Cronin v. Cent. Valley Sch. Dist.

520 P.3d 999

Michael F. CRONIN, Appellant,

v.CENTRAL VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent.

No. 37939-6-III

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3.

Filed August 25, 2022

Ordered Published Date November 17, 2022

Kevan Tino Montoya, Montoya Hinckley PLLC, 4301 Tieton Dr., Yakima, WA, 98908-3348, for Appellant.

Paul Eric Clay, Stevens Clay, PS, 421 W. Riverside Ave. Ste. 1575, Spokane, WA, 99201-0409, Philip James Buri, Buri Funston Mumford & Furlong, PLLC, 1601 F. St., Bellingham, WA, 98225-3011, for Respondent.

PANEL: Judges Staab, Pennell, and Fearing

Staab, J.

¶1 Michael Cronin was a teacher with the Central Valley School District (District) from 2005 to 2012. In January 2012, the District issued a notice of probable cause for discharge and nonrenewal of Cronin's employment based on six identified causes. Following a lengthy legal dispute over whether Cronin was entitled to a statutory hearing, the parties participated in a sufficient cause hearing that lasted more than 12 days. The hearing officer found that the District proved four of the identified causes by a preponderance of the evidence and concluded that sufficient cause existed for Cronin's nonrenewal and discharge. Cronin appealed to the Spokane County Superior Court, which affirmed the hearing officer's decision.

¶2 On appeal to this court Cronin raises six issues. He contends that he is entitled to entry of a judgment revising the hearing officer's decision and reinstatement because: (1) the notice of probable cause was vague and inadequate, allowing the hearing officer to rely on misconduct not specified in the notice, (2) the District presented evidence it did not have at the time it issued the probable cause notice, (3) the hearing officer violated the appearance of fairness doctrine, (4) the evidence does not support the finding that the statement of the student known as S.M. corroborated the deposition testimony of the student known as H.Z., (5) the hearing officer committed an error of law by ruling that the allegations set forth in the parties’ 2010 Settlement Agreement were verities and could not be relitigated, and (6) the hearing officer erred by determining there was sufficient cause for termination where there was no nexus between Cronin's off-duty alcohol-related conduct and his teaching effectiveness. Cronin also argues he is entitled to an award of attorney fees.

¶3 We reject Cronin's arguments on appeal and affirm the hearing officer's conclusion that sufficient cause existed to discharge Cronin and not renew his contract.

BACKGROUND

A. BACKGROUND FACTS ¹

¶4 At the sufficient cause hearing, the District alleged that Cronin's off-duty conduct and his on-campus conduct justified termination and nonrenewal. Between 2004 and 2011, Cronin was arrested five times on alcohol-related charges. He was charged four times with driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs (DUI) and physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. He was also charged with obstructing an officer and resisting arrest with allegations that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the arrest. The District also produced evidence that restraining orders had been issued against Cronin during this time and that he had been banned from a local bakery for inappropriate language and requests. The allegations about his on-campus conduct include working while intoxicated, harassing staff members, and inappropriately touching students. We set forth the allegations in chronological order.

February 19, 2004 arrest for DUI

¶5 Cronin's first documented contact with law enforcement was on February 19, 2004. Cronin was pulled over for speeding and eventually arrested for DUI. His blood-alcohol content was 0.145 and 0.158. At the time of this arrest, Cronin was working as a teacher for Spokane Public Schools. Several weeks after pleading guilty to a reduced charge of negligent driving, Cronin submitted his application for employment with the District. He did not disclose the conviction on his application but did disclose it on a subsequent disclosure form. The hearing officer found that Cronin did not intentionally misrepresent the arrest in order to obtain employment. The hearing officer did find that during his deposition, Cronin "refused to admit that he was driving under the influence .... Instead, Cronin asserted legalistic hair-splitting arguments to support his opinion that he was not under the influence of alcohol." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 3 (Finding of Fact (FF) 11). While this arrest and conviction occurred before Cronin began working for the District, the hearing officer found that the conduct was relevant as part of a pattern of alcohol-related arrests and other legal issues in which "Cronin continued to deny responsibility for his decisions and he failed to acknowledge that his conduct impacted his employment with the School District and his relationship with other teachers, parents, and students." CP at 3 (FF 9).

