E-FILED; Montgomery Circuit Court

Docket: 8/21/2023 11:44 AM; Submission: 8/21/2023 11:44 AM

Envelope: 13685803

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

___________________________________
:
DANIEL B. ENGLER :
2403 Birch Avenue :
Silver Spring, MD 20910 :
:
Plaintiff, :
: C-15-CV-23-003190
v. : Civil No. ________
:
SHELTON L. MOONEY, :
In his personal and official capacities :
15717 Bondy Lane :
Darnestown, MD 20878 :
:
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF :
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC :
SCHOOLS :
850 Hungerford Drive :
Rockville, MD 20850 :
:
Serve on: :
Karla Silvestre, President :
850 Hungerford Drive :
Rockville, MD 20850 :
:
Defendants. :
____________________________________ :

COMPLAINT

For his Complaint against Shelton L. Mooney, in his personal and official capacities, and

the Board of Education of Montgomery County Public Schools (“Board”), Plaintiff Daniel B.

Engler, by his undersigned attorneys, upon knowledge as to his own actions and dealings, and

upon information and belief as to Defendants and their actions, alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Plaintiff Daniel B. Engler, a decorated, popular teacher at Bethesda-Chevy Chase

High School (“B-CC”) and highly successful head coach of B-CC’s winning Rowing Team

(“Rowing Team” or “Crew”), had his reputation destroyed by the malicious acts of B-CC’s

Principal, Defendant Shelton L. Mooney, who falsely accused Engler of racism in a thoughtless,

half-baked community-wide email.

2. Mooney’s email related to an exchange between Engler and two students who

refused to sit in their assigned seats in Engler’s class because they preferred to sit with friends.

3. Engler explained to the students that he is a spatial learner and uses a seating

chart—as many teachers do—to learn student names.

4. The students, however, ignored Engler’s polite request and sat in seats assigned to

other students, causing further disruption, and making Engler’s goal of learning every student’s

name more difficult. Nevertheless, he proceeded to teach the class without incident, or so he

thought.

5. Following class, the two students—who had previously requested not to be in

Engler’s class—complained to a school administrator, and, allegedly, claimed that Engler had told

them if they did not sit in their assigned seats, he would not be able to tell them apart, which they

believed was because they are black.

6. The administrator, who is black, believed, however, that Engler’s comments were,

at worst, misunderstood by the students. Engler denies saying what the students alleged or making

any type of racial comment.

7. Nevertheless, Principal Mooney, employing what appears to have become his

trademark “shoot first and ask questions later” approach, immediately sent a community-wide

email titled “Hate Bias Incident” in which he falsely accused Engler of engaging in “unacceptable

and harmful behavior” by saying that “he was ‘unable to distinguish [several African-American

2
students] from other African American students’ in the classroom,” even though Mooney and other

administrators had not even completed an investigation of the matter.

8. Mooney did not afford Engler an adequate opportunity to be heard and did not

provide notice to Engler or other specified individuals before sending the email, in violation of

MCPS policies and procedures. In so doing, Mooney violated written policies and procedures

requiring any community-wide email to await an investigation’s completion.

9. Ultimately, no disciplinary action was taken against Engler because, on information

and belief, Defendants’ investigation failed to find evidence that a “Hate Bias Incident” had

occurred.

10. However, the damage to Engler had already been done. Mooney’s malicious email

falsely branded Engler a racist, destroying his reputation in the B-CC community, causing him

deep emotional distress, making it impossible to continue teaching at B-CC, and causing the loss

of his position as Head Coach of the B-CC Rowing Team.

11. Moreover, Mooney knew that his malicious email was false at the time he sent it,

knew that sending it violated MCPS policies and procedures (on which he had just received

training), and sent it out of a malicious desire to harm Engler’s reputation and teaching career.

12. Despite Mooney’s baseless accusations and grossly negligent, reckless, and

malicious actions toward Engler, Defendants refused to issue a retraction, correction, or apology

to mitigate the substantial harm Mooney had caused.

13. During his short tenure as an MCPS principal, Mooney has established a pattern of

blatant disregard for procedure and policies. Mooney’s reckless action here is part of a disturbing

record of bungled communications. Over the past academic year alone, Mooney: failed to inform

the community of blatantly anti-Semitic classroom rantings by a chemistry teacher; created

3
needless, widespread hysteria by a poorly communicated school-wide lockdown; and falsely

accused a student of anti-Semitic social media postings.

14. Engler brings this action to hold Mooney—both in his official and personal

capacities—and the Board accountable for their destructive actions and to seek redress for the

serious harm they have caused to Engler’s reputation, livelihood, and well-being.

15. Having exhausted all administrative avenues of review, Engler brings this action to

assert claims of defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and breach of contract.

16. Engler also seeks a declaration from this Court regarding Mooney’s—and, by

extension, the Board’s—breach of MCPS’s hate-bias policies and procedures.

PARTIES

17. Plaintiff Daniel B. Engler is a Maryland citizen residing at 2403 Birch Avenue, in

Silver Spring, Maryland. For the past 18 years, Engler has been a teacher at B-CC, in Bethesda,

Maryland, which is part of the Montgomery County Public School system (“MCPS”). In his

capacity as a B-CC teacher, Engler has been an employee of MCPS.

18. During his 22-year teaching career, Engler has received numerous accolades and

awards, including: the “Excellent Teacher Award” from the University of Chicago; the

“Community Service Award” from Montgomery County’s County Executive; the “International

Baccalaureate Educator of the Year” award, selected by B-CC students; and the “All Met Coach

of the Year” award from the Washington Post.

19. In addition to being a full-time high school teacher, Engler has served for 16 years

as the head coach of B-CC’s award-winning Rowing Team, during which he coached the team to:

a third place finish in the Scholastic National Rowing Championship in 2021; second and third

place finishes in the Scholastic Rowing Championships in 2019 and 2022 respectively; first place

4
finishes in the boys senior 8+ Maryland State Championship from 2007 to 2017; first place finishes

in the boys junior 18 8+ U.S. Rowing Club National Championship in 2003, 2005, and 2006; first

place finishes in the DMV Champions competition in boys senior varsity 8+ in the Washington

Metropolitan Interscholastic Rowing Association (“WMIRA”) in 2011, 2017, 2018, 2019, and

2022; among other notable coaching accomplishments.

20. From 2012 to 2022, Engler served as the Commissioner of WMIRA, the rowing

league in the area.

21. Defendant Shelton L. Mooney is a citizen of Maryland, residing at 15717 Bondy

Lane, in Darnestown, Maryland.

22. Defendant Shelton L. Mooney is the Principal of B-CC and an employee of MCPS.

At all times relevant, during the events in question, Mooney acted in his capacity as an agent and

representative of the Board. On information and belief, Mooney has been the Principal of B-CC

since July 2020, and had been the acting Principal from September 2019 to June 2020. Before that,

he served as a “Principal Intern” for MCPS.

23. Defendant Board is organized under Maryland law and has its principal place of

business at 850 Hungerford Drive, in Rockville, Maryland.

