Amy Scott denies allegations occurred on school property or time, files charges with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

A school administrator placed on paid suspension is alleged to have engaged in an intimate personal relationship with a coworker during work hours, according to a charging document released by the Niles Community Schools district Thursday through the Freedom of Information Act.

The document, titled “Amy Scott — Charges for Dismissal,” was dated May 5 and sent to the school board by Interim Supt. Michael Lindley. In it, Lindley outlined several charges against Scott and recommended the board to proceed toward her dismissal. The board then voted May 5 to do just that, sending her case to the state’s Teacher Tenure Commission.

In a statement released by Scott’s legal counsel Thursday, Scott denies that any of the allegations occurred on school property or during school time.

“Ms. Scott adamantly denies betraying the public trust and misusing her work time for personal interests,” the release stated. “She has been and remains dedicated to serving the children of the Niles Community School System.”

The charging document alleges that Scott, over the course of several years, “admitted to having an intimate personal relationship with a male coworker during work hours, using personal leave time or as an administrator simply not working outside of work hours.”

Lindley declined to identify the coworker.

Also, the document alleged the male coworker admitted to calling in sick so that he and Scott could engage in personal contact at his house or, on more than one occasion, during work hours, including Feb. 5. At that time, Scott’s vehicle was allegedly videoed at the home of the male coworker, who lives approximately 30 miles from the school.

The document alleged other district employees were aware of the relationship, making it a topic of discussion throughout the district that adversely impacted Scott’s ability to do her job.

Also, the document alleges that Scott and the male coworker had conflicts on the job as they worked in the same building. Lindley identified that building as Oak Manor Sixth Grade Center.

The document also alleges that Scott and the male coworker tried to “get their story straight” during an investigation by the district, despite being told by the district not to communicate with one another.

The male coworker allegedly admitted that he and Scott “sought to delete texts, photos and videos which would have implicated them.”

Scott’s legal counsel denies that she impeded an investigation in any way and that she initially volunteered information to the district during an investigation of an unrelated matter.

“Instead of assisting her, the School System subjected her to repeated interviews, attempting to get her to admit allegations that were not true,” stated the press release issued by Scott’s legal counsel. “She was placed on non-disciplinary paid leave without any paperwork or evidence.”

The release by Scott’s legal counsel went on to say that Scott filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

“After Ms. Scott did so, Niles Community Schools filed its charges for dismissal,” the release stated.

Lindley said the district first learned of Scott’s alleged actions around February or March of this year. An investigation soon followed and Scott was placed on paid leave, Lindley said.

Attorneys representing Scott sought a preliminary injunction in Berrien County Civil Court in an attempt stop the district from releasing the charging document.

They argued Wednesday that its release would equate to an “unwarranted invasion of an individual’s privacy” — one of the exemptions that would stop a FOIA request.

Judge John Donahue, who released an opinion on the matter Thursday, denied the preliminary injunction. In the opinion, Donahue said the court would not intervene when the district has determined that the public’s right to know is to be carefully guarded and that the release of the information would not constitute a “clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual’s privacy.”

“Such determination could be supported by the assertion that certain of the alleged conduct allegedly occurred on school property during working hours (which allegations are disputed by Plaintiff, Amy Scott),” the Judge wrote in his opinion. “Which assertions, if true, likely do not equate to an ‘unwarranted invasion of an individual’s privacy’.”