Carpinteria Unified to Fight State Order to Rehire Fired Teacher Jay Hotchner

A complicated, year-long legal battle over the dismissal of Carpinteria Middle School teacher Jay Hotchner reached a crescendo this January with a state commission’s decision that he be reinstated — a decision the Carpinteria Unified School District (CUSD) announced this week it plans to fight in court.

Hotchner, a social sciences teacher in the district for 20 years, was fired in September 2022 over alleged “immoral” and “unprofessional” conduct toward students starting in 2018, according to court documents.

However, Hotchner challenged his termination with the state’s Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), which describes itself as “a quasi-judicial tribunal that hears administrative disputes.” He called the allegations “unfounded,” and suggested that, as president of the Carpinteria Association of United School Employees (CAUSE), the case was a form of retaliation against him.

The OAH convened a Commission on Professional Competency to determine whether his termination was justified. Hotchner and the district each selected a panelist to serve on the commission alongside Administrative Law Judge Carmen D. Snuggs-Spraggins. Hotchner chose Oxnard middle school teacher John Miller, and CUSD chose Fresno educator Michelle Orelup.

As revealed on January 6, the commission unanimously decided Hotchner’s dismissal was not warranted. Despite numerous allegations of misconduct, “the district failed to establish that Mr. Hotchner is unfit to teach,” according to CAUSE’s open letter to the community.

The district is required by law to reinstate Hotchner within five days of the decision, as well as make him “whole” by paying back all financial losses — including more than $160,000 for two years’ salary — and legal fees as a result of his termination, which combined comes out to roughly $1 million that the district must cover. However, Hotchner said they have “failed” to do so.

It’s the most recent decision in the legal rollercoaster between the union president and the district. In response, CUSD Superintendent Diana Rigby said, “The District vehemently disagrees and will challenge the decision in a court of law.” 

The union estimates that the district has spent approximately $2.5 million on legal fees thus far. 

Rigby continued, “The District values students’ bravery in sharing their experiences that describe conduct the District will never condone and will not tolerate. Despite the expense, we will fight to protect students from such conduct. We will stand in support of all students, including the brave students who stood up for themselves and their peers by speaking out against Mr. Hotchner’s conduct. We will not ignore their voices.”

Last summer, Hotchner sued the school district to try to prevent the disclosure of his termination records in response to a California Public Records Act request (CPRA) filed in May. The records include a notice of unprofessional conduct totaling 189 pages, as well as a notice of intent to suspend without pay and a statement of charges totaling 466 pages.

Court documents state that initial investigations into Hotchner’s behavior conducted by the district looked at “over 100 specific acts,” with more than 43 witnesses interviewed, “the majority of which were students.”

In a declaration, Hotchner stated that disclosure of the records would cause “irreparable harm, including embarrassment,” as well as damage his reputation and relationship with the community.

“After 20 years in the community working with kids and families, I have relied on my reputation to weather this,” Hotchner told the Independent.

Judge Thomas Anderle ruled the records would remain sealed until the case was settled. On January 25, however, those records came to light.

In the district’s statement of charges, it alleges Hotchner “failed to maintain professional boundaries with students” and “regularly made inappropriate and/or sexually suggestive comments towards students and engaged in peer-like behavior.” 

In the court documents, student witnesses described Hotchner’s behavior as “weird” and “flirty” and said he gave them compliments about their appearance. Court documents further allege he made “disturbing comments” to students, such as “No one has touched the inside of you” and “If you look at me, we have a love connection.” In one incident, Hotchner allegedly suggested he and a female student should “have a sleepover party together and wear ‘footie pajamas.’” 

Last year, Hotchner told Coastal View News that the allegations of misconduct were fabricated by CUSD, calling the accusations “rumors and slanderous statements” and suggesting that they were a form of “unlawful retaliation” by CUSD. 

---

‘After multiple positive performance reviews over the years,
they were just throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.’ —Jay Hotchner

---

CAUSE’s recent letter to the community again accused the district of retaliation, referring to a separate 2021 case in which the District was indeed found guilty of retaliating and discriminating against Hotchner by the Public Employee Relations Board.

In response to the exhibits in his termination records, Hotchner told the Indy, “The kids appeared encouraged to take otherwise absolutely routine interactions between a teacher and students — and talking and learning and joking around in a classroom — and turn them into something nefarious, or understand them through a nefarious lens or a lens of victimization.”

He accused CUSD of trying to “hammer [him] with enough accusations” to discredit him rather than “resolve the issue” or “clear up the confusion.”

“After multiple positive performance reviews over the years,” he said, “they were just throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.” 

Hotchner added that the district “shows no signs of coming to grips” with the OAH’s decision, but he views it as “a step in the right direction of clarifying the record.”

Superintendent Rigby stated that the district “will continue to defend our right to remove from classrooms and campuses employees who are inappropriate and unprofessional with children, especially following explicit directions regarding our expectations for professional conduct.”

The statement continues: “While some may argue Mr. Hotchner’s interactions with children are not indecent or immoral, they most certainly are unconscionable if you agree that students must be treated with respect and compassion, always.

“The CAUSE executive board claims our efforts are based on Mr. Hotchner’s union role, so we want to be abundantly clear that the District’s decision is unrelated to Mr. Hotchner’s union role. The District’s decision is based on the value it places on the detailed and factually specific accusations of misconduct made by District students and the District’s expectations for teacher conduct in the school environment.  We have an unwavering expectation that all our employees help students feel safe, welcome, and respected while in school, and Mr. Hotchner’s treatment of students did not reflect these values.  

“On a more personal note, I would not tolerate my grandchildren being under his direct supervision, and I must not allow it for any other child.”