[UPDATE added below in red] We were truly surprised by the news about the sexual assault allegations against Brother Lawrence at St. Mary’s, from a letter to parents sent out on January 31. As we wrote in the last post, the least we could do to help members of the wider school community who may be affected, is to host and facilitate a(n anonymous) discussion, found in the Forum. We are happy to use this blog’s established existence to do that. Apparently, many of us are interested:
[UPDATE: Here is the world-wide readership for the past week, for example:
Here is how people came to our blog (for the past 30 days–to include January 31st, the day the letter to parents came out). Wow–is all we have to say about the power of Facebook–507 referrals, and counting:]
* * *
As for Ms. Tran’s case, because she submitted the overseas plaintiff deposit on time, the defense (Gregory Strong, Professor of English at Aoyama Gakuin) has had to submit arguments for the February session of the court i.e. engage in the suit fully. That happened earlier this week. Ms. Tran’s side will rebut the arguments for the next session, at the beginning of March.
The defense’s arguments are long and repeat much of what was said in the case with St. Mary’s earlier. Namely, that Gregory Strong had no obligation to hire Ms. Tran at Aoyama. Again, while this is true, the decision not to hire someone surely shouldn’t be followed by a defamatory rant to the person’s current employer, nor a written threat to stymie the person’s future chances of being hired elsewhere. How about just not hiring the person, Mr. Strong?
We can only imagine that a small-minded, petty person with an inflated sense of self-importance and influence would bother to do that.
Upon checking out Gregory Strong’s CV, it seems he presents at McGraw-Hill Education Events at JALT, writes about EFL and ESL, and of course, is in charge of hiring for Aoyama Gakuin University’s English Department. Thus, it is understandable why he wrote this email defaming a teacher in the “strictest confidence”: such a thing is, otherwise, utterly unprofessional to do. Of course, there was an assumption of an unwritten Code of Silence and the support of a league of behind-the-scenes actors who have no qualms about damaging others. It’s great that Ms. Tran’s employer at the time refused to participate.
It’ll be interesting to find out how the defense will argue that Mr. Strong felt it necessary to go the extra step of writing about fictitious court orders and settlement results against Ms. Tran in his infamous email. And if St. Mary’s claims not to have fed Mr. Strong this information officially, then Mr. Strong needs to explain why he cited an authority at St. Mary’s.
* * *
We are not big fans of Codes of Silence and non-transparency. These things may be useful for holding up reputations of institutions or the egos of those who run them, for a while, but ultimately, they create an environment full of unacknowledged cracks. When the weakest member of a community is being punished for or prevented from speaking out, be it a new teacher, be it an isolated family or student, the community is an unsafe one. These days we hear a lot about societies fighting to protect women, girls, minorities like the LGBT community, victims of sexual abuse (in India, Sochi, the world wide Catholic community…)–because when the weakest members feel safe and thriving, that’s when we can be assured a community is a solid one.
St. Mary’s International School was not a safe place for Ms. Tran to bring up, what should have been standard complaints: stop whispering in her ear Mr. Assistant Vice-Principal; acknowledge the test results of her students and stop closed-door meetings where a teacher is not allowed any advocate present. It was surprising, instead the machinery that had been set up and waiting, to squash her speaking up. In 2008, it was in the wording of the contracts that the school had set up with the teachers’ landlords, and the ambiguous wording of the employment contract itself. These things could only be challenged in court, which took time and expense. When the teacher overcame those, in 2010, it was the St. Mary’s admin, Linda Wayne, Curriculum Coordinator, who leveraged a network of friends in positions of power to pass on things that would damage the career of a teacher in a way that would not be visible to the courts.
Why is there machinery to quiet voices? Why not deal with problems openly and transparently? Is the brand of the school more important than the well-being of the individuals within it? We are afraid so.
By the way, we don’t mean to attribute real “power” to people like Gregory Strong and Linda Wayne. We feel like it is only applicable because in this small, claustrophobic context of international schools in Japan, and particularly at St. Mary’s — these individuals seem big. Noting the ultimate pettiness of what was done to Ms. Tran, we know that her slanderers would not be considered worthy of their professions in a real context. If Linda Wayne’s dinner conversation with Gregory Strong meant to excuse why St. Mary’s had to pay a settlement to Ms. Tran:
In our opinion, 25-30-years is much too long a tenure for people like Linda Wayne and Gregory Strong to ever be advocates of progressive education and teaching excellence. Spotty-bottomed bureaucrats intent on reinforcing the brand of the only institution on their resumes? That’s more likely. Some international schools in Europe have a 7-year maximum on how long any teacher or administrator is allowed to stay. What a great policy.
Overseas litigants taking up a case in the Japanese courts is nothing new. The comfort women from the surrounding Asia-Pacific countries that Imperial Japan had once dominated, perennially sue the government for apologies and restitution. The parents of murdered British teacher, Lindsay Hawker, somewhat successfully sought justice through criminal court by seeing through a life sentence for the killer. However, unless the case is heart-stoppingly huge, we’ve often never heard of overseas litigation among regular circles.
