Delinda Dykes Announces Plans to Return to Amherst Middle School. Arbitrator Says Her Return Is Consistent with the Best Interests of Students

In a statement released by her attorney, James A.W. Shaw of Segal Roitman on July 29, former Amherst Regional Middle School (ARMS) adjustment counselor Delinda Dykes announced her intention to return to ARMS. Dykes had been fired in 2023 following allegations that she had harassed and discriminated against LGBTQIA+ students (see here, here and here). Following her dismissal, independent Title IX and non-Title IX investigations faulted the district for failing to protect LGBTQIA+ students from harm and for protecting perpetrators of that harm. Her reinstatement was ordered by an arbitrator on July 7, 2025 (see full text of the arbitrator’s decision), who determined that the district had denied Dykes due process by not providing her with sufficient warnