Afternoon Read: Top school official admits describing Lake Placid teachers as “bitchy”
Chris Morris, at the Adirondack Daily Enterprise, has done extraordinary reporting the last two weeks on the growing controversy in Lake Placid’s school district, where a principal has accused the superintendent of gender discrimination.
The nut of the allegation is this:
Lake Placid Middle-High School Principal Katherine Mulderig filed a gender discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on March 7. She alleges that Superintendent Randy Richards tried to reassign her to the elementary school in February because he told her he needed someone “bitchier” to govern the “bitchy” female teachers in the elementary school.
In his latest report, Morris has acquired documentation where Richards appears to concede to using the word “bitch” to describe teachers in his district. Which produced this exchange with Mulderig’s attorney, Phillip Steck:
Steck then asks if Richards agrees that [bitch] is a “typically derogatory term when used in connection with women.” Richards again answers “yes.”
Several pages later, Steck asks Richards if it surprised him that Mulderig would be offended by the use of the word “bitch” in reference to teachers.
“I’m initially surprised, yes,” Richards said.
“That surprises you, that she would take offense at the use of the word bitch in reference to teachers?” Steck asked again.
“Yes,” Richards answered.
According to Morris, parents turned up at Tuesday night’s board of education meeting to complain about Richards’ behavior and language.
So far, school board members have declined to comment because this is a personnel matter that involves litigation. But this looks like one of those stories that has legs.
Tags: adirondacks, education
Oh Randy… “more assertive”. You needed someone who would be “more assertive”
I hate when people get all up in arms over language, but this was an easy one to avoid.
(Insert obligatory dumb comment about the perils of “political correctness”)
By the way, this is a great example of why all these warm and fuzzy anti-bullying assemblies and programs will have minimal effect if this is the model being shown by the “adults” running the schools.
Who are you calling a nut?
Obviously a bad choice of words. However, with all the real problems school districts must contend with these days, does this offense warrant this kind of time and effort to address? Wouldn’t a simple request for an apology from the Superintendent have sufficed?
How ironic that something two elementary students in fifth grade could address and mend on their own can’t be handled by the adult administration actually running the entire organization. Wow…..
This guy is tone deaf.
Teachers feel that administrators don’t support them or understand their problems. Administrators see this as whining and being “bitchy”. In many cases the administrators cannot solve the problems that the teachers might have. But, a little empathy towards the teachers ,from the administrators, goes a long way.
If a teacher had called the superintendent a jacka** or a piece of sh**, I doubt the superintendent would’ve been so lenient.
This guy really stepped in it here. He never should have said this and he should have apologized profusely and maybe be disciplined in some way. But I hate to see the lawyers cashing in on this type of matter. Spend the money on the kids not on the attorneys.
Without the lawyers, or more specifically the law, he keeps doing it.
Its to small of a school to even warrant a superintendent in the first place.
oa, that may be true but I am not sure that we can afford to litigate away name calling. But that is one way to do it.
This isn’t just name-calling if he’s using sexist stereotypes to remove her from a job she’s been doing, apparently, justfinethankyou, for another job. And it’s not litigation, exactly. You don’t need a lawyer to file an EEOC complaint, though apparently this happened here. Worth googling up the EEOC process to see how it works.
“And it’s not litigation, exactly.”
“So far, school board members have declined to comment because this is a personnel matter that involves litigation.”
That is exactly what it is. Like I said this is one way to handle it. Maybe it is appropriate in this case. I guess we will see and we will certainly pay.
I’m not trying to start a fight, Paul. However, that “litigation” phrase is not in the newspaper story, that’s in Brian’s post, and may be technically inaccurate, to my understanding of the law, which of course could be wrong. A better phrasing from the no-commenters would be “involves POTENTIAL litigation.”
An EEOC complaint, whether filed by a lawyer or not, is not litigation–yet.
The EEOC calls for a pretty involved process BEFORE a lawsuit is filed, and though it’s not clear from this particular press story (and I haven’t gone through the previous news accounts to determine if it’s been reported–if so, apologies) I believe the pre-lawsuit process is what’s being talked about at this stage. My larger point stands: an EEOC complaint is not, by itself, litigation (in the sense that a lawsuit is filed). Again, worth the Google time if you’re really interested in understanding.
Paul, so I dug a little deeper into the first Enterprise story on the matter from Dec. 5, and it appears no lawsuit has been filed. http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/content.detail/id/528084/Principal-says-superintendent-discriminated-against-women.html.
Nowhere in that story does anyone decline to comment because it “involves litigation.” They only decline comment because it is a “personnel matter.”
Quote from the story: “So what does this gender discrimination complaint mean for the school district? Mulderig said it could lead to a lawsuit if the situation isn’t remedied.”
And for the record, this isn’t about winning an argument, it’s about getting people to understand how the process actually works.
I agree it’s generally better not to spend money on lawyers. And the EEOC process is designed to allow for that as long as possible.
Got to wonder how the enterprise “obtained” these documents. I don’t think they were released to the public yet. Great reporting for sure.
oa, thanks for the information. I hope I didn’t make you go to all that trouble, I certainly had no interest in a “fight”? Thanks again. Perhaps they will reach a “remedy” short of litigation here.
No, you didn’t make me, Paul. But I had a kinda sorta fuzzy knowledge of EEOC procedure, and didn’t want to make an assertion that was wrong, and then curiosity got the best of me, and one thing led to another, and…
Glad to help.
I do believe the bigger story is this:
The School Board knew about this in February, and seemingly did nothing.
According to the Principal, she was told “this is between the two of you”. If the School Board had reacted quickly and dealt with the situation, we likely would not be where we are today. I find it hard to believe that the Superintendent cannot see how offensive it was to call the Principal this derogatory name, and I imagine it will be near impossible to continue to effectively lead his teachers. This is NOT an isolated incident, and there appears to be no remorse. The Superintendent is not a good role model and should be removed. Any School Board member who was aware and did nothing should resign. Such blatant disrespect cannot be tolerated.