BRATTLEBORO-The state Superior Court has upheld the firing of former Brattleboro Union High School (BUHS) Principal Steven Perrin for misconduct, effectively closing the case.
Judge David A. Barra, of the court’s Bennington unit, ruled Nov. 26 against Perrin, not only upholding his termination by the Windham Southeast School District board in November 2022, but also dismissing all Perrin’s civil claims against the district and individual school board members.
BUHS alum and survivor Mindy Haskins Rogers unveiled a decades-long history and culture of sexual abuse in the WSESD in an August 2021 essay in The Commons.
In October 2022, this newspaper broke the story of another BUHS alumna who reported to authorities that when she was a sophomore in 2010, Perrin started to make unwanted and inappropriate sexual and romantic advances toward her.
The former student, identified in the newspaper and in public facing court documents as Jane Doe, spoke with The Commons on the condition of anonymity.
She had recounted the story to Windham County Safe Place — an agency for children and adults reporting sexual abuse and/or physical violence — and to the office of attorney Aimee Goddard, who had been leading an investigation into patterns of sexual abuse in the district as a result of Haskins Rogers’ account.
As a result of those reports, Doe also interviewed with the Brattleboro Police Department.
The former student alleged that Perrin subsequently found other ways to make her life difficult, including trying to prevent her from graduating.
Doe also contended that the former principal did not report her off-campus rape by a fellow student to the authorities as he was mandated to do as an educator. Friends and classmates corroborated her account of Perrin’s continuing treatment of her.
In addition, BUHS staff members came forward to say Perrin instructed at least one former employee in 2020 not to report to the Vermont Department for Children and Families (DCF) when made aware of incidents involving a then-14-year-old female student they believed required mandatory reporting.
Perrin, through his attorney, Theodore C. Kramer of Kramer Law PC, continues to deny the accusations and maintain that his firing was unwarranted.
A long appeals process
On April 25, 2022, days after Doe came forward, then-WSESD Chair Kelly Young communicated that Superintendent Mark Speno had placed Perrin on a paid leave of absence.
The board fired Perrin on Nov. 8, 2022, in a unanimous vote. He had not been on the job since before spring break of 2022, although he continued to collect his $122,000 annual salary and benefits until being fired.
After being fired, Perrin exercised his right to an appeal, and the WSESD Board held a hearing and heard testimony over two weeks from about a dozen witnesses. The hearing ended on Monday, Jan. 30.
In February 2023, the WSESD Board upheld its original decision to fire Perrin.
Testimony obtained from the hearing shows the Board found three “just cause” bases for termination, most significantly the mishandling of Jane Doe’s reported sexual assault.
The Board found Perrin interviewed Doe alone behind closed doors when she was a minor; ignored her request to notify her parents; threatened her with filing a false report; engaged in repeated interactions afterward that she experienced as harassing, intimidating, and inappropriate; made comments about her appearance and touched her hair; and displayed what was described as a “fixation‘” on her.
In addition, the Board noted an ongoing pattern of harassment toward Doe, and determined that Perrin directed staff not to make a mandatory abuse report.
While a report was eventually made after staff insisted, in his Nov. 26 ruling Barra held that “any interference with mandatory reporting obligations is inherently serious and supports dismissal, regardless of whether a report was ultimately filed.”
Case closed
Perrin’s March 2023 civil complaint had requested a jury trial and financial remuneration for wrongful termination, breach of contract, due process violations, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The Nov. 26 court ruling states that jury selection previously set for Dec. 8 and a jury trial set for Jan. 20, 2026, are canceled and the case is closed.
Named in the complaint were the Windham Southeast Supervisory Union (WSESU), the Windham Southeast School District (WSESD) Board, former WSESD Chair Kelly Young, former and current co-Chair Anne Beekman, and former and current school board members Tim Maciel, Liz Adams, Lana Dever, Michelle Luetjen Green, Robin Morgan, Shaun Murphy, Emily Murphy Kaur, and current Board Chair Deborah Stanford.
SP&F Attorneys, a law firm in Burlington, was hired by WSESU’s insurance company to handle the lawsuit because Perrin’s complaint was an insured claim.
“I agree with the Court’s ruling that the WSESD Board’s decision, which was the subject of the lawsuit, satisfied Vermont law,” attorney John H. Klesch told The Commons on Dec. 1. “The Board provided all process that was due an employee in this situation and its decision to uphold termination of employment was supported by evidence.”
Perrin’s attorney, however, says he will now pursue the case to the state Supreme Court.
“We will press on to our Vermont Supreme Court to seek justice for Steve,‘” Kramer told The Commons on Dec. 1.
Kramer did not say what he intends to claim as basis for appeal.
“Regrettably, from time to time a case comes along that shakes your faith in fairness and our system of justice; this is one of those cases,‘” Kramer said. “But we are undeterred and determined to secure justice for Steve. In the process of defending him, many educators confided in us that ‘there but for the grace of God go I.’ That is to say, one accuser can end a career.
