check your comprehension wrote:
Hellooooooo? wrote:Was she arrested? If not, then they should not have released her blood alcohol level.
Why not?
Agree. Why not?
And why *wasn't* she arrested? Wasnt she supposed to be supervising children on a field trip? Maybe the statutes still allows such. If so, ARREST HER NOW.
Janesville is south of Madison wrote:
And this is on top of the $18,000 the school district paid her to not fight being fired and to just quit.
How hard must it be to fire a drunk teacher that they paid her $18,000 to quit?!
The resignation agreement says the 18k was for unused sick leave:
http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/Caya+Resignation+Agreement.pdfPublic school employees are entitled to due process when there is an adverse employment action. School systems are chronically underfunded. Schools cannot afford to litigate with employees who contest termination decisions and negotiate buyouts instead. $18,000 would be about the attorney's fees needed to get through enough discovery to be ready to take depositions. So, if you want to have school districts stand behind their decision to terminate a teacher, give them the funds they need to defend their actions.
Again the fault is being placed at the wrong point.
The "public education" system (run by the state) is what needs to go in the first place.
check your comprehension wrote:
Perkins l wrote:You can't blame Robert for his poor comprehension - Texas doesn't place education high on its list of priorities.
https://coveringkaty.com/2016/10/26/katy-football-stadium-spending-leaves-school-board-bind/There was nothing wrong with Rojo's comprehension. Did you read the article?
The city council did agree to pay the drunkard $75,000.
The drunken b*tch was paid $75,000 (plus and additional $18K paid from the district).
Rojo made no statement about where the money came from.
And I would be very surprised if that insurance didn't have a deductible that was covered by tax dollars.
Yes, there is. I did read the article. Did you grow up in Texas as well? What elected office do you think should be held accountable for this wasteful spending?
Precious Roy wrote:
Public school employees are entitled to due process when there is an adverse employment action. School systems are chronically underfunded. Schools cannot afford to litigate with employees who contest termination decisions and negotiate buyouts instead. $18,000 would be about the attorney's fees needed to get through enough discovery to be ready to take depositions. So, if you want to have school districts stand behind their decision to terminate a teacher, give them the funds they need to defend their actions.
Good point but this looked to be a city decision and not the school. They said the 18K came from the 'district' which I took to mean the school district. Which is indeed cheap just to get rid of the teacher. The 75K was a decision made by the city council.
I am assuming all the due process she deserved was given since she is not suing because she was fired. She is suing because of the release of her BAC. I wish the article had mentioned whether she was arrested or what type of legal actions were taken against her. If you get a DWI, the release of your BAC is very common. Why not with her?
rojo wrote:
We need to get some people with common sense in elected office. My goodness.
http://fox6now.com/2016/10/25/she-put-our-children-in-jeopardy-former-teacher-receives-75k-after-showing-up-to-field-trip-drunk/Here's what happened. A teacher was found passed out drunk in the bathroomr of a bowling alley while on a field trip. She sued the city as they released her blood alochol level as being .27.
Even though there is no proof that they did anything wrong, they agreed to pay her $75,000.
stupid little people like yourself like to think a punctual mistake of a local government means something on a large scale. "I want my country back". ha, what a joke. do you realise how S T U P I D that sounds?
#drunklivesmatter
I want my country back too. It is time to make alcohol an illegal drug once again.
Not sure what the problem is, here. Law enforcement is bound by HIPAA, and the city presumably decided that they would lose if this went to court.
As a healthcare provider, if I released information like this to the public--even if that information regarded a patient who had done something wrong--I would be sued personally and my hospital would be sued.
If you're upset about the city paying out the money, be pissed at the people who broke the law and made the suit possible. They did something really stupid, and cost the taxpayers money as a result.
the city's fault wrote:
Not sure what the problem is, here. Law enforcement is bound by HIPAA, and the city presumably decided that they would lose if this went to court.
As a healthcare provider, if I released information like this to the public--even if that information regarded a patient who had done something wrong--I would be sued personally and my hospital would be sued.
If you're upset about the city paying out the money, be pissed at the people who broke the law and made the suit possible. They did something really stupid, and cost the taxpayers money as a result.
Law enforcement agencies are not subject to HIPAA requirements. Neither are most employers.
I agree that this release was a bad action, but its legal status would have to be rooted in something other than HIPPA, likely either government statute or a collective bargaining agreement.
City attorney's memo to city council:
http://janesville.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=1301&meta_id=45054
Linked from a much better article from the biased media:
Perkins l wrote:
check your comprehension wrote:There was nothing wrong with Rojo's comprehension. Did you read the article?
The city council did agree to pay the drunkard $75,000.
The drunken b*tch was paid $75,000 (plus and additional $18K paid from the district).
Rojo made no statement about where the money came from.
And I would be very surprised if that insurance didn't have a deductible that was covered by tax dollars.
Yes, there is. I did read the article. Did you grow up in Texas as well? What elected office do you think should be held accountable for this wasteful spending?
You are definitely reaching here. First you make some off the cuff comment about reading comprehension now you are wandering around left field somewhere trying to make a point that only you know about.