In fact, at the first sign of meeting hardship in Japan, it’s not uncommon that unattached “gaijin” start shopping around for a ticket back to their home country to run away jurisdictionally and emotionally.
Japan is often over-sold for its planet-bizarro touristy goodtimes—and its (once) roaring yen. Litigation here, there or anywhere is usu. considered a major downer.
Japan = good times only!
In Ms. Tran’s case, who would want to get fired and have to deconstruct the systemic unfairness of it? Who would want to see the aftermath? Delve into labor laws, the plight of foreign workers, systemic abuse of power and meet the true stony-face of the Japanese working world and justice system? If you don’t have a future here, why dig in your heels?
In fact, in Ms. Tran’s first case, the St. Mary’s admin had banked on the tried, tested and true behavioral gaijin flight pattern by:
reminding her that unless she took advantage right away of the free shipping back to Canada, organized by the school, of the allowable 1000 lbs of household contents, this very expensive option would be forever lost to her (knowing that they had induced her to ship about the same amount to prepare for a “life in Japan” just 2 years earlier)
giving her a goodbye card–colored black for demoralization, while other teachers who were retiring, moving on au naturel etc. had nice washi patterns
revealing at the last minute that her apt lease was actually the school’s lease and that she’d be considered a squatter if she stayed a minute longer
If you’re a reader of this blog, you’ll know that Ms. Tran, instead of worrying about the fate of her closetful of fashionable dresses, or about the school’s stationery-as-emotional-weapon, just changed the locks and stayed in the country another 4 years (continuing for 22 more months in the same apt, until the case resolved), effectively scrambling known patterns.
So, in this case now with the St. Mary’s defense case scapegoat, Gregory Strong, how does it work that Ms. Tran can litigate in Japanese civil court, from overseas? A quick Google search will show that Tokyo has well-established bilingual legal services (Japanese-English) for foreigners–like, overseas foreigners:
It probably made a difference that Ms. Tran had connected with her lawyer while still living in Japan (most offices require a face-to-face, paid consultation at the first meeting). However, the logistics of payment and communication thereafter have been simple and seamless.
Ms. Tran has had to put up 150,000 yen as a deposit required for overseas plaintiffs, in addition to court fees and one-time legal fees, as requested by Gregory Strong’s lawyer, in case Ms. Tran poses some sort of flight risk!
By the way, after 6 years, how much did Ms. Tran eventually have to ship home? I asked and it was less than half of what she had originally brought. Apparently, the 2008 economic crash gave her “an epiphany about banks, their promotion of consumer spending to lock people into personal debt to them in order to rely on loans and credit cards, the mechanisms by which their top institutional investors reap ungodly profits, the main source of income inequality.” Hmm. 500 lbs of clothes is still a lot of clothes!
Despite our informal poll earlier showing that people figure BOTH Linda Wayne and Gregory Strong were culpable in defaming Ms. Tran, it’s been confirmed that Ms. Tran will be suing Gregory Strong through the Yokohama District Court–the first court date is in 2 days: January 8, 2014. The case will be for defamation that originated from a conversation he testified to have had with Linda Wayne, and was reported to Ms. Tran’s employer in an email, in a way that sought to denigrate her professionally. Following the “logic” of the courts, if St. Mary’s International School and Linda Wayne (and in fact Gregory Strong himself) were eager in defense mode to alleviate the school of any official association with that email, it leaves Gregory Strong himself responsible for what he wrote.
Ms. Tran has learned from St. Mary’s teachers that Linda Wayne will be leaving St. Mary’s at the end of the school year, and probably Japan. Her fateful conversation with Gregory Strong, speaking on behalf of the school as one of its admin, leading to this defamation suit will be something she has left behind for her friend Gregory Strong. What a way to cap off a 20+ year friendship in Asia! Something actually fitting for Linda Wayne and Gregory Strong and their idea of relating to people. They had wanted to spread the word about Ms. Tran. Well, they got what they wanted.
What will Ms. Linda Wayne do? The hope is any profession that has to do with people and social skills will be spared. A consultant for school accreditation? Supply teaching? Will she have new coworkers or new neighbors? Probably. I hope they use Google. Her husband Joe was a nice guy–if he’s well now, maybe he can represent them to new folk.
[Update January 20: it has been suggested that Linda Wayne, who is not at retirement age, is being asked to finish her tenure at the school. 2013 ended two major uses the school corporation had for Wayne:
1. Undoubtedly, she has had to answer to the litigation against the school sparked by her friend Gregory Strong, who had cited her office at the school as the source of defamatory remarks. The school’s successful downloading of all the responsibility on Strong himself likely did not mitigate the fact that the poor choice of having communicated sensitive issues to such an indiscreet person put the school at risk and cost them unnecessary legal expenses in three levels of court.
2. The school, as per usual, also depended on Wayne, as the Curriculum Coordinator, to see through another accreditation process.
