[Washington Post] Ex-Montgomery superintendent McKnight to get $1.3M in separation deal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember: MCPS thought this needed to be settled immediately. The Vigna victims had to litigate. The Gaithersburg sex assault victim had to go all the way to a jury. The Damascus victims had to go through years of litigation while MCPS denied it had any responsibility to provide for safety in school before finally settling after the judge rejected their defenses. What is it about this case that made MCPS handle differently? No one who defends this settlement in any way or who supported this settlement deserves to be on the school board.

To be fair, this was a smaller settlement amount. Even if McKnight wouldn't have won a discrimination lawsuit, she had a good enough case that it could have spent years in litigation. It was cheaper to settle.

The same theory could have applied to the other cases too but MCPS decided to litigate those. A lot of special education claims could be settled for less than this settlement but MCPS litigates those too. This settlement was for more money than she was owed on her contract, so it was no great deal.

Certainly MCPS is willing to spend more on litigation to fight SPED claims, but they do that to scare off additional claims. And it is far from clear that it would have been cheaper to settle the other cases.

I'll admit, the $1.3M was higher than I expected. Some of that might be to reassure future MCPS superintendent applicants that they'll have a golden parachute when they're inevitably fired. Otherwise MCPS would find itself having a very hard time recruiting qualified applicants.

Try as you might, there's no good rationale for this settlement, especially compared to how MCPS handles other potential litigants. The sexual assault defenses served no public policy interests and arguable damaged them as MCPS took outrageous (and unsupportable) positions.

The contract had a generous golden parachute. The settlement was many more times generous. By your rationale, MCPS should have litigated to prevent other superintendents from taking them to the cleaners.

This settlement had one purpose: protect the current board members from having even more of their mismanagement exposed by a disgruntled former employee. That was it.

One-year severance for a position like this is hardly generous. There are relatively few superintendent positions in districts of this scale, and you're almost guaranteed both a long hiring process and a long-distance move.

McKnight thought the board had her back. Right or wrong, the next superintendent won't make the same mistake. I strongly suspect the next contract will have a much larger severance clause for early termination.

And if MCPS would have tried to take her to court over termination for cause, them they definitely would have had a hard time finding a replacement.

I'ts pretty generous. I'm an employment lawyer and i think something between 6 months and a year would have sounded about right to me. She got a lot more than that (closer to 3 years). And MCPS would not have taken her to court. They would have made her an offer, if she rejected it, they would have said, we are invoking the termination for cause provisions of your contract and paying you nothing, and she would have them taken them to court for breach of contract. It is absolutely not clear that she would have won, and she would have had to pay attorneys to bring that suit (or have them work on contingency for a portion of the breach of contract damages.) Since her attorneys apparently charged her 30K just for negotiating the settlement agreement, which seems like kind of a lot to me, I think she would have burned through her damages pretty quickly. It's ridiculous to me that the Board paid out her full contract as if they had zero cause for terminating it. If they really believed they had no cause for termination, they should have kept her on and avoided all this disruption. It's one thing to discount based on litigation risk, but it's totally another just to roll over and give her everything she would have gotten in litigation and more (e.g., allowing her child to attend MCPS schools for free even if she lives out of county).

This. I am an employment lawyer too and almost thought I wrote this and forgot. I keep hearing people say this is typical …. no, unless she had some pretty strong claims against the BOE and they didn’t bother to document anything. The redacted Jackson Lewis report had enough to create at least a question of fact, and if they had done their job right, they should have had a lot more. They had more than enough time to document their concerns. And had a law firm to help them (I don’t understand why people excuse them because they are part time - Jackson Lewis was hired to advise them; it’s not as though they had to do the work themselves). The contract itself limited damages to one year even if the Board BREACHED their side of the contract. They would argue they didn’t breach and she violated a term when she withheld information about Beidleman. So the number should have been less than a year if they had an argument for cause. If they did not, then they should not have fired her!

Does it matter that they did not fire her, but asked her to resign, and she eventually agreed?

[Anonymous]

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/superintendent/MCPSEmploymentContract-McKnight-20220510.pdf

Even if the Board breached the contract, the damages would only be 6-12 months (or rest of contract, whichever is less). That’s IF the Board lost on breach. But the facts here are worse for her - according to the Jackson Lewis report, she apparently lied or didn’t the Board about a pending OIG investigation, and probably was aware of backdating of the HR investigation report. So she could have spent a lot of money on a lawyer and got zero damages in the end and huge reputational damage from a public case. The Board really messed up or worse here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/superintendent/MCPSEmploymentContract-McKnight-20220510.pdf

Even if the Board breached the contract, the damages would only be 6-12 months (or rest of contract, whichever is less). That’s IF the Board lost on breach. But the facts here are worse for her - according to the Jackson Lewis report, she apparently lied or didn’t the Board about a pending OIG investigation, and probably was aware of backdating of the HR investigation report. So she could have spent a lot of money on a lawyer and got zero damages in the end and huge reputational damage from a public case. The Board really messed up or worse here.