December 2, 2007 arrest for DUI

¶6 On December 2, 2007, Cronin was arrested for his second DUI. The hearing officer found that Cronin hit a parked car while under the influence of alcohol and left the scene. After a witness contacted law enforcement, Cronin was stopped approximately three miles from the accident. Cronin told the officer that he hit a car when it pulled out in front of him and the other driver left the scene after providing a driver's license. After observing signs of intoxication, Cronin was arrested for DUI.

¶7 After his arrest, Cronin was argumentative and threatening. Cronin asked Deputy Scott Bonney whether he had children in school, stated he had once been a prosecutor for Spokane County, threatened to sue Deputy Bonney, and asked if there was anything he could do to get out of a DUI. Testing of his blood returned an alcohol content of 0.166.

¶8 In his response to prehearing discovery, Cronin described his actions: "the road was icy and I slid into a parked, unattended car on a narrow street." CP at 4 (FF 20). However, the hearing officer found that Deputy Bonney credibly testified that the roads were not icy on that day and the road was not a narrow street. During his deposition and at the hearing, Cronin admitted he was under the influence of alcohol but would not admit that his blood-alcohol content was over the legal limit. The hearing officer found that Cronin "refuses to acknowledge his alcohol problem, fails to accept responsibility for his conduct, and he continues to provide excuses." CP at 5 (FF 24).

April 2, 2008 arrest for DUI

¶9 Four months later, and while the 2007 charges were still pending, Cronin was arrested for his third DUI. Washington State Patrol Trooper Antonio Olivas testified that he observed Cronin's vehicle stopped in the middle of an intersection and then saw the car weave as it drove away. Following laboratory testing, Cronin was charged with driving under the influence of Ambien, a prescription drug. Cronin characterized his offense as turning left when the intersection was signed for no left turn. The hearing officer found this explanation to be part of a continuing pattern by Cronin of attempting to mischaracterize his criminal charges, driving circumstances, and culpability.

¶10 On April 9, 2008, Cronin resolved his 2007 and 2008 charges for DUI. He pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of first degree negligent driving for the 2008 DUI and entered a deferred prosecution on the 2007 DUI, agreeing to abide by conditions including that he not commit any alcohol and/or drug related offenses during the period of deferral.² Cronin did not advise the District of these new charges, and Jay Rowell, assistant superintendent for the District, did not learn about either the December 2007 or the April 2008 arrest until an article discussing the arrests was published in the Spokesman-Review in 2009. Rowell learned the full details of these arrests in October 2011 when he reviewed a file on Cronin from the Office of Professional Practices (OPP).

Harassing conduct directed at Hardenbrook

¶11 On November 20, 2008, Cronin took one of his classes on a field trip. Sara Hardenbrook, a school bus driver employed by the District, drove the class there. When she dropped off the class, she gave Cronin her cell phone number so he could call her when the class was ready to be picked up. When she returned to pick up the class, Cronin asked about her marital status, whether she was happily married, and invited her to join him and his friends for drinks. Cronin stood very close to her during this conversation, and Hardenbrook felt he was flirting with her.

¶12 After dropping the class off, Hardenbrook drove the bus back to the garage. She noticed several missed phone calls and text messages from Cronin at this time. Hardenbrook felt uncomfortable and texted Cronin to stop calling her. He called at least one more time after she asked him to stop. Hardenbrook filed a harassment complaint with the District, and the principal of University High School, Daryl Hart, gave Cronin a verbal reprimand and told him to stop calling Hardenbrook. Cronin had no further contact with Hardenbrook.

Allegations of misconduct in fall of 2008

¶13 On January 29, 2009, the District placed Cronin on administrative leave to investigate an allegation that on October 17, 2008, Cronin inappropriately touched student J.S. by rubbing her stomach and came to school under the influence of alcohol. During the investigation, the District interviewed J.S. and student J.B., who witnessed the touching incident. The District also interviewed several students in Cronin's transition assistance program (TAP) class who raised the allegation that Cronin may have been intoxicated during class.

¶14 During the investigation, the District learned of another incident involving Cronin that also occurred on October 17, 2008. Jan Pierce, who worked as a secretary at University High School, alleged that Cronin inappropriately touched her. Rowell...