Where did he say anything about holding an elected office accountable? He simply expressed his dismay that this drunk teacher is able to get paid a large sum of money over her own drunken act.
when did we have common sense? up until 20 years ago passing out drunk on a work trip would have been laughed off.
rojo wrote:
We need to get some people with common sense in elected office. My goodness.
http://fox6now.com/2016/10/25/she-put-our-children-in-jeopardy-former-teacher-receives-75k-after-showing-up-to-field-trip-drunk/Here's what happened. A teacher was found passed out drunk in the bathroomr of a bowling alley while on a field trip. She sued the city as they released her blood alochol level as being .27.
Even though there is no proof that they did anything wrong, they agreed to pay her $75,000.
rojo wrote:
I want my country back.
We need to get some people with common sense in elected office.
^^
the city's fault wrote:
Not sure what the problem is, here. Law enforcement is bound by HIPAA, and the city presumably decided that they would lose if this went to court.
As a healthcare provider, if I released information like this to the public--even if that information regarded a patient who had done something wrong--I would be sued personally and my hospital would be sued.
If you're upset about the city paying out the money, be pissed at the people who broke the law and made the suit possible. They did something really stupid, and cost the taxpayers money as a result.
If this is true (that law enforcement is bound by HIPAA) how can police release BAC of DUIs or report what drug someone overdosed on?
It appears that the issue stems from the fact she was never convicted of a crime. If she had been convicted, release of her BAC would not be an issue.
Nothing stupid was done (besides her choice to get drunk at work). Blood alcohol testing was done at the hospital and written into the initial police report, which then made its way into the news. The only bad decision was not to charge her with something.
The problem is your source of information, which is misleading and meant to inflame - to get more clicks. You got duped. Makes me suspect you'd vote for Trump?
What really happened is the city council received an expert opinion from their city lawyer to accept a settlement offer (for "nuisance" value), which their insurer was urging the city to accept. The issue was that once the insurer tells the city to accept a settlement offer, if they refuse to accept and lose the law suit, then the city will be on the hook potentially for the whole amount.
Do you want your elected officials to rely upon the legal advice they receive from their paid lawyer - or to ignore his advice, take the risk and just proceed with the lawsuit? If they win that lawsuit, that's great, but, what if they lose? Now you have an elected official who ignored expert opinion which recommended to settle a law suit for $75,000 and instead the city is on the hook for $5 million. I think that would cause more outrage (and bankrupt the city) then the real story here, which is that city officials settled a law suit as advised to do so by their legal counsel. But who would click on that headline?
Rojo,
The elected officials more than likely made a calculated decision that is most cost effective. In the grand scheme of a budget, $75,000 is not very much money, but the potential loss of millions in a suite could be devastating. Maybe it doesn't seem logical to you, but a legal system that maintains consistent rules, even for irresponsible jerks, is a vital pillar of "your country". Saying that this is indicative of "your country" having somehow disappeared or been taken away from you is a hyperbolic and sensationalistic response. A post like this might momentarily ease the moral outrage you're feeling (which more often than not seems to be to be a manifestation of a deeper personal insecurity) but it is unproductive and terribly contagious. It's superficially explained anecdotal "news" like this that has thrown our country into a polarized frenzy. Stop being an ass.
I need a new profession - School Teacher - Show up drunk 1 day and make $75k? Wow who wouldn't do that job!
no so fast wrote:
the city's fault wrote:Not sure what the problem is, here. Law enforcement is bound by HIPAA, and the city presumably decided that they would lose if this went to court.
As a healthcare provider, if I released information like this to the public--even if that information regarded a patient who had done something wrong--I would be sued personally and my hospital would be sued.
If you're upset about the city paying out the money, be pissed at the people who broke the law and made the suit possible. They did something really stupid, and cost the taxpayers money as a result.
If this is true (that law enforcement is bound by HIPAA) how can police release BAC of DUIs or report what drug someone overdosed on?
It appears that the issue stems from the fact she was never convicted of a crime. If she had been convicted, release of her BAC would not be an issue.
Nothing stupid was done (besides her choice to get drunk at work). Blood alcohol testing was done at the hospital and written into the initial police report, which then made its way into the news. The only bad decision was not to charge her with something.
It is not true: The HIPAA Privacy Rule establishes national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and other personal health information and applies to health plans, health care clearinghouses, and those health care providers that conduct certain health care transactions electronically. The Rule requires appropriate safeguards to protect the privacy of personal health information, and sets limits and conditions on the uses and disclosures that may be made of such information without patient authorization. The Rule also gives patients rights over their health information, including rights to examine and obtain a copy of their health records, and to request corrections.
https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/special/emergency/final_hipaa_guide_law_enforcement.pdfFrom reading the information somebody posted above from Washington Post and the city council memo, it appears that the claim was a tort for some sort of infliction of emotional distress. It does mention releasing her private information. It does not mention HIPPA specifically. You would have to read the entire lawsuit to see if it raised that (dubious) basis at all.
Of course this suit was settled for nuisance value. This is America, where you can sue anybody for anything, basically. Proving that the claim has any merit is an entirely different thing.