Since the corporation has finished squeezing both responsibilities out of her, it’s curtains, is it?]
The fact that Ms. Tran is pursuing litigation from overseas can cause the other side and the courts to doubt the sincerity and authenticity of the claim–after all, it will cost Gregory Strong lawyer fees to defend himself and an overseas’ plaintiff could drop the case without recourse. To that end, Japanese courts have a provision that may require Ms. Tran to post a type of deposit to ensure that she is not taking this lightly. I’m sure Ms. Tran will not hesitate to wire that amount over. [But FYI, the yen is sure to tank against CAD / USD…]
OK, that’s all we’ve found out for now and we are sure of its accuracy. Thought I’d share 🙂
Thank you, to our readers! You have taken an interest, given us feedback and made us feel that this issue is being discussed. That’s all we’ve wanted.
As you know, the bloggers who have contributed in writing and translating here, have done so to help readers learn how to navigate a system that is designed to keep an individual quiet, stop progress and discourage speaking up when something is wrong. It was, in particular, illustrated by Ms. Tran’s case and how she’s fought back. Most of us have been direct members of the school community, which deals with so many children and vulnerable families that can’t afford to have a bad experience with St. Mary’s. In discussing Ms. Tran’s case, we hope that the school will think twice about treating any individual like this again.
We thought you might be interested in the statistics that you have generated over time. As writers, we are not counted if we log in as writers (and we try not to be).
1. Over the months, even when there was no activity from us (we resumed recently from an over-3-year hiatus, in October 2013), this blog seemed to sustain interest and stand as a resource for people to learn about this case at St. Mary’s. At the end of 2012, WordPress, the host of this blog, showed us that, on average, visitors come to view multiple blog posts:
2. More recent stats show, for example, in the past 90 days, links from Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn were among sources that drove our traffic:
3. Since “Search Engines” were the strongest source of traffic, we wondered what were some of the terms people searched? It turns out, some people search specifically for Ms. Tran and this story, about Linda Wayne, and even now for Gregory Strong at Aoyama University. A candidate teacher searched for vacancies at St. Mary’s International School. And people look for advice about labor disputes in Japan:
4. In the past month, it was no surprise that people read our most recent posts. But they also seemed to dig through the archives too:
5. Our FAVORITE stats is this one: our blog is being read all over the world!! (The view allowed as far back as February of 2012):
So, thank you. And please continue to share this story with readers you think would be interested. The shortlink to our home page is http://bit.ly/1cfYNYm .
Ms. Tran realized that court was the only way to find out who was really behind the email, which attacked her teaching reputation and her career. So, she took St. Mary’s back to court for Breach of Settlement because the email’s author had specified that he knew of the settlement details from a school admin. The school had signed a confidentiality clause. Professor of English at Aoyama Gakuin University, Gregory Strong was this email author–a man Ms. Tran had never met, but to whom she did apply for a job.
In court, St. Mary’s Curriculum Coordinator, Linda Wayne, testified that she had spoken of the case and of the settlement to Mr. Strong. But the school used the defense that she was uninformed and did not really know what she was talking about, thus, the information that was passed on to Gregory Strong was, essentially, gossip and was not a technical account of the settlement details. Gregory Strong, who was not being sued, but was obviously responsible for exposing St. Mary’s to this court case testified to help the school that the information was indeed just gossip. Furthermore, he took some responsibility for fabricating the information in the email based on his own observations.
The District Court ruled that since the school lied about the settlement, they hadn’t breached it.
Next:
Ms. Tran was a little more than creeped out by Gregory Strong, a stranger, who seemed to have such personal involvement in sabotaging her career. As well, it was disappointing that the courts did not uphold their own confidentiality clause. How inconvenient for a individual!
Ms. Tran appealed to the High Court asking: isn’t the fact of discussing the settlement, especially if it involves lies causing harm to a party, part of the rationale behind a “confidentiality clause”? Back when the case ended in 2010, the confidentiality clause evidently had an exception: for Ms. Tran to write a final statement to the school community about the case, for closure. As a member of the school community who opted to be on this list, I got this email:
Court Announcement May 2010:
“[英文]
I would like to inform you that the dispute with St. Mary’s International School ended at Tokyo District Court on April 15, 2010.
St. Mary’s International School regrets the dispute.
The school and I confirmed that I worked as a teacher at the school, and my employment contract was completed. We agreed to accept the court mediated settlement that includes a mutually agreed upon amount.
Throughout this process, many students, parents and teachers of St. Mary’s have been a tremendous source of support to me morally and through letters and petitions. It was my pleasure to see this process through and find a way for us to be heard clearly in the school community.
So, had “gossiping” with members of the teaching industry about the settlement been allowable too, for the school? Ms. Tran did not remember signing off on that. According to the court papers, apparently, the confidentiality clause read like most ones do–that neither party was to discuss the settlement details to a 3rd party. That’s pretty clear! However, despite the appeal, the High Court did not really improve on or add further comments to the District Court’s ruling. The papers went through the appeal process like oats through a horse. Lying about a settlement is not breaching the settlement.
