A Richland County Common Pleas Court judge has ordered the immediate reinstatement of Mansfield Senior School assistant principal Fuzzie Davis.

MANSFIELD — A Richland County Common Pleas Court judge has ordered the immediate reinstatement of former Mansfield Senior High School assistant principal Fuzzie Davis.

In a 52-page decision, Judge Brent Robinson also ordered the Mansfield City School District to “make full restitution for all lost past and future wages and benefits from the date of her unpaid suspension … there is no just cause for delay.”

In his ruling, Robinson said, “The position taken by the MCSD Board of Education defies law, logic and due process.”

Fuzzie Davis ruling

Columbus attorney Beverly Farlow, who represented Davis, said Davis was terminated in April 2018, which means the plaintiff is entitled to more than two years of back pay, health insurance benefits and state retirement funding.

“The judge’s ruling (filestamped on May 4) said Fuzzie is to be reinstated immediately, so, yes, she is on the clock,” Farlow said. “I don’t know what the district is doing in terms of COVID-19, but they are paying educators and that certainly would include Fuzzie.”

Phone and email messages were left Monday afternoon for school district spokesman Larry Gibbs.

Farlow said neither she nor her client have heard from the Mansfield City School District since the decision was made last week.

“Not a peep,” Farlow said.

When asked if Davis sought a financial settlement or a return to her job, Farlow said, “Fuzzie is a life-long educator. This has been an excruciating experience for her. She has devoted her life to working with and helping students. All of that was taken away from her by an arbitrary process.

“I am here to talk (with the school district). I am not going anywhere.”

Robinson’s decision affirms the findings and recommendations of referee R. Lee Shepherd, who ruled in November 2018 that Davis had been improperly terminated after district officials claimed she didn’t report a sexually explicit conversation between a teacher and a student in January 2018.

According to the court filing, Davis notified the high school principal when she was notified of the conversation. The student in question was 18 years old at the time and Richland County Children Services found it also didn’t meet the parameters regarding incidents of child abuse and neglect.

The district continued disciplinary actions against Davis and other district employees. Then-Superintendent Brian Garverick recommended Davis be terminated, which the school board acted on April 23, 2018, without allowing Davis to attend or speak at the meeting.

Farlow said the board didn’t agree with the referee’s ruling, leading to the complaint being filed in Richland County Common Pleas Court in March 2019.

In his ruling, Robinson said the following facts in the record support the plaintiff’s testimony that Davis did not have a reasonable suspicion that reportable child abuse had occurred:

— The student was over 18 years old when the incident took place.

— The student was not reliable or credible as a witness. “The student’s own testimony at the referee’s hearing supports a finding that he is not a reliable or credible witness,” the judge wrote.

— Richland County Children Services responses put MCSD on notice that the referral information did not meet the parameters for child abuse, regardless of the student’s age.

— Davis was also not the first mandated reporter to heard of the alleged misconduct.

In his decision, Robinson said the board has acted as if the referee’s decision had not been made.

“The resolution to terminate clearly shows the board continues to uphold the exaggerated specifications as written by MCSD administrators, regardless of what the testimony and evidence show,” Robinson said.

“The conduct of the MCSD Board of Education in this case raises questions about the board’s capability to act as a neutral decision maker in other such cases,” the judge wrote.

Robinson’s decision only resolves count one of Davis’ complaint, the administrative appeal. Count two, in which Davis claims defamation, negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful discharge and breach of contract, is scheduled for trial in October, Farlow said.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *