[Hearings on January 20, 2022.]
[00:00:02]
GOOD MORNING. THE MEETING IS NOW CONVENED, THE TIME IS 9:01AM.BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT IN THE BOARD AUDITORIUM ARE TRUSTEE ALLEN, TRUSTEE WADE, TRUSTEE HERNANDEZ, TRUSTEE BAKER, TRUSTEE DEIGAARD AND MYSELF TRUSTEE CRUZ.
I'D LIKE TO ASK EVERYONE TO PLEASE SILENCE ALL CELL PHONES AND REMIND EVERYONE TO PLEASE ADHERE TO THE DISTRICT'S MASK MANDATE.
IF YOU ARE NOT WEARING A MASK, YOU WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE PREMISES.
OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO HEAR FROM SPEAKERS TO SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS. HOWEVER, NO ONE HAS REGISTERED TO SPEAK TODAY.
THE BOARD WILL NOW ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION UNDER CHAPTER 551 OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE OPEN MEETING ACTS SUBSECTIONS 551.004, .071, .072, .073, .074, .076, .082, .0821, .083, .084, .089.
SHOULD BOARD FINAL ACTION VOTE OR DECISION ON ANY MATTER CONSIDERED IN THE CLOSED SESSION BE REQUIRED. SUCH FINAL ACTION, VOTE OR DECISION SHALL BE TAKEN AT THE OPEN MEETING COVERED BY THIS NOTICE UPON THE RECONVENING OF THE PUBLIC MEETING OR AT A SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC MEETING OF THE BOARD UPON NOTICE THEREOF.
THE BOARD HAS ADJOURNED TO CLOSE SESSION AT 9:02 AM.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? TRUSTEE HERNANDEZ [INAUDIBLE].
I MOVE THAT WE REVERSE THE LEVEL TWO DECISION OF THE HEARING, OFFICER--.
[INAUDIBLE]. SO, YES, EVERYONE IS SEATED, THE SUPERINTENDENT IS SEATED.
OK. DO YOU MIND ANNOUNCING THAT WHEN IT [INAUDIBLE]? YES. SORRY.
OK. THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOW RECONVENED IN OPEN SESSION.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? TRUSTEE HERNANDEZ.
I MOVE THAT WE REVERSE THE LEVEL TWO DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER, SUSTAINE THE ADMINISTRATION'S APPEAL AND DENY THE EMPLOYEES GRIEVANCE.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, DEIGAARD.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY TRUSTEE HERNANDEZ AND A SECOND BY TRUSTEE DEIGAARD.
[INAUDIBLE] DISCUSSION, [INAUDIBLE].
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? TRUSTEE GUIDRY.
I JUST WANT TO SAY, FOR THE RECORD, THAT IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE ADMINISTRATION TO MAKE SURE THAT PROCEDURES ARE FOLLOWED WITH RESPECT TO THESE HEARINGS, WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION HAD THE HEARINGS, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THE PROCEDURES AND POLICIES ARE ADHERED TO. THANK YOU.
A LETTER NOTIFYING BOTH PARTIES OF THE ACTION OF THE BOARD SHALL BE PREPARED AND SIGNED BY THE DIRECTOR OF BOARD SERVICES AS SOON AS IS PRACTICAL.
THIS HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 10:50 AM.
[00:06:21]
THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE DISPUTE FILED BY GABRIELA CABRERA-CASTILLO, FORMER EMPLOYEE NUTRITION SERVICES.HEARINGS INVOLVING COMPLAINTS AGAINST DISTRICT EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE HELD IN CLOSED SESSION UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF THE HEARING, REQUESTS AN OPEN HEARING.
IF BOTH PARTIES REQUEST AN OPEN SESSION DURING THE HEARING, THE BOARD MAY GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSULT WITH ITS ATTORNEY UNDER THE TERMS OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 551.071.
IF ANY BOARD MEMBER WISHES TO SEEK THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE MAKE THIS REQUEST KNOWN TO ME. FOR THE RECORD, HECTOR MIRELES WITH THE TEXAS SUPPORT PERSONNEL EMPLOYEES LOCAL ONE REPRESENTING GABRIELA CABRERA-CASTILLO IS PRESENT.
CLAY GROVER WITH ROGERS, MORRIS, AND GROVER, LLP REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION IS PRESENT.
ELNEITA HUTCHINS-TAYLOR HISD GENERAL COUNSEL IS PRESENT AND LISA MCBRIDE FROM THE FIRM OF THOMPSON AND HORTON LLP IS PRESENT TO ADVISE THE BOARD.
IF ANY PARTIES ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THIS HEARING, YOU MAY LEAVE THE AUDITORIUM AT THIS TIME. THE BOARD WILL NOW ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION UNDER CHAPTER 551 OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE OPEN MEETING ZACH SUBSECTIONS 551.004, .071, .072, .073, .074, .076, .082, .0821, .083, .084, AND .089.
SHOULD BOARD FINAL ACTION VOTE OR DECISION ON ANY MATTER CONSIDERED IN THE CLOSED SESSION BE REQUIRED. SUCH FINAL ACTION VOTE OR DECISION SHALL BE TAKEN AT THE OPEN MEETING COVERED BY THIS NOTICE UPON THE RECONVENING OF THIS PUBLIC MEETING OR AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING OF THE BOARD UPON NOTICE THEREOF.
THE BOARD HAS ADJOURNED TO CLOSE SESSION AT 10:53 AM ON JANUARY 20TH, 2022.
[INAUDIBLE] SESSION AT 10:54 AM.
THE ISSUES BEFORE THE BOARD OF EDUCATION ARE WHETHER THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES WERE CORRECTLY APPLIED TO THE GRIEVANT AND WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATION HAS VIOLATED THOSE BOARD POLICIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES.
MS. CABRERA-CASTILLO, SINCE YOU ASKED THAT THE BOARD HEAR THIS MATTER, YOUR REPRESENTATIVE WILL PROCEED FIRST.
YOU WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A 10 MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD, FOLLOWED BY A 10 MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MR. GROVER.
MR. MIRELES MAY RESERVE PART OF HIS 10 MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL TO MATTERS PRESENTED BY MR. GROVER. BOTH SIDES SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AFTER THEIR RESPECTIVE PRESENTATIONS. AFTER DELIBERATION, THE BOARD WILL RENDER ITS DECISION.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE WAY THIS DISPUTE RESOLUTION HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED? [INAUDIBLE].
NO QUESTIONS, MADAM PRESIDENT.
MR. MIRELES, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DIVIDE YOUR TIME IN MAKING YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD BASED ON THE TRANSCRIPT? TEN MINUTES OR LESS? SEVEN MINUTES AND THREE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL.
OK. AND JUST AS A REMINDER, IF-- WHENEVER YOU'RE SPEAKING, MAKE SURE YOU'RE SPEAKING INTO THE MICROPHONE, EVEN IF YOU'RE COUNTERING SOMETHING SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN MAKE SURE SHE HEARS YOU. MR. MIRELES, YOU MAY BEGIN.
[00:10:08]
GOOD MORNING, MADAM PRESIDENT, DR.WE COME HERE TODAY, WHICH IS A VERY DIFFICULT CASE, I HOPE YOU GUYS KEEP AN OPEN MIND AND WEIGH ONLY IN THE EXHIBITS THAT WERE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING.
MS. GABRIELA CABRERA HAS BEEN WITH THE DISTRICT OVER NINE YEARS.
EVERY TWO YEARS SHE HAS TO PAY TO BE ALLOWED TO WORK IN THE USA, SHE PAYS $900 EVERY TWO YEARS. SO, I'D LIKE YOU TO FOLLOW WITH ME IF YOU CAN.