24. The Board is the governing body for MCPS and is legally responsible for the acts

and omissions of Mooney in his capacity as B-CC Principal as well as the acts and omissions of

B-CC administrators in their capacity as B-CC administrators.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

25. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Mooney pursuant to Md. Code,

Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 6-102 because Mooney is domiciled in and maintains his principal place of

business in Maryland.

5
 26. This court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Board pursuant to Md. Code,

Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 6-102 because the Board and MCPS are organized under the laws of Maryland

and the Board maintains its principal place of business in Maryland. In addition, the Board’s

members are domiciled in Maryland.

27. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to Md. Code,

Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 6-103(b)(3) because Defendants contracted for services in Maryland and caused

tortious injury in Maryland by acts or omissions in Maryland.

28. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 6-201.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Two Students Refuse to Sit in Assigned Seats

29. On February 8, 2023, Engler was scheduled to teach a class in health at B-CC

during the first period of the school day.

30. Prior to the start of class, two students in the class were milling around the

classroom and refused to sit in their assigned seats. They asked if they could sit where they wanted,

with their friends rather than in their assigned seats.

31. In so doing, the two students were asking to displace other students from their

assigned seats.

32. Engler explained to the two students that he uses a seating chart during the first few

weeks of a semester to help him learn the names of students—a standard practice in MCPS and

elsewhere.

33. Engler politely asked the two students to sit in their assigned seats, noting that he

is a spatial learner and the seating chart helps him learn the names of students, which is important

to him and something that students value.

6
 34. When the students continued their refusal to follow his instructions, Engler once

again asked them politely to sit in their assigned seats since he cares about learning students’ names

and avoiding calling students by the wrong name.

35. Nevertheless, the students refused to accede to Engler’s request and, instead, sat in

seats assigned to other students, creating further disruption.

36. Rather than belabor the issue and delay the start of class for the remaining students

who were sitting in their assigned seats, Engler decided to move forward with teaching the class.

37. The class proceeded without further discussion of the assigned seating issue.

38. After the class concluded and unbeknownst to Engler at the time, the two students

went to meet with Assistant Principal Vickie Adamson.

39. On information and belief, during the meeting with Adamson, the two students

falsely claimed that Engler had told them that if they did not sit in their assigned seats, he would

not be able to tell them apart from other students, which the students said they believed was

because they are black.

40. Engler, however, made no such statement, did not refer to the students as being

black, and did not make any comment about their race or the race of other students.

41. On information and belief and unbeknownst to Engler at the time, the students had

informed school administrators at the beginning of the semester that they did not want to be in

Engler’s class because they were concerned about his feelings toward black people.

42. Thus, on information and belief, the two students, who did not want to be in

Engler’s class, did not want to sit in their assigned seats, and did not appear to like Engler,

concocted a racially charged accusation against Engler as a way to get out of his class.

43. On information and belief, Adamson, who is black and who knows Engler, upon

7
hearing the accusation from the two students did not believe that Engler had said what the two

students had accused him of saying and did not believe that Engler had said anything of a racial

nature.

44. On information and belief, Adamson believed there had been a clear disconnect

between what Engler may have said and what the students thought or understood Engler to have

said and that, at worst, his statements may have been misinterpreted by the students.

45. Later that school day, during sixth period, Olga Shapiro-Palanker, B-CC’s

Assistant School Administrator, came to Engler’s classroom to observe his teaching. Shapiro-

Palanker did not indicate to Engler why she was observing his class, although having

administrators observe a teacher’s class happens periodically at B-CC.

46. Following the conclusion of the class, Shapiro-Palanker left without providing any

feedback to Engler.

47. On information and belief, that afternoon after the school day was over, Mooney

called the President of the Parent Teacher Student Association (“PTSA”) on another matter and

mentioned in passing that two black students had complained that when they had requested to

change seats in a class to sit with their friends, the teacher told them, “no, because I won’t be able

to tell you apart.” Mooney then reported that the students had said the teacher, whom he did not

identify by name or gender, had “added” after that, “Please don’t turn this into a racial remark.”

Mooney ended the discussion by saying that it was “being referred to HR as an HR matter.”

48. On information and belief, at no point did Mooney describe or characterize the

matter as a “hate-bias incident.”

Administrators Inform Engler of the Allegations

49. The next day, February 9, 2023, Shapiro-Palanker appeared at Engler’s first-period

8
class without explanation.

50. Since it was unusual for an administrator to observe a teacher’s classes on

consecutive days, Engler, who was standing at the entrance to his classroom before class began to

greet students, met Shapiro-Palanker at the door and asked why she had come to observe him for

the second time in 24 hours.

51. Shapiro-Palanker responded, “No reason.”

52. Engler invited her into the classroom but said that he did not believe her.

53. Shapiro-Palanker stayed for only 10 minutes and then left.

54. During second period, however, Shapiro-Palanker emailed Engler to come to her

office to discuss his “concerns.”

55. When he arrived at Shapiro-Palanker’s office at the beginning of third period, he

found Adamson was there as well.

56. Shapiro-Palanker asked Engler to speak about the accusation from the previous day

by the two students that he had said he could not tell black students apart in his class.

57. This was the first time Engler had heard this accusation.

58. Taken aback by the inflammatory accusation, Engler strongly denied that he had

made such a statement or any statement about race. Rather, he said he had informed the students

of his desire to know the name of each student in the class.

59. He explained that he told the students that he uses a seating chart to identify students

by name during class.

60. Adamson took contemporaneous notes of the meeting.

61. After they finished discussing the allegations of the two students, Adamson and

Shapiro-Palanker turned the discussion to Engler’s teaching of his sixth period class on February

9
8.

62. Shapiro-Palanker said that during the discussion with the two students, they also

raised concerns about Engler’s teaching.

63. Thus, despite telling Engler that she did not have a reason for visiting his classroom

earlier that day, it became apparent that Shapiro-Palanker had lied to him.

64. Shapiro-Palanker shared feedback from observing his classes, including positive

feedback after being prompted to do so by Engler.

65. Engler found the concerns of Shapiro-Palanker, who had less teaching experience

than he did, disappointing. He did not agree with her assessment, which was ignorant or dismissive

of best practices for the International Baccalaureate program. Following the discussion, Engler

returned to his classroom and taught his classes for the rest of the school day.

Engler Meets with Mooney

66. On February 9, 2023, after the school day was over, Engler was called to Mooney’s

office around 2:45 p.m.

67. When he arrived at Mooney’s office, Mooney and Adamson were present. Mooney

said that Engler was being placed on paid administrative leave for one day, February 10, 2023,

pending an investigation of the complaint by the two students. Mooney required Engler to sign a

letter regarding the administrative leave.

68. Mooney told Engler that he had not yet looked into the matter involving the two

students and needed time to investigate what had happened.

69. Engler strongly denied that he had made the statement claimed by the two students

but Mooney did not ask any questions or give Engler the opportunity to discuss the matter further.

70. Mooney made clear that Engler was not being put on administrative leave for

10
disciplinary reasons.

71. Mooney provided Engler with a telephone number of a person at MCPS’s Central

Office who would be involved in the investigation, which Mooney said had not yet begun.