The board messed up all right, but it was mostly in their part of this issue, which was much worse than McKnight's. They clearly paid her off to keep it under wraps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/superintendent/MCPSEmploymentContract-McKnight-20220510.pdf

Even if the Board breached the contract, the damages would only be 6-12 months (or rest of contract, whichever is less). That’s IF the Board lost on breach. But the facts here are worse for her - according to the Jackson Lewis report, she apparently lied or didn’t the Board about a pending OIG investigation, and probably was aware of backdating of the HR investigation report. So she could have spent a lot of money on a lawyer and got zero damages in the end and huge reputational damage from a public case. The Board really messed up or worse here.

She wasn't arguing contract provisions-- she was arguing discrimination. That's why the settlement was so high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember: MCPS thought this needed to be settled immediately. The Vigna victims had to litigate. The Gaithersburg sex assault victim had to go all the way to a jury. The Damascus victims had to go through years of litigation while MCPS denied it had any responsibility to provide for safety in school before finally settling after the judge rejected their defenses. What is it about this case that made MCPS handle differently? No one who defends this settlement in any way or who supported this settlement deserves to be on the school board.

To be fair, this was a smaller settlement amount. Even if McKnight wouldn't have won a discrimination lawsuit, she had a good enough case that it could have spent years in litigation. It was cheaper to settle.

The same theory could have applied to the other cases too but MCPS decided to litigate those. A lot of special education claims could be settled for less than this settlement but MCPS litigates those too. This settlement was for more money than she was owed on her contract, so it was no great deal.

Certainly MCPS is willing to spend more on litigation to fight SPED claims, but they do that to scare off additional claims. And it is far from clear that it would have been cheaper to settle the other cases.

I'll admit, the $1.3M was higher than I expected. Some of that might be to reassure future MCPS superintendent applicants that they'll have a golden parachute when they're inevitably fired. Otherwise MCPS would find itself having a very hard time recruiting qualified applicants.

Try as you might, there's no good rationale for this settlement, especially compared to how MCPS handles other potential litigants. The sexual assault defenses served no public policy interests and arguable damaged them as MCPS took outrageous (and unsupportable) positions.

The contract had a generous golden parachute. The settlement was many more times generous. By your rationale, MCPS should have litigated to prevent other superintendents from taking them to the cleaners.

This settlement had one purpose: protect the current board members from having even more of their mismanagement exposed by a disgruntled former employee. That was it.

One-year severance for a position like this is hardly generous. There are relatively few superintendent positions in districts of this scale, and you're almost guaranteed both a long hiring process and a long-distance move.

McKnight thought the board had her back. Right or wrong, the next superintendent won't make the same mistake. I strongly suspect the next contract will have a much larger severance clause for early termination.

And if MCPS would have tried to take her to court over termination for cause, them they definitely would have had a hard time finding a replacement.

I'ts pretty generous. I'm an employment lawyer and i think something between 6 months and a year would have sounded about right to me. She got a lot more than that (closer to 3 years). And MCPS would not have taken her to court. They would have made her an offer, if she rejected it, they would have said, we are invoking the termination for cause provisions of your contract and paying you nothing, and she would have them taken them to court for breach of contract. It is absolutely not clear that she would have won, and she would have had to pay attorneys to bring that suit (or have them work on contingency for a portion of the breach of contract damages.) Since her attorneys apparently charged her 30K just for negotiating the settlement agreement, which seems like kind of a lot to me, I think she would have burned through her damages pretty quickly. It's ridiculous to me that the Board paid out her full contract as if they had zero cause for terminating it. If they really believed they had no cause for termination, they should have kept her on and avoided all this disruption. It's one thing to discount based on litigation risk, but it's totally another just to roll over and give her everything she would have gotten in litigation and more (e.g., allowing her child to attend MCPS schools for free even if she lives out of county).

This. I am an employment lawyer too and almost thought I wrote this and forgot. I keep hearing people say this is typical …. no, unless she had some pretty strong claims against the BOE and they didn’t bother to document anything. The redacted Jackson Lewis report had enough to create at least a question of fact, and if they had done their job right, they should have had a lot more. They had more than enough time to document their concerns. And had a law firm to help them (I don’t understand why people excuse them because they are part time - Jackson Lewis was hired to advise them; it’s not as though they had to do the work themselves). The contract itself limited damages to one year even if the Board BREACHED their side of the contract. They would argue they didn’t breach and she violated a term when she withheld information about Beidleman. So the number should have been less than a year if they had an argument for cause. If they did not, then they should not have fired her!

