[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6627888,"mediaKeyId","2723103-8f1da2b6036a3b8fa1eeb5ef8e1adab8","parentId",2723103,"title","Resident urges Hazel Park employees to know retaliation protections under state and federal law","audioSeconds",194,"startMs",240000,"endMs",434000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2723103-8f1da2b6036a3b8fa1eeb5ef8e1adab8&start=240&end=434","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2723103-8f1da2b6036a3b8fa1eeb5ef8e1adab8/thumbnail_240000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6627888/Michigan/Resident-urges-Hazel-Park-employees-to-know-retaliation-protections-under-state-and-federal-law","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6627888-169b274c962277ab6124ea07f48024e6/orig.mp4?Expires=1773582859&Signature=eaSygX6XbOWExdXZPNO5PLGXMsAmXyuzAo~b9wmwSYYjowgIcENRvJajytwzsM-Z839YzXfa3rMA2YwCRPG8DMygXbpLV-KiTrSmLjBf7SVaYrKHUU9yzvkdQD1z5Zs-o-898YnrH-elGQ~2YXO31aboU8fRXHKZMG0lsebhmiT8ViAtxXws3jLQPO6fqAfuK0P0FkIhXBScdJuRubdjL5hNwjAPK4pMyJvP-MWQJFu8gDG1VmM4Mq5RJgsQdx5~nfI8BgPFV56wsdmvYoIk1eqs1nTK34u40z40NJa3aZGpey07Z1CfgzNxEle-u8NWiu4xNw37GeLu1tdYmTdiRQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Hazel Park School District of the City of","date","2025-03-20T23:43:40.277Z","article","Jennifer Jackson, a Hazel Park resident, used the public-comment period to inform district employees about state and federal protections against retaliation for reporting discrimination or participating in investigations.

\"In the state of Michigan, employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees for engaging in protected activities, such as reporting discrimination or whistleblowing or for participating in investigations or legal proceedings,\" Jackson said during public comment. She reviewed common forms of retaliation the law recognizes — from unfavorable evaluations and reassignment to termination — and described remedies such as reinstatement and back pay.

Jackson told the board she had observed employees speaking out at meetings despite warnings to \"keep their heads down,\" and urged staff to be aware that trainings and onboarding typically focus on district protections but that employees themselves are protected by law.

Why it matters: Public comment raised employee-rights and workplace-complaint issues directly with the board. The remarks framed concerns about potential retaliatory discipline and emphasized legal protections and remedies available to employees under state and federal law.

Ending

No formal board action on Jackson\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000s remarks is recorded in the meeting minutes; the board moved next to a vote to recess to closed session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Hazel Park School District - Board of Education Special Meeting - March 20th, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","A Hazel Park resident told the board about employee protections against retaliation for reporting discrimination or participating in investigations, citing Michigan state law and federal EEOC practices.","taxTitle","Hazel Park School District of the City of, School Boards, Michigan","taxId",54726,"location","Michigan","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6627893,"Hazel Park board debates administrator contract, in-house counsel role and proposed staffing analysis",0,4725000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2723103-8f1da2b6036a3b8fa1eeb5ef8e1adab8&start=4725&end=4725","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2723103-8f1da2b6036a3b8fa1eeb5ef8e1adab8/thumbnail_4725000.jpg","/articles/6627893/Michigan/Hazel-Park-board-debates-administrator-contract-in-house-counsel-role-and-proposed-staffing-analysis","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6627893-b5d83e6f3b51a93860da439048c9a0b0/orig.mp4?Expires=1773582859&Signature=DsArlDF6pps9nBqfy8ibLzzcON6EbYRNboq6CFOVMGjX9Su4oVH1KAHBK5CU1h7us2W2i0gB3k6sEXyRdJncYmt~nII8G-SluJeWLIfPdaB849xOiMqmNW-ZxVofkz-~nd8Lyg73RXMR2BryBDeXrXAuKfv4xnWEXQ1XdGHD63WGb0JrvqCHw4BbSXhoHgfJfOiW~X1DZ0HBhswG0WlU4H-CFxLFolnwIYlPv0jGSOfntoBcAEhPGzRGL5LwEe4G3GHHSkUEc6tz13K5RBqfbnbiGk4gjCa3CNPpNtXtA8bG8jNfpiO26mj9AWSCTh1jfhG~i0BKYO8wXL0C4fNAaA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Board members discussed administrator contracts and the district\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000's use of in-house counsel after the superintendent moved an attorney into an interim athletic-director role. The conversation included legal guidance about whether the individual is governed by administrator nonrenewal rules in the Revised School Code and a separate informational presentation about a proposed staffing analysis.

The board asked for clarification about whether an administrator who was reassigned to an interim athletic director role retained protections under the Revised School Code that require notice and specific procedures for nonrenewal. A board member asked, “So under Section 12 29, there are what's called administrators that fall under the revised school code. And essentially what we're talking about are school administrators that fall under Section 12 29,” and noted the need to examine the employee\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000s contract language to determine which rules apply.

District counsel told the board the contract language should be carefully reviewed: if the contract references the school-code section, the board may be required to meet notice and nonrenewal timelines (including actions before March 31). If the contract does not reference that section, the terms of the contract would control whether standard employment-termination or nonrenewal procedures apply.

Separately, the board reviewed an informational proposal for a staffing analysis described in the meeting as a deeper review of personnel costs, special-education staffing and comparative costs, transportation, student services and feasibility strategies. Board members expressed differing views about timing and cost. One board member said, “I just have a concern with spending $45,000 right now.” Another noted the analysis would take 14 to 16 weeks and could align with the budget cycle and the state\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000s forthcoming guidance on special-education funding.