72. After Engler left Mooney’s office, he called the telephone number provided by

Mooney and spoke with Michaele O. Simmons of MCPS’s Department of Compliance and

Investigations that afternoon. Engler shared that he had responsibilities regarding communication

with the Crew's board and athletes specifically restricted by the letter Mooney had him sign and

that he therefore needed some direction. Simmons said that she would get back to Engler later that

afternoon or in the morning. However, Engler did not receive any further communication from

Simmons, despite calling her again the afternoon of Friday, February 10, 2023 and leaving a

message. In fact, no one returned Engler’s call to Simmons.

Mooney’s Defamatory Email

73. Despite having told Engler after the school day had ended on February 9 that he

needed more time to investigate the allegations of the two female students, the very next morning,

on February 10, 2023, at approximately 9:00 a.m., Mooney sent an email to the entire B-CC

community of parents, teachers, and students, in which he knowingly and recklessly made false

and defamatory statements about Engler. A true and correct copy of Mooney’s email (“Email”) is

attached as Exhibit 1.

74. The subject of Mooney’s Email was “B-CC Community Message – Hate Bias

Incident.”

75. Mooney began the Email by saying, “I am saddened to once again be writing to

share information regarding a serious incident that occurred at B-CC and how it was addressed.”

76. Mooney then falsely stated in his Email: “Students reported to school

11
administration that a teacher said to several African American students that he was ‘unable to

distinguish them from other African American students’ in the classroom.”

77. When he referred to “a teacher” in his Email, Mooney was referring to Engler.

78. Engler never made that statement to the two students in question (or anyone else),

and did not express that sentiment to the students in any way.

79. Mooney made this false statement knowing that it was false or with reckless

disregard for whether it was true or false.

80. First, Mooney knew that the incident in question involved two students, not

“several,” which is normally defined as more than two.

81. Mooney also knew that the quote attributed to Engler in his Email was different

than what the two students had claimed Engler had said.

82. On information and belief, the alleged statement that Mooney put in quotation

marks was different than the alleged statement that school administrators had told Mooney the two

students had claimed Engler had said and different than the alleged statement that Mooney had

previously told others had been said.

83. On information and belief, Mooney had not even spoken with the two students

before he sent the Email.

84. On information and belief, Adamson did not believe the statement quoted in

Mooney’s Email accurately reflected what the two students had told her and did not accurately

reflect what Engler may have said.

85. Further, Mooney knew at the time that he sent the Email that Engler, during his

conversation with Adamson and Shapiro-Palanker, had vehemently denied making such a

statement, or expressing any such sentiment toward the students.

12
 86. In addition, on information and belief, at the time Mooney sent the Email, neither

he nor other members of MCPS had conducted—much less completed—an investigation into what

had happened.

87. Indeed, Mooney admits in the Email that “[w]e are investigating this incident to

fully understand all the facts” (emphasis added), acknowledging that the investigation was not

completed at the time that he sent the Email, and that he did not fully understand the facts, leading

to his widespread dissemination of false information to the community.

88. Mooney sent the Email prior to completing his investigation and ascertaining the

facts even though there was nothing particularly urgent or time-sensitive that required Mooney to

send the Email when he did, much less to the entire community. No one alleged any risk or threat

of imminent harm or violence that needed immediate action.

89. Mooney also stated in the Email that “the Montgomery County Police Department

has been notified,” implying that something criminal had occurred.

90. Mooney then stated in his Email that “discrimination of any kind must not be

tolerated,” falsely implying that discrimination had occurred.

91. Moreover, there was nothing remotely discriminatory about what Engler had said

to the students or his actions. Indeed, the two students had not even alleged that they had been

discriminated against.

92. Mooney said in the Email that he would “like to commend the students who came

forward to share this information,” despite the fact that the students had misrepresented what had

occurred, had been disrespectful toward Engler, and had been disruptive in refusing to comply

with his request that they sit in their assigned seats.

93. In fact, the only inappropriate behavior that had occurred during the class in

13
question came from these two students, not Engler.

94. In light of the circumstances, Mooney had strong reason to question the reliability

of the student’s allegations given their antipathy toward Engler and desire not to be in his class.

95. On information and belief, Mooney sent the highly defamatory Email about Engler

in part because Mooney did not like Engler and was looking for a way to get him removed as a

teacher at B-CC.

96. Mooney had a history of personal dislike and animosity toward Engler, and had

taken steps over the years to interfere with the success of Engler’s teaching and coaching career.

97. On information and belief, Mooney was jealous of Engler’s success as a teacher

and Head Coach of the B-CC Rowing Team, particularly when compared with Mooney’s lack of

accomplishments, repeated failures, and embarrassing performance as B-CC’s Principal.

98. On information and belief, Mooney also sent the Email to try to make up for his

failure to notify the community about previous, more serious events that had occurred at B-CC

earlier in the academic year, and the understandable widespread criticism he had received for his

repeated communication failures.

99. Ironically, Mooney and other B-CC administrators had just undergone training in

MCPS policies and procedures on handling hate-bias incidents when Mooney proceeded to violate

those policies and procedures by sending the Email.

100. Engler, who was on paid administrative leave that day, was taken aback upon seeing

Mooney’s community-wide Email.

101. He was upset and distraught, and could not understand why Mooney would have

sent such a false and defamatory Email about him to the community, particularly when Mooney

had admitted to Engler only hours earlier that he had not even looked into the matter.

14
 102. Although the Email did not mention Engler by name, Engler was readily

identifiable as the teacher referenced in the Email, as evidenced by the immediate reaction by the

community.

103. Recipients of the Email reasonably knew that Mooney was referring to Engler in

the Email.

104. This is clear from the reaction Engler received from people he knew, including

parents, students, and other teachers.

105. Word quickly spread in the B-CC community of teachers, students, and parents, as

well as among the students on the Rowing Team and their parents that the teacher to whom

Mooney was referring was Engler.

106. At approximately 12:45 p.m. on February 10, 2023, Engler received an email from

the managing editor of the B-CC school newspaper, stating that Engler had been identified as the

subject of Mooney’s Email and asking whether Engler would be willing to answer some questions.

107. Engler also received calls from B-CC colleagues who contacted Engler to see how

he was doing in light of Mooney’s Email, indicating that they and others had identified Engler as

the subject of Mooney’s Email.

108. The letter Mooney made Engler sign in his office on February 9, 2023 required

Engler to be absent from the Rowing Team practice on February 9 and 10, 2023 without any

explanation, which was out of character for Engler who always notified his athletes personally

whenever he needed to miss a practice, which happened on only rare occasions.

109. On information and belief, students on the Rowing Team, upon receiving Mooney’s

Email and in light of Engler’s unusual absence, concluded that the teacher referenced in the Email

had to be Engler.

15
 110. In sending his Email, Mooney violated MCPS policies and procedures as well as

his prior practice of not sending such community-wide communications while investigations were

ongoing, as had been the case in far more egregious and substantiated situations that had occurred

earlier in the academic year.