Does it matter that they did not fire her, but asked her to resign, and she eventually agreed?

The whole point of a mutual agreement is to avoid litigation costs on both side, assess risk of losing on both sides, and land somewhere in between that is a reflection of the risk on both sides. Litigation cost is a wash on both sides if there is equal risk. Big organizations might pay nuisance costs to avoid legal fees, but that’s not going to be $1.3 million. Where’s the rationale in reaching an agreement and having it be more than she might get in a lawsuit under a breach? The Board essentially is admitting she has strong grounds for a libel or discrimination claim - the only things that might increase the amount. But the BOE has never said anything negative about her in public. And discrimination has a mitigation requirement - so she’s saying she can’t find another job at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember: MCPS thought this needed to be settled immediately. The Vigna victims had to litigate. The Gaithersburg sex assault victim had to go all the way to a jury. The Damascus victims had to go through years of litigation while MCPS denied it had any responsibility to provide for safety in school before finally settling after the judge rejected their defenses. What is it about this case that made MCPS handle differently? No one who defends this settlement in any way or who supported this settlement deserves to be on the school board.

To be fair, this was a smaller settlement amount. Even if McKnight wouldn't have won a discrimination lawsuit, she had a good enough case that it could have spent years in litigation. It was cheaper to settle.

The same theory could have applied to the other cases too but MCPS decided to litigate those. A lot of special education claims could be settled for less than this settlement but MCPS litigates those too. This settlement was for more money than she was owed on her contract, so it was no great deal.

Certainly MCPS is willing to spend more on litigation to fight SPED claims, but they do that to scare off additional claims. And it is far from clear that it would have been cheaper to settle the other cases.

I'll admit, the $1.3M was higher than I expected. Some of that might be to reassure future MCPS superintendent applicants that they'll have a golden parachute when they're inevitably fired. Otherwise MCPS would find itself having a very hard time recruiting qualified applicants.

Try as you might, there's no good rationale for this settlement, especially compared to how MCPS handles other potential litigants. The sexual assault defenses served no public policy interests and arguable damaged them as MCPS took outrageous (and unsupportable) positions.

The contract had a generous golden parachute. The settlement was many more times generous. By your rationale, MCPS should have litigated to prevent other superintendents from taking them to the cleaners.

This settlement had one purpose: protect the current board members from having even more of their mismanagement exposed by a disgruntled former employee. That was it.

One-year severance for a position like this is hardly generous. There are relatively few superintendent positions in districts of this scale, and you're almost guaranteed both a long hiring process and a long-distance move.

McKnight thought the board had her back. Right or wrong, the next superintendent won't make the same mistake. I strongly suspect the next contract will have a much larger severance clause for early termination.

And if MCPS would have tried to take her to court over termination for cause, them they definitely would have had a hard time finding a replacement.

I'ts pretty generous. I'm an employment lawyer and i think something between 6 months and a year would have sounded about right to me. She got a lot more than that (closer to 3 years). And MCPS would not have taken her to court. They would have made her an offer, if she rejected it, they would have said, we are invoking the termination for cause provisions of your contract and paying you nothing, and she would have them taken them to court for breach of contract. It is absolutely not clear that she would have won, and she would have had to pay attorneys to bring that suit (or have them work on contingency for a portion of the breach of contract damages.) Since her attorneys apparently charged her 30K just for negotiating the settlement agreement, which seems like kind of a lot to me, I think she would have burned through her damages pretty quickly. It's ridiculous to me that the Board paid out her full contract as if they had zero cause for terminating it. If they really believed they had no cause for termination, they should have kept her on and avoided all this disruption. It's one thing to discount based on litigation risk, but it's totally another just to roll over and give her everything she would have gotten in litigation and more (e.g., allowing her child to attend MCPS schools for free even if she lives out of county).

This. I am an employment lawyer too and almost thought I wrote this and forgot. I keep hearing people say this is typical …. no, unless she had some pretty strong claims against the BOE and they didn’t bother to document anything. The redacted Jackson Lewis report had enough to create at least a question of fact, and if they had done their job right, they should have had a lot more. They had more than enough time to document their concerns. And had a law firm to help them (I don’t understand why people excuse them because they are part time - Jackson Lewis was hired to advise them; it’s not as though they had to do the work themselves). The contract itself limited damages to one year even if the Board BREACHED their side of the contract. They would argue they didn’t breach and she violated a term when she withheld information about Beidleman. So the number should have been less than a year if they had an argument for cause. If they did not, then they should not have fired her!

