Lead Poisoning in the Public Schools
The Indisputable Truths

     As I sincerely desire that my readers focus on the messages in this documentary instead of the messenger, I will limit the biography.  Consequently, I really just want my readers to know that I'm a saint who is saved by the ALMIGHTY GOD'S unmerited grace and mercy.  And, although I attempt, daily, to live my life in a manner that is well-pleasing to my HEAVENLY FATHER by yielding to the SPIRIT OF GOD'S prompting and guidance in walking in obedience, faith, and trust to the TRIUNE GOD, each day I fall short.  But, because of JESUS CHRIST'S unblemished shed blood on the cross at Calvary, because of HIS being ressurrected after spending three days and three nights in hell, and because of my SAVIOR'S ascension to the right hand of my HEAVENLY FATHER, I'm blessed as a believer in JESUS CHRIST to be in a covenant relationship with my HEAVENLY FATHER such that in the name of JESUS CHRIST, I can confess, repent, and ask my HEAVENLY FATHER to forgive me of my sins, transgressions, and iniquities.  Thus, no man-made alcolades will matter to me if, when my physical body leaves this earthly realm and my soul and spirit go to be in the presence of the ALMIGHTY GOD, I don't hear my HEAVENLY FATHER say "Well done my good and faithful servant". 

To inform my readers relevant to various critical truths in this documentary, I'd like to cite portions of the documentary that reveal excerts from the original Finder of Fact, from the judge from the circuit court in Baltimore City, from the federal OSHA investigators, and from the judge from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals germane to my whistleblowing.

The Original Finder of Facts asserts the following:

..." CEO must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the information contained in the two (2) communications was erroneous.  The Hearing Examiner finds that the CEO failed to carry his burden of proof.  In fact, based on the substantial documentation presented at the hearing, the Hearing Examiner finds that the information contained in the two (2) communications concerning SMS, FHHS and JMES was basically true. First, the Hearing Examiner finds that the Respondent [Ms. Williams] has received substantial training in the field of lead paint assessment and abatement and could validly consider herself an expert in the field.  See Respondent's Exhibits 8 & 9.  Secondly, with regards to the correspondence dated February 24, 1999, to parents SMS students regarding lead in the water, the Respondent present sufficient documentation to support the statements made in the correspondence.".....


The Regional Supervisor from the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) declares the following:


...."The Respondent [Baltimore Public Schools System] proffered no affirmative defense for the termination of the Complainant's [Ms. Williams']employment.  They failed to furnish any evidence to suggest that the Complainant's termination resulted from a lawful nondiscriminatory action.  While their potential defense can be inferred from their exceptions to the hearing examiner's recommendation, and information presented at the hearing, there is no evidence to support such a finding.  The Respondent upheld the complainant's employment termination against the hearing examiner's recommendation to the contrary.  Evidence to support their affirmative defense that they dismissed the Complainant for inappropriate conduct concerning unauthorized dissemination of information directly to the public and media was not furnished or presented to this agency concerning the discrimination complaint filing.  The Respondent failed to formally respond to the discrimination complaint, instead expressing their desire to present their defense directly to a federal administrative law judge.

e. The complaint meets all the requirements of a prima facie case for violations of the Whistle Blower provision of the Clean Air Act,...the Toxic Substance Control Act,...the Solid Waste Disposal Act,... and the Safe Drinking Water Act."....

The Judge from the Circuit Court in Baltimore City proclaims the following:

..."Under this record, the Court does not condone the actions of either MOSH or the Baltimore City Public Schools and, clearly, plaintiff (Ms. Williams) is upset and justifiably so.  She has undergone significant regrettable consequences in connection with this matter, but based on this Court's findings, the Court finds that as a matter of law because of a failing to file a timely claim under State Government Article Section 12-106B.1 that there is no claim upon which relief can be granted as a matter of law and, so,  for those reasons, the Court will grant the defendant's motion to dismiss and I'll pass an order accordingly pursuant to this Court's memorandum discussion that was discussed at the bench......Ms. Williams, I wish you good luck."...

The Honorable Judge from the Fourth Circuit of Appeals affirms the following:

..."Exposure to lead contamination in older, unrenovated school buildings poses a serious threat to thousands of unsuspecting children.  Diana Williams, a math teacher of eighteen years, recognized the danger of such exposure and was determined, in spite of her employer's unwillingness, to disclose this information to parents and teachers at her school.  In so doing, she ultimately paid the price of her job.  Ironically, the lesson taught by her dismissal, which this decision affirms, is that a teacher can care about her students, but not too much.

I strongly disagree with the majority's wholesale adoption of the findings made by the administrative law judge ("ALJ") in concluding that Williams's circulation of the letter dated February 24, 1999 ("February 24, 1999 Letter") was unprotected activity and that further, the Baltimore City Public School System ("School System") legitimately fired her for that action.  Based on the evidence in the record, Williams reasonably relied on the independently-obtained, EPA-certified laboratory report, which identified dangerously high levels of lead contained in one of the water fountains at Southeast Middle School ("Southeast").  The chronology of the events indicates that the School System did not adequately respond to Williams's complaints prior to the circulation of the February 24, 1999 Letter.  In addition, I find that the public interest in protecting children from imminent, hazardous risks in an educational environment outweighs a school's interest in maintaining an atmosphere of order and trust.  For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.


The majority's opinion relies on the ALJ'S findings of fact, which are, in my view, incomplete and inadequate when compared to the entire record.  Accordingly, I shall recite the following relevant facts in full."...