111. In particular, Mooney’s Email violated MCPS’s Hate-Bias Incident Procedures,

policies, protocols, and practices, which provided that contact to the community occur within 24

hours of completing an investigation.

112. However, on information and belief, at the time of Mooney’s Email, he had not

even begun his investigation, much less completed it. Indeed, his Email admitted that they were

still investigating the matter to understand the facts.

113. On information and belief, Mooney also failed to consult with MCPS’s Central

Support Team before sending his Email, as required by MCPS’s Hate-Bias Incident Reporting

Procedures.

114. On information and belief, Mooney also violated MCPS Hate-Bias Incident

Reporting Procedures by failing to involve the MCPS Behavioral Threat Assessment Team, Office

of Student Safety and Well-Being, Office of Student Welfare and Compliance, Central Support

Team, Department of Compliance and Investigations, PTSA, Equity Unit, and Office of Student

and Family Support and Engagement, as part of the response to what was alleged to have been a

“hate-bias incident.” Given the brief time between Mooney’s meeting with Engler on February 9

at 3 p.m. and the sending of his email at 9:00 a.m. the following morning, it would have been

impossible for Mooney to have met and conferred with all of those required participants under

MCPS policies and procedures.

16
 Mooney’s History of Communication Errors

115. During the 2022-23 academic year, Mooney mishandled communication to the

community on at least five occasions, demonstrating his recklessness and incompetence as an

MCPS Principal.

116. For example, in the fall of 2022, after raising concerns to B-CC administrators

about thefts in the girls’ locker room, and, apparently, after not feeling satisfied by the action the

administration was taking to stop these thefts, a white physical education teacher posted the school

photo of a black student the teacher believed to be the person behind the thefts. The photo

contained the words “locker room thief” beneath it. Despite the teacher’s inappropriate act that

could have been seen to have been racially motivated and biased with hateful implications,

Mooney did not send any message to the community about this “hate-bias incident.”

117. In December 2022, a B-CC chemistry teacher singled out certain students in his

class, asking them whether they were Jewish and, in so doing, making them very uncomfortable.

The teacher then discussed a documentary he had seen suggesting that Hitler was right in his

actions and had “acted for the common good.” The teacher also said that before Hitler’s rise, the

Jews were in charge of the German economy, attempting to excuse Hitler’s actions against Jews.

Students in the class recorded the teacher’s comments.

118. The teacher’s documented actions in discussing a topic far outside his subject area,

and communicating an anti-Semitic and harmful sentiment constituted a “hate-bias incident.”

119. Nevertheless, despite multiple reports from offended students and video evidence

of the teacher making his despicable, hateful, and anti-Semitic comments, Mooney never saw fit

to send a community-wide email about this “hate-bias incident.”

120. On information and belief, Mooney failed to send a public communication about

17
this issue, in part, because there had been a string of anti-Semitic incidents at B-CC during his

tenure as Principal and for which he and his administration had drawn community-wide criticism.

121. On information and belief, Mooney had also failed to act on an incident involving

a swastika that was found on a table in the B-CC auditorium, and failed to properly communicate

the matter to the community.

122. On information and belief, Mooney sought to sweep the incident involving the

chemistry teacher “under the rug” by failing to follow MCPS policies and procedures, failing to

notify the community of this serious hate-bias incident involving this teacher, failing to commend

the student victims for coming forward, failing to denounce the chemistry teacher’s anti-Semitism

and singling out of Jewish students in his class, and failing to take disciplinary action against the

chemistry teacher for his anti-Semitic attacks on students.

123. On information and belief, Mooney went so far as to blame the Jewish students—

i.e., the victims of the chemistry teacher’s anti-Semitism—for what had happened, and to defend

the teacher’s “hate-bias” and anti-Semitism as “cultural differences” despite the hate-bias nature

of the attacks and the detrimental impact on B-CC students.

124. On another occasion in early 2023, two female students were found unconscious

on a B-CC bathroom floor during the school day, appearing to be under the influence of alcohol.

125. In response, Mooney instituted a school-wide lockdown in which students were

told to remain in their classrooms until further notice, without explanation as to the nature of the

emergency and whether it involved an active school shooter or some other imminent danger, as

opposed to an isolated student medical emergency that did not endanger other students, faculty, or

staff.

126. Ultimately, the first actual reporting of what had happened came from the B-CC

18
student newspaper, not Mooney or other school administrators.

127. According to press accounts, members of the B-CC community were outraged by

Mooney’s mishandling of this episode and failure to timely communicate the reason for the

lockdown to those in the building and parents, who had heard from their children about the

lockdown and were terrified, assuming the worst.

128. Toward the end of the 2022-23 academic year, Mooney yet again mishandled a

community-wide communication by falsely claiming that a B-CC student had been seen on social

media (and away from school) engaging in “hateful anti-Semitic behavior.”

129. On information and belief, Mooney’s false and defamatory statements about the

student have devastated the student and his family and Mooney has yet to contact the student or

family to apologize, much less issue a retraction for once again spreading inflammatory false

accusations community-wide.

130. On information and belief, Mooney never investigated that incident, never

communicated with the student or his family, and failed to follow MCPS policies and procedures

before sending his community-wide, defamatory email.

131. On information and belief, Mooney has yet to be called to account for his repeated

failures with respect to community-wide communications and remains in his position as B-CC

Principal despite his poor judgment, poor performance, lack of common sense, and recklessness.

132. Mooney has been criticized in the community for his actions as Principal and he

and his administration have been negatively portrayed by B-CC’s student newspaper.

133. As a result, and in retaliation for the newspaper’s critical coverage of Mooney’s

mishandling of numerous issues over the past academic year, on or about June 1, 2023, Mooney

relieved the newspaper’s faculty advisor of her position.

19
 Aftermath of Mooney’s Defamatory Email

134. Several hours after Mooney’s February 10 Email was sent, Engler received an email

from Shapiro-Palanker instructing him to return to work on Monday, February 13, 2023, for a

meeting in Mooney’s office before the school day began. At no time, however, was Engler notified

that he should bring union representation to the meeting.

135. Engler was provided no further explanation of the administrative leave, the

administration’s plan for addressing the allegations of the two students, or how to reestablish trust

in the classroom in light of Mooney’s false and defamatory Email and the damage Mooney had

caused to Engler’s reputation and well-being.

136. On February 13, 2023, when Engler arrived at Mooney’s office for their meeting,

Mooney informed Engler—who Mooney had just accused to the entire community of

“unacceptable and harmful behavior” “not in alignment with” school values—that his

administrative leave was over, that he was reinstated to his teaching position, and that he should

go to his classroom to teach first period, without any further discussion or direction. There was no

discussion of the complaint by the two students or any investigation.

137. In fact, Mooney refused to discuss the matter and told Engler that a disciplinary

meeting would be held on Wednesday, February 15, 2023.

138. Mooney had a history of lying to Engler (and others) and therefore Engler did not

trust Mooney to be objective and fair in the handling of this matter.

139. Ultimately, no disciplinary meeting was held on February 15, 2023, or at any other

time with Engler.