HER WORK PERMIT EXPIRED ON 1/8/21.
SHE WAS TERMINATED ON FEBRUARY 2ND, 2021, SO SHE WAS STILL ALLOWED TO WORK FROM JANUARY 8TH, 2021 ALL THE WAY THROUGH FEBRUARY 2ND, 2021.
ON DECEMBER 14TH, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE EXHIBITS, SHE RECEIVED HER LETTER FROM IMMIGRATION ON DECEMBER 14TH, 2020.
THAT THEY HAD RECEIVED HER PAYMENT TO ALLOW HER TO CONTINUE WORKING IN THE USA.
I'D LIKE YOU IF YOU COULD POSSIBLY GO TO EXHIBIT 17.
AND THIS THIS WAS DATED ON 2017 AND I'D LIKE TO READ IT TO YOU.
GOOD DAY, MR. MIRELES AND MS. BUSH. IT WAS [INAUDIBLE] SPEAKING TO YOU BOTH REGARDING MS. BERRERA. AFTER REVIEWING THE DOCUMENTS PRESENTED, SHE IS CLEARED TO WORK WITH AN EXTENSION OF 180 DAYS PAST THE EXPIRATION OF HER CURRENT WORK AUTHORIZATION.
I WILL UPDATE HER EXPIRATION DATE AND SAP.
PLEASE REMIND THE EMPLOYEE TO PRESENT HER RENEW EAD WHEN SHE RECEIVES IT.
LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
SO OUR ARGUMENT IS IN 2017, WHEN SHE SUBMITTED HER PAPERWORK THAT ALLOWED HER TO WORK IN THE USA OR AT HISD, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO ALLOW HISD TO ALLOW THIS EMPLOYEE HER CONTRARIAN WORK STATUS.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE EXHIBITS THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IS IN EXHIBIT G 7.
IT SAYS RIGHT HERE WHEN SHE FILED IT, WHEN SHE PAID FOR IT, WHEN SHE RECEIVED IT.
IT WAS RECEIVED ON DECEMBER 14TH AND IT SAYS AT THE BOTTOM, WE RECEIVED YOUR FORM AND ARE CURRENTLY PROCESSING THE ABOVE CASE.
IF THIS NOTICE CONTAINS ANY PRIORITY DATE, THE PRIORITY DOES NOT REFLECT EARLIER [INAUDIBLE] PRIORITIES WILL NOTIFY YOU SEPARATELY OF ANOTHER CASE YOU FILED.
SO, SHE SUBMITTED ALL OF HER WORK, ALL HER PAPERWORK TO ALLOW HER TO WORK IN THE USA.
SO WHY WAS IT ANY OF THESE DOCUMENTS PRESENTED OR ALLOWED TO BE PRESENTED? IF YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT EIGHT ON JANUARY 2ND, WE RECEIVED YOUR FORM APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION.
WE MAILED YOU TO RECEIPT NOTICE FOR ACCEPTANCE NOTICE, SO SHE DID EVERYTHING HUMANLY POSSIBLE TO ALLOW HER TO WORK IN HISD.
IN 2017, THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO YOU WAS ALLOWED FOR HER TO CONTINUE WORKING, BUT IN 2021, THERE IS NOW A NEW PERSON IN THE VISA DEPARTMENT THAT WOULD NOT ACCEPT IT.
BUT WHY DID THEY ACCEPT IT IN 2017, BUT DIDN'T ACCEPT IT IN 2021? SHE HAS FULFILLED HER OBLIGATIONS EVERY TWO YEARS TO BE ALLOWED TO WORK IN THE USA AND ALSO IN HISD.
SO THE ARGUMENT HERE IS THIS CASE, THIS DACA CASE WAS AT THE SUPREME COURT, SO NO PAPERWORK WAS BEING PROCESSED AT THE TIME TO DETERMINE WHETHER DACA WAS GOING TO BE A LEGAL OR ILLEGAL.
ALSO, WE WERE DEALING WITH THE COVID CRISIS, SO HOW CAN WE HOLD AN EMPLOYEE WHO'S BEEN WITH THE DISTRICT NINE YEARS AND EVERY YEAR, EVERY TWO YEARS, SHE HAS DONE HER DUE DILIGENCE, DONE HER JOB TERRIFIC? SUBMITTING HER APPLICATION SO SHE CAN CONTINUE WORKING IN THE USA.
SO, HISD DECIDED TO LET HER GO, ALL BECAUSE, NOT THAT SHE SUBMITTED THE DOCUMENTS, BUT BECAUSE SHE DID NOT SUBMIT-- IF YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT 19, A AND 8, WHICH IS HER CARD THAT ALLOWS HER TO WORK IN THE USA.
19 AND 19A, SHE DIDN'T DO IT INTENTIONALLY.
YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHEN INS SAID YES, YOU'RE APPROVED TO WORK AND HISD'S SAYING, YEAH, YOU'RE GOOD TO WORK, BUT WE WANT YOUR CARD.
HOW CAN SHE GET IT IF THIS CASE WAS AT THE SUPREME COURT AT THE TIME? WE WERE DEALING WITH COVID.
THEY COULDN'T ISSUE HER, HER CARD RIGHT AWAY.
[00:15:04]
SO HISD DETERMINED TO LET HER GO ON FEBRUARY 2ND, BUT THEY ALLOW HER TO WORK ALMOST 30 DAYS. THAT IS OUR ARGUMENT.IF YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER DOCUMENTS, EXHIBIT 18, WE HAVE TO-- WE REACHED OUT ACTUALLY TO PENNY SHAW OUR STATE REPRESENTATIVE WHO HELPED US TRY TO EXPEDITE TO GET HER CARD.
IF YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT 18, EXHIBIT 18 A, AND EXHIBIT 19, WE WERE ABLE TO REACH OUT TO SYLVIA GARCIA'S OFFICE TO EXPEDITE THIS, AND WE WERE ABLE TO GET HER CARD.
AND AGAIN, AT THIS TIME THE GRIEVANCE WAS GOING ON, SO WE COULDN'T SUBMIT IT AT THE TIME.
SO THE ARGUMENT IS, IF YOU LET HER WORK 30 DAYS PAST HER EXPIRATION AND BACK IN 2017, THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE PRESENTED TO YOU AND EXHIBITS ALLOWED HER TO WORK.
THEN WHY WOULD HISD TERMINATE HER? SHE WAS A CAFETERIA MANAGER, A SINGLE MOM, DOING EVERYTHING THAT SHE COULD UNDER THE LAW BY SUBMITTING HER DOCUMENTS IN TIME.
SHE DIDN'T WAIT TILL, OH, THIS IS GOING TO EXPIRE SOON.
SHE SUBMITTED IT IN TIME SO SHE CAN ALWAYS GET HER CARD BACK.
AND AGAIN, SHE'S BEEN WITH DISTRICT NINE YEARS.
SO SHE WAS ALWAYS GETTING IT IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO SHOW THAT, HEY, HERE'S MY RENEWAL.
HERE'S MY CARD. BUT WE WERE DEALING WITH TWO CRISES.
THE COVID CRISIS AND THIS CASE BEING PRESENTED, THE DACA CASE BEING PRESENTED IN THE SUPREME COURT, WHICH THE SUPREME COURT DID RULE THAT IT WAS LEGAL, IT WAS, YOU KNOW, THE DACA'S RECIPIENTS HAD THE RIGHT TO BE HERE IN THE U.S.
I THINK YOU AND I WILL SAVE THE REST OF MY TIME FOR MY REBUTTAL.
MR. GROVER, YOU MAY MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD BASED ON THE TRANSCRIPT.
THANK YOU. MAY IT PLEASE THE BOARD.