Does it matter that they did not fire her, but asked her to resign, and she eventually agreed?

The whole point of a mutual agreement is to avoid litigation costs on both side, assess risk of losing on both sides, and land somewhere in between that is a reflection of the risk on both sides. Litigation cost is a wash on both sides if there is equal risk. Big organizations might pay nuisance costs to avoid legal fees, but that’s not going to be $1.3 million. Where’s the rationale in reaching an agreement and having it be more than she might get in a lawsuit under a breach? The Board essentially is admitting she has strong grounds for a libel or discrimination claim - the only things that might increase the amount. But the BOE has never said anything negative about her in public. And discrimination has a mitigation requirement - so she’s saying she can’t find another job at all?

And I’m saying she should never be allowed to work again with that attitude

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember: MCPS thought this needed to be settled immediately. The Vigna victims had to litigate. The Gaithersburg sex assault victim had to go all the way to a jury. The Damascus victims had to go through years of litigation while MCPS denied it had any responsibility to provide for safety in school before finally settling after the judge rejected their defenses. What is it about this case that made MCPS handle differently? No one who defends this settlement in any way or who supported this settlement deserves to be on the school board.

To be fair, this was a smaller settlement amount. Even if McKnight wouldn't have won a discrimination lawsuit, she had a good enough case that it could have spent years in litigation. It was cheaper to settle.

The same theory could have applied to the other cases too but MCPS decided to litigate those. A lot of special education claims could be settled for less than this settlement but MCPS litigates those too. This settlement was for more money than she was owed on her contract, so it was no great deal.

Certainly MCPS is willing to spend more on litigation to fight SPED claims, but they do that to scare off additional claims. And it is far from clear that it would have been cheaper to settle the other cases.

I'll admit, the $1.3M was higher than I expected. Some of that might be to reassure future MCPS superintendent applicants that they'll have a golden parachute when they're inevitably fired. Otherwise MCPS would find itself having a very hard time recruiting qualified applicants.

Try as you might, there's no good rationale for this settlement, especially compared to how MCPS handles other potential litigants. The sexual assault defenses served no public policy interests and arguable damaged them as MCPS took outrageous (and unsupportable) positions.

The contract had a generous golden parachute. The settlement was many more times generous. By your rationale, MCPS should have litigated to prevent other superintendents from taking them to the cleaners.

This settlement had one purpose: protect the current board members from having even more of their mismanagement exposed by a disgruntled former employee. That was it.

One-year severance for a position like this is hardly generous. There are relatively few superintendent positions in districts of this scale, and you're almost guaranteed both a long hiring process and a long-distance move.

McKnight thought the board had her back. Right or wrong, the next superintendent won't make the same mistake. I strongly suspect the next contract will have a much larger severance clause for early termination.

And if MCPS would have tried to take her to court over termination for cause, them they definitely would have had a hard time finding a replacement.

I'ts pretty generous. I'm an employment lawyer and i think something between 6 months and a year would have sounded about right to me. She got a lot more than that (closer to 3 years). And MCPS would not have taken her to court. They would have made her an offer, if she rejected it, they would have said, we are invoking the termination for cause provisions of your contract and paying you nothing, and she would have them taken them to court for breach of contract. It is absolutely not clear that she would have won, and she would have had to pay attorneys to bring that suit (or have them work on contingency for a portion of the breach of contract damages.) Since her attorneys apparently charged her 30K just for negotiating the settlement agreement, which seems like kind of a lot to me, I think she would have burned through her damages pretty quickly. It's ridiculous to me that the Board paid out her full contract as if they had zero cause for terminating it. If they really believed they had no cause for termination, they should have kept her on and avoided all this disruption. It's one thing to discount based on litigation risk, but it's totally another just to roll over and give her everything she would have gotten in litigation and more (e.g., allowing her child to attend MCPS schools for free even if she lives out of county).

This. I am an employment lawyer too and almost thought I wrote this and forgot. I keep hearing people say this is typical …. no, unless she had some pretty strong claims against the BOE and they didn’t bother to document anything. The redacted Jackson Lewis report had enough to create at least a question of fact, and if they had done their job right, they should have had a lot more. They had more than enough time to document their concerns. And had a law firm to help them (I don’t understand why people excuse them because they are part time - Jackson Lewis was hired to advise them; it’s not as though they had to do the work themselves). The contract itself limited damages to one year even if the Board BREACHED their side of the contract. They would argue they didn’t breach and she violated a term when she withheld information about Beidleman. So the number should have been less than a year if they had an argument for cause. If they did not, then they should not have fired her!

