蜜桃影视

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 蜜桃影视 Newsletter

A former Fairfax County Public Schools student who accuses the Virginia district of ignoring allegations that she was repeatedly raped, tortured and threatened when she was in middle school is demanding to know how officials accidentally revealed her identity last month. 

In a federal court motion filed Nov. 14 that cited 蜜桃影视鈥檚 exclusive reporting, attorney Andrew Brenner described the disclosure as 鈥渁t best, careless,鈥� particularly after the former student won a legal battle against the district for her right to remain anonymous. Brenner asked the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to compel Fairfax to explain how her name ended up in documents released as part of a records request that had nothing to do with her case.

A hearing on the motion is set for Dec. 15.

Known as B.R., the woman is as well as the former students she alleges sexually assaulted her in 2011, with a trial set to begin in March. The motion asks for the names of all district employees involved in producing the materials that identified her as well as the district鈥檚 steps 鈥渢o collect, review, compile and transmit the documents鈥� prior to their release.

The district鈥檚 response to the motion could provide insight into how unredacted records on tens of thousands of students were released to a parent and special education advocate. The documents included sensitive, confidential information such as grades, disability status and mental health conditions.

Following 蜜桃影视鈥檚 report, the district apologized and launched an investigation. A firm with expertise in cybersecurity 鈥� 鈥� is handling the probe, but some parents with children named in the disclosure said so far, no one has contacted them. Superintendent Michelle Reid said in she will share a summary of the investigation once it鈥檚 complete.

Callie Oettinger, the parent who received the records, went to her local high school in mid-October to examine what she thought were records pertaining to her own two children. Her son, who received special education services in the district, has since graduated, and her daughter is still in high school. She copied computer files onto thumb drives as a paralegal observed and helped her identify some of the records. 

While most of the documents set aside for her review included her children鈥檚 names, they also revealed information on what she estimates were at least 35,000 other students. B.R.鈥檚 full name was listed in a document labeled 鈥渁ttorney work product鈥� and marked 鈥減rivileged and confidential,鈥� as well as in an email to board members about litigation to discuss in a 2020 closed meeting.

The records also identified another former student with a separate Title IX case against the district. In reached last year, the district agreed to always redact the student鈥檚 real name from any copy of the document and only use a pseudonym when referring to the case. Her attorneys did not respond to a request for comment.

The day after issuing its apology, the district sent Oettinger a strongly worded email demanding that she 鈥渞eturn all files removed, including any and all physical media used for unauthorized extraction of information from FCPS.鈥� The letter referred to the documents as 鈥渨rongfully retained information.鈥�

To her attorney, the language suggested Oettinger was at fault. 

鈥淪he’s done nothing illegal, and they have no legal right to compel her to do anything,鈥� said Timothy Sandefur, vice president for legal affairs at the Goldwater Institute, a Phoenix-based libertarian think tank. Oettinger posted redacted documents from the recent trove on she runs on special education issues. 鈥淚f they want assurance that she is not going to publish any kind of confidential information about kids, she absolutely will not publish confidential information about children. She has assured everybody of that already.鈥�

Oettinger sent the thumb drives to Sandefur, who has since communicated with attorneys conducting the district鈥檚 investigation. But he declined to provide an update on the district鈥檚 progress. The attorneys conducting the investigation also didn鈥檛 respond to requests for comment.

A need for 鈥榬obust action鈥�

Oettinger didn鈥檛 initially alert the district to the disclosure because, she said, it has failed to make improvements after previous privacy violations. In fact, on Oct. 19 鈥� the third and final day that Oettinger reviewed files in person 鈥� the Virginia Department of Education responded to one of her earlier complaints, finding the Fairfax district out of compliance with the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, or FERPA.

The decision only pertained to her son and was not a statement about the district鈥檚 overall privacy record.

Patricia Haymes, who directs the state agency鈥檚 Office of Dispute Resolution and Administrative Services, noted that officials have had 鈥渙ngoing concerns鈥� regarding student confidentiality in Fairfax and 鈥渂elieved that there was a need for the school division to take more robust action to ensure sustainable compliance.鈥� But she also said the district assured her in September that it was taking steps 鈥渞egarding the confidentiality of and access to student records.鈥�

In that Sept. 27 letter, the district said it was training staff on their obligations under FERPA and the Freedom of Information Act, and was planning a 鈥渕andatory training鈥� for principals and other administrators in charge of student records and special education. Training was scheduled to begin Oct. 31 and employees have two months to complete it. 

On. Nov. 8, Oettinger appealed the state鈥檚 decision, citing 蜜桃影视鈥檚 reporting on the accidental records release. Both the district and the state have 鈥渇ailed to ensure compliance 鈥� and now here we are,鈥� she wrote. 鈥淵ou have enough for [the district] to be found at fault for systemic noncompliance.鈥� 

The district disputes that it has violated the law. In a Nov. 21 response to Oettinger鈥檚 appeal, it described the disclosure as a 鈥渟ingle instance of what appears to be human error鈥� and said that Oettinger鈥檚 in-person review of the documents, which FERPA allows, was 鈥渙utside the typical electronic document production that FCPS employs.鈥�

Oettinger said she has faith in Reid, who became superintendent last year, to push for tighter security.  The two have exchanged emails and met in person multiple times. Oettinger said she鈥檚 鈥渃hoosing to believe Reid鈥檚 trying to change the district鈥檚 culture and that she knows me enough to know I’d never do anything nefarious.鈥�

Some special education experts in the state are baffled by the district鈥檚 mistake. 

鈥淚t’s just the norm that when you do a document production, you are careful about what you shouldn’t be disclosing 鈥� whether it’s other students鈥� names or legal advice,鈥� said Jim Wheaton, a William and Mary Law School professor who runs a legal clinic for future attorneys that plan to work on special education issues. 鈥淚t just blows my mind that they would be so reckless.鈥�

But he said that there鈥檚 not much parents can do about such violations. They can file complaints, but there鈥檚 no right to sue under FERPA.

鈥淚n religious terms,鈥� he said, 鈥渋t鈥檚, ‘Go forth and sin no more.’鈥�

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 蜜桃影视鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.