The Supreme Court? Yawn. It might have potentially been an Elle Woods’ moment,
but Ms. Tran probably should have realized that she needed to get in line to seek any social justice in Japan from that institution. The Supreme Court wrote that they had nothing to add, to the nothing that the High Court had added.
Oh, and not to mention the “terrorism” that freedom of speech has now become here in Japan under Shiny Ape.
So, what we learned from all this is that technical adherence to court orders / laws / rules is what matters to courts. Therefore, if you find yourselves settling in court–you might want to add “infinity” after each clause, in case the childish party you’re dealing with abuses it once you’re back in the school yard.
Next: This case was either a Breach of Settlement or a Defamation case. So, since it wasn’t a breach, lying about someone must be defamation (?) But who is responsible for the defamation?
As well, we wonder, did Linda Wayne speak on behalf of the school corporation when she falsely characterized the settlement and the record of a teacher? If not, had the school done anything to reprimand her and this behaviour?
If this is done to a teacher, would it be done to students or families who take up an issue at the school? i.e. Is St. Mary’s International School a bully institution?
Is Japan an institution that makes it hard for individuals to protest being bullied…by institutions?
Ms. Tran didn’t meet much variety in this litigation.
[Update: some court documents have been added on December 2, 2013.] Hello again. I didn’t mean for the wait from Part 1 to be dramatically longish, but I cannot read Japanese reliably without my assistant by my side and there are quite a few documents. I’ve been recently reminded to get on with it. So, you’ll have to excuse me for writing first and including court documents later when I can verify details.
That doesn’t stop us from discussing the essentials, though!
So, Ms. Tran realized that a strange man in the university industry she didn’t even know (Aoyama Gakuin University Professor, Gregory Strong) had written a terribly defamatory email about her–sent to her current employer. He specifically cited St. Mary’s admin as the source of his information. Because the email was so full of personal vitriol against Ms. Tran, she couldn’t imagine how a stranger would convincingly be able to do it. It seemed very probable that St. Mary’s was behind it.
Why always court, Ms. Tran?
1. The best thing about litigation in Japan is that it is much cheaper than it would ever be in the US or Europe. Therefore, regular people can afford to resolve their problems in a civilized way and leave the yakuza out of it. Depending on the lawyer, Ms. Tran has paid between 315,000 to 440,000 yen per case. Appealing is an additional 100,000 yen or so. And there are document fees (sending, printing) of a few more man. If you win a settlement, the lawyer gets 16%.
2. In addition, taking a case to court causes it to be accessible to the public. For instance, all of Ms. Tran’s cases can be found at the Tokyo District Court under their file numbers. And under Japanese law, all parties are free to discuss matters in the case, except details under a confidentiality order. Believe it or not, I have actually adhered to this rule. I figure, taking it online and making this narrative known is just good to know. Sunlight disinfects.
3. Matters get solved while you go on with your life. Ms. Tran was in the university industry and worked every day. Her lawyers went to the court meetings (and she did too sometimes), but it did not disrupt her work. Furthermore, taking her bullies to task through expensive litigation (for the school) was an important sting she wanted them to feel every time they felt entitled to #$%! with people. With this lesson, would St. Mary’s think twice about what they’d say to her future employers–some of whom might be “testing” the school? Ms. Tran thought it would certainly help.
4. As a foreign worker in Japan, there is actually SO MUCH bullshit dealing with an employer who leverages your ignorance of your rights and Japanese law to screw you, that hiring a bilingual lawyer is the only way to understand and assert your rights.
So, court it was!
Ms. Tran at this point didn’t know the identity of the St. Mary’s admin who had been cited as the bully in her new profession. It was important to find out. She figured it was either Curriculum Coordinator Linda Wayne, or (now) Elementary Principal Michael DiMuzio, since both of them were the main muddle-managers [sic] in the fiasco of 2006-8, and have proven capabilities in such a thing. The elderly Catholic Brothers? Maybe, if they weren’t always napping.
Though Gregory Strong was a stranger, professional and grown man, there was always the possibility that he made all that strange gossip up. Who knows, people with an obsession and a lot of time on their hands can do a lot of damage. In any case–“it was important to find out”.
Round 1: The school was caught in a panic once Ms.Tran served them court papers. In the District Court they brought out everything they could to mitigate why or what they did or didn’t talk to Gregory Strong about–several strands of cooked spaghetti from the school’s lawyers, were thrown at the wall, which one would stick?
*Ms. Tran held a scholarship for her former students on YouTube!! (um….so?)