Does it matter that they did not fire her, but asked her to resign, and she eventually agreed?

The whole point of a mutual agreement is to avoid litigation costs on both side, assess risk of losing on both sides, and land somewhere in between that is a reflection of the risk on both sides. Litigation cost is a wash on both sides if there is equal risk. Big organizations might pay nuisance costs to avoid legal fees, but that’s not going to be $1.3 million. Where’s the rationale in reaching an agreement and having it be more than she might get in a lawsuit under a breach? The Board essentially is admitting she has strong grounds for a libel or discrimination claim - the only things that might increase the amount. But the BOE has never said anything negative about her in public. And discrimination has a mitigation requirement - so she’s saying she can’t find another job at all?

These aren't normal jobs. How many superintendent positions are there for large school districts? How often are they available? And you don't think having the BoE place the blame for Beidleman all on her would impact her ability to get a new job?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember: MCPS thought this needed to be settled immediately. The Vigna victims had to litigate. The Gaithersburg sex assault victim had to go all the way to a jury. The Damascus victims had to go through years of litigation while MCPS denied it had any responsibility to provide for safety in school before finally settling after the judge rejected their defenses. What is it about this case that made MCPS handle differently? No one who defends this settlement in any way or who supported this settlement deserves to be on the school board.

To be fair, this was a smaller settlement amount. Even if McKnight wouldn't have won a discrimination lawsuit, she had a good enough case that it could have spent years in litigation. It was cheaper to settle.

The same theory could have applied to the other cases too but MCPS decided to litigate those. A lot of special education claims could be settled for less than this settlement but MCPS litigates those too. This settlement was for more money than she was owed on her contract, so it was no great deal.

Certainly MCPS is willing to spend more on litigation to fight SPED claims, but they do that to scare off additional claims. And it is far from clear that it would have been cheaper to settle the other cases.

I'll admit, the $1.3M was higher than I expected. Some of that might be to reassure future MCPS superintendent applicants that they'll have a golden parachute when they're inevitably fired. Otherwise MCPS would find itself having a very hard time recruiting qualified applicants.

Try as you might, there's no good rationale for this settlement, especially compared to how MCPS handles other potential litigants. The sexual assault defenses served no public policy interests and arguable damaged them as MCPS took outrageous (and unsupportable) positions.

The contract had a generous golden parachute. The settlement was many more times generous. By your rationale, MCPS should have litigated to prevent other superintendents from taking them to the cleaners.

This settlement had one purpose: protect the current board members from having even more of their mismanagement exposed by a disgruntled former employee. That was it.

One-year severance for a position like this is hardly generous. There are relatively few superintendent positions in districts of this scale, and you're almost guaranteed both a long hiring process and a long-distance move.

McKnight thought the board had her back. Right or wrong, the next superintendent won't make the same mistake. I strongly suspect the next contract will have a much larger severance clause for early termination.

And if MCPS would have tried to take her to court over termination for cause, them they definitely would have had a hard time finding a replacement.

I'ts pretty generous. I'm an employment lawyer and i think something between 6 months and a year would have sounded about right to me. She got a lot more than that (closer to 3 years). And MCPS would not have taken her to court. They would have made her an offer, if she rejected it, they would have said, we are invoking the termination for cause provisions of your contract and paying you nothing, and she would have them taken them to court for breach of contract. It is absolutely not clear that she would have won, and she would have had to pay attorneys to bring that suit (or have them work on contingency for a portion of the breach of contract damages.) Since her attorneys apparently charged her 30K just for negotiating the settlement agreement, which seems like kind of a lot to me, I think she would have burned through her damages pretty quickly. It's ridiculous to me that the Board paid out her full contract as if they had zero cause for terminating it. If they really believed they had no cause for termination, they should have kept her on and avoided all this disruption. It's one thing to discount based on litigation risk, but it's totally another just to roll over and give her everything she would have gotten in litigation and more (e.g., allowing her child to attend MCPS schools for free even if she lives out of county).

This. I am an employment lawyer too and almost thought I wrote this and forgot. I keep hearing people say this is typical …. no, unless she had some pretty strong claims against the BOE and they didn’t bother to document anything. The redacted Jackson Lewis report had enough to create at least a question of fact, and if they had done their job right, they should have had a lot more. They had more than enough time to document their concerns. And had a law firm to help them (I don’t understand why people excuse them because they are part time - Jackson Lewis was hired to advise them; it’s not as though they had to do the work themselves). The contract itself limited damages to one year even if the Board BREACHED their side of the contract. They would argue they didn’t breach and she violated a term when she withheld information about Beidleman. So the number should have been less than a year if they had an argument for cause. If they did not, then they should not have fired her!