AS MR. MIRELES SAID MS. GABRIELA CABRERA-CASTILLO WAS A CAFETERIA MANAGER AT THE TIME OF HER TERMINATION.
HER GRIEVANCE IS DETERMINED BY FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW.
MS. CASTILLO WAS TERMINATED ON FEBRUARY 4TH, 2021, BECAUSE SHE COULD NOT PRESENT A VALID EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION DOCUMENT, WHICH IS COMMONLY KNOWN AS AN EAD.
IF YOU LOOK AT AND I'D LIKE TO KIND OF WALK THROUGH THIS, IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S BEEN MARKED AS ADMINISTRATION EXHIBIT FOUR IN THE RECORD, IT IS A COPY OF MRS. CABRERA-CASTILLO'S EAD CARD.
AND IT DOES SHOW THAT IT EXPIRED ON JANUARY THE 8TH 2021.
SHE APPLIED FOR A REAUTHORIZATION OF HER EAD ON DECEMBER 14TH.
BUT THE LAW DOES NOT ALLOW HER AN EXTENSION OF HER CARD WHEN IT'S EXPIRED.
THE LAW DOES ALLOW SOME IMMIGRANTS AN AUTOMATIC ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY DAY EXTENSION BEYOND THE EXPIRATION OF THEIR EAD, BUT IT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE CATEGORY OF IMMIGRANT THAT MS. CABRERA-CASTILLO WAS.
SO, IF WE LOOK AT THAT EXHIBIT 4, A4, IT SHOWS THAT SHE WAS A CATEGORY C-33.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE NEXT DOCUMENT, THE NEXT DOCUMENT TALKS ABOUT THE DIFFERENT CATEGORY CLASSIFICATIONS FOR EAD.
IF YOU LOOK AT-- ON THE 3RD PAGE OF THAT DOCUMENT, C-33 IS THE LAST CLASSIFICATION, AND THAT'S FOR DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDHOOD ARRIVALS, DACA.
THAT WAS HER CLASSIFICATION WITH THE IMMIGRATION SERVICES.
IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S BEEN MARKED AS EXHIBIT-- ADMINISTRATION EXHIBIT SIX.
THIS IS FROM THE IMMIGRATION SERVICES AND IT TALKS ABOUT THAT AUTOMATIC 180 DAY EXTENSION AND IT LIST THE EAD CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYEES THAT ARE ALLOWED THAT 180 DAY AUTOMATIC EXTENSION. IT DOES NOT INCLUDE CATEGORY THIRTY THREE.
THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED 180 DAY EXTENSION.
WHEN THEIR CARD IS EXPIRED, THEY DO NOT HAVE A VALID WORK AUTHORIZATION ANYMORE.
AND OF COURSE, IF YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT-- ADMINISTRATION, EXHIBIT EIGHT, WHICH IS A COPY OF THE UNITED STATES CODE, FEDERAL LAW MAKES IT ILLEGAL FOR AN EMPLOYER TO CONTINUE TO EMPLOY A ALIEN IMMIGRANT WHO THEY KNOW DOES NOT HAVE PROPER WORK AUTHORIZATION.
[00:20:09]
SO MS. CABRERA-CASTILLO WAS GIVEN UNTIL FEBRUARY 4TH TO TRY TO PRODUCE A VALID EAD, AND SHE DOESN'T DISPUTE THAT AT THE TIME OF HER TERMINATION, SHE DID NOT HAVE A VALID EAD CARD THAT AUTHORIZED HER TO WORK FOR HISD OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYER.NOW SHE'S SAYING THAT, WELL, IT'S JUST NOT FAIR BECAUSE I APPLIED AND I JUST HADN'T GOTTEN MY CARD BEFORE IT EXPIRED, BUT THAT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW.
THE LAW SAYS YOU AS THE EMPLOYER CANNOT CONTINUE TO EMPLOY HER.
NOW, WHEN SHE WAS TERMINATED, SHE WAS TOLD THAT YES, THEY THOUGHT SHE WAS GOOD EMPLOYEE AND THAT ONCE SHE COULD PRODUCE A VALID EAD CARD, SHE COULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR REHIRE AND ENCOURAGED TO REAPPLY.
SHE REFUSED TO DO THAT EVEN AT HER LEVEL ONE HEARING WITH MR. LEWIS, WHO'S A SENIOR MANAGER IN NUTRITION SERVICES.
EVEN AT THAT LEVEL ONE, MR. LEWIS AGAIN REMINDED HER THAT SHE WAS AUTHORIZED FOR REHIRE AND ENCOURAGED HER TO APPLY FOR REHIRE, AGAIN SHE REFUSED.
IT AGAIN WAS OFFERED TO HER THAT ALL SHE NEEDED TO DO WAS APPLY AND BE REHIRED.
AND YET SHE'S COME TO THE BOARD TODAY SAYING THAT, OH, I SHOULD BE PAID BACK-PAY FROM THE DAY I WAS TERMINATED, EVEN THOUGH THE TERMINATION WAS ACCORDING TO LAW AND SHE HAS REFUSED TO TRY TO MITIGATE ANY DAMAGES SHE'S SUFFERING BY APPLYING FOR REHIRE.
MS. CABRERA-CASTILLO IS A AT-WILL EMPLOYEE.
AS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE, SHE CAN BE FIRED FOR ANY REASON AS LONG AS IT'S NOT AN ILLEGAL REASON OR MOTIVATED BY SOME DISCRIMINATORY ANIMUS.
SHE HAS NOT ALLEGED AND CERTAINLY HASN'T PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS AN ILLEGAL MOTIVATION TO TERMINATE HER EMPLOYMENT.
IN FACT, IT'S JUST THE OPPOSITE.
WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS IS THAT SHE WAS TERMINATED BECAUSE THE DISTRICT WAS TRYING TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW.
NOT THAT THERE WAS, AND THERE CERTAINLY WASN'T ANY VIOLATION OF BOARD POLICY, AND THERE'S BEEN NO ALLEGATION THAT THERE WAS ANY VIOLATION OF BOARD POLICY.
THIS SINGLE EVIDENCE THAT MS. CABRERA-CASTILLO HAS OFFERED IS-- WHAT HE REFERRED TO YOU EARLIER IS THEIR EXHIBIT G17, WHICH IS A LETTER BETWEEN THE HISD VISA DEPARTMENT IN 2017.
FIVE YEARS AGO, NOT WITH MS. CABRERA-CASTILLO, AS WAS SUGGESTED.
THIS INVOLVES SOME TOTALLY DIFFERENT EMPLOYEE FROM FIVE YEARS AGO, AND ALL THE LETTER SHOWS IS THAT THIS EMPLOYEE HAD SUBMITTED SUFFICIENT PAPERWORK TO GET HER 180 DAY EXTENSION. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT CATEGORY CLASSIFICATION THAT EMPLOYEE WAS, THAT EMPLOYEE MAY VERY WELL HAVE BEEN ENTITLED AND I ASSUME SHE WAS TO A 180 DAY EXTENSION.
BUT WE KNOW THAT MS. CABRERA-CASTILLO BY BEING CLASSIFIED AS A CATEGORY THIRTY THREE, THAT SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY EXTENSION.
THAT'S THE ONLY EVIDENCE THEY'VE OFFERED IN DEFENSE OF THEIR CASE.
CLEARLY, HISD DID NOT TERMINATE MS. CASTILLO BECAUSE OF SOME DISCRIMINATORY MOTIVE.
IN FACT, WE'VE ENCOURAGED HER TO REAPPLY AS SOON AS SHE HAD HER EAD CARD.
SHE WAS NOT FIRED FOR AN ILLEGAL MOTIVATION.
