A former Houston ISD teacher sued Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath on Thursday in an effort to overturn her dismissal, according to a Harris County civil court filing.
The teacher, Susan Tittle of Fonville Middle School, is seeking a judicial review after Morath upheld a decision by HISD’s state-appointed Board of Managers to nonrenew her contract, effectively ending her employment with the district. Tittle is asking the court to reverse or vacate Morath’s decision, declare HISD’s October decision void for failure to comply with the education code and the Texas Open Meetings Act, award her back pay and owed benefits, and restore her eligibility for future employment in HISD.
Separately, Tittle filed a lawsuit against state-appointed Superintendent Mike Miles, HISD’s board, former Fonville Middle School principal Karol Galindo, and other Fonville administrators, alleging violations that include the Texas Whistleblower Act and First Amendment retaliation.
Listed in judicial review documents as a Connecticut resident, Tittle had a hearing with a Texas Education Agency-appointed independent hearing examiner regarding her proposed nonrenewal, according to the filing. The examiner found in September that HISD did not have sufficient evidence to nonrenew her contract. However, HISD’s board voted to nonrenew the contract and modified the examiner’s conclusions of law to adopt those proposed by the attorney representing the district.
In her filing, Tittle alleged that HISD’s board violated the Texas Open Meetings Act by voting without a lawful quorum, defined as a majority of the board. HISD has nine members, meaning five would typically be required for a majority.
HISD states on its website that only three members are needed for employee hearings. “A quorum is five or more board members for all meetings except hearings, which require only three or more board members for quorum,” the district said, noting that hearings include Texas Education Agency appeals and employee or community dispute resolutions.
Tittle also alleged that the board has limited authority to reject or modify a state-appointed independent hearing examiner’s recommendation. Findings of fact may be rejected if unsupported by substantial evidence, and any modification must include a written explanation. According to the filing, HISD rejected or altered findings without the required written explanations.
When the board reviewed the examiner’s findings, attorney Myra S. Chickering of Rogers, Morris & Grover LLP, representing HISD, asked the board to modify the recommendation. She acknowledged that she had never previously asked a board to change or reject a recommendation and described the process as technical and complicated. Chickering clarified that she was not seeking changes to the examiner’s findings of fact but to the legal analysis.
The court filing also suggests the board relied on allegations raised during a prior termination effort that was later rescinded. The document does not specify which earlier allegations were excluded from the nonrenewal notice.
HISD characterized Tittle’s conduct as a violation of testing policy, but the filing alleges that no district policy governed what are known as unit assessments at the time. “The District’s own expert witness conceded during the … hearing that no written HISD policy governed unit-level assessments or classroom testing practices at the time of the alleged conduct,” the filing states, adding that the concession was not disputed.
Chickering said Tittle provided a “unit assessment” to a student’s mother before the test was administered and communicated with a student during instructional time after she was no longer on campus. While both nonrenewal and termination result in job loss and involve court-like proceedings, they are technically different processes.
During the October presentation to the board, attorneys focused on procedural and legal requirements, particularly because the independent hearing examiner concluded the district had not met its burden to justify nonrenewal. Chickering argued that evidence in the record supported nonrenewal and that the examiner applied the wrong legal standard, noting that contract nonrenewal has a lower legal threshold than termination.
“So all we’re asking you to do is to recognize the correct legal standard… to apply that to the facts of this case,” Chickering said. “And if you do that, you will find, that at least for two of the factual circumstances, that there is in fact evidence to support changing the conclusions.”
Representing Tittle, Fallon directed the board’s attention to her employment history, stating that she began receiving memos after filing a grievance about her teaching assignment and was fired less than a month after the grievance findings.
Tittle, who is certified in special education and had “fine performance evaluations,” was assigned to a self-contained class but was not certified to teach math, science, and social studies for that class. Fallon said she received low evaluation scores while being assessed under a general education rubric rather than one for special education teachers.
Following her grievance, which found she should not be teaching those subjects but could serve as a special education co-teacher, Tittle received memos documenting alleged rule violations, including the testing issue. Fallon argued that the test in question was not used for performance evaluation and was not a districtwide assessment. He said Tittle exercised discretion for a student with memory issues by giving the test to the student’s mother to review with the child.
“So what you read here in this decision… the factual findings in this are egregious,” Fallon said.
In a separate civil filing Thursday, Tittle alleged she faced “adverse employment action” after filing the grievance and expressing herself on private social media, according to a complaint filed by Houston attorney Omer Waqas Khwaja on her behalf. The filing further alleges that materials from a discontinued termination process and the grievance proceedings were used as evidence for nonrenewal.
The documents state that Tittle “was forced to relocate to continue employment,” incurred relocation and higher cost-of-living expenses, lost seniority and service credit, and “suffered compensable emotional distress.” She is seeking damages.
“As soon as she filed a grievance, she became target number one,” Khwaja said.