Why it matters: If the administrator is governed by the Revised School Code section cited in the meeting, the board may be required to follow statutory nonrenewal procedures and timelines. The staffing analysis could affect budget and staffing decisions across the district, although board members disagreed about whether to proceed immediately or wait for state guidance.

Details and next steps

- The board requested the superintendent obtain and present the administrator\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000s contract language for legal review to determine whether Section 12 29 (as discussed in the meeting) applies and whether statutory timelines such as 90-day notice or nonrenewal processes must be followed.

- On the staffing analysis, members suggested bringing the topic to a committee-of-the-whole meeting for additional review and to solicit information from other districts that have used the vendor. No formal vote was taken on the staffing analysis during this meeting.

Ending

Board members agreed to gather contract documents and put further consideration of the staffing analysis on a future agenda so the board can reconcile legal requirements, budget timing and the district\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000s planning calendar.","Board members discussed whether an administrator's duties were altered when an in-house counsel moved into an interim athletic director role, legal requirements under the Revised School Code as cited by district counsel, and a proposed staffing analysis with concerns about timing and cost.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6627897,"Hazel Park board approves Allen Law Group investigation, moves closed-session and amends agenda",585,446000,1031000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2723103-8f1da2b6036a3b8fa1eeb5ef8e1adab8&start=446&end=1031","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2723103-8f1da2b6036a3b8fa1eeb5ef8e1adab8/thumbnail_446000.jpg","/articles/6627897/Michigan/Hazel-Park-board-approves-Allen-Law-Group-investigation-moves-closed-session-and-amends-agenda","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6627897-7cbacc2e6325fd95b3a0e25a0e66236e/orig.mp4?Expires=1773582859&Signature=ChMV10FDTYqSO5jDsplqkWNQ5hpxmswR8v3tvuGonwPeECXOsioZTlyOKa6Ta2uGwJjgHoyPwSzIb4rfl5WAkRtn9scrR90uZzBdSbYVNkWnvme5iV4fVzAppd6colF8XWGNvTw75a~AQZG96AIvXFX2fdKWSDNDlRefxsEwdVRla0bSSTYSVvB6XM3I5r~9LOKEiiEB54aTl2ous1Sb56ZrpV0wDmR7wrapPmnaaRFHTuREPtTMwJEDDYSmRV4BQOWt~btnBWj619Eb-q3YlRQ59ByNn~C6gmOrK3Zdr67aLN-xAm65LQsWN55b5laQkoodedtH6PTYMMMnapZ41w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Hazel Park Board of Education voted to hire the Allen Law Group to investigate alleged board policy violations and authorized the firm\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000to charge $250 per hour with a spending cap of $7,500.

The action came after the board amended the agenda to move the closed session to follow public comment and before new business. Board member Heidi moved to approve the agenda change and Debbie seconded. Board member Heidi then moved to appoint the Allen Law Group; Monica seconded that motion.

The board recessed into closed session under the Open Meetings Act, citing section 8 1 h for attorney-client privileged material, following a separate roll-call vote.

Why it matters: The Allen Law Group appointment creates a limited, paid fact-finding role into alleged board policy violations and sets a near-term cap on outside legal spending for that investigation. Moving the closed session so public comment was heard in open session responded to public requests to avoid having community members wait through a closed session.

Details of the votes and motions

- Motion to amend the agenda to move closed session after public comments and before new business: moved by Board member Heidi; seconded by Debbie. Roll-call shown in the transcript recorded affirmative votes from Fortress, Laframboise, Beaton, Becker, Fox, Ritchie (recorded as Rithee/Rithee), and Hinton. The motion passed.

- Motion to recess to closed session under Open Meetings Act, section 8 1 h (attorney-client privileged material): moved by Board member Heidi; seconded by Debbie. Roll-call recorded affirmative votes from Fortress, LaFromboise, Beaton, Becker, Fox, Ritchie (recorded as Rithee) and Hinton. The motion passed.

- Motion to approve appointment of Allen Law Group to conduct a fact-finding investigation at $250 per hour with a $7,500 cap: moved by Board member Heidi; seconded by Monica. Roll-call recorded affirmative votes from Fortress, Prachee, Beaton, Becker, Fox, (a name recorded as) LaFerrari Boys and Hinton. The motion passed.

What the motions do and do not do

The Allen Law Group engagement was described as a fact-finding investigation of alleged board policy violations; the board set an hourly rate and a total cap. The board did not publish (in the meeting record) a detailed scope of work in open session beyond designating the engagement as an investigation of alleged board policy violations. The closed session vote invoked attorney-client privilege; the transcript shows the board received legal guidance before returning to open session.

Ending

After the votes, the board returned to open session and proceeded to new-business discussion items. The meeting record does not show additional public-release materials tied to the Allen Law Group scope beyond the motion approved in open session.","The Hazel Park Board of Education voted to hire Allen Law Group to investigate alleged board policy violations at $250 an hour capped at $7,500, approved a change to the meeting agenda to hear public comment before closed session, and recessed into a closed session under the Open Meetings Act.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Resident urges Hazel Park employees to know retaliation protections under state and federal law

Hazel Park board debates administrator contract, in-house counsel role and proposed staffing analysis

Hazel Park board approves Allen Law Group investigation, moves closed-session and amends agenda