The blog was never taken down!! (well, that was never in the settlement terms, my dears)
Linda Wayne, was stressed about the prolonged court case and had to talk to her friend Gregory Strong–but it was just over dinner. And he’s a friend. (also coincidentally a long-time recruiter in the university teaching industry)
Linda Wayne, although an administrator, wasn’t exactly present herself at the settlement signing so she couldn’t have known the details of the settlement to ever be speaking about them accurately (I guess the “school corporation” only includes the 2 dudes present at the signing)
Linda Wayne only helped draft the settlement of the first case–she didn’t actually get to see the final version (oh yes! the drafts were one week apart and several adjectives different)
(I know, I know, the logic is amazing)! [UPDATE: Here is her letter to the court (in English and in Japanese) being vague on dates and details (for instance, conveniently only remembering dates after the incident of defamation), vague on whether it is Gregory Strong who is the liar for saying that she had spoken to him about the settlement, or whether she is the liar for being a top administrator, yet claiming not to be privy to a settlement she helped to draft:
Gregory Strong (you can imagine how popular he must be with St. Mary’s admin) had to step up too! After all, it was HIS indiscreet email that had caused legal harm to befall the sacred institution of his long time friend. What did he say?
He had seen Ms. Tran demonstrate at the SMIS carnival himself!! (I guess she had been holding a sign detailing her contract terms for him to see?)
He had seen Ms. Tran’s scholarship Youtube videos!! (declaring the settlement details in way that would ruin her career?)
He did have a conversation with Linda Wayne about the settlement, but since she didn’t actually know any details, then it was all just gossip and lies–nothing true about Ms. Tran or the settlement details.
The email that he wrote then, was just conjecture (i.e. gossip) and not truth; not a breach of the settlement’s actual details.
Ms. Tran’s lawyer, an older gentleman who has long defended foreigners from all kinds of crap (and from other foreigners in this case), in addition to being the president of a law firm in Kita-Senju, had asked Ms. Tran to choose at the beginning: defamation or breach-of-settlement case? But there would not be two cases at once. Ms. Tran thought that establishing identities and getting testimonial court records was a pretty necessary first step. So, that was the breach-of-settlement case.
Japanese courts are like this flamingo croquet game.
The Tokyo District Court ruled that since the details Gregory Strong cited in the email turned out to be all inaccurate, it means that Linda Wayne wasn’t telling the truth about the settlement, and therefore wasn’t talking about the details of the settlement. Therefore the school lied about, but did not breach the settlement.
Do we smile or frown at this verdict? Laugh or cry? It’s hard to tell. I myself am going to get a beer.
Next, Part 3: Ms. Tran asks the High Court: doesn’t lying about the settlement qualify as speaking about it? #curious (What’s the point of a confidentiality clause again?)
* This is the YouTube scholarship video Ms.Tran made after the settlement, that the school used in their defense. Basically, if SHE talked about the settlement in the video, why couldn’t they? The judge ruled that this was a non-issue (because there’s nuthin in this video) and was not part of the settlement details.
As promised, I wanted to blog about Ms. Tran’s re-opened court case with St. Mary’s International School in Tokyo, Japan. The unfair dismissal case that the teacher had brought against the school in 2008 was supposed to be finished in May of 2010 through a settlement. However, it resurrected, zombie-style, when Ms. Tran found out some disturbing news one day in November of 2010. This strangely involved a Professor of the English Department of Aoyama Gakuin University–someone Ms. Tran has never met.
Some Background:
The attempted firing of the new teacher had snowballed from power harassment incidents involving the Assistant Elementary Vice Principal, Michael Dimuzio and Curriculum Coordinator, Linda Wayne. At the time, (as it still is now) the school:
– was not unionized,
– gave comfortable salaries,
– had a largely transient student body, whose parents had an interest in avoiding criticism or judgment on their family or son in the temporary community
– was headed by aging French Catholic Brothers who routinely left the administration to small-town middle managers, doing the same job in their English-only bubble for decades
– had internal reports that the school had lent large Tokyo-mortgages to several teaching couples, administrators and managers in the past,
All these seemingly neutral ingredients ensured a year-in-year-out atmosphere of complacency and cesspool-like homeostasis. But perhaps the calm was just a rouse. The glue (goo?) holding this set-up together might have actually been the looming threat of default on all sides. Therefore, if someone wanted to speak out about a problem, there were many forces in the school community with an interest to shut it down. Here Ms. Tran was protesting at St. Mary’s International School’s Carnival, just before she went to court:
While many other teachers were resigned to complain behind closed doors, Ms. Tran escalated her issue until she got a resolution because last time anyone checked, Japan was a first world country. She took her problem through the school (useless), through the mediation of the Tokyo Government’s Labor Mediation (no teeth or jurisdiction), through collective bargaining with a labour union (obliges school to listen, but not act; strikes and demos become legal; access to union lawyer), and then through civil court, which was the only body able to judge or award damages. It all finally ended in a settlement 2 years later. Settlements are supposed to help both sides move on. At the end of the day, the school was not able to “dismiss” her based on “incompetency” because there had been no evidence submitted to warrant it–this was the most important thing Ms. Tran wanted to establish. As a result, the school’s dismissal of her didn’t stand, and Ms. Tran was serious about maintaining her teaching record coming into this mess, as she was leaving it. So, before the case ended, she asked the judge to get the school to re-issue her a letter of recommendation and they complied. Ms. Tran knew that the international school community was small, with long-time networks of former jet-setting teachers who keep in touch all over the world, for better or for worse, trading intel/gossip on teachers and schools. The hand-signed letterhead was not fail-proof, but it would provide interesting contrast in case a follow-up phone call with the school didn’t corroborate it!
