Ramon Cortines Had 'Adult' Relationship With District Manager Scot Graham: LAUSD Settles Sex Harassment Claim

By Dennis Romero Wed., May 23 2012 at 2:26 PM

Cortines.

Corrected to fix descriptions of the claim as a lawsuit. Headline has changed. See additional statements and info at the bottom.

The L.A. public school system continues to appear dysfunctional after years and years of so-called reform, a board takeover by L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and his allies, and superintendent after superintendent.

The latest scandal involves the last superintendent, Ramon Cortines, who the L.A. Unified School District today said had engaged in "consensual adult behavior" with a male underling, Scot Graham, a senior facilities manager.

Yep:

The district made the revelation today in response to a ~~lawsuit~~ claim by Graham, who alleged sexual harassment on the job, ostensibly at the hands of Cortines.

The LAUSD today said it has settled the ~~lawsuit~~ claim, stating:

Mr. Cortines denies any and all allegations of sexual harassment against Mr. Graham, but admits to engaging in consensual adult behavior with him. Mr. Graham and Mr. Cortines were friends before and after Cortines' work with LAUSD.

Perfectly healthy.

The ~~latest superintendent, John Deasy,~~ board says:

Ensuring a health and safe school and work environment is necessary to conduct the work of teaching and learning. We take all sexual harassment allegations seriously. In all cases, the Board gives maximum consideration to the best use of public funds and the District must ensure that it uses its precious resources wisely. After extensive discussion and deliberation, the Board entered into a settlement agreement in order to resolve the claim.

Can you say little house of horrors? (Or maybe big house of horrors, since this is the largest district in the land.)

Oh boy.

[Added at 2:51 p.m.]: Cortines issued this statement:

I first met Mr. Graham prior to his tenure at the Los Angeles Unified School District. I respected his work and had considered him a colleague and a friend for many years. In 2000, when Mr. Graham expressed interest in potentially working for LAUSD, I indicated to him that the Facilities Division may have openings. Subsequent to Mr. Graham's hiring and after I returned to the District in 2008, there were Facilities-related projects that required us to work together. I deny any and all allegations that I sexually harassed Mr. Graham. In 2010, during a weekend trip, we did engage in consensual spontaneous adult behavior on one occasion. This brief private encounter occurred during a non-District related trip, outside of Los Angeles County and at my private residence.
As the District's former top staff member, I regret allowing myself to engage in such spontaneous, consensual behavior. However, Mr. Graham had never indicated to me that our interaction was unwelcome. Even after I retired from the District in April 2011, Mr. Graham continued to seek me out to interact with him socially. This included going out to brunch and being invited to have dinner at his home along with his partner as recent as early 2012.

A representative for outside counsel retained by the district confirmed to the Weekly that the settlement was for $200,000 plus lifetime health benefits.

Current superintendent John Deasy said, in part:

I consider all allegations of sexual harassment to be serious. However, the conduct alleged against my predecessor in this matter occurred prior to my becoming superintendent.

[@dennisjromero / djromero@laweekly.com / @LAWeeklyNews]

Tags:

LAUSD, lawsuit, Ramon Cortines, school district, sexual harassment

We Recommend

Neustartehe

This type of activity shows that you are not professional no one will bear this type of harassment at his workplace.

stevesailer

http://isteve.blogspot.com/201...

George Buzzetti

The first problem here is the labor law problem of a superior having sex with a subordinate. Then there is the problem of Graham's superiors to whom he reported the problem telling him to let it go. Then Graham and his partner have brunch with Cortines and the next month have him to their house and for partying in West Hollywood. Why did he need a therapist if he is having him over and partying?

Now for the real fun and illegality. There is no lawsuit and apparently not even a complaint just the threat of such. Three times this issue has come up before the Board of Education in closed session. Now for the real problem the district has before it.

The Brown Act calls for any item to be discussed to be posted to the agenda with 72 hours notice in a transparent manner with less than 20 words. Here is what it says on the agenda "Potential Litigation" and a govt. code. Look on the agenda at the other two legal actions and you will see the parties involved and the case number. In those cases you can tell what is happening. In the Cortines v. Graham situation there is no way to tell what the situation is unless you are clairvoyant. How many people do you think would have wanted to speak to that issue if they knew? Then they announce that there was a 4-3 decision on the "Potential Litigation." at the end of the closed session on 5-22-12. I was there with my video camera and have been doing school fraud for over 20 years and did not know what was happening or what it was about.

The next day we find out that what really happened was held at a secret location to only a few select reporters because "It might have upset the district." DUH!!!!!!

We intend on pursuing legal action with the proper authorities on the illegal act of LAUSD making this decision "Null and Void." We want them to have to go back to square one and start again properly.

What do you think about this?

Sharron

Why should LAUSD pay one dime? Almost a half-million dollars?! It all seems fabricated. So the matter is "settled" without a suit being filed. Isn't this a form of extortion? Which board members voted to "give in" to this so-called "settlement" and which did not? I think the school board should be sued for malfeasance. Does anyone really think a similar "situation" with two other school employees would result in a similar outcome? The timeline tells the whole story. And, by the way, I guess the counsel gets some percentage of the settlement. N'est pas? How cozy!

Delphine090

Wow, really? I mean bad judgment, but it's not 'perverted' or 'degenerate' to be gay - grow up. Nothing the district ir anyone else says or does can 'brainwash' a straight into being gay. What's up with all the ignorance?

Dname

Straight kid I mean.

Letty Hagstrom

Now we, the taxpayers, are footing the bill for these "well-respected" degenerates who want to teach/brainwash our children. Why can't this pervert and abuser of authority (Cortines) pay for this settlement out of his own deep pockets? I'm sure that his career of feeding at the public trough would more than cover any possible expenses, as he must be a multi-millionaire by now - how else could he purchase a "ranch" for his questionable activities in Kern County? It's not like he has any family or dependents, being a dedicated sodomite and all....