“Restorative Justice” Circle Excludes Engler

140. Engler was escorted to his classroom from the meeting in Mooney’s office by

20
Shapiro-Palanker. Upon returning to his classroom, Engler discovered that, while he was in

Mooney’s office, an MCPS central office restorative justice facilitator and a B-CC staff support

specialist had convened without him a “restorative justice” circle with the students in his class

regarding the alleged incident from February 8, 2023 as well as the tone, scope, and style of

Engler’s teaching of the health class.

141. Promoters of “restorative justice” circles say they are designed to help repair harm

by providing an opportunity for those harmed and those alleged to have been responsible for the

harm to communicate about and address their needs in the aftermath.

142. It was unclear why the administrators had initiated the process before Engler had

arrived.

143. Indeed, when Engler arrived, the MCPS official leading the “restorative justice”

circle asked Engler to sit out until the circle was concluded.

144. B-CC and MCPS administrators’ failure to include Engler in any Responsive,

Restorative, or Preventative measures or actions represented another violation of MCPS’s Hate-

Bias Incident Reporting Procedures.

145. Engler was upset that the “restorative justice” circle had commenced without him,

and felt betrayed by the administration, humiliated, uncomfortable, and unsafe.

146. Engler taught the remainder of his first period class and then his second period

class.

147. During third and fourth periods, which were his planning periods, Engler felt

increasingly anxious and uncomfortable by what had transpired.

148. Engler notified Shapiro-Palanker and Mooney of his feelings and that he needed to

leave school, which he did.

21
 149. On February 14, 2023, Engler informed B-CC that he was taking a sick day.

150. Due to the impact Mooney’s Email was having on Engler and his overall well-

being, Engler went on disability leave, and did not teach again for the rest of the academic year.

Crew Reacts to Mooney’s Email

151. Prior to Mooney’s February 10 Email, Engler had been coaching rowing teams for

27 years. He had been coaching the B-CC Crew for the past 16 years.

152. Due to his tenure and effectiveness as the Head Coach of the B-CC Crew, which

operated independently from B-CC and MCPS, Engler received significant compensation from the

team’s governing organization beyond what he received as an MCPS teacher.

153. Engler derived great pleasure and satisfaction as the Head Coach of the B-CC

Rowing Team, the successes the team had achieved during his coaching tenure, and the positive

impact he had had on many of the student participants.

154. During Engler’s tenure as Head Coach, the B-CC Rowing Team became one of the

best scholastic rowing programs in the State and, arguably, the country.

155. Many of the student athletes that Engler had coached on the B-CC Crew had told

him that he had been a “central role model” in their lives and that he had had an “out-sized and

positive impact” on their personal growth and development.

156. Engler had also been instrumental in helping members of his team get recruited to

elite colleges and universities, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Williams, Oxford,

Cambridge, Brown, Cornell, Columbia, and the University of Pennsylvania, among others.

157. However, as a result of Mooney’s false and defamatory Email, the impact it was

having in the community, and the stigma it was creating for team members in associating with

Engler, Engler was relieved of his coaching position shortly after Mooney’s Email was sent.

22
 Case Closed on Alleged “Hate Bias Incident”

158. Despite Mooney’s statement to Engler that there would be an investigative meeting

on February 15, 2023 with Engler, no such meeting occurred.

159. In fact, Engler never heard anything further from anyone at B-CC or MCPS

regarding the investigation of the events of February 8, 2023.

160. No further action was taken against Engler regarding what the two students had

alleged about his statements during the class on February 8, 2023.

161. At no time did an MCPS investigator contact Engler about the alleged incident on

February 8, 2023.

162. On information and belief, B-CC and MCPS have closed the investigation

regarding the events of February 8, 2023, and have decided not to pursue the matter further.

163. Despite the numerous false and defamatory statements in Mooney’s Email,

Mooney has never issued a retraction, correction, or follow-up communication to the community

regarding the events of February 8, 2023.

Demand for Retraction

164. On February 21, 2023, undersigned counsel for Engler sent a letter to Mooney

demanding a retraction of the false and defamatory statements about Engler in his Email. A true

and correct copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit 2.

165. The letter informed Mooney that the false and defamatory statements that he had

recklessly and irresponsibly disseminated about Engler to the B-CC community had caused lasting

damage to Engler’s reputation and well-being.

166. Among other things, the letter demanded that Mooney issue an immediate public

retraction and apology to Engler to mitigate any further harm to Engler’s reputation and well-

23
being.

167. Included with the letter was a Proposed Retraction for Mooney to send.

168. Mooney never responded to the Demand for Retraction letter, never sent a

retraction or apology or follow-up communication to the B-CC community, and never apologized

to Engler for his false and defamatory Email.

169. On information and belief, Mooney did not send the retraction or apology because

his goal in sending the Email was to destroy Engler’s reputation and to prevent him from teaching

at B-CC any further, out of malice toward and a personal dislike of Engler.

170. Mooney’s refusal to send a retraction or correction is evidence of his malice toward

Engler and intention to cause harm to Engler through the false and defamatory Email.

Administrative Proceedings

171. On February 22, 2023, Engler filed an employee grievance with the MCPS Office

of Employee Engagement and Labor Relations, alleging lack of due process and improper

discipline, among other concerns.

172. Engler was informed that the “appropriate process” under the circumstances was to

file an administrative complaint.

173. On February 24, 2023, Engler filed an administrative complaint by email to

Mooney.

174. In response, an MCPS representative rejected Engler’s administrative complaint,

stating that the complaints contained in the submission were properly addressed through the

grievance process. MCPS also refused to issue a “register number” for Engler’s administrative

complaint.

175. On April 13, 2023, Engler renewed his administrative complaint to MCPS’s Carrie

24
Booth, who is the Coordinator for Labor Relations and, once again, requested the issuance of a

“register number.” The renewed administrative complaint specifically addressed Defendants’

failure to follow the Hate-Bias Incident Reporting Procedures and the harm suffered by Engler as

a result.

176. By email dated April 19, 2023, Booth responded, informing Engler’s attorneys that

MCPS did not have a Director of Labor Relations at the time, and that Engler’s request had been

forwarded to Dana Edwards, Chief of Districtwide Operations, and Don Kopp, Lead Negotiator,

who would respond to the request.

177. Engler and his attorneys never received a response or further communication from

Booth, Edwards, Kopp, or anyone else.

178. Having exhausted all administrative and/or grievance complaint procedures, and

after having provided the Board with proper notice of his intent to file a civil action, Engler

initiated this action to remedy the harm caused by Defendants’ tortious and unlawful conduct.

COUNT I

As to Defendants Board and Mooney—Defamation

179. Engler repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1

through 178 as if set forth in this Count.

180. Mooney, in his official capacity as B-CC Principal and at all times acting as an

agent or representative of the Board, published false and defamatory statements about Engler to

the B-CC community of parents, students, teachers, and others through his Email on February 10,

2023.

181. Because Mooney was acting in his official capacity as B-CC Principal and at all

times as an agent or representative of the Board, the Board is legally responsible for actions of

25
Mooney and other MCPS employees in the handling of this matter.

182. Although Mooney did not mention Engler by name, Mooney was referring to

alleged actions by Engler when he falsely accused “a teacher” of making a particular statement.

