Bainbridge Island School District confronts dual legal pressures as it navigates a federal civil rights action concerning a former teacher’s abuse culture, now joined by a separate federal complaint filed by a former para-educator.
The latest legal filing, submitted March 10, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, comes from Jacob Freimark, a former classified staff member who is litigating on his own behalf. His complaint names the district, Superintendent Amii Thompson, Special Education Director Annalisa Sanchez, and multiple school board members as defendants, demanding approximately $5 million in compensation.
Freimark contends his December 2025 dismissal was not rooted in performance but in his willingness to voice concerns about student welfare and district policies. He maintains that after a leadership transition in September 2025, he was subjected to heightened oversight, including a formal directive restricting personal cell phone use during work hours. According to his account, this restriction hampered his ability to record incidents and coordinate with first responders during off-site student supervision, ultimately undermining his capacity to fulfill core responsibilities.
District leadership offers a different perspective. A November 2025 termination notice from Sanchez cited “repeated and fundamental” shortcomings in Freimark’s job performance, especially in delivering consistent student support. Supporting documentation highlights incidents in which he was observed drifting from active supervision, missing cues, and leaving a student unattended—tasks that required another staff member to step in. The use of a personal mobile device during instruction was also flagged as a formal discipline point.
Freimark challenges the factual basis of these criticisms. He explains that his observed “wandering” was deliberate, part of a strategy to help students interpret social dynamics in real-world settings. Regarding the phone policy, he notes that the device in question was registered under his parents’ family plan, raising questions about whether it qualified as a “personal” device under district rules. He further asserts that enforcement of this policy was inconsistent, pointing to colleagues who used devices without encountering comparable consequences.
The matter has been assigned to District Judge Benjamin H. Settle and remains in its initial procedural phase.