SHE WAS NOT FIRED IN VIOLATION OF ANY BOARD POLICY.
SHE WAS FIRED SO HISD COULD TRY TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW.
GIVEN THAT WE ASK THAT YOU DENY HER GRIEVANCE AND UPHOLD THE LEVEL TWO DECISION AND DENY ANY REMEDY FOR ANY KIND OF BACKPAY OR REINSTATEMENT.
THANK YOU. MR. MIRELES, YOU MAY BEGIN.
SO IMAGINE OR NOT EVEN IMAGINE.
PLEASE KEEP YOUR MASK ON PROPERLY OVER YOUR NOSE.
THANK YOU. SO LOOK AT IT THIS WAY.
IF WE'RE GOING BY THE LAW, A LOT OF US HAD OUR DRIVER'S LICENSE EXPIRED WHEN COVIDS GOING ON, SO ALL OF US SHOULD BE ARRESTED BECAUSE OUR DRIVER'S LICENSE ARE EXPIRED.
[00:25:02]
OUR REGISTRATION STICKER IS EXPIRED DURING COVID, SO ALL OF US SHOULD BE GIVEN A TICKET BECAUSE OF OUR REGISTRATION BEING EXPIRED.WHEN COVID HIT, IT SLOWED DOWN THE PROCESS OF THIS EMPLOYEE GETTING HER CARD TO CONTINUE WORKING IN HISD.
SHE DIDN'T SAY, OH GOD, TODAY I DON'T WANT TO GET MY CARD AND THEN FOR SOME REASON YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND AND TAKE IN CONSIDERATION.
THIS CASE WAS THAT THE SUPREME COURT, WE DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER IT WAS GOING TO BE LEGAL OR ILLEGAL. SECONDLY, THE SAME LADY THAT I TALKED TO YOU ABOUT JUST CURRENTLY ON EXHIBIT 17.
WE WERE READY TO FILE A GRIEVANCE ON HER BEHALF.
THE SAME LADY THAT I JUST WROTE TO YOU WORKED AT THE SAME LOCATION AS MS. BARRERA DID. BUT SINCE EVERYBODY WENT BACK TO WORK, SHE WAS ABLE TO GET HER CARD BACK IN TIME AND NOW SHE'S BACK TO WORK WORKING AT WALTRIP.
SO WE DID NOT NEED TO FILE A GRIEVANCE ON HER BEHALF.
AND I THANK MR. LEWIS FOR BRINGING HER BACK IMMEDIATELY.
THE GRIEVANCE WAS FIRED BECAUSE OF DACA, NOT BECAUSE SHE WAS TERMINATED UNJUSTLY.
IF YOU LOOK AT OUR GRIEVANCE, OUR GRIEVANCE IS THAT THEY DIDN'T GIVE HER ENOUGH TIME TO GET HER EAD CARD, NOT BECAUSE SHE WAS A BAD EMPLOYEE.
THE GRIEVANCE WAS FILED THAT THEY DIDN'T ALLOW HER TO GET TIME TO GET HER INFORMATION TO THE DISTRICT. ALSO, THEY ALLOWED HER TO WORK 30 DAYS AFTER HER, SUPPOSEDLY HER DACA INFORMATION HAD EXPIRED.
THEY DIDN'T WANT TO TELL YOU ABOUT THAT, BUT IT'S IN THE DOCUMENTS.
SO ARE THEY PICKING AND CHOOSING WHICH EXHIBITS THEY WANT TO SHOW YOU? OR ARE THEY PICKING AND CHOOSING TO SAY, WELL, WE GAVE HER 30 DAYS THAT'S ENOUGH.
IF OUR DRIVER'S LICENSE EXPIRED, THEN WE SHOULD BE ARRESTED BECAUSE OUR DRIVER LICENSE EXPIRED. I DON'T THINK SHE SAID, HEY, TODAY IS THE DAY THAT I DON'T WANT TO DO MY DOCA.
SHE'S ALWAYS SUBMITTED HER PAPERWORK IN SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF TIME SO SHE CAN GET IT BACK SO SHE CAN CONTINUE WORKING.
SO ALL WE ASKING YOU IS TO IS TO REINSTATE HER AS A LOYAL EMPLOYEE AND GRANT OUR REMEDY, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES? TRUSTEE BLUEFORD-DANIELS.
USING THE WORDS OF THE EXAMPLE USED BY MR. MIRELES ABOUT THE DRIVER'S LICENSE EXPIRATION, THEN IN DOING SO, ONCE THAT HAPPENS, WE HAVE TO ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES.
I'VE HAD MINE EXPIRE AND HAD I BEEN STOPPED, I WOULD HAVE TO ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES.
THE LAW IS THE LAW WAS ANOTHER QUOTE HE SAID, AND I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT UPON US INDIVIDUALLY THAT WE HAVE TO BE MINDFUL AND SUBMIT OUR WHATEVER INFORMATION TIMELY.
AND SO WITH THAT, [INAUDIBLE] GO HERE.
OK WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, I MOVE THAT WE UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER AND DENY THE GRIEVANCE.
YEAH, [INAUDIBLE] OTHER TRUSTEE HAVE QUESTIONS? [INAUDIBLE] TO GIVE EVERYONE A CHANCE TO ASK THEIR QUESTIONS? OK. SO GIVE EVERYBODY A CHANCE TO ASK THEIR QUESTIONS.
I THINK SO. THE MOTIONS STILL ON THE TABLE OR WHAT DO WE DO? NOBODY SECOND IT, SO IT'S [INAUDIBLE].
TRUSTEE BLUEFORD-DANIELS, WOULD YOU CONSIDER WITHDRAWING YOUR MOTION TO ALLOW OTHER TRUSTEES TO FINISH THEIR DISCUSSION? WITHDRAW THE MOTION TEMPORARILY.
THANK YOU, AND THIS IS FOR LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE GRIEVANT.
CAN YOU SHOW IN THE TRANSCRIPT AN EXAMPLE OF THIS BEING A PROBLEM AGAINST ANY-- THAT ANYONE ELSE EXPERIENCED BECAUSE OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT YOU'VE MADE FOR HER NOT HAVING THE DOCUMENTATION? YOU TALKED ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT CASE.
YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT COVID BEING REASONS FOR THE DELAY.
CAN YOU PROVIDE EVIDENCE-- POINT ME TO THE EVIDENCE IN THE TRANSCRIPT OF THIS BEING A PROBLEM EXPERIENCED BY ANYONE ELSE? WELL, YEAH. EXHIBIT 17, THAT WAS A LADY THAT WAS BACK IN 2017.
WAS A SUPREME COURT CASE OR COVID OCCURRING IN 2017.
NO, BUT I DID--. THAT WAS MY QUESTION IS, CAN YOU POINT ME TO WHERE COVID OR THAT SUPREME
[00:30:05]
COURT CASE CAUSED DELAYS FOR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEES AT HISD OR ANYWHERE ELSE WHERE THERE WAS A DECISION BY ANYONE TO ALLOW THEM TO PROCEED WITH THEIR EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT THE PROPER DOCUMENTATION. IT'S IN THE--.DURING COVID OR THE SUPREME COURT CASE.
IT'S IN THE TRANSCRIPT. I MEAN, IF YOU WANT ME TO READ IT, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO READ IT FOR-- THE WAY THIS IS ON OUR COMPUTERS.
THE TAB. YOU DON'T HAVE IT LIKE THIS PAGE NINE, DO YOU HAVE IT? NO. SO, WHAT SECTION? WHAT'S THE TAB NUMBER FOR THAT? DOESN'T HAVE A TAB NUMBER, IT JUST SAYS PAGE ONE FOUR--.
