To get a fuller picture of defendant Elizabeth English and her actions and leadership traits and management style deemed to be unprofessional, vindictive and autocratic, please read the Revised Complaint which details her words and actions in chronological order and presents a coherent picture. Conversations with past and current families and employees have also yielded a fuller picture of the way she deals with any action she believes questions her authority or the wisdom or morality of her decisions.
You will find compelling evidence of the validity of the Josephsons’ claims at these posts: retaliation against a mom who complained about the way she spent $1.4 million of Archer funds on renovating a house provided her by Archer; a response of one of the Josephson children to her efforts to drive a wedge between her and her father; and various aspects of her modus operandi including the “Obviously you are not happy here” ploy; the “I feel intimidated” ploy and the “She withdrew voluntarily” ploy
- Absolute Power Absolute Power
- Autocratic Autocratic
- Hostility hostility
- Correspondence correspondence
- Deceptive deceptive and disrespectful
- Humiliation vindictive humiliation
- Meeting The Meeting
- Ousts C2 More malice
The following comes from the 1st Amended complaint
6. On information and belief, English is an individual residing in Los Angeles, County, California; was, and is, the Head of School for Archer; and was hired and supervised by the Board of Trustees of Archer.a. English is aware of the high value Michael places on his reputation for ethics and integrity and has intentionally sought to inflict emotional harm and economic injury on Michael by statements and actions intended to diminish his reputation.
a. Driven by long standing and intense animosity for Michael, English repeatedly subordinated her professional duties to personal motives and abused her position as Head of School to carry out a personal vendetta resulting in the infliction of severe and lasting emotional harm, financial losses and reputational damage on all plaintiffs.
b. English’s animosity toward Michael began in 2009 as the result of Michael’s objection to her decision to renege on an agreement to share with parents, faculty and students the results of an Archer student behavior survey conducted by the Josephson Institute of Ethics at the behest of English. The report showed exceptionally high rates of drug use, drinking and other behaviors and, contrary to an understanding that the data would be discussed so remedial strategies could be developed, English decided to repress the data and instructed Michael not to disclose the results. Shortly thereafter, English precipitated a rancorous confrontation based on English’s erroneous assumption that Michael intended to flout her authority to discuss the data. She also aggressively rebuked Michael for agreeing to conduct a very different kind of survey for the Archer Dads organization without first getting her permission.
c. This conduct is consistent with actions she has taken against other families who were not sufficiently subservient. Instances of improper conduct resulting from her autocratic leadership and willingness to intimidate or retaliate against anyone who disagrees with her actions or challenge her judgment. Contrary to legal, ethical and professional standards regarding the proper use of authority, English has made decisions and committed acts that reveal a pattern of arbitrary and capricious conduct that were know or should have been known by each trustee.
d. In this case, English’s personal animosity was demonstrated by decisions that violated fundamental principles of student discipline. English consistently rejected conciliatory strategies, escalating rather than defusing controversy and refusing invitations to find alternative solutions. Instead, English invariably chose drastic options certain to create acrimony and inflict severe emotional trauma and other forms of damage on the Josephsons and their children. In doing so, she also subordinated the best interests of Archer to her personal interests as her actions have subjected Archer to reputational damage and deprived Archer of the many contributions the Josephson family makes to the school. The Archer Board Members either knew or should have known about this pattern of conduct, giving rise to a duty to assure that English’s actions are governed and restrained by clear guidance and internal controls to prevent the improper use of discretion likely to cause injury to students, teachers, staff and parents and subject Archer to liability and reputational injury.