Gresham‑Barlow board votes 4‑1 to dismiss temporary teacher after hearing on alleged physical contact with students

The Gresham‑Barlow School District Board of Education voted 4‑1 May 21 to adopt the superintendent’s recommendation to dismiss temporary teacher Natasha Green following a termination hearing that centered on alleged physical interactions with students.

During the hearing, Angela Freeman, assistant superintendent, told the board Green was a temporary, probationary employee hired Dec. 9, 2024, whose contract was scheduled to end June 13. Freeman said the district’s record showed “a pattern of physical interactions with students and their clothing in an effort to correct or redirect behavior” even after the employee had been advised that touching students was unacceptable. “This behavior is prohibited by the district and it creates potential legal liability,” Freeman said.

The presentation summarized multiple incident reports, parent complaints and three student interviews alleging arm‑pulling, grabbing hoods or shoulders, and other contact. Freeman said administrators reviewed video evidence early in the investigation but that routine camera retention policies meant the recording had been overwritten and was no longer available for review. Freeman also noted that the teacher had acknowledged some hand contact when shown video during the internal process and that no grievance was filed under the district’s collective bargaining agreement on Green’s behalf.

Natasha Green, through attorney Isabelle Harris of Bridal, Loveland & Jarvis, denied the allegations and challenged the district’s investigation. Harris said Green “unequivocally and categorically denies all allegations of unprofessional behavior, unwarranted physical intervention, or otherwise,” and argued the district had not produced interview notes, had described video review inconsistently, and may have failed to follow procedures under the district’s collective bargaining agreement. Harris also submitted letters of support from colleagues and former supervisors, which she read into the record.

Board members questioned the missing video and asked staff to confirm what documentation existed from principal and administrator meetings and investigative interviews. The board also heard from staff statements describing concern that Green had at times placed hands on students when redirecting them. Members discussed the district’s lower legal standard for terminating temporary/probationary staff versus regular contract employees.

After closing the hearing and hearing legal counsel’s advice, the board took action to accept the superintendent’s recommendation to dismiss Green effective the night of the vote. The board asked the district to complete final HR processing and notification.

The board’s action was a formal dismissal vote; trustees discussed but did not reopen the investigative record during the meeting. Freeman told the board that, regardless of the vote, Green’s temporary contract was due to end June 13.

The district and the employee each said they reserve rights to pursue further claims; Green’s attorney said she might pursue claims of procedural violations or discrimination but did not announce litigation during the hearing.

The matter concluded with board direction to HR to complete termination processing and to distribute the formal notification to the board and counsel.