DO WE HAVE ONE HARD COPY THAT WE CAN LOOK AT IF THEY DON'T-- IF THERE ARE NO TABS IN HIS? ALL RIGHT, SO THIS IS IN THE TRANSCRIPT.
THIS IS--. CAN I-- IT'S PAGE-- HAVE YOU SEE PAGE 14 WHEN WE WOULD-- TRANSFER, I MEAN ANYWHERE IN THIS BOOK.
IT'S IN THIS BOOK. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE IN THAT.
I SHOULDN'T HAVE SAID TRANSCRIPT WHEN I MEANT THIS WHOLE DOCUMENT HERE.
EXCUSE ME, I'M SORRY. THIS IS WHEN MS. CABRERA WAS TESTIFYING.
SO YOUR RESPONSE DOES NOTHING.
OK, I [INAUDIBLE] PAGE NINE THROUGH 12.
OK, SO PAGE 14, WHAT LINE? THE FIRST LINE IS SAYS TWO YEARS COVID EVERYTHING THAT WAS BACKED UP EVERYTHING.
IT WAS NOT YOUR FAULT. CORRECT.
IS THIS ANOTHER? THIS IS THE SAME EMPLOYEE I'M ASK-- THE QUESTION ON THE TABLE IS DURING EITHER COVID OR THE SUPREME-- AND OR THE SUPREME COURT CASE.
HAVE YOU DOCUMENTED IN HERE THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER EMPLOYEE EITHER IN HISD OR SOMEWHERE ELSE? WELL, THAT WOULD BE--.
SIMILARLY IMPACTED AS HER AND WAS DENIED EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE OF A DELAY IN THEIR DOCUMENTATION BECAUSE OF EITHER COVID OR THE SUPREME COURT CASE.
IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S-- EVERY EMPLOYEE IS DIFFERENT AND WHEN THEY EXPIRE, WHEN THEY'RE DACA.
SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS, NO, THAT IS NOT DOCUMENTED IN HERE.
THAT'S CORRECT. OK, THANK YOU.
MY NEXT QUESTION IS FOR ADMINISTRATION.
IF WE HAD ALLOWED HER TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE LAWS THAT WERE IN PLACE AT THE TIME, WELL, ACTUALLY QUESTION BEFORE THAT'S.
DID THE FED BECAUSE OF EITHER COVID, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE'VE GOT THE WHOLE DRIVER'S LICENSE EXAMPLE, RIGHT? YEAH, I KNOW THERE WERE SOME THINGS AND I DON'T KNOW IF DRIVER'S LICENSE WERE ONE OF THEM THAT IF YOU, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE WERE EITHER ACCOMMODATIONS MADE BECAUSE OF COVID, WHETHER IN TIME OR PROCESS OR DEADLINE OR PROCESS.
WAS THERE ANY, THIS IS A FEDERAL LAW, DID THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BECAUSE OF COVID AND OR THE PENDING SUPREME COURT CASE, GRANT ANY PROVISIONS FOR PROCESS OR FOR DEADLINES IN EMPLOYEES EMPLOYMENT DOCUMENTATION? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.
OKAY. I JUST LACK THAT KNOWLEDGE.
ALTHOUGH THAT ISSUE WAS ADDRESSED BY THE LEVEL TWO HEARING EXAMINER, WHERE HE DETERMINED THAT NEITHER OF THOSE ISSUES WERE IMPACTING HER ABILITY TO GET HER EAD CARD ON TIME.
OK, BUT WHAT I'M HEARING IS, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THERE WAS NO EXTENSION GRANTED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR CHANGE IN PROCESS.
NO. AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THERE ISN'T ANY AS WELL.
SO IF WE HAD NOT-- IF WE HAD ALLOWED HER TO CONTINUE TO WORK FOR THE DISTRICT, THIS QUESTION FOR THE ADMINISTRATION NOW, WOULD WE HAVE BEEN IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW? YES. OK, THANK YOU.
OK, I GUESS I ACTUALLY HAVE ONE OF THE SAME QUESTIONS TO YOU, MR. MIRELES. SO CAN YOU POINT IN THE RECORD THAT
[00:35:09]
THE ADMINISTRATION EXHIBIT EIGHT, WHICH SHOWS IT'S UNLAWFUL TO CONTINUE TO EMPLOY YOUR CLIENT, IS NOT SO? IS THERE SOMETHING THAT YOU PRESENTED IN EVIDENCE THAT WOULD DISPUTE THAT POSITION? WELL, I THINK A PRECEDENT HAS BEEN SAID BACK IN 2017, IF YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT 17, THEY ALLOWED THE SAME DOCUMENTS THAT WE PRESENTED TO ALLOW HER TO CONTINUE WORKING WAS ALLOWED. THE NEW PERSON IN THE VISA DEPARTMENT DID NOT ACCEPT THOSE DOCUMENTS, THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE PRESENTED AS EXHIBITS, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE GRIEVANT EXHIBITS, FOR SOME REASON SHE DIDN'T WANT TO ACCEPT THOSE.I MEAN, SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TESTIFY FOR THE ADMINISTRATION, BUT SHE DIDN'T.
THEY DIDN'T CALL HER AS A WITNESS.
SO WHY ARE YOU NOT-- DID NOT ACCEPT THEM WHEN ALL SHE HAS TO SAY IS, HEY, HERE IT IS.
I SUBMITTED ALL MY PAPERWORK TO CONTINUE WORKING IN THE USA AND CONTINUE WORKING IN HISD.
WHY ARE YOU NOT ACCEPTING MY DOCUMENTS THAT I PRESENTED TO YOU? THAT IS OUR ARGUMENT.
OUR ARGUMENT IS IF IN THE PAST YOU'VE ACCEPTED THEM.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT, BUT MY QUESTION GOES TO THE LAW.
IS THERE SOMETHING IN THIS RECORD THAT YOU CAN SHOW ME THAT DISPUTE THE ADMINISTRATION'S EXHIBIT NUMBER EIGHT, WHICH SAYS IT WAS CLEARLY UNLAWFUL? ALLOWING THIS EMPLOYEE TO WORK FOR 30 DAYS IF THEY WERE BREAKING THE LAW.
THEY ALLOWED HER TO CONTINUE WORKING 30 DAYS AFTER IT EXPIRED.
SO, THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION IS THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING IN YOUR EXHIBITS, CORRECT? THE ARGUMENT IS THAT WE CANNOT PICK AND CHOOSE WHICH LAW WE WANT TO DETERMINE.
THAT'S THE QUESTION IN THE ARGUMENT IS IF IT EXPIRED ON JANUARY 8TH AND YOU ALLOWED HER TO CONTINUE WORKING FEBRUARY 4TH, THEN WHY DID YOU ALLOW HER TO-- OBJECT TO MR. MIRELES CONTINUING TO TALK BEYOND THE RESPONSE TO MY QUESTION? MY NEXT QUESTION IS DO YOU AGREE THAT YOUR CLIENT-- WELL, SHOW ME IN THE RECORD-- MAYBE YOU HAVE THIS ONE THAT SHE DID, IN FACT, RECEIVE HER EAD LETTER.
WHEN DID SHE RECEIVED THAT? EXHIBIT 10. SHOULD BE EXHIBIT 10.
IT SAYS, YES, EXHIBIT 10 ON JANUARY 4TH, WE APPROVED YOUR FORM [INAUDIBLE] CONSIDERED OF THE DEFERRED ACTION OF CHILDHOOD ARRIVAL AND SENT YOU YOUR APPROVAL NOTICE.
IF YOU HAVE NOT RECEIVED IT, YOU CAN REQUEST IT BY GOING TO THE CASE INQUIRING SERVICE REQUEST PAGE ON YOUR WEBSITE.
