contract.
{¶10} Lanzo filed a timely complaint with the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas, appealing the decision of the Board. The magistrate considered the parties’ briefs and oral arguments as well as the record of the Board‘s proceedings. On June 24, 2009, the magistrate concluded that Lanzo had been afforded all procedural rights under
{¶11} Lanzo timely filed Objections to the Magistrate‘s Decision, presenting arguments regarding due process, findings of fact, as well as the argument that Lanzo presently asserts on appeal: that his conduct did not constitute “good and just cause” for termination pursuant to
{¶12} In his sole assignment of error on appeal, Lanzo asserts:
{¶13} “The Appellants [sic] actions were not an act of gross inefficiency, immorality, or good cause as defined by the statute and thus the action of the board was unlawful, and the trial Court‘s ruling upholding the actions of the board was an abuse of discretion.”
{¶14} When a school board commences proceedings to terminate a teacher‘s contract, the teacher may request a hearing before the board or before an appointed referee.
{¶15} A teacher whose contract has been terminated pursuant to the above proceeding may appeal the decision through an original action before the court of common pleas.
{¶16} An appellate court‘s review of a termination proceeding under
{¶17} Lanzo does not present an argument against any findings of fact, and only argues that his actions did not amount to gross inefficiency, immorality, or good cause as defined by
{¶18} What constitutes “good and just cause” can depend on the context and the unique facts of each case. The Ohio Supreme Court has explained that the concept of “good and just cause” must involve a “fairly serious matter” that is of the same magnitude as the other terms listed in
{¶19} In Oleske, a teacher was cited for multiple instances of telling jokes to students that contained sexual content and ethnic insensitivity, and multiple instances оf intentionally mispronouncing a fellow teacher‘s name as “turd” in front of her students. Oleske at 59-60. The teacher had an exemplary teaching record for over twenty years, with no previous incidents of misconduct. Id. at 62. The school board accepted the referee‘s recommendation that the teacher‘s actions constituted “goоd and just cause” for termination. Id. at 60. The trial court affirmed the board‘s decision, and the Tenth District further affirmed, finding that it was not an abuse of discretion to find that the teacher‘s actions constituted a “fairly serious matter” and rose to the level of “good and just cause” for termination. Id. at 64-65.
{¶20} In James v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Edn. (1995), 105 Ohio App.3d 392, 663 N.E.2d 1361, an elementary school teacher in a multi-handicapped unit exercised aversive behavior management techniques, such as placing a towel over a student‘s head
{¶21} Conversely, in Beranek v. Martins Ferry City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (Jan. 20, 1989), 7th Dist. No. 88-B-11, the trial court affirmed the school board‘s decision to terminate a male teacher even though the board failed to produce evidence of a policy that defined what constituted “inappropriate touching.” Id. at *4. This Court found common sense dictated that the teacher intentionally touching female students’ buttocks or chests was inappropriate, and that such actions justified the school board‘s decision to terminate the teacher‘s contract pursuant to
{¶22} Here, the facts that supported the conclusions of the referee, the Board and the trial court, were various instances of misconduct by Lanzo, which required repeated disciplinary and corrective actions by the Board. There were four prior incidents involving Lanzo which resulted in discipline prior to the incident which triggеred these proceedings.
{¶23} On September 6, 2005, Lanzo was reprimanded for misconduct and disrespect at a school function, specifically, raising his voice to a student‘s grandparent. On March 13, 2006, Lanzo was reprimanded for misconduct, disrespect and insubordination, specifically, leaving his classroom unattended and interrupting a private meeting between the principal, a teacher and a parent, and leaving his classroom unattended a second time and twice interrupting another teacher‘s class. From March 17
{¶24} The final incident occurred on November 27, 2007. Lanzo used unreasonable physical force to discipline another teacher‘s fifth-grade student for talking during class, specifically by taking the student by the arm, forcing him to stand, pulling him to the front of the room, and physically moving the student‘s head toward the video being viewed in the classroom. During this investigation it came to light that also during the 2007-2008 school year, Lanzo inappropriately touched his fifth-grade students on several occasions, specifically by twisting their hair or pulling their ears.
{¶25} Lanzo argues that his actions during the final incident did not directly contravene school policy because they constituted a necessary corrective measure to quell a disruptive student. Lanzo contends that the Bоard‘s termination of his contract in response to this incident sends the message that teachers are not permitted to take the necessary steps to maintain order in the classroom, and that such a message will lead to unproductive and unsafe learning environments.
{¶26} The referee found that Lanzo‘s conduct during the 2007-2008 school year did in fact contravene the school‘s policy against corporal punishment and inappropriate touching. Even if Lanzo‘s actions on November 27, 2007 did not meet the traditional definition of corporal punishment, they nonetheless contravened the school‘s policy that any discipline imposed must be proportionаte to the student‘s misconduct. Moreover, the Board‘s decision to terminate Lanzo‘s contract was not based solely on his misconduct during the 2007-2008 school year, but also in consideration of his cumulative history of repeated misconduct while employed by the Board.
{¶27} Although Lanzo attempts to limit the focus of this appeal to his final acts of misconduct, the Board rightfully considered Lanzo‘s performance throughout the duration of his employment. Unlike the teacher in Oleske, who was terminated even in light of her
{¶28} Considerаtion of Lanzo‘s history of repeated insubordination and classroom management deficiencies, along with his final acts of misconduct, reasonably lead to the conclusion that there was good and just cause for terminating Lanzo‘s teaching contract. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion in upholding the Board‘s decision. Accordingly, Lanzo‘s sole assignment of error is meritless, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Vukovich, P.J., concurs.
Waite, J., concurs.