Does it matter that they did not fire her, but asked her to resign, and she eventually agreed?

The whole point of a mutual agreement is to avoid litigation costs on both side, assess risk of losing on both sides, and land somewhere in between that is a reflection of the risk on both sides. Litigation cost is a wash on both sides if there is equal risk. Big organizations might pay nuisance costs to avoid legal fees, but that’s not going to be $1.3 million. Where’s the rationale in reaching an agreement and having it be more than she might get in a lawsuit under a breach? The Board essentially is admitting she has strong grounds for a libel or discrimination claim - the only things that might increase the amount. But the BOE has never said anything negative about her in public. And discrimination has a mitigation requirement - so she’s saying she can’t find another job at all?

These aren't normal jobs. How many superintendent positions are there for large school districts? How often are they available? And you don't think having the BoE place the blame for Beidleman all on her would impact her ability to get a new job?

They didn't do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember: MCPS thought this needed to be settled immediately. The Vigna victims had to litigate. The Gaithersburg sex assault victim had to go all the way to a jury. The Damascus victims had to go through years of litigation while MCPS denied it had any responsibility to provide for safety in school before finally settling after the judge rejected their defenses. What is it about this case that made MCPS handle differently? No one who defends this settlement in any way or who supported this settlement deserves to be on the school board.

To be fair, this was a smaller settlement amount. Even if McKnight wouldn't have won a discrimination lawsuit, she had a good enough case that it could have spent years in litigation. It was cheaper to settle.

The same theory could have applied to the other cases too but MCPS decided to litigate those. A lot of special education claims could be settled for less than this settlement but MCPS litigates those too. This settlement was for more money than she was owed on her contract, so it was no great deal.

Certainly MCPS is willing to spend more on litigation to fight SPED claims, but they do that to scare off additional claims. And it is far from clear that it would have been cheaper to settle the other cases.

I'll admit, the $1.3M was higher than I expected. Some of that might be to reassure future MCPS superintendent applicants that they'll have a golden parachute when they're inevitably fired. Otherwise MCPS would find itself having a very hard time recruiting qualified applicants.

Try as you might, there's no good rationale for this settlement, especially compared to how MCPS handles other potential litigants. The sexual assault defenses served no public policy interests and arguable damaged them as MCPS took outrageous (and unsupportable) positions.

The contract had a generous golden parachute. The settlement was many more times generous. By your rationale, MCPS should have litigated to prevent other superintendents from taking them to the cleaners.

This settlement had one purpose: protect the current board members from having even more of their mismanagement exposed by a disgruntled former employee. That was it.

One-year severance for a position like this is hardly generous. There are relatively few superintendent positions in districts of this scale, and you're almost guaranteed both a long hiring process and a long-distance move.

McKnight thought the board had her back. Right or wrong, the next superintendent won't make the same mistake. I strongly suspect the next contract will have a much larger severance clause for early termination.

And if MCPS would have tried to take her to court over termination for cause, them they definitely would have had a hard time finding a replacement.

I'ts pretty generous. I'm an employment lawyer and i think something between 6 months and a year would have sounded about right to me. She got a lot more than that (closer to 3 years). And MCPS would not have taken her to court. They would have made her an offer, if she rejected it, they would have said, we are invoking the termination for cause provisions of your contract and paying you nothing, and she would have them taken them to court for breach of contract. It is absolutely not clear that she would have won, and she would have had to pay attorneys to bring that suit (or have them work on contingency for a portion of the breach of contract damages.) Since her attorneys apparently charged her 30K just for negotiating the settlement agreement, which seems like kind of a lot to me, I think she would have burned through her damages pretty quickly. It's ridiculous to me that the Board paid out her full contract as if they had zero cause for terminating it. If they really believed they had no cause for termination, they should have kept her on and avoided all this disruption. It's one thing to discount based on litigation risk, but it's totally another just to roll over and give her everything she would have gotten in litigation and more (e.g., allowing her child to attend MCPS schools for free even if she lives out of county).

This. I am an employment lawyer too and almost thought I wrote this and forgot. I keep hearing people say this is typical …. no, unless she had some pretty strong claims against the BOE and they didn’t bother to document anything. The redacted Jackson Lewis report had enough to create at least a question of fact, and if they had done their job right, they should have had a lot more. They had more than enough time to document their concerns. And had a law firm to help them (I don’t understand why people excuse them because they are part time - Jackson Lewis was hired to advise them; it’s not as though they had to do the work themselves). The contract itself limited damages to one year even if the Board BREACHED their side of the contract. They would argue they didn’t breach and she violated a term when she withheld information about Beidleman. So the number should have been less than a year if they had an argument for cause. If they did not, then they should not have fired her!

