Judson ISD board denies level‑3 grievance, upholds prior discipline but allows applicant for custodial openings
Loading...
Summary
The Judson ISD Board of Trustees voted to deny a level‑3 grievance and to uphold the administration’s level‑2 decision while removing a blanket bar on applying for custodial positions for the employee named in the grievance.
The Judson Independent School District Board of Trustees voted Wednesday to deny a level‑3 grievance and to uphold the administration’s level‑2 decision, but the board modified one element of the prior decision by removing a determination that the employee, identified as Mr. Ramirez, was ineligible for rehired district employment beyond custodial roles.
Board President called the special meeting to order at 9:01 a.m. and recessed twice for closed session under the Texas Open Meetings Act. After returning to open session at 11:51 a.m., the board moved on the grievance item. In a motion introduced by Miss Stanford and seconded by Miss Jones, the board “move[d] to deny the level 3 appeal and uphold administration's decision at level 2 with the exception of the designation that Mr. Ramirez is not eligible to be rehired and ask Mr. Ramirez to apply for open custodial positions within the Judson Independent School District.” The motion passed with the board reporting the tally as “Motion passes 5 2 1.”
The board noted the vote followed a closed‑session attorney consultation and consideration of the level‑3 grievance under Texas Government Code sections 551.071 (attorney consultation), 551.074 and 551.082 (personnel and grievance exceptions). The president stated for the record that no final action was taken during closed session.
The motion left intact the administration’s level‑2 decision in other respects; the board’s publicly recorded change limited only the hiring‑eligibility designation and invited the employee to apply for open custodial vacancies.
The board did not provide additional public details about the underlying conduct or the level‑2 discipline while discussing the procedural motion and did not identify whether any votes were recorded as yes/no/abstain by individual trustee name in the public minutes.
The grievant and the district’s legal counsel were discussed in closed session; board members confirmed the procedural steps taken and then recessed for a brief break before resuming other business.
