Racial-slur case appealed by school district

Thursday, Feb. 11, 1999 | 12:11 p.m.

CARSON CITY -- An attorney for school teachers in Clark County told the Nevada Supreme Court Wednesday the school district improperly withheld information that would help in the defense of a teacher, accused of making racial epithets.

But the lawyer for the district argued the union's demand for information would disrupt the educational system and be "disastrous for the district."

The court, sitting Wednesday for the first time with seven justices, took the case of Joe Cox under submission and will rule later.

The district, in 1996, sought to fire Cox, a teacher since 1991, for allegedly telling a hall monitor at Sunset High School that his supervisor was a "nigger" and adding, "I don't even want to talk to that nigger, because he thinks people should kiss his ass." Cox, the hall monitor and the supervisor are black.

The statement was allegedly overheard by four students who gave statements. A hearing officer, assigned to the case, issued a subpoena telling the district to turn over the names of the four students, plus other information in the case. The district refused and sued. It lost in district court and has now appealed to the Supreme Court.

The district claims there is nothing in the law to allow the hearing officer to issue the subpoena to produce the documents and the names of the students before the hearing. And it said the names of the students are confidential because of the federal privacy act.

Cox and the district have reached a confidential termination agreement. But L. Steven Demaree, attorney for the district, said this issue must be resolved so the ground rules will be known in these dismissal cases, which come up at least once a month.

Cox also was accused of failing to complete paperwork, which jeopardized the graduation of two students. The teachers union also sought records in that case, which were not produced, despite the subpoena.

Leigh O'Neill, attorney for the teachers, said the names of the students, who allegedly overheard the private conservation, must be revealed before the arbitration hearing in order to allow Cox to prepare a defense. "We do not want every teacher surprised on the day of hearing," she told the court.

There were 35 students in the Cox class, and the lawyers for the teacher should not have to question everyone to find out the identities of the four. She also said Cox believed he never did anything to put the graduation of the students in danger.

In her pre-hearing brief, O'Neill said school district attorneys refer to Cox's statement as "hateful," comments. "Counsel failed to mention that the term nigger means quite a different thing when used between African Americans than it does when used by a white man to refer to a black man."

Demaree told the court Cox had four unsatisfactory evaluations, was suspended three times and had 11 admoninishments before the current case. Cox, said Demaree received a five page letter detailing the charges, the date and the time of the incident. The statement of the students was available but their names were scratched out to protect their privacy, required by federal law.

He argued the union would try to take pre-hearing deposition from the students which would disrupt classes.

The Legislature, Demaree said did not want these arbitration hearings turned into "full blown court litigation."

Justices pointed out the names of the students would be revealed at the hearing. Justice Bill Maupin questioned whether attorneys for Cox would be restricted to a limited defense without the information available before the hearing.

Justice Myron Leavitt suggested an employee should be able to understand what he is being charged with and should be able to get the information before hand. "We're talking about losing a job. The whole idea in discovery is reaching the truth."

Demaree maintained there is nothing in the law to compel pre-hearing discovery, and he added, "This would have a disastrous impact on education."