A longtime San Marino school board member has filed a federal lawsuit against top district officials and each individual school board member, claiming civil rights violations under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday by School Board Member Christopher Norgaard, seeks unspecified compensatory, special and punitive damages as well as attorney fees. The lawsuit also seeks a permanent injunction against violating Norgaard’s constitutional rights as a member of the SMUSD Board of Education, including evaluating the performance of the superintendent.
The lawsuit names as defendants Superintendent Dr. Alex Cherniss, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources Linda de la Torre, and each School Board member, President Shelley Ryan, Vice President Lisa Link, Nam Jack, and C. Joseph Chang.
Norgaard’s attorneys, Guy P. Glazier and Deborah M. Parker of Glazier Yee LLP, are also seeking a restraining order that would reinstate Norgaard’s ability to join with other School Board members in evaluating Cherniss’s performance. The School Board voted to recuse Norgaard from participating in evaluating Cherniss’ performance because of the initial claim against the District by Norgaard. That claim also had a draft lawsuit against the district and Cherniss. The district denied the claim, paving the way for the lawsuit filed Tuesday.
Norgaard countered his recusal by saying he has every right to evaluate Cherniss as an elected school board member.
The District released the following statement late Wednesday afternoon.
“It was a complete shock and surprise that Chris Norgaard would take such drastic measures to file a new claim in federal court and to sue each Board Member personally and individually for simply performing their elected duties in a way that was fair to all parties involved. The Board will review Mr. Norgaard’s claims and will provide further comment at the appropriate time.”
Guy P. Glazier, Norgaard’s attorney, declined further comment.
Although the First Amendment of the Constitution is well-known as the protection of free speech, free press and religion, the Fourteenth may not be so recognizable and yet it is one of the most litigated amendments in the Constitution.
According to the U.S. Supreme Court’s website, supremecourt.gov, the Fourteenth Amendment—which defines citizenship and forbids states to restrict the basic rights of citizens—has been used to litigate some of the country’s most notable cases such as Brown v. Board of Education, regarding racial segregation in 1954; Roe v. Wade, regarding abortion, 1973; Bush v. Gore, regarding the 2000 Presidential election and Obergefell v. Hodges, regarding same-sex marriage in 2015.
Meanwhile, the Norgaard issue appears to have begun January 22, according to the lawsuit, when the district handed a letter to Norgaard stating that sexual harassment allegations had been lodged against him involving district employees.
“The District takes such allegations very seriously and as required by Board policy and by law, has initiated a formal investigation regarding this matter,” according to quotes from the letter contained in the lawsuit. The letter also informed Norgaard that his contact with school employees and access to school grounds would be restricted.
“During any school visits or activities on campus approved by the Superintendent, you would be accompanied by an administrator and directed not to approach employees,” the letter states as quoted in the lawsuit.
Norgaard told the District he expected the SMUSD policy of confidentiality surrounding such an investigation would be followed. He also hoped the investigation would be concluded quickly.
The next few days involved Norgaard wanting to show up at a basketball game that he traditionally attended but was denied and a meeting with the high school principal, which he did attend, prompting another letter from Cherniss dated Jan. 29.
“Your failure to follow the District directives threatened the integrity of the investigation. If this occurs again, it will be treated as trespassing under Penal Code sections 626.4,626.7, and 626.8,” according to the letter.
The lawsuit then states on that same day, Cherniss and de la Torre identified Norgaard in a news release as being “under investigation by SMUSD and an investigative firm retained by the District for improper conduct apparently alleged to be sexual harassment.’’
The district hired the private investigative firm of Nicole Miller & Associates to look into the allegations of sexual harassment.
“Following several weeks of interviews with witnesses, Nicole Miller & Associates concluded on March 22, 2018, that Mr. Norgaard had committed no sexual harassment or other misconduct and violated no policy,” states the lawsuit. The lawsuit also states that the investigation exonerated Norgaard. The results of the investigation have never been made public.
The Tribune simultaneously requested a copy of the investigation report from Glazier Yee LLP and the School District and both requests were denied. The Tribune then requested a copy of the investigation from the School District under the California Public Records Act and was denied again. The District said the report was exempt from the CPRA because of privacy issues regarding personnel.
Meanwhile, the lawsuit continues: “Contrary to the published statements distributed by Defendants Cherniss and de la Torre to multiple news media outlets, law enforcement, and others, no complainant(s) had ever made any allegations against Mr. Norgaard as the accused of sexual harassment, sexual assault, other assault, or battery. Mr. Norgaard has never committed any such misconduct, never violated any law or policy related to such matters, and never behaved in a manner that reasonably could be interpreted to constitute such misconduct. Nobody ever claimed that he did.”
The San Marino Police Department launched its own investigation into the allegations. In an earlier interview, Police Chief John Incontro explained what the department did in regards to the Norgaard investigation.
“We did a very thorough investigation. We investigated potential witnesses, potential victims. We contacted some people that didn’t want to talk to us. We spent a good amount of time on this. I consulted with my lead detective and we decided there was nothing to be gained by interviewing Mr. Norgaard. We decided to present our investigation to the District Attorney to see if they wanted us to do anything further, like interviewing Mr. Norgaard.”
Furthermore, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office released its Charge Evaluation Worksheet to The Tribune, which stated the reason for not prosecuting is attributed to code B. Code B on the worksheet is “Lack of Sufficient Evidence.”
In the narrative for the DA’s declination, it goes on to state, “Victim, a San Marino school district employee, reports that a district board member, the suspect, contacted her in two separate occasions, in an inappropriate manner. The first incident occurred in October 2015 at which time suspect hugged and kissed vic on the lips. A second and similar incident occurred in 2016/2017. Victim reports that she did not believe the contact was for sexual gratification. Victim is non-desirous of prosecution. Victim signed a Refusal to Prosecute form. Victim requests confidentiality. No criminal filing recommended, therefore. San Marino Police Department concurs.”
Editor Mitch Lehman contributed to this story.
