Public scrutiny intensified at the Quillayute Valley School Board’s September 8, 2026, meeting, where several individuals pushed back against the district’s public narrative surrounding the Larson lawsuit. Critics highlighted inconsistencies between the board’s official description of the case and the actual federal jury outcome, as well as a last-minute cancellation of a key investigative interview.
The board declined to issue a formal response during the meeting and proceeded with its standard agenda after the public comment period concluded. No motion was brought forward to amend or retract the August 25 statement, which had been approved by the board and previously summarized by chair Bill Rohde.
Central to the discussion was the district’s portrayal of a federal case in which a jury determined the Quillayute Valley School District (QVSD) liable for creating a hostile work environment under the Washington Law Against Discrimination. Former assistant cross-country coach Kari Larson was awarded $250,000 in damages, with a minor deduction of $240 for missed opportunities to reduce harm, resulting in a final judgment of $249,760.
The district’s August statement, however, highlighted findings that favored QVSD and described the district as “completely exonerated,” a characterization that drew pushback during public comment.
Shannon Gaydeski underscored the discrepancy by referencing the board’s own first question: whether the jury ruled in Larson’s favor on the hostile-work-environment claim. The answer was affirmative, yet the district’s messaging downplayed this outcome.
The April 8 verdict included mixed results: while the jury found for QVSD and Brian Weekes on retaliation claims and for supervisor Kyle Weakley on claims of negligent supervision and retention, these favorable rulings did not negate the district’s liability on the hostile-work-environment count.
Larson’s allegations centered on Weekes’s conduct, including inappropriate physical contact, disparaging digital communications, and sexually suggestive remarks. Weekes contested those assertions.
Under the jury instructions, QVSD could be held accountable through multiple pathways—either by direct involvement of a supervisor or by demonstrating that leadership was aware of the harassment and failed to respond appropriately. The district also retained the option to assert an affirmative defense, requiring proof that it acted diligently to prevent and address misconduct and that Larson did not fully engage with available safeguards.
Another speaker labeled the board’s public account “egregiously misleading,” particularly regarding claims that Larson declined to participate in an investigative interview. Records show the interview was instead called off by the district’s legal counsel just eight minutes before the scheduled 10:30 a.m. meeting on July 29, 2024.
A timeline of email exchanges reveals that at 10:22 a.m., district attorney Duncan Fobes informed Larson’s attorney, Daniel Gallagher, that the session would not proceed as planned. Gallagher had initiated contact at 9:45 a.m., seeking a Zoom connection, and was directed to Fobes, who outlined the district’s preferences for the meeting: in-person attendance and a cap of three hours.
Earlier, on July 25, Gallagher had proposed a streamlined format—approximately one hour in length and involving a small number of participants—pending final approval from his client.
A local landlord confirmed the cancellation of a meeting, to which a district official responded that he and another individual had already settled the timing and parameters of the matter. Further discussion was requested on July 31, but on August 5, the official described an impasse and objected to a three-hour interview due to a woman's emotional state.
A speaker also disputed the board's assertion that the woman never encountered an individual on school grounds again. She stated that the individual was at her son's youth soccer game on district property in summer 2024 when the woman arrived. The woman left shortly after and did not attend another of the boy's games, according to the speaker.
Another speaker urged the board to make reporting harassment more welcoming and questioned how a district administrator's presence at an interview could affect a complainant's willingness to speak. The official's email had described an administrator attending as customary, while expressly saying a district representative did not need to be present.
Another speaker challenged the statement's discussion of the damages award and asked the board to rescind it. "Do the right thing," he said. He said damages were intended to compensate the woman for the harm she suffered.
The district's obligation extended beyond the damages award. Earlier reporting noted a satisfaction of judgment acknowledged payment of $765,834.77, including the judgments, interest, court costs and attorneys' fees.
A local resident said he had repeatedly asked for changes in policy, training and evaluation since the verdict. He accused the board of failing to act on those requests. "Two words stand out, did nothing," he said, responding to what he described as the statement's portrayal of the district as having done nothing wrong.
Another parent said the board's decisions were why she did not send her children to district schools or sports. She said she would continue attending meetings until she saw changes. "It's important for our children to feel safe," she said.
The August 25 statement had disclosed an ongoing personnel matter related to the situation without identifying its subject. The board gave no substantive public update on that matter during Tuesday's meeting.
The board entered executive session near the end of the meeting. Upon returning, the board announced that no action had come out of the session and adjourned.