For her part, she was asked by the court to talk to “whoever it was” that ran this blog, to stop it. Since I ran the blog as a supporter in all this, and even if it was just a pre-condition to the settlement that I stop, I saw the fairness in it, and did. That was then!
Back to the Re-Opening of the Case:
Ms. Tran had by then, moved onto teaching at universities in the Tokyo area. The university sector generally has part-time positions (paid by the number of courses taught) and if one wanted to make more money in the sector, one took on several courses at the same university, or several universities.
Ms. Tran while suing the school, had been completing her Master’s Degree from the University of Toronto, which was the last qualification she needed to teach at universities in Japan. By November 2010, she had been holding down courses at three universities and felt she could take on a fourth. At the advice of one of her sempai, who was sure he’d be able to recommend her into a block of several courses at Aoyama Gakuin University, she applied to the school.
Now, usually, an applicant never quite knows “why” it is that a prospective employer might not hire him or her. God knows, there were some rejections after the court case. But Ms. Tran was adamant about leaving on her resume: the 2 years that she had poured her heart and soul into doing right by her 3rd graders at St. Mary’s International School! There was no way that was going to waste! Now, you’d think this would pose the risk of a prospective employer calling the admin, getting an earful and getting scared away from hiring her. And Ms. Tran was well aware that was a possibility–even suspected that was the case, despite that letter of recommendation. But then again, teachers: this is exactly the kind of filter that is necessary to weed out unthinking, unquestioning a-hole employers, anyway. In fact, Ms. Tran even got hired at a university, whose one English department was run by a St. Mary’s parent well aware of the case! Anyway, when she didn’t get a response to the job at Aoyama, she figured it was what it was, and moved on. UNTIL…
One day, she was given notice of an email written by Gregory Strong, of the English Department at Aoyama Gakuin University, to whom she had applied. The email was not to Ms. Tran, but to one of Ms. Tran’s employers. For anyone interested, the full text of the following letter (which was submitted as evidence) is retrievable by referencing the court case, at the Tokyo District Court in Kasumigaseki:
(Case number)
(Ms. Tran, plaintiff and her lawyer)
(St. Mary’s International School, Thomas Tremblay Head of the School Corporation, defendant and their lawyers)
That’s right: an administrator at St. Mary’s, despite a court order to stay quiet about the case, decided that attacking the teacher within the teaching industry would be a good strategy–because her teaching opportunities would be damaged, and she would never know why if it were done in secrecy. Who did they talk to? How many people did they talk to? Who knows. But this Gregory Strong accidentally went on record via email here, to show that this was a interesting game for him to play. He is the recruiter for a university, and clearly believed he had influence over Ms. Tran’s employer in this email, to follow his judgment, which was handed down to him by St. Mary’s. I’m writing this to let people at the school know what tactics were used.
Strange isn’t it? (No, I don’t mean the ungrammatical letter written by an apparent English Department head). I mean, isn’t this petty? I have never met Gregory Strong, but I assume he is a grown man, and an adult even. I have also learned that he has never met Ms. Tran. Yet, what small-minded, petty, evil (?) person would write something that would undermine the livelihood of a person he doesn’t even know? Someone who would find it their personal job to spread unsubstantiated rumours for no one’s gain–just out of pure revenge on behalf of his friend at St. Mary’s. As if it were the mind of an attack dog, not a professional. Here, Gregory Strong seemed to rely on some personal network of “highly influential” employers in the teaching business to exact his power over the teacher’s fate. Classic delusions of self-importance and grandeur? Well, despite any intended importance it may have had, the email wasn’t received as Mr. Strong had hoped. Ms. Tran’s employer, who found the letter incongruous with reality and was put off that it seemed to encourage him to act on unfounded, unprofessional gossip, did the right thing: he let Ms. Tran know what was being said about her in the teaching industry. Teachers, this is a rare case when you’re let in on crucial intel on detrimental gossip about your life!!
Catching a whiff of familiar smelling garbage, Ms. Tran, with her special St. Mary’s fund from earlier in 2010, thought this might be worth looking into. But, what was going on here? Defamation? By whom exactly? Or was it a breach of the confidentiality clause in the settlement, by the school? Or was Gregory Strong gossiping (many of the settlement details he wrote about were awfully skewed to favour St. Mary’s–something that Ms. Tran didn’t remember signing off on–like the one about the court barring her from contacting parents and students? How would that ever be enforced for life? Her blogging? The numerous parent complaints? Had they existed, the school would have used them as evidence to win the case, but didn’t. And the one that says the school terminated her contract–isn’t that what the unfair dismissal case sought to undo? Really, Mr. Strong? Are critical thinking skills available in your department?)