183. Members of the community recognized that Mooney was referring to Engler and

Engler was readily identifiable as the subject of Mooney’s false and defamatory statements.

184. In fact, not long after the Email was sent, Engler received an email from the

managing editor of the B-CC school newspaper, stating that Engler had been identified as the

subject of Mooney’s Email and asking whether Engler would be willing to answer some questions.

185. Among other things, Mooney falsely stated or implied that Engler had been

involved in a “Hate Bias Incident,” that he had “said to several African American students that he

was ‘unable to distinguish them from other African American students’ in the classroom,” that he

had engaged in “unacceptable and harmful behavior not in alignment with our school or

districtwide values of respect and inclusivity,” and that he had engaged in “discrimination” and/or

“insensitivity, disrespect, bias, verbal abuse, harassment, [and/or] bullying.”

186. In fact, Engler did not make the statement that Mooney attributed to him in the

Email and did not do anything that could reasonably be classified as a “Hate Bias Incident,”

“unacceptable and harmful behavior not in alignment with our school or districtwide values of

respect and inclusivity,” “discrimination,” and/or “insensitivity, disrespect, bias, verbal abuse,

harassment, [and/or] bullying.”

187. Mooney’s false statements about Engler were defamatory because they had the

tendency to lower Engler’s standing in the community and/or deter third parties from associating

with him.

188. Mooney’s false statements were defamatory per se because they related to Engler’s

26
trade, business, or profession, as well as because the words used imputed their defamatory

character.

189. Mooney published the false and defamatory statements about Engler with actual

malice—that is, with knowledge of their falsity and/or with reckless disregard as to their truth or

falsity.

190. Among other things, Mooney knew at the time that he sent the Email that Engler

had strongly denied making the statement, that Adamson did not believe that Engler had made the

statement alleged in the Email, and that the quoted statement in the Email was different from what

Mooney, prior to sending the Email, had told others that Engler had said.

191. On information and belief, prior to sending the Email, Mooney knew that MCPS’s

Hate-Bias Incident Reporting Procedures required that an investigation into the allegations be

completed before sending a community-wide email such as the Email and he knew that the

investigation into the February 8, 2023 incident had not been completed, as he acknowledges in

the Email.

192. Mooney was, at a minimum, grossly negligent because of his intention to cause

harm to Engler or because he acted with complete indifference to the possibility that harm might

occur from the sending of his Email.

193. Indeed, Mooney was more than grossly negligent as he acted knowingly and/or

with reckless disregard when he sent the false and defamatory Email about Engler that he knew

contained false information and violated MCPS policies and procedures on which he had just been

trained.

194. In the alternative, Mooney was negligent in sending the Email by failing to exercise

the requisite standard of care to determine whether the statement quoted was actually said before

27
sending the community-wide Email.

195. Mooney’s Email caused substantial harm to Engler’s reputation, livelihood, mental

and emotional state, and overall well-being.

196. Among other things, Mooney’s Email has made it impossible for Engler to continue

as a teacher at B-CC. Mooney’s Email also caused Engler to lose his position as Head Coach of

the B-CC Rowing Team.

197. Mooney’s Email has caused Engler deep emotional distress, mental anguish, and

anxiety.

198. Mooney sent his Email with gross negligence, actual malice (i.e., with knowledge

of falsity and/or reckless disregard of truth or falsity), and common-law malice toward Engler and

evil motive, as well as out of a desire to hurt Engler due to personal animosity and antipathy that

Mooney has toward Engler.

199. Thus, in addition to acting in his official capacity, Mooney also acted in his personal

or individual capacity in maliciously defaming Engler.

200. Mooney’s refusal to send a retraction, clarification, or correction to the community

given the known false statements and errors in the Email is further evidence of Mooney’s actual

and common-law malice.

COUNT II

As to Defendants Board and Mooney—False Light

201. Engler repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1

through 200 as if set forth in this Count.

202. By publishing the false and defamatory statements about Engler in the Email,

Mooney gave publicity to matters concerning Engler that placed Engler in a false light before a

28
large number of recipients, including students, parents, teachers, and other members of the B-CC

community.

203. Mooney did this in his capacity as B-CC Principal and as an agent and

representative of the Board.

204. Mooney’s actions in placing Engler in a false light would be highly offensive to a

reasonable person.

205. At the time that he sent the Email, Mooney knew that the statements about Engler

in the Email were false and/or Mooney acted with reckless disregard as to the statements’ truth or

falsity and the false light in which he had placed Engler.

206. As a result of Mooney’s actions, Engler has suffered damages, including injury to

his reputation, emotional distress, mental anguish, financial loss, and harm to his overall well-

being.

207. The Board is legally responsible for Mooney’s placing Engler in a false light

because Mooney acted in his capacity as B-CC Principal and as an agent and representative of the

Board.

208. The allegations set forth in Mooney’s Email to the community continue to be

unsubstantiated because no disciplinary action or warning has been issued to Engler. Further,

several hours after Mooney’s defamatory Email was sent to the community, Engler received an

email from Shapiro-Palanker instructing him to return to work on Monday, February 13, 2023.

209. Mooney sent his Email with gross negligence, actual malice (i.e., with knowledge

of falsity and/or reckless disregard of truth or falsity), and common-law malice toward Engler and

evil motive, as well as out of a desire to hurt Engler due to personal animosity and antipathy that

Mooney has toward Engler.

29
 210. Thus, in addition to acting in his official capacity, Mooney also acted in his personal

or individual capacity in maliciously defaming Engler.

211. Mooney’s refusal to send a retraction, clarification, or correction to the community

given the known false statements and errors in the Email is further evidence of Mooney’s actual

and common-law malice.

COUNT III

As to Defendant Board—Breach of Contract

212. Engler repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1

through 211 as if set forth in this Count.

213. The Hate Bias Incident Reporting Procedures constitute a contract between the

Board and Engler.

214. The Hate Bias Incident Reporting Procedures were founded on the principles of

Board Policy ACA, Nondiscrimination, Equity, and Cultural Proficiency, and are incorporated into

the Employee Code of Conduct.

215. Among other things, these policies and procedures require that an investigation be

completed before a communication is sent to the community concerning an alleged incident.

216. Mooney, as an agent of the Board, violated the Board’s policies and procedures by

sending the Email before the investigation had been completed, as he acknowledges in the Email.

217. Mooney also violated MCPS policies and procedures by failing to consult with the

MCPS Central Support Team before sending the Email.

218. Defendants also violated MCPS policies and procedures by failing to include

Engler in any Responsive, Restorative, or Preventative measures or actions.

219. Defendants also violated MCPS policies and procedures by failing to include

30
specified MCPS offices and the PTSA in the process of investigating and responding to the

February 8, 2023 incident and before sending the Email.

220. The Administrative Complaint Regulation, GKA-RA and associated complaint

form, also constitutes a contract between the Board and Engler and is referenced in the Employee

Code of Conduct.

221. The Board violated the Administrative Complaint Regulation, GKA-RA when it

failed to respond to Engler’s administrative complaint.