THAT WAS DATED ON JANUARY 4TH.
THAT'S EXHIBIT 10. AND THIS APPROVAL NOTICE IS THE SAME AS AN EAD.
OK, SO WHEN DID SHE GET THE CARD? IS THAT NOT IN THE RECORD? YES, IT'S EXHIBIT-- I GOT MY CARD LITERALLY LIKE FIVE DAYS AFTER I WAS, TERMINATED.
SHE RECEIVED IT FIVE DAYS AFTER SHE WAS TERMINATED.
AND AT WHAT POINT DID SHE-- FEBRUARY 12TH, 2021.
OK. AND THAT'S NOT IN THE RECORD, THOUGH, RIGHT? YES. IF YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT 19, WHOSE EXHIBIT 19? THE GRIEVANT EXHIBIT G19.
SO, SHE WAS FIRED ON FEBRUARY 12TH, SO SHE GOT IT EIGHT DAYS LATER, THE EAD CARD AND YOU ALLOWED HER TO WORK FOR 30 DAYS.
WELL, TWENTY SIX, TWENTY SEVEN WOULD BE CORRECT.
OK, I'M SORRY, I'M LOOKING AT 19-- IN 19 AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT YOUR EMPLOYEE 19, CORRECT? G19.
IS THERE ANOTHER BOOK? I'M NOT GETTING--.
IT'S 19. LOOK AT-- IF YOU COULD LOOK AT THE BOTTOM DATE THERE, IT SAYS.
RIGHT, IT SAYS-- [INAUDIBLE] WHAT YEAR [INAUDIBLE]? OK. OK.
IS THIS THE OLD ONE? THAT WAS THE OLD ONE, I'M SORRY.
YEAH. AND SO-- SO THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO SHOW WHEN SHE ACTUALLY, OR THAT SHE SUBMITTED AN UPDATED EAD TO THE ADMINISTRATION, CORRECT? NO, WE DIDN'T. ALL RIGHT.
[00:40:02]
AND THEN IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE RECORD THAT SHOWS THAT YOUR CLIENT REAPPLIED AFTER RECEIVING HER EAD, HER UPDATED EAD? SHE WAS-- SHE HAD TO SEEK EMPLOYMENT ELSEWHERE, AND SHE WAS WAITING TO SEE THE OUTCOME OF THE GRIEVANCE. OK, SO SHE DID NOT IN FACT, REAPPLIED TO HISD, EVEN THOUGH SHE WAS OFFERED--.SO HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING, HERE, SO IF YOU DETERMINE WHETHER YOU DENY IT OR ACCEPT IT, THEN SHE HAS THE REASON-- I MEAN, SHE HAS THE CHOICE WHETHER TO REAPPLY BECAUSE SHE LEFT IN GOOD STANDINGS. THE ONLY REASON THEY LET HER GO IS BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T HAVE HER--.
RIGHT. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME, MR. MIRELES, THAT SHE COULD HAVE WITHDRAWN HER GRIEVANCE AND ACCEPTED A POSITION? WELL, I CAN'T TELL HER WHAT TO DO.
I UNDERSTAND BUT MY QUESTION IS, DO YOU AGREE? YES OR NO? I DISAGREE BECAUSE THIS IS IN PRINCIPLE ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, TRUSTEE CRUZ, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE ADMINISTRATION.
YOUR EXHIBIT 5 HAS A DATE OF OCTOBER, 2018.
ARE WE SURE THAT THEY HAVE NOT-- THOSE-- THIS CODE HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED SINCE THEN AND WAS NOT UPDATED AT THE TIME? YES, THAT'S THE CURRENT [INAUDIBLE].
OK, THANK YOU. TRUSTEE, ALLEN.
THANK YOU. I CERTAINLY EMPATHIZE WITH MS. CABRERA-CASTILLO, BUT MR. MIRELES OUR TASK IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE ADMINISTRATION FOLLOWED POLICY.
CAN YOU MAKE IT CLEAR TO ME WHICH POLICY OR PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED? THE ADMINISTRATION'S EXHIBITS, IF THEY WANT TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES AND THE PROCEDURES, THEN SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN LET GO.
ON JANUARY 8TH, THAT'S WHEN HER PERMIT EXPIRED.
SO THE PROCEDURE THAT WAS NOT FOLLOWED WAS THEY DIDN'T FIRE HER EARLY ENOUGH.
WELL, IF THEY WANT TO-- IF YOU WANT TO GO BY THE BOOK-- THEY HAVE TAKEN HER MONEY BACK? NOT TAKE HER MONEY BACK-- IF HER THEY-- I DON'T.
I'M SORRY. I'M GETTING PAST MYSELF.
THERE YOU GO. WHICH POLICY DID THEY NOT FOLLOW? OUR TASK IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY FOLLOW POLICY.
WHICH POLICY DID THEY NOT FOLLOW? BY ALLOWING HER TO CONTINUE WORKING FROM JANUARY 8TH THROUGH FEBRUARY 4TH.
IF THEY WERE GOING TO FOLLOW THE BOOK, FOLLOW THE LAW, THEN SHE SHOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY BEEN NOTIFIED THE FIRST WEEK OF JANUARY.
SAY, HEY, YOU'RE IN VIOLATION OF THE DACA LAW.
BUT YOU ALLOWED HER TO CONTINUE WORKING.
SO, MY QUESTION WAS TO MS. CABRERA-CASTILLO, WHY DIDN'T YOU AND I KNOW YOU ANSWERED IT, BUT I WANT TO HEAR FROM HER.
SO MS. CABRERA-CASTILLO, WHY DIDN'T YOU REAPPLY? BECAUSE AT THAT TIME I HAD ALREADY-- I HAD TO FIND ANOTHER JOB AND I CAN'T JUST LEAVE, YOU KNOW, WHAT I WAS DOING AND REAPPLY WITHOUT MY SENIORITY, ALL MY BENEFITS.
THEY WERE NOT GOING TO GIVE ME ANY OF IT.
SO THAT'S WHY I WAS WAITING FOR THE CASE TO, YOU KNOW, TO CONTINUE OR WHATEVER, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GO BACK.
I HAD BEEN A MANAGER FOR FIVE YEARS.
AND WHAT THEY TOLD ME WAS, IF I REAPPLIED I WAS GOING TO BE LIKE A NEW EMPLOYEE.
WHO TOLD YOU THAT? NO BENEFITS.
EVERYBODY. WHAT'S HIS NAME? [INAUDIBLE] AT THE TIME WAS MY MANAGER.
BASICALLY, WHAT HE'S SAYING IS, YEAH, THEY LET ME WORK FOR ALMOST 30 DAYS AFTER MY DOCUMENT EXPIRED. WE REACHED TO SYLVIA GARCIA AND I LITERALLY GOT MY CARD A WEEK AND DAYS AFTER. I FEEL LIKE THEY COULD HAVE WAITED ON ME, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE I'M A DACA RECIPIENT.
THAT MEANS I'M NOT A CRIMINAL.
AND THEY TREATED ME LIKE A CRIMINAL WHEN THEY FIRED ME AND THE OTHER CLIENTS HE'S TALKING
[00:45:05]
ABOUT. THEY ARE CRIMINALS AND YOU ALLOW THEM TO WORK LONGER THAN [COUGH].FIRST OF ALL, I AM SO SORRY FOR EVERYTHING THAT HAS HAPPENED.
OUR JOB HERE IS TO ENSURE THAT WHAT WE PUT INTO BLACK AND WHITE WRITING POLICY IS UPHELD.
WE LOST A TON OF EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF THIS, AND IT'S UNFAIR.