Does it matter that they did not fire her, but asked her to resign, and she eventually agreed?

The whole point of a mutual agreement is to avoid litigation costs on both side, assess risk of losing on both sides, and land somewhere in between that is a reflection of the risk on both sides. Litigation cost is a wash on both sides if there is equal risk. Big organizations might pay nuisance costs to avoid legal fees, but that’s not going to be $1.3 million. Where’s the rationale in reaching an agreement and having it be more than she might get in a lawsuit under a breach? The Board essentially is admitting she has strong grounds for a libel or discrimination claim - the only things that might increase the amount. But the BOE has never said anything negative about her in public. And discrimination has a mitigation requirement - so she’s saying she can’t find another job at all?

These aren't normal jobs. How many superintendent positions are there for large school districts? How often are they available? And you don't think having the BoE place the blame for Beidleman all on her would impact her ability to get a new job?

So? All you're pointing out is it potentially impacts her ability to work as a superintendent not at finding a different position. She could easily find work as an educational consultant making 6 figures.

Or Wal-Mart.

She'll find employment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember: MCPS thought this needed to be settled immediately. The Vigna victims had to litigate. The Gaithersburg sex assault victim had to go all the way to a jury. The Damascus victims had to go through years of litigation while MCPS denied it had any responsibility to provide for safety in school before finally settling after the judge rejected their defenses. What is it about this case that made MCPS handle differently? No one who defends this settlement in any way or who supported this settlement deserves to be on the school board.

To be fair, this was a smaller settlement amount. Even if McKnight wouldn't have won a discrimination lawsuit, she had a good enough case that it could have spent years in litigation. It was cheaper to settle.

The same theory could have applied to the other cases too but MCPS decided to litigate those. A lot of special education claims could be settled for less than this settlement but MCPS litigates those too. This settlement was for more money than she was owed on her contract, so it was no great deal.

Certainly MCPS is willing to spend more on litigation to fight SPED claims, but they do that to scare off additional claims. And it is far from clear that it would have been cheaper to settle the other cases.

I'll admit, the $1.3M was higher than I expected. Some of that might be to reassure future MCPS superintendent applicants that they'll have a golden parachute when they're inevitably fired. Otherwise MCPS would find itself having a very hard time recruiting qualified applicants.

Try as you might, there's no good rationale for this settlement, especially compared to how MCPS handles other potential litigants. The sexual assault defenses served no public policy interests and arguable damaged them as MCPS took outrageous (and unsupportable) positions.

The contract had a generous golden parachute. The settlement was many more times generous. By your rationale, MCPS should have litigated to prevent other superintendents from taking them to the cleaners.

This settlement had one purpose: protect the current board members from having even more of their mismanagement exposed by a disgruntled former employee. That was it.

One-year severance for a position like this is hardly generous. There are relatively few superintendent positions in districts of this scale, and you're almost guaranteed both a long hiring process and a long-distance move.

McKnight thought the board had her back. Right or wrong, the next superintendent won't make the same mistake. I strongly suspect the next contract will have a much larger severance clause for early termination.

And if MCPS would have tried to take her to court over termination for cause, them they definitely would have had a hard time finding a replacement.

I'ts pretty generous. I'm an employment lawyer and i think something between 6 months and a year would have sounded about right to me. She got a lot more than that (closer to 3 years). And MCPS would not have taken her to court. They would have made her an offer, if she rejected it, they would have said, we are invoking the termination for cause provisions of your contract and paying you nothing, and she would have them taken them to court for breach of contract. It is absolutely not clear that she would have won, and she would have had to pay attorneys to bring that suit (or have them work on contingency for a portion of the breach of contract damages.) Since her attorneys apparently charged her 30K just for negotiating the settlement agreement, which seems like kind of a lot to me, I think she would have burned through her damages pretty quickly. It's ridiculous to me that the Board paid out her full contract as if they had zero cause for terminating it. If they really believed they had no cause for termination, they should have kept her on and avoided all this disruption. It's one thing to discount based on litigation risk, but it's totally another just to roll over and give her everything she would have gotten in litigation and more (e.g., allowing her child to attend MCPS schools for free even if she lives out of county).

This. I am an employment lawyer too and almost thought I wrote this and forgot. I keep hearing people say this is typical …. no, unless she had some pretty strong claims against the BOE and they didn’t bother to document anything. The redacted Jackson Lewis report had enough to create at least a question of fact, and if they had done their job right, they should have had a lot more. They had more than enough time to document their concerns. And had a law firm to help them (I don’t understand why people excuse them because they are part time - Jackson Lewis was hired to advise them; it’s not as though they had to do the work themselves). The contract itself limited damages to one year even if the Board BREACHED their side of the contract. They would argue they didn’t breach and she violated a term when she withheld information about Beidleman. So the number should have been less than a year if they had an argument for cause. If they did not, then they should not have fired her!