222. The Hate-Bias Incident Reporting Procedures and Administrative Complaint

Regulation, GKA-RA have become part of the Employee Code of Conduct either by express

agreement, oral or written, or as a result of an employee’s legitimate expectations grounded in his

employer’s policy statements.

223. Engler detrimentally relied on the Employee Code of Conduct when he continued

to work for the Board.

224. As a result of Defendants’ numerous violations of their own written policies and

procedures, Engler has suffered serious damage to his reputation, livelihood, and well-being.

Count IV
As to Defendants Board and Mooney—Declaratory Judgment
225. Engler repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1

through 224 as if set forth in this Count.

226. There exists an actual controversy of a justiciable issue between Engler and

Defendants regarding the interpretation of MCPS’s Hate-Bias Incident Reporting Procedures.

227. Defendants failed to follow the Hate-Bias Incident Reporting Procedures when

Mooney, as an agent of the Board, failed to conduct an investigation prior to sending the

31
defamatory Email to the community.

228. In so doing, Defendants violated MCPS’s Hate-Bias Incident Reporting

Procedures, policies, protocols, and practices in sending the Email and in their handling of this

matter.

Prayer for Relief

For these reasons, Engler demands judgment against Defendant Board and Defendant

Mooney, in both his official and personal capacities, jointly and severally, in an amount to be

determined by a jury at trial and requests that this Court order the following relief:

1. Compensatory damages for Engler in excess of $75,000;

2. Punitive damages for Engler in excess of $75,000;

3. A declaration that Defendants’ sending of the Email before completing their

investigation violated MCPS Hate-Bias Incident Reporting Procedures,

policies, protocols, and practices concerning hate-bias incidents;

4. A declaration that Defendants’ failure to consult with the MCPS Central

Support Team, violated MCPS policies and procedures;

5. A declaration that failing to include Engler in any Responsive, Restorative,

or Preventative measures or actions, violated MCPS policies and

procedures;

6. A declaration that Defendants violated MCPS policies and procedures by

failing to include specified MCPS offices and the PTSA in the process of

investigating and responding to the February 8, 2023 allegations and before

sending the Email;

7. A declaration that the Board violated MCPS policies and procedures when

32
 it failed to respond to Engler’s administrative complaint as provided for in

Administrative Complaint Regulation, GKA-RA; and

8. Payment of interest, costs, and other expenses, and such other relief as may

be appropriate under the circumstances.

August 21, 2023

Respectfully submitted,

/s/David S. Wachen
Seema Morse David S. Wachen
(CPF No. 0512130203) (CPF No. 0612200008)
LAW OFFICE OF SEEMA MORSE, LLC WACHEN LLC
PO Box 42 11605 Montague Court
Olney, MD 20830 Potomac, MD 20854
(202) 489-4239 (240) 292-9121
smorse@smorselaw.com Fax (301) 259-3846
david@wachenlaw.com
Kathlynne Ramirez
(CPF No. 0412150201)
KATHLYNNE RAMIREZ, ESQ., LLC
31 Walker Avenue
Gaithersburg, MD 20877
(240) 372-1832
Fax (301) 216-0616
kramirezlaw@gmail.com)

Counsel for Plaintiff Dan Engler

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

/s/David S. Wachen
David S. Wachen

33
 E-FILED; Montgomery Circuit Court
Docket: 8/21/2023 11:44 AM; Submission: 8/21/2023 11:44 AM
Envelope: 13685803

EXHIBIT 1
From: Do_Not_Reply <Do_Not_Reply@mcpsmd.org>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 9:00 AM
To: Engler, Daniel <Daniel_Engler@mcpsmd.org>
Subject: B-CC Community Message - Hate Bias Incident

Dear Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School Families,

I am saddened to once again be writing to share information regarding a serious incident that occurred at B-CC and how
it was addressed.

Students reported to school administration that a teacher said to several African American students that he was “unable
to distinguish them from other African American students” in the classroom. This is unacceptable and harmful behavior
not in alignment with our school or districtwide values of respect and inclusivity. We are investigating this incident to
fully understand all the facts and we are doing this with the support of the MCPS Office of School Support and Well-
Being and Department of Student Engagement Behavioral Health and Academics. In addition, the Montgomery County
Police Department has been notified. Our students and staff are cooperating fully with this investigation.

Let me be clear, discrimination of any kind must not be tolerated. This is clear in Board of Education policy and MCPS
regulation. From policy ACA Nondiscrimination, Equity, and Cultural Proficiency “The Board of Education will not
condone acts of insensitivity, disrespect, bias, verbal abuse, harassment, bullying, physical violence, or illegal
discrimination toward any person.”

I would also like to commend the students who came forward to share this information. I am committed to ensuring
that B-CC is a place where all students have a sense of belonging and providing a safe learning environment for all our
students and staff. HERE is a link for parents of suggested tools and strategies to talk with children about important
societal issues. Please do not hesitate to share anything you believe may be a concern to our school community.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the school at 240-740-0400.

Sincerely,

Shelton Mooney, Ed.D.

1
Principal

Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School

You are receiving this email because of your relationship with Bethesda-Chevy Chase High. If you wish to stop receiving email updates sent through the
Blackboard service, please unsubscribe.
Bethesda-Chevy Chase High | 4301 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814-4420 | 240-740-0400

2
 E-FILED; Montgomery Circuit Court
Docket: 8/21/2023 11:44 AM; Submission: 8/21/2023 11:44 AM
Envelope: 13685803

EXHIBIT 2
 11605 Montague Court, Potomac, MD 20854 | wachenlaw.com

David S. Wachen
Attorney at Law

(o) (240) 292-9121

(m) (202) 262-3933
(f) (301) 259-3846
david@wachenlaw.com

February 21, 2023

BY EMAIL & FEDEX

Shelton L. Mooney, Ed.D.
(shelton_mooney@mcpsmd.org)
Principal
Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School
4301 East-West Highway
Bethesda, MD 20814

Re: Demand for Retraction

Dear Dr. Mooney:

We represent Daniel Engler with respect to false and defamatory statements that you
recklessly and irresponsibly disseminated about him to the entire Bethesda-Chevy Chase High
School (“B-CC”) community, causing lasting damage to Mr. Engler’s reputation and well-being.
Please direct all future communications about this matter to me as well as co-counsel Seema
Morse, Esq. and Kathlynne Ramirez, Esq. copied below.

Mr. Engler demands an immediate public retraction and apology to mitigate any further
harm to his reputation and well-being.

The statements in question appeared in your email on February 10, 2023 to “Bethesda-
Chevy Chase High School Families.” The email refers to “a serious incident that occurred” and
“how it was addressed.” According to your email, the supposed “incident” involved a teacher who
“said to several African American students that he was ‘unable to distinguish them from other
African American students’ in the classroom.” According to your email, these allegations came
from students. The email, which called the matter “serious” so as to be worthy of notifying local
police, said it involved “unacceptable and harmful” behavior, including “discrimination” by the
teacher in question that created an unsafe learning environment.
 Shelton L. Mooney, Ed.D.
February 21, 2023
Page 2

Despite what you labeled a “Hate-Bias Incident,” you admitted in your email that you had
sent out this accusatory email without having even conducted an investigation to “fully understand
all the facts.”

