A school district began an investigation following allegations that a teacher slapped the hands of students, yelled at students, used profanity and threatened to spank them, and threw some wood chips from the playground into a student’s face. When the school district began its investigation, it also made a report to CPS. During the school district's investigation, the teacher denied the allegations. CPS interviewed the same witnesses as the school district.

At the conclusion of its investigation, CPS sent letters to the teachers and the parents of the children who were the subject of the complaint, notifying them that a finding had been made that there was “reason to believe” that abuse or neglect occurred. However, CPS sent a different letter to the district, merely stating that the investigation had been concluded.

Based on its investigation and the letter it received from CPS, the district reinstated the teacher. When the district informed the parents that the teacher would be reinstated, they became upset and informed the district that CPS had found that there was “reason to believe” that abuse or neglect had occurred. Upon receipt of this information, the district placed the teacher on leave again and reopened its investigation.

When questioned during the second investigation, the teacher again denied the allegations, but made some statements that were inconsistent with her responses during the district's initial investigation. The district proposed terminating the teacher's contract, alleging that she grabbed students by the arm and hand, hit students on the hand, used profanity in the presence of students, threatened to spank students, threw wood chips at a student and because CPS had found reason to believe that these acts constituted abuse or neglect. The teacher requested a hearing before an independent hearing examiner, who recommended that her contract be terminated.

The issue before the independent hearing examiner was whether the district, after investigating and returning the teacher to the classroom, could then remove her based on the CPS findings that were based on the same facts. CPS admitted that they had made a mistake by not notifying the district of its findings.

The independent hearing examiner recommended that the district terminate the teacher's contract, not based on the CPS findings, but because the teacher made conflicting statements to the district during its second investigation. Following its second investigation, the district found that the teacher admitted to CPS that she threw the wood chips into the air and they might have hit the student, whereas she told the district that she had not thrown them. The independent hearing examiner also found that there was good cause to terminate the contract because the teacher’s actions violated the Student Code of Conduct regarding classroom management and student discipline, as well as the district’s policies prohibiting corporal punishment.