“We live in a day and age now when a lifetime of devoted service to education of our children can be wiped out by the most incredible and nonsensical of accusations, accusations immediately deemed false by Steve’s co-workers and colleagues, the ones who know him best. The testimony of one accuser, no matter how implausible, is considered more significant than an individual’s stellar reputation for integrity and devotion, earned during three decades in education.”
Kramer went on to comment on Perrin’s comportment throughout the proceedings.
“He has been the epitome of decency and dignity through this whole long and arduous nightmare. Not a single mean-spirited word during a most difficult and strenuous time, an ordeal that would have defeated a lesser man. It has been an honor to represent him.”
Attorneys for WSESD abuse victims, including Doe and others whose cases remain pending, from Shaheen & Gordon and the Justice Law Collaborative, shared a statement from Doe with The Commons.
“While it is reassuring to see that justice has prevailed in this case, I am disheartened to see former Principal Perrin and his attorney so callously dismiss the experience and testimony of those who came forward after navigating his predation firsthand,” she said.
“Their denigrating comments show just how little respect they have for Steve’s accusers, his former colleagues and students, and the Superior Court. From the start, Steve has focused all of his time and energy on discrediting me and other survivors across the school district,” Doe added.
“It is time that comes to a stop, and now the Court has voiced its agreement,” she continued. “To anyone who has their own story to tell, I hope you have the support and safety you need to come forward. And to those whose stories will never be spoken, I see you and I stand with you.”
Neither current WSESD Board Chair Stanford nor Superintendent Speno replied to The Commons’ request for comment by press time. Former Chair David Schoales, however, did.
“I was gratified to learn one of the many survivors of sexual abuse in our schools has been believed,‘” he said. “I know the WSESD Board had adequate evidence to fire Mr. Perrin and, although the process took a long time, it was done carefully and thoughtfully.”
He said his only surprise “is that it took so long for the court to agree.”
“I hope the result will encourage the current board to reconsider releasing the other substantiated complaints of sexual abuse that turned up in their investigation a few years ago,‘” Schoales said.
The judge’s analysis
Barra’s ruling affirms the WSESD Board’s hearing decision, which upheld its original decision to terminate Perrin.
Per Vermont law, after pre-termination notice and process, a school board notifies a principal of a decision to terminate employment. The employee may appeal that decision to the school board, which then requires an evidentiary hearing at the board.
After the hearing, the board issues an appeal hearing decision based on the evidence from the hearing. The employee can then submit that decision for review to Vermont Superior Court.
Barra says in his analysis the Board followed all procedures correctly.
“The Board’s factual findings are clearly supported by evidence in the record,” he writes. “Each of the Board’s findings is based on the testimony and evidence received at the hearings. The Board decision is based on those findings. The court’s on-the-record review confirms that the Board decision has a reasonable basis and must be confirmed.”
The judge particularly noted that “Perrin spends much time attacking Doe’s credibility, but not the sufficiency of the Board’s findings if her testimony is believed. Witness after witness when questioned confirmed the simple truth that if Doe’s testimony were true, the Board decision was proper. The question for the court to consider is whether there was sufficient basis in the testimony to support the findings and conclusions. There is.”
Barra concludes his analysis: “Perrin’s conduct was egregious enough that discharge was reasonable and Perrin had fair notice that such conduct could result in discharge. The Board was empowered to hear the testimony of witnesses, including cross examination, and issue a decision based on the weight of the evidence. Because that is exactly what the Board did, its decision must be affirmed.”
Regarding Perrin’s allegation of a series of procedural deficiencies, the court denied all of them.
The judge rejected Perrin’s claim of breach of contract saying the Board “had just cause to terminate and followed proper statutory procedures.”
Claims of due process violations were rejected as “both pre- and post-termination procedures met constitutional standards.”
“Perrin’s speculation and unfounded allegations about the potential for bias or outside influence on the Board does not itself demonstrate an intolerably high risk of unfairness,’” wrote Barra. “Nor does it overcome the presumption of honesty and integrity of the Board’s conduct in hearing and deciding his appeal.”
Barra dismissed Perrin’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, saying that the Board’s actions were normal administrative processes, not extreme or outrageous, and that Perrin offered no evidence of severe emotional distress.
“Perrin’s formulaic claim that he suffered ‘immeasurable harm to his reputation and emotional well-being and health’ is a conclusory allegation or legal conclusion masquerading as a statement of fact that this Court is not required to accept as true,” Barra wrote.
“Further, Perrin has failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact that any actions of any defendant state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress,’” he added.
Finally, regarding Perrin’s allegation of defamation — a complaint that the defendants had said that the principal had been dismissed for cause — the court dismissed that claim.
“Truth is a complete defense,” Barra wrote. “It is true that Perrin was dismissed for cause.”
This News item by Virginia Ray was written for The Commons.