Does it matter that they did not fire her, but asked her to resign, and she eventually agreed?

The whole point of a mutual agreement is to avoid litigation costs on both side, assess risk of losing on both sides, and land somewhere in between that is a reflection of the risk on both sides. Litigation cost is a wash on both sides if there is equal risk. Big organizations might pay nuisance costs to avoid legal fees, but that’s not going to be $1.3 million. Where’s the rationale in reaching an agreement and having it be more than she might get in a lawsuit under a breach? The Board essentially is admitting she has strong grounds for a libel or discrimination claim - the only things that might increase the amount. But the BOE has never said anything negative about her in public. And discrimination has a mitigation requirement - so she’s saying she can’t find another job at all?

These aren't normal jobs. How many superintendent positions are there for large school districts? How often are they available? And you don't think having the BoE place the blame for Beidleman all on her would impact her ability to get a new job?

Check out the many supe jobs open on HYA’s website!
https://hyasearch.com/active-hya-searches/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/superintendent/MCPSEmploymentContract-McKnight-20220510.pdf

Even if the Board breached the contract, the damages would only be 6-12 months (or rest of contract, whichever is less). That’s IF the Board lost on breach. But the facts here are worse for her - according to the Jackson Lewis report, she apparently lied or didn’t the Board about a pending OIG investigation, and probably was aware of backdating of the HR investigation report. So she could have spent a lot of money on a lawyer and got zero damages in the end and huge reputational damage from a public case. The Board really messed up or worse here.

She wasn't arguing contract provisions-- she was arguing discrimination. That's why the settlement was so high.

It sure seemed like some people were out to get her from day one. She had a strong case for discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/superintendent/MCPSEmploymentContract-McKnight-20220510.pdf

Even if the Board breached the contract, the damages would only be 6-12 months (or rest of contract, whichever is less). That’s IF the Board lost on breach. But the facts here are worse for her - according to the Jackson Lewis report, she apparently lied or didn’t the Board about a pending OIG investigation, and probably was aware of backdating of the HR investigation report. So she could have spent a lot of money on a lawyer and got zero damages in the end and huge reputational damage from a public case. The Board really messed up or worse here.

She wasn't arguing contract provisions-- she was arguing discrimination. That's why the settlement was so high.

It sure seemed like some people were out to get her from day one. She had a strong case for discrimination.

Based on what? And the fact that the board chose a Black female superintendent as the interim would seem to undercut any such case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/superintendent/MCPSEmploymentContract-McKnight-20220510.pdf

Even if the Board breached the contract, the damages would only be 6-12 months (or rest of contract, whichever is less). That’s IF the Board lost on breach. But the facts here are worse for her - according to the Jackson Lewis report, she apparently lied or didn’t the Board about a pending OIG investigation, and probably was aware of backdating of the HR investigation report. So she could have spent a lot of money on a lawyer and got zero damages in the end and huge reputational damage from a public case. The Board really messed up or worse here.

She wasn't arguing contract provisions-- she was arguing discrimination. That's why the settlement was so high.

It sure seemed like some people were out to get her from day one. She had a strong case for discrimination.

Absolutely no one was “out to get her.” Everyone wanted real leadership and she failed from the get go. She has no one to blame but herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Damn! Y'all still huffing and huffing; crying like bit$hes and witches. Meanwhile Dr. McKnight is probably sipping margueritas, piña coladas somewhere in the Caribbean.

You sound like you're about to throw out the term "Black Excellence" next.

Your face is showing under the white hood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/superintendent/MCPSEmploymentContract-McKnight-20220510.pdf

Even if the Board breached the contract, the damages would only be 6-12 months (or rest of contract, whichever is less). That’s IF the Board lost on breach. But the facts here are worse for her - according to the Jackson Lewis report, she apparently lied or didn’t the Board about a pending OIG investigation, and probably was aware of backdating of the HR investigation report. So she could have spent a lot of money on a lawyer and got zero damages in the end and huge reputational damage from a public case. The Board really messed up or worse here.

She wasn't arguing contract provisions-- she was arguing discrimination. That's why the settlement was so high.

It sure seemed like some people were out to get her from day one. She had a strong case for discrimination.

Absolutely no one was “out to get her.” Everyone wanted real leadership and she failed from the get go. She has no one to blame but herself.

MCEA came after her as soon as she made them put back on pants and come back to work.