Ms. Tran also wanted to find out who Gregory Strong’s admin friend was at St. Mary’s–and what role this person might have had in defaming / breaching the settlement etc. Though it was entirely possible that Gregory Strong was an independent gossip, since he specifically implicated a St. Mary’s admin friend as his source of knowledge of the “settlement”, Ms. Tran’s lawyer opened the old case back up.
Turns out:
Linda Wayne, the Curriculum Coordinator at St. Mary’s International School was the source of Strong’s defamatory ideas / settlement gossip about the teacher. Linda Wayne and Gregory Strong had apparently taught together in the ’90s at another international school, and surprise, formed some ever-lasting network of slave-owner-mentality folks who evidently took out their ________frustrations on others (*shudder). Linda Wayne had been one of two people who testified in the original unfair dismissal case (the other was the Business Manager). Good times, click here to read what she testified. She was also an admin involved in negotiating the settlement.
Once this came out in court, Ms. Tran was totally unsurprised. It was merely a suspicion confirmed, folks. The vindictive spreading of lies, in secret, and encouraging others to participate in her ruin (the ruin of someone they didn’t like) was exactly what Ms. Tran had experienced throughout the whole ordeal with the school since she started working there. However, it was just very rare to able to confirm that something like this was happening. But there it is, teachers, parents, alumni, and students. There it is.
Also, if I may add, this case must have caused an interesting tension between Gregory Strong and Linda Wayne, who had to cooperate to defend the school corporation–but were themselves the causes of this lawsuit happening. I wonder how that friendship is going? As well, Ms. Tran’s lawyers were union and public lawyers, who work, at most, inexpensively, to help social-cause cases. St. Mary’s private lawyers are slightly more expensive. I’m just thinking that the court fees in this thing for the school alone might have been a source of disappointment in Wayne and Strong, by the school corporation. After all, tight secrecy of ill deeds is usually sufficient to avoid being called-out in such an organization. Linda Wayne, I think, was just doing what she knew would be approved and supported by the school. Gregory Strong was a weak link, this time.
Part 2? I warn that it will just contain mind-numbing incredulous-ness, that come from the Linda Wayne and Gregory Strong’s excuses in court. So….should we all be scared of St. Mary’s “power”? Well, let’s see: their “power” is apparently a network of unprofessional gossips who spread blacklists to remind themselves that they are in some kind of inner-circle. I’d doubt the professional ethics of “Collusion”. And they have friends like Gregory Strong. I mean, look at the way he writes! It’s incredible to imagine that in Japan, these individuals are at the top of their professions. Laughable. However, the amount of money they wasted from the school corporation’s funds to do all this should be a note to all parents, teachers, students and sponsors. I’d estimate that the school has spent at least 12-15 million yen reconciling their professional ethics in court with Ms. Tran, who challenges them every chance she gets. What could that money have gone to? Or maybe this is an expensive lesson that the school community has needed to go through.
Hi There! It’s near the end of 2013. You’ll not believe what I have to write.
Since the 2010 settlement between Ms. Tran and the school, as an insider at the school and supporter of what Ms. Tran was doing, I was asked to stop blogging about this “dead” issue. The school was itchy about this blog being up and had agreed to give her a letter of reference if I stopped. Though Ms. Tran had no control over the blog, in order to facilitate the signing of a confidentiality agreement, and an agreement to a settlement sum…and, because I didn’t want to interfere with her chances of becoming a Japanese millionaire (ha), I conceded.
But what restraint it has been! Because a “dead” issue IT WAS NOT!!! Would you believe they have been in COURT all this time?! The teacher had found out, in a rare interception of an email, that an administrator at the school had been trying to ruin her chances of working within the university system after she left St. Mary’s. (“A school with a heart”. Really.) Although the school corporation had signed a confidentiality agreement in settling the case where Ms. Tran sued them, it appeared that one of their top admin, a woman heavily involved in the case, felt it necessary to badmouth Ms. Tran after the settlement, using her position in the school and inside knowledge of the case as credentials, to a 3rd party. Of course, she told the story of the settlement a way that was highly unfavourable to Ms. Tran (and highly favourable to the school—can you imagine Ms. Tran signing a settlement that sounded like that?!). Anyway, the admin had hoped to do it “confidentially”. But, too bad it got out, which surely was an embarrassment the school and its heroine administrator. So, Ms. Tran, using her special “St. Mary’s fund”, decided to take them back into court for breach of the settlement terms–and to find out, actually, who it was that would be so petty and evil. Who at St. Mary’s International School allowed this bullying to continue? Ms. Tran had zero tolerance with bullying among her students. She certainly wasn’t going to take this without saying something. Thus, this case was revived, like a zombie!
If you are a member of the school community and always had a paranoia about whether the administrators would be the petty and evil sort if it really came down to dealing with a teacher or parent who crossed them, let this upcoming story tell you a story of…well, pettiness and evil.
I have a LOT of reading, fact-checking and catching up to do before I write again. It will be soon. Cuz it would be FUN to name names, wouldn’t it?
