By Barbara Jones, Staff Writer, LA Daily News | http://bit.ly/KLGQpB
Updated: 05/29/2012 10:12:21 PM PDT :: The Los Angeles Unified facilities executive who claimed sexual harassment by retired Superintendent Ramon Cortines has refused to sign a proposed settlement, citing disputed provisions of the deal and its premature release to the public.
Attorneys for Scot Graham, 56, released a statement late Tuesday, blasting district officials for a press conference held last Wednesday in which they disclosed that the school board had approved paying him $200,000 cash and lifetime health benefits worth $250,000 to $300,000 to settle a sexual-harassment claim.
"We have no enforceable settlement agreement," said Maurice Pessah, one of Graham's attorneys.
A statement from Graham's lead attorney, Arnold Peter, also said that
Graham has been "banned" from LAUSD headquarters, placed on administrative leave from his $150,000-a-year job as director of leasing and asset management, and told he will be terminated on Thursday.
Under the proposed settlement, Graham had agreed to resign May 31. However, his attorneys said he never submitted his resignation.
A spokesman for the district said that after Graham tentatively OK'd the agreement, he was told not to report to work until his resignation took effect on May 31.
Linda Savitt, the labor attorney hired to represent the district in the Graham case, issued a statement Wednesday saying LAUSD had announced the settlement "in the interest of transparency." She also said the deal remains in effect.
"Last Tuesday evening, the attorneys for Scot Graham accepted the terms of the settlement agreement that were approved by the Board of Education," she said. "The district relied on Mr. Graham's acceptance and stands by the terms reached."
The sexual-harassment allegations stem from an encounter between Cortines and Graham, two longtime friends, during a weekend spent in July 2010 at a home Cortines owned in Kern County. In a statement last week, Cortines characterized the incident as "consensual spontaneous adult behavior."
Graham, however, complained about Cortines to a supervisor in August 2010 and said he was seeking counseling from a therapist, according to the district's version of events.
The district also said that Graham insisted he didn't want any action taken, even when the district's top attorney, general counsel David Holmquist, was alerted to the situation.
"All district sexual harassment investigation practices were adhered to in this matter," Savitt said in statement last week.
Graham's attorneys contend that district officials violated district policy and state law in refusing to protect the 12-year LAUSD employee.
"Mr. Graham brought his complaints to executives at the highest levels of the LAUSD, none of whom ever initiated an investigation as they were required to do," Graham's attorneys said.
Graham's attorneys notified the district in March - nearly a year after Cortines retired - that he intended to file a sexual-harassment claim against the superintendent.
Hoping to avoid potentially expensive litigation, the school board met three times in executive session, including the May 22 session when members voted 4-3 to OK the deal.
Graham's attorneys said they were presented with "a poorly drafted and incomplete short-form agreement" shortly after the board vote, and were given two hours to decide whether to accept it. Graham gave a verbal OK but never signed the deal.
However, the settlement was presented as a done deal during a May 23 briefing with reporters. The meeting was held at the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, about a block from LAUSD headquarters, a locale that officials said was chosen to avoid disruption to district operations.
"The public disclosure of the terms of an unsigned settlement which the parties had agreed would be confidential and the circulation of a spurious portrayal of Mr. Graham's allegations against the LAUSD and Mr. Cortines, along with constituting bad faith negotiation tactics, was unlawful," Peter said in a statement.
Peter Scheer, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, said that under the state's open meetings law, the district was not obligated to release information about the board's executive-session vote until after the settlement was signed by both sides.
No comments:
Post a Comment