Plaintiff is a female Speech-Language Specialist (SPS) who worked at a private elementary school in State X. The private elementary school complied with State X laws and received some funding through a State X voucher program that provided funds to parents to help offset tuition costs at any private school. State X requires any SPS who provides services to students in private or public schools to obtain a state certification from the State X Department of Education (Department). Plaintiff received their certification prior to working at the private school. Plaintiff also provided speech-language services after school hours to clients. Some clients were affiliated with the private school and some were not.

A State X statute provided the Department with the authority to suspend or revoke state certifications for unprofessional conduct, which was defined to include waiving fees for services rendered in exchange for referrals or services. A Department investigator received an email stating that Plaintiff was providing services to a physical therapist's child after school and waived their service fees in exchange for referrals. The services were provided at the physical therapist's home. The email address did not include an identifiable name. The investigator replied asking for more information, but there was no response.

The investigator decided to look into the matter. They went to the physical therapist's home after school to see if Plaintiff was there providing services. The investigator snuck up to the house, looked through the window, and saw Plaintiff providing services to a child. The investigator hid when Plaintiff left and then knocked on the door to interview the physical therapist. The physical therapist declined to answer any questions. The investigator warned the physical therapist not to tell Plaintiff about the Department's investigation and falsely said that doing so would be a crime. The next day, the investigator went to the private school and demanded that Plaintiff stop providing services to a student so that the investigator could interview Plaintiff right away. When the plaintiff declined, the investigator yelled at the Plaintiff and threatened to revoke the Plaintiff's certification on the spot if the plaintiff did not comply. Plaintiff agreed and told the investigator that they were not waiving fees for referrals. Rather, they were providing services in exchange for the physical therapist providing services to Plaintiff's mother.

The investigator filed a report with the Department with the information they gathered and a recommendation to revoke Plaintiff's certification. The Department sent Plaintiff a notice with the charge of unprofessional conduct for waiving fees in exchange for referrals or services, a hearing date, the potential penalty of suspension or revocation of certification, and a statement that Plaintiff could appear at the hearing and contest the charges. Upon hearing about the professional misconduct charge by the Department, the private school terminated Plaintiff's employment without a hearing.

Plaintiff appeared at the hearing with an attorney. At the hearing, a Department representative presented the investigator's report as evidence and stated that the Department agreed with the recommendation to revoke Plaintif's certification. Plaintiff was then permitted to address the charges. When Plaintiff's attorney rose to speak, the hearing officer told them that State X law permitted the attorney to assist the plaintiff and not to represent them at the hearing, so they could not speak or examine witnesses; they could only assist the plaintiff in doing so. Plaintiff asked to cross-examine the investigator, but that request was denied by the hearing officer. Plaintiff then testified that bartering for services was very common amongst health service providers, and they were aware of numerous speech-language specialists that bartered their services in some way. Plaintiff asked to call some of these physical therapists as witnesses. The hearing officer denied the request. The hearing officer subsequently issued a decision revoking the teacher's certification for unprofessional conduct.

Analyze Plaintiff's potential constitutional claims and whether they are likely to be successful based on the relevant legal standards and facts. IRAC.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Issue Whether Plaintiffs constitutional claims are likely to be successful based on the relevant legal standards and facts Rule Constitutional claims ... View the full answer