Prior to sending the email, you spoke with the teacher in question, Mr. Engler, who strongly
denied the accusation and explained the circumstances of what had happened. Specifically, two
female students in his class had refused to sit in their assigned seats despite Mr. Engler’s repeated
requests. Mr. Engler told them that he uses a seating chart (as many teachers do) because he is a
spatial learner and it helps him to learn the names of students, which is important to him and
something students value. These two students, however, refused to accede to Mr. Engler’s request
and sat in seats reserved for other students, creating further disruption. There was nothing remotely
discriminatory about Mr. Engler’s actions or any discussion of any student’s race. In fact, the only
inappropriate behavior came from the two students, who refused to follow a teacher’s reasonable
instructions, disrupted the class, and acted disrespectfully, leaving aside the false charges they
leveled against Mr. Engler.

It is our understanding that, prior to the start of the term, these students had informed school
administrators that they did not want to be in Mr. Engler’s class (something Mr. Engler did not
know) because of an unrelated incident that did not involve them and that had occurred in one of
his classes the previous year. Thus, prior to sending the email, you had several reasons to question
the reliability of the students who had made these serious accusations against a teacher they did
not like and following a disruptive, in-class episode in which they refused to comply with his
reasonable request.

It is our understanding that, prior to sending the email and despite the inconsistent accounts
of the students and Mr. Engler, you had not even discussed the matter with other students in the
classroom who may have witnessed what had happened to determine whether what had been
reported had even occurred. In fact, you had informed Mr. Engler at the end of the school day on
February 9 that you had not even looked into the two students’ allegation.

Putting all of that aside, the allegation on its face should have evoked serious skepticism
from a reasonable high school administrator in this area. The quoted statement does not sound like
something a teacher at B-CC would say in front of a roomful of students and does not even make
sense. Moreover, it is our understanding that the quote in your email is inconsistent with what the
two students had originally reported and what you had told others in the community prior to
sending the email.

Finally, there was nothing especially urgent requiring you to immediately inform the entire
community of a highly charged allegation that had not been fully investigated, much less
corroborated. There was certainly no threat to public safety (your pointless call to the police
notwithstanding). It is our understanding that, in other recent episodes, including a documented
“Hate Bias Incident” against Jewish students by a chemistry teacher who made anti-Semitic
remarks, you did not send any public communication to the community.
 Shelton L. Mooney, Ed.D.
February 21, 2023
Page 3

Nevertheless, in a display of incredibly poor judgment, you cavalierly proceeded to destroy

the career of a decorated, well-liked MCPS teacher of 18 years by falsely accusing him of
discriminating against African-American students in a school with a significant black population.
Although your email does not mention Mr. Engler by name, he was readily identifiable in the
community, as evidenced by the reaction. Your, at-best, premature email caused needless concern
and panic about a “Hate Bias Incident” that never happened. In your email, you also commended
two insubordinate, disruptive students who made a false charge against a teacher they did not like
while duping you and a bunch of gullible administrators in the process.

Your subsequent actions confirm your own doubts about the alleged incident. Only hours
after you sent the email, Mr. Engler was told to return to his classroom the next school day despite
his allegedly “unacceptable and harmful behavior” that was “not in alignment with” school values.
When he returned the next morning, you told him to go to his classroom to teach, without any
further discussion or direction.

Your destructive actions have caused serious damage to Mr. Engler’s reputation in the B-
CC community, not only at school but also in connection with his role as the head coach of the
highly successful B-CC crew team. Your actions have also caused Mr. Engler serious emotional
distress and mental anguish, making it impossible for him to return to teaching in the near future.

There can be no doubt that falsely accusing a teacher of racial discrimination and attacking
him in his trade or profession is defamatory per se and actionable under Maryland law. Shapiro v.
Massengill, 105 Md. App. 743, 776, cert. denied, 341 Md. 28 (1995); Offen v. Brenner, 402 Md.
191, 198 (2007) (defamation consists of false and defamatory statement, made by defamer legally
at fault, that caused victim to suffer harm). In addition, a republisher of a defamatory statement
adopts the statement and is liable to the same degree as the original publisher. Woodruff v. Trepel,
125 Md. App. 381, 395, cert. denied, 354 Md. 332 (1999).

Mr. Engler intends to hold you legally responsible for the substantial harm you have
caused. He demands an immediate written retraction and apology, using mutually acceptable
language, to the B-CC community to mitigate the harm and attempt to repair some of the damage.
Attached is a draft of a proposed retraction, which should be sent this week. Given the real,
quantifiable harm that your destructive actions have already caused Mr. Engler, time is of the
essence. Moreover, your refusal to send a retraction will be used against you as evidence of malice,
among other things, in future legal proceedings.

In the meantime, and in anticipation of litigation, please preserve all evidence, including
documents and electronically stored information in your possession, custody, and control that are
relevant to Mr. Engler’s defamation claim against you. Such material includes, but is not limited
to, written communications, emails, voicemail messages, text messages, social media
communications, faxes, photographs, recordings, and notes, among other things, including those
that specifically mention or refer to the incident in question or that relate to your investigation and
communications with others about the matter. This preservation obligation under Maryland law
extends broadly, including to any information relevant to the issues at stake as well as information
 Shelton L. Mooney, Ed.D.
February 21, 2023
Page 4

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Failure to comply could
result in sanctions for spoliation of evidence in future legal proceedings.

Mr. Engler reserves all rights regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

David S. Wachen

Enclosure
cc: Seema Morse, Esq. (smorse@smorselaw.com)
Kathlynne Ramirez, Esq. (kramirezlaw@gmail.com)
 PROPOSED RETRACTION

Subject: My February 10 Email—Retraction and Apology

Dear Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School Families,

After further investigation, I write to inform you that the “Hate Bias Incident” described in
my February 10, 2023 did not occur. Thus, I retract the email and the accusations in it in their
entirety.

I wish to personally, sincerely, and deeply apologize to the teacher unfairly accused in my
email. Although many of you know who this teacher is, since he was not named in my email, I am
purposely omitting his name here to mitigate any further, undeserved harm to this teacher’s
reputation and standing in the community. This dedicated and well-liked teacher, who has a
lengthy, accomplished tenure in our school, has suffered greatly as a result of the unfounded
accusations leveled against him in my email. He did not deserve this treatment and I deeply regret
airing this matter publicly when I did.

I also wish to apologize to the community. In hindsight, I should have never sent the email
without first conducting a thorough investigation to determine whether the serious, racially
charged allegations were valid and could be substantiated. Instead, I hastily sent this email, causing
unnecessary alarm and upset in the community about an event that did not occur.

My precipitous action was inappropriate and an exercise of extremely poor judgment that
has had serious, lasting consequences for those involved, most notably the teacher who was
unfairly accused. For this, I am terribly sorry and will endeavor to do better in the future.

Sincerely,

Shelton Mooney, Ed.D.

Principal
Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School