Now, here’s an interesting question: what sort of connections or tactics do you think the school would have to ruin a teacher’s name? On what scale do they work?
Hello there! It has been ages since my last post. I had been hoping to leave this blog up to help anyone who needed to see what steps to take to fight an unfair dismissal. Though, reading back on some comments and letters, I wanted to tie up some loose ends. As well as comment on what, if anything, a big catastrophe like this earthquake could mean for foreign teachers.
Loose ends:
1. Ms. Tran cannot be contacted through this site. Nor am I allowed to give information on the union she is part of. The school would have a lot of motivation to try to link them to this site and cry defamation…(or maybe just cry). But, as we know, WordPress is great at protecting freedom of speech.
2. Many have been unclear on what it was that Ms. Tran got out of the settlement. In an unfair dismissal case, people sue for their job back, or the equivalent of back pay. In Ms. Tran’s case, it was for the job and no amount of money was specified. However, in settlements, it is always money that finishes the case. Getting her job back would have been weird for everyone.
3. Some have wondered what has happened to Ms. Tran and what she has learned. Well, she continues to putter about Tokyo, having dinner parties and doing her job. In her new work, well, the work of the last 2 years after leaving St. Mary’s, she has happily experienced the way teacher evaluation has been done at other institutions. For example, teachers are video taped and employers write a detailed report of what they saw with comments. All which is verifiable by looking at the tape. This is accompanied by a teacher self-evaluation and meetings with positive encouragement. Other teachers are required to watch each other’s tapes and write comments. All teachers undergo the same process, administered with objective rigor. Thus, when an evaluation comes out, you can bet it is useful and usable. It has been important to experience this fresh breath of professionalism. (My god. Isn’t this supposed to be normal?)
Japan in turmoil:
Many foreign teachers might have had a proper fright after that crazy earthquake on Friday March 11, 2011. Also, those nuclear meltdown warnings don’t sound so appetizing. Some might be tendering their resignation right now. Here are some ideas for those who are staying, regarding labor issues / education. (I am no expert, just FYI from a lowly blogger):
1. Thank you for continuing to stay in Japan. Your services are important for maintaining the level of education and economic progress of the country. Talk to your fellow teachers and employers about working together toward those goals. (An exodus of foreign teachers would be another huge setback for Japan, thus this is a time for teachers to recognize their worth).
2. Cooperate with your employer (on a reasonable level) to adjust to things like mandatory time off due to planned power cuts. Teachers on salary suffer less of course, but teachers being paid by the hour–you need to foresee how your income will be affected and decide what to do accordingly. Judge clearly to see if your employer is truly setback by the devastation or just using this event to justify layoffs that were in the works anyway etc. This is an important time to document things. Also, be aware that if you form your own union or join a pre-existing one, you become protected under Trade Union Law (which is can be a pre-emptive precaution to lay-offs and unfair firings etc). http://www.tabunka.org/special/trade.html
3. This is an amazing time in Japan. It can be used to educate students on humanitarian issues and the concept of rebuilding Japan. Talk to your staff about incorporating this into your curriculum from here on in. Make your school, students and staff on the forefront of helping to donate, conserve energy and preparing students to live in a country that has undergone a heavy blow etc. This is the post-WW2 moment and kick-in-the-pants that complacent and stagnate Japan has been waiting for. The help of foreign workers, English, and a motivated young generation is what is needed to get back on track. You are needed more than ever–foreign teachers committed to staying in Japan should get together and recognize that you are an important force of redemption and rebuilding here!!
The historic signing of papers finally happened today!! Stubbornness finally caved. So, while I assume the teacher is out to celebrate, I at least squeezed out an inventory list!
1. Meeting so many amazing people along the way who understand exactly why you must do something. Check.
2. Witnessing the magical helpful spirit of Japanese friends who translated hundreds of documents within days. Check.
3. MAKING the other side listen and LOOK at evidence–in Collective Bargaining, in court. Check.
4. Believing in self-determination and seeing it realized. Check.
5. Dragging the other side through years of time-loss, expense, publicity. Check.
6. 11,000 audited hits and counting. Check.
7. Being recognized by alumni and students who follow this thing in other parts of the world. Check.
8. Making a lasting impression. Check.
9. Learning from every moment. Check.
10. Getting to know the lovely maternal and paternal spirit of so many parents at St. Mary’s. Check.
11. Wiping the other side’s smugness up with the mop they gave you. Check!
12. Seeing karmic retribution kick BUTTS. (Though they [ahem] were rather hard to miss). Check and Check!
…And although Richard Dawkins is right…I can’t help but say, God IS watching! The Old and New Testament God! And I like how He rolls His eyes at certain people, or at least pretends to sleep when they ask Him for things they don’t deserve. 😛 Awesome.
Woohoo!!! Stay tuned for more posts. I ‘ve wanted to post a few more things…I’ll get my act together soon!
St. Mary's International School Labor Dispute 