I'M SORRY FOR THAT, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE NOT HERE TO GRIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, WHETHER HISD CAN EXIT EVERYBODY OUT WITHIN THE DAYS THAT THEY SHOULD BE EXITED OUT.
YOU GOT 30 DAYS OR TWENTY SEVEN DAYS OF ADDITIONAL EMPLOYMENT.
THIS IS JUST A VERY HARD DECISION TO MAKE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO REMOVE OUR EMOTION--.
FOLLOWED BUT, YOU KNOW, COVID WAS GOING ON SPEAKERS]. BUT YOU CAN'T JUST KEEP DOING A DIALOG.
YOU'VE ALREADY ANSWERED THE QUESTION SHE'S SO.
MADAM PRESIDENT, CAN I SAY SOMETHING [INAUDIBLE]? [INAUDUIBLE] YOU--.
LET'S [INAUDIBLE]-- LET'S FINISH THE QUESTION.
THIS QUESTION IS FOR ADMINISTRATION.
TWO QUESTIONS. ONE FOR ADMINISTRATION FIRST.
WHAT WAS THE START OF HER EMPLOYMENT AT THE BEGINNING? I THINK SHE HAD BEEN EMPLOYED FOR SIX YEARS.
OK, AND WHAT WAS THE REASONING OR RATIONALE BEHIND LETTING HER REMAIN ON FOR A MONTH AFTER DISCOVERING THAT SHE WAS IN VIOLATION? I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE AT THE EXHIBITS THAT WERE OFFERED ACTUALLY BY MS. CABRERA-CASTILLO, IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR EXHIBIT G13, THERE WAS EMAILS GOING BACK AND FORTH FROM HR TO MS. CABRERA-CASTILLO TO TRY TO SEE IF SHE HAD THE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION THAT BEGAN ONCE HER EAD EXPIRED.
AND SO LIKE THAT, G13 SHOWS THAT ON-- THAT THERE HAD BEEN A BACK AND FORTH ASKING FOR INFORMATION. SHE WAS SENDING THEM STUFF SUCH AS THE NOTICE THAT THEY HAD RECEIVED HER APPLICATION, BUT THAT'S NOT AN EAD APPROVAL.
AND SO FINALLY, ON FEBRUARY 1ST HR, THERE'S AN EMAIL FROM HR TO MS. CASTILLO TELLING HER THAT UNFORTUNATELY, WHAT SHE HAD PRODUCED TO THEM DID NOT GRANT HER WORK AUTHORIZATION AND THAT HER CATEGORY OF C33 DID NOT MAKE HER ELIGIBLE FOR THE 180 DAY EXTENSION REFERENCED IN WHAT SHE HAD SUBMITTED TO THEM.
SO THAT WAS FEBRUARY 1ST, AND AT THAT POINT, HR, I THINK, REALIZED THAT SHE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY VALID AND WITHIN, YOU KNOW, FEBRUARY 4TH, SHE MET WITH HER SUPERVISOR WHO CONFERENCED WITH HER AND THEN RECOMMENDED HER TERMINATION.
AND DID WE TAKE HER SIX YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT INTO CONSIDERATION.
I'M SURE THEY DID. BUT THE PROBLEM FOR THE EMPLOYER, FOR THE SUPERVISOR, WAS THAT THIS WAS THE LAW. AND SO REGARDLESS OF HOW LONG SHE HAD WORKED AND NOBODY WAS SAYING SHE WAS A BAD EMPLOYEE, IN FACT, EVERYBODY I'VE TALKED TO THERE SAID SHE WAS A GOOD EMPLOYEE AND THEY WANTED TO KEEP HER. BUT BECAUSE THE LAW WOULD HAVE MADE IT ILLEGAL TO KEEP HER, THAT KIND OF CONSIDERATION COULDN'T SWAY.
OK, THANK YOU. AND I HAVE A QUESTION TO YOU SIR ANS TO YOUR CLIENT.
IS THERE ANY PARTICULAR REASON WHY THE EMPLOYEE DID NOT APPLY AS WAS GIVEN IN THAT OPTION WITHIN THAT AMOUNT OF TIME? YES. [INAUDIBLE] SHE HAD TO SEEK EMPLOYMENT ELSEWHERE? WELL, SOMEONE SAID-- [COUGH] THE LAWYER AND THE WITNESS HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION. DO YOU NEED TO HEAR IT AGAIN? [INAUDIBLE] THE LAWYER AND THE WITNESS HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION.
DO YOU NEED TO HEAR IT AGAIN? THANK YOU, SIR. TRUSTEE BLUEFORD-DANIELS.
[00:50:05]
CALL FOR THE QUESTION. [INAUDIBLE] OK, A MOTION TO CALL TO QUESTION A SECOND BY TRUSTEE SANTOS.BOARD MEMBERS, [INAUDIBLE] A VOTE ON THAT, [INAUDIBLE] NO OBJECTIONS, WE'LL JUST MOVE TO ALLOWING THE BOARD PRESIDENT TO ASK FOR A MOTION.
I THINK THAT WAS PART OF THAT WAS CONTINUING WITH THAT BECAUSE I DO MOVE THAT WE UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER AND DENY THE GRIEVANCE.
SECOND. THE BOARD PRESIDENT'S GOING TO READ ONE MORE PROCEDURAL PART AND THEN WILL ALLOW THE PERSON TO COME IN AND TRUSTEE HERNANDEZ, I THINK IT WAS FOR THE SECOND.
OH, DEIGAARD, I'M SORRY. THANK YOU.
THE PARTIES HAVE COMPLETED THEIR PRESENTATIONS AND IT IS TIME FOR THE BOARD TO MAKE OUR DECISIONS ON THE ISSUES BEFORE US.
WE MUST APPLY ONLY THE FACTS PRESENTED IN THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE APPLICABLE LAW OR POLICY AND MAKE A DECISION.
IF THERE IS ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN MS. CABRERA-CASTILLO AND THE ADMINISTRATION AS TO WHAT THE POLICIES AND OR PROCEDURES MEAN THAN IT IS THE BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THE MEANING OR APPLICATION OF THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
THE RECORD OF THE LEVEL TWO HEARINGS MUST SUPPORT ANY ACTION WE TAKE.
THAT IS IF THE RECORD SUPPORTS THE POSITION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OR POSITION OF MS. CABRERA-CASTILLO, WE MAY FIND ACCORDINGLY.
SO, WE HAVE A MOTION BY TRUSTEE BLUEFORD-DANIELS AND A SECOND BY TRUSTEE DEIGAARD.
AND IT WAS-- OK, WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, AND IT WAS-- WILL YOU JUST REPEAT THE MOTION TRUSTEE BLUEFORD-DANIELS, PLEASE.
THE MOTION IS THAT I MOVE THAT WE UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER AND DENY THE GRIEVANCE. THANK YOU.
SO FIRST, YOU KNOW, THE BASIS OF MY DECISION IS THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED SUFFICIENTLY TO ME THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IN THEIR DECISION IN THIS CASE, DIDN'T FOLLOW OUR BOARD'S POLICY.
I DON'T FEEL THAT I HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO TELL THE ADMINISTRATION THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL POLICY.
I DO ASK THAT THE ADMINISTRATION ENSURE THAT WE ARE CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWING ALL DEADLINES AND FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT POLICIES AND ALSO, AND THIS COULDN'T BE A BASIS OF THE DECISION IN THIS MATTER. BUT I DO FIND PROBLEMATIC THAT SHE DID NOT COME BACK TO REQUEST, YOU KNOW, GIVE US THE DOCUMENTATION AND REQUEST YOUR EMPLOYMENT BACK.
