Dismissed Black River High teacher wins reinstatement through Supreme Court

A senior high school teacher, who was fired from the Black River High School over her alleged failure to submit only five out of a required 136 lesson plans for over a year, has won her legal fight to be reinstated.

Sandra Delapenha, who had an unsoiled record during her 27-year tenure at the school before the complaint about the lesson plans, was terminated in October 2018 for her “persistent failure to submit the required number of lesson plans to the designated supervisor over a considerable period from review September 2016 to May 2018”.

She was found guilty by the personnel committee “on the overwhelming evidence against her, one such piece of evidence being the lesson plan submission form which shows she submitted only five of the required one hundred and thirty-six during the entire period under question”.

However, Supreme Court judge Justice Sonya Wint-Blair, who handled the judicial review, granted orders quashing the decision of the school board and the Teacher’s Appeal Tribunal, which had upheld her termination.

“The court declares that the termination of the claimant was manifestly excessive having regard to the fact that this was the first complaint against the claimant employed to the Black River High School for over 20 years and that the finding of professional misconduct shall not vitiate her chances of receiving a pension upon retirement,” the judge said.

The teacher’s problems started after acting principal Theobold Fearon complained to the chairman of the Board of Management of Black River High School, Vincent Guthrie, resulting in Delapenha being charged with neglect of duty over the period of two academic years.

However, Delapenha, who taught English language, English literature, communication studies, and sociology since September 2021, challenged her termination.

She subsequently brought a claim via judicial review of the decision in which the board was listed as the first defendant, the tribunal as the second defendant, with the Education Ministry as the third. The Attorney General of Jamaica was also listed as a defendant, but the teacher later withdrew the claim against the agency.

Delapenha sought several reliefs, including an order of certiorari to quash the board’s decision to terminate her employment and an order of mandamus, compelling the board to reinstate her.

She also sought several declarations including that the tribunal erred in law in its ruling that there was evidence to substantiate the charge of persistent failure to submit the required number of lesson plans as only 68 were required and also that there was inconsistent evidence regarding the number of lesson plans required or submitted.

LESSON PLANS SUBMITTED

The teacher maintained that she had always submitted the lesson plans and brought several teachers to testify that she had taken her lesson plans and left them on the head of a department’s desk.

She contended that she had prepared 105 plans and had submitted 42 to the disciplinary hearing.Delapenha did not submit any lesson plans to the court, explaining that the committee did not return them to her. However, she showed the court copies of the plans on her computer.

Delapenha also challenged the required number of lesson plans, claiming that a total of four and not eight per month were required. She said 68 was the amount due, which was confirmed by Guthrie.

Following the hearing, the judge found that the key witness for the management board had presented evidence “fraught with contradictions and conflicting statements”.

“He was hesitant and uneasy during cross-examination, often needing to be reminded to speak loudly. His attempts to change his responses when asked to repeat caused multiple delays during the trial,” Wint-Blair said in her judgment.

On the contrary, she noted that the teacher’s credibility remained unshaken as she was composed during cross-examination, which indicated “a genuine commitment to truthfulness”.

“She consistently maintained her evidence and readily answered all questions posed by the defendant’s counsel. The claimant’s evidence was notably candid and demonstrated recall of all relevant facts concerning her tenure at the Black River High School and the disciplinary hearing.

“This enhanced the reliability and veracity of her statements as the evidence was easily corroborated by documentary evidence, which solidified her standing as a trustworthy and credible witness,” the judge said.

The judge also found that the school had no proper system for documenting the submission or receipt of lesson plans and that an informal system was in place up to September 2018, when a formal system for signing for the plans was introduced.

“Therefore, as a system for the submission of lesson plans did not exist, no reliance should have been placed on evidence regarding the non-submission of lesson plans,” the judge said.

Wint-Blair also found that there was no evidence of a written warning to the claimant from the principal as professional head of the institution of him giving guidance and assistance or even an opportunity to improve upon the alleged infraction.

Based on that failure, the judge said the principal had no power to make a complaint or recommendation to the board as he did not satisfy the requirement of the Education Regulations, and, as such, the decision to terminate Delapenha ought to be rendered null, void, and of no effect.

The judge also indicated that after reviewing the entire proceeding in both the appeal and disciplinary hearing, the court found that “there are breaches of the principles of natural justice, procedural impropriety, and irrationality in the findings of the tribunal”.

Attorney-at-law André Earle, King’s Counsel, and Amarie Harris represented Delapenha while Matthew Gabbadon represented the Attorney General of Jamaica.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com