San Marino hearing continues in dismissal appeal after employee distributed records about coach

San Marino Unified School District held a disciplinary appeal hearing March 18 to review the district's decision to dismiss health services assistant Leda Escamilla after she delivered a packet of court and law-enforcement documents about head football coach Nate Turner to parents and school staff.

The hearing, presided over by retired Los Angeles Superior Court judge Wendell Mortimer, centered on whether the district had proper cause to terminate Escamilla after she provided the packet to school officials and others in late August 2023 and later to at least one parent group.

The district's counsel told the board the case concerns unlawful or improper distribution of private law-enforcement records and disruption at the high school. The district has said its hiring decisions follow fingerprinting and background checks through the Department of Justice and FBI and that those clearances limit what the district may lawfully consider about an applicant's past. District attorneys also described an independent neutral investigator's findings that some allegations in the packet were not public records and that several complaints tied to the packet were unsubstantiated.

Why it matters: the case raises competing priorities for the local school system ' the privacy and legal limits on using law-enforcement and court materials in personnel decisions; staff and student safety concerns voiced by an employee; and district responsibilities in investigating workplace disputes and protecting both employees and students.

What happened at the hearing - The district introduced witnesses and presented its contention that Escamilla disclosed confidential or nonpublic material and that her conduct disrupted campus operations. District counsel asked the board to uphold Escamilla's dismissal. - The district's witnesses included Principal Benjamin Wolf, Assistant Superintendent Lena Richter and Executive Director of Human Resources Jason Rose. Wolf described the Aug. 29, 2023 classroom moment when Escamilla handed envelopes to several administrators: "She handed me a Manila envelope, but I never opened it," Wolf testified. - The district produced an investigator's executive summary finding that some material in the packet was not publicly available and concluding Escamilla's claims that she had been retaliated against were unsubstantiated; the investigator also reported inconsistencies in Escamilla's accounts of how she obtained the packet. - Escamilla's counsel, Guy Glazier, said Escamilla had raised safety concerns and urged the board to consider her decade of service to the district. "Leda Escamilla has given over 10 years of dedicated service to this district," Glazier told the panel. - The district placed Escamilla on paid administrative leave and served notices of intent to dismiss and a final dismissal notice; those HR steps are part of the formal personnel process cited at the hearing.

Evidence and legal limits - Witness testimony and the investigator's summary described a packet composed of older criminal-court materials, restraining-order pleadings and sheriff's department documents. Several witnesses said parts of the packet included information that agencies regard as confidential. - The district presented testimony from a former law-enforcement records manager, Nancy Kracik, who summarized sheriff's-department policy: "Only active law enforcement officers and authorized civilian criminal justice personnel acting within the scope of their duties are allowed to disseminate or receive criminal records information," she testified while reading the department's rule. - HR and district leaders repeatedly told the board they could not base employment decisions on arrests or allegations that did not result in convictions, and they described statutory and regulatory limits on how employers may use arrest records or sealed information.

Key contested points - Source and distribution: the investigator concluded Escamilla gave varying accounts of how she obtained the packet; testimony tied copies to a parent meeting hosted by football boosters on Aug. 27, 2023 and to Escamilla's delivery of envelopes to administrators on Aug. 29. The district said the packet circulated enough to disrupt campus operations; Escamilla's camp said she was reporting perceived safety concerns. - Credibility and motives: the investigator reported inconsistent statements by Escamilla and found some of her claims unsubstantiated. Escamilla's lawyers argued she was reporting safety concerns and should not be "shot the messenger." - Campus safety and workplace disruption: the district said the packet's circulation created significant campus chatter and impeded normal operations; several parents and current or former parents submitted letters supporting the coach and disputing the packet's effect or origin.

Actions already taken and next steps - Human resources served Escamilla with a notice of intent to dismiss and, following a Skelly pre-disciplinary process, a final dismissal notice; the district placed Escamilla on paid administrative leave pending the hearing outcome. - The board paused the hearing at the close of the day and recessed until a continuation date; the panel did not issue a final ruling on the dismissal on March 18.

What the record shows (not inferred) - An independent investigator's executive summary concluded parts of the packet were not public records and that Escamilla's allegations of retaliation were unsubstantiated; the summary also reported inconsistent accounts from Escamilla about where she obtained the documents. - The San Marino Police Department informed the district it found no evidence of criminal conduct warranting further action in the matter that had been reported to them.

Outlook The board will continue the evidentiary hearing. The record the board considers will include the investigator's report, witness testimony and the HR notices. Because the matter involves personnel records and formal remedies under the district's collective-bargaining procedures and Education Code protections, any final action by the board will reflect those legal limits and the board's factual finding about whether the district met the required standard for dismissal.

The hearing reconvened for additional testimony and deliberation; no final board decision was announced on March 18.