Battle Ground School District board hears appeal after district rescinds harassment finding

The Battle Ground School District board of directors convened a closed appeal hearing after an appeal filed May 1 by paraeducator Tasha Borton, who urged the board to overturn the district's decision to rescind an earlier finding that staff member Christopher Margolin engaged in prohibited harassment.

Borton told the board that on March 17, at about 9:06 a.m. in Classroom P3 in the seventh-grade portables, Margolin hugged her tightly and "moved his face towards mine as though to go in for a kiss." She said she stepped away and left the room, and that the March 17 incident was the last in a series of interactions over several months that made her uncomfortable. "This was the final incident that led me to report the behavior I had experienced for months prior to this incident," Borton said. She said she reported the March 17 incident to her union representative and to Principal Eric Zaxog on March 18 and filed a formal complaint that triggered a Title IX process.

Why it matters: Borton framed the case as one about the district's legal obligation under federal Title IX and Washington law to prevent and promptly address harassment. She said the district initially found in her favor, then rescinded that finding on May 1. She asked the board to hold Margolin accountable, citing the effect on her safety, health and ability to work.

What the district said: Tom Adams, the district's Title IX coordinator, described the district's investigation and appeal process and said the investigation was led by investigator Luke LeCount, with Michelle Reinhardt serving as the original decision maker. Adams summarized the timeline the district presented: Borton reported the incident March 18; the investigator interviewed Borton and identified witnesses (JC O'Sullivan, Caleb Casaw, Wade Pack and Tracy Claire Horton); investigator notes were turned over to the decision maker; the decision maker initially found the conduct met the district's harassment standard but later rescinded that finding after legal consultation about statutory definitions.

The district explained the reason for the rescission in legal terms. Reinhardt, the decision maker, told the board that her initial finding was reversed after review because counsel advised that the statutory and regulatory definition of conduct as "unwelcome" can require that the alleged perpetrator have been explicitly informed the conduct was unwelcome. Reinhardt said, in preparing for the appeal and consulting legal guidance, "what we found... was the first question is did the perpetrator know that they it was unwelcome?" and that, in this case, she concluded Chris Margolin "was never explicitly told that what he was doing made Tasha uncomfortable," a factor that led to rescinding the initial finding.

Investigation details and corrective measures: Investigator Luke LeCount told the board he documented Borton's account and collected written statements from multiple witnesses, and that he conducted an investigatory conference with Margolin and his union representative. LeCount said there was no video showing the alleged hug and lean-in; he recorded Borton's account and corroborating witness statements in his notes. Adams said the district implemented immediate supportive measures during the investigation, including restricting Margolin's access to a crosswalk and certain classrooms and directing him to avoid contact with Borton.

Points of contention: Borton disputed the district's legal interpretation and the process. In a brief rebuttal she said state guidance does not require a victim to explicitly tell a perpetrator to stop and that nonverbal responses and attempts to leave should be sufficient notice. She also said involvement by the Title IX coordinator in aspects of the appeal raised concerns for her about the separation of investigative and decision-making roles that Title IX procedures require.

Next steps: The board did not issue a public ruling at the hearing. The facilitator, Lynelle Murray, told attendees the board would adjourn to deliberate in executive session and provide a written determination within 30 calendar days of the appeal filing; because the appeal was filed May 1, the district stated that deadline is May 31.

Additional context: District staff referenced federal Title IX rules, Washington state law and district procedure 5011P ("Harassment of district staff prohibited procedure") during explanations of the process. The district said it had consulted OSPI and outside counsel in preparing for the appeal and interpreting statutory definitions.