BUT I WOULD HOPE THAT IF AN EMPLOYEE WERE TO DO THAT, GIVEN THIS SITUATION NEVER PRESENTS ITSELF AGAIN, THAT THERE WILL BE SOME GRACE GRANTED SO THAT THE EMPLOYEE IS NOT DEMOTED BECAUSE OF A DELAY IN PAPERWORK.
TRUSTEE DEIGAARD ARTICULATED EVERYTHING I WANTED TO SAY, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT AND JUST MY HOPES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION IS THAT WE LOOK INTO MAKING SURE THAT WHEN WE LOSE EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF THIS, THAT WE ENSURE THAT THEIR PLACE BACK WITH OUR DISTRICT IS GIVEN.
ADDITIONALLY, WE REALLY NEED TO PUSH FOR STRONGER LEGISLATION FOR OUR DACA AND DAPA RECIPIENT. SO THANK YOU.
AND I JUST WANT A SECOND WHAT MY COLLEAGUES, TRUSTEE DEIGAARD AND TRUSTEE SANTOS HAVE SAID. I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE.
I ALSO WANT TO ECHO WHAT TRUSTEE DEIGAARD, SANTOS AND CRUZ ARE SAYING ABOUT SOME LEEWAY AND UNDERSTANDING THAT WE NEED OUR PERSONNEL.
[INAUDIBLE]. EIGHT FOR ONE AGAINST.
A LETTER NOTIFYING BOTH PARTIES OF THE ACTION OF THE BOARD SHALL BE PREPARED AND SIGNED BY THE DIRECTOR OF BOARD SERVICES AS SOON AS PRACTICAL.
[00:55:01]
THIS HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 11:40 AM.WE ARE NOW-- I GUESS I'LL WAIT.
WE ARE NOW READY TO CONSIDER AN ITEM POSTED FOR DISCUSSION AND ACTION.
[INAUDIBLE] . YES, FOR DAVID HERNANDEZ.
INDIVIDUAL NOTIFIED BOARD SERVICES THAT THEY WERE WITHDRAWING A HEARING AND THE ADMINISTRATION WAS PRESENT ALONG WITH IT [INAUDIBLE] ATTORNEY FOR THE ADMINISTRATION [INAUDIBLE]. LOOK AT ALL [INAUDIBLE]--.
OK. I'D LIKE TO PASS THE TIME OVER TO MS. HUTCHINS-TAYLOR TO GIVE US SOME INFORMATION ABOUT-- TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON OUR THIRD HEARING FOR DAVID HERNANDEZ.
[INAUDUIBLE] SCHOOL WAS PRESENT IS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ADMINISTRATION, ALONG WITH COUNSEL REPRESENTING HISD MR. CLAY GROVER. THANK YOU.
DID THE COURT REPORTER GET ALL THAT? I NOTICED THE MIC CHANGED AND SOUND? YEAH, I GOT WHERE SHE SAID THAT [INAUDIBLE] SHE MADE ONE [INAUDIBLE].
YES OR NO? DID YOU GET IT OR NOT? I CAN'T HEAR WHAT SHE'S SAYING.
MS. HUTCHINS-TAYLOR, DO YOU MIND JUST REPEATING? SURE. SHE COULDN'T HEAR YOU.
ARE YOU ABLE TO HEAR ME NOW? OK. I'D LIKE THE RECORD TO REFLECT THAT THE PUBLICLY POSTED HEARING IN THE MATTER OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION HEARING FOR DAVID HERNANDEZ, FORMER TEACHER ASSISTANT, FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
THE BOARD SERVICES OFFICE WAS CONTACTED THIS MORNING BY A REPRESENTATIVE FOR MR. HERNANDEZ, INDICATING THAT THEY WOULD NOT APPEAR TODAY AND THAT THEIR REQUEST FOR A LEVEL THREE HEARING WAS WITHDRAWN.
I'D ALSO LIKE THE RECORD TO REFLECT THAT COUNSEL FOR THE ADMINISTRATION, MR. CLAY GROVER, WAS PRESENT AS WELL AS THE PRINCIPAL FROM FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
WE ARE NOW READY TO CONSIDER AN ITEM POSTED FOR DISCUSSION AND ACTION.
G1 ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION TO WAIVE WORKDAY MISSED AND TO PAY EMPLOYEES AS A RESULT OF THE COVID 19 MITIGATION DAY ON JANUARY 18TH.
[01:00:01]
TRUSTEE BLUEFORD-DANIELS.THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION TO WAIVE WORK DAY MISSED AND TO PAY EMPLOYEES AS A RESULT OF THE COVID 19 MITIGATION DAY ON JANUARY 18TH, 2022.
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, HAS ASKED TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF ALL IMPACTED DISTRICT EMPLOYEES FOR JANUARY 18, 2022.
ON THIS DATE WHEN STUDENTS WERE ALREADY TO BE OUT WHILE FACULTY WERE TO PURSUE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, THE HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS OFFICIALLY CLOSED OUT OF UTMOST CONCERN FOR THE WELL-BEING OF STAFF TO MITIGATE THE SPREAD OF COVID 19.
THE ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDS THAT DISTRICT STAFF RECEIVE COMPENSATION FOR THE JAN.
THE RESOLUTION RECITES THAT THE BOARD FINDS A PUBLIC PURPOSE EXIST TO PAY EMPLOYEES FOR THE WORK THEY MISSED AS A RESULT OF THE JAN.
HISD EMPLOYEES REQUIRED TO WORK TO MAINTAIN CRITICAL OPERATIONS AND OR TO FACILITATE MITIGATIONS AT FACILITIES WILL ALSO BE PAID PURSUANT TO GUIDELINES IMPLEMENTED BY THE CHIEF TALENT OFFICER.
THE RESOLUTION RECITES THE BOARD FINDS THAT A PUBLIC PURPOSE AND A BENEFIT TO HISD EXIST TO EXCUSE AND OR FORGIVE THE ABSENCE.
A COPY OF THE BOARD REFERENCED RESOLUTION IS ATTACHED TO THIS ITEM AND THE COST AND THE FUNDING SOURCE. FUNDING'S ARE BUDGETED IN THE 2021-22 OPERATING BUDGET.
THE STAFF IMPLICATIONS ARE NONE.
THE ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS IMPACT.
THIS AGENDA ITEM SUPPORTS ALL FOUR DISTRICT GOALS AND ALIGNED TO CORE INITIATIVE FIVE, CULTURE OF TRUST THROUGH ACTION.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED. SECOND DEIGAARD, I HAVE A MOTION BY TRUSTEE SANTOS AND A SECOND BY TRUSTEE DEIGAARD.
WE WERE READY FOR COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM TRUSTEES.
PLEASE INDICATE YOUR INTEREST IN THE QUEUE.
TRUSTEE SANTOS. THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT.
SUPERINTENDENT HOUSE, WANT TO APPLAUD YOUR EFFORTS, I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE PUBLIC.
WILL WE HAVE TO MAKE UP THESE MINUTES OR TIME AT THE END OF THE YEAR.
NO, THERE'S NO IMPACT IN REFERENCE TO MINUTES OR TIME FOR STUDENTS OR STAFF FOR THIS DAY . AND THAT IN-SERVICE DAY WHERE IT WAS JUST EMPLOYEES TO BE IN, THEY WILL NOT HAVE TO DO ANY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT? THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
AND IT WAS ACTUALLY JUST TO CLARIFY IT WAS A WORKDAY FROM-- SO CLASSROOM WORKDAY.
SO, IT REALLY DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH [INAUDIBLE].
OH, SORRY. THIS MEETING WITH NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO DISCUSS THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD IS ADJOURNED. THE TIME IS 11:48 PM ON JANUARY 20TH, 2022.
11:48 AM.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.