Chino Valley Unified board issues 30‑day dismissal notice, approves special‑education settlement
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
At a March 20 meeting the Chino Valley Unified School District Board of Education voted to issue a 30‑day notice of dismissal to one employee and to approve a settlement in Office of Administrative Hearings case 2024110206 obligating the district to provide services and pay attorney fees up to $56,000.
The Chino Valley Unified School District Board of Education on March 20 voted in closed session to issue a 30‑day notice of dismissal to one employee and approved a settlement resolving a special‑education due‑process case before the Office of Administrative Hearings.
The board, with President Shaw and members Cervantes and Monroe voting yes and Trustee Cruz absent, approved issuing a 30‑day notice of dismissal to employee 27318. The board recorded no further public action on the dismissal beyond the required disclosure.
The board also approved a settlement in OAH case number 2024110206. According to the board’s public disclosure, the district — “without admission of fault” — agreed to fund and provide specified educational services and reasonable attorney’s fees collectively not to exceed $56,000 in exchange for a release of claims against the district. The roll call vote on the settlement was Cervantes, Monroe and Shaw voting yes; Cruz absent.
Board President Shaw opened the meeting by reporting the closed session covered several items, including anticipated and existing litigation, student discipline and labor negotiations. The board disclosed only the dismissal notice and the special‑education settlement, saying no other required disclosures were necessary.
No additional details about the dismissed employee, the specific educational services in the settlement, or the parties to the OAH case were provided during the public meeting disclosure.
The district listed the actions and the OAH case number during the reconvened open session; Superintendent Enfield and district counsel did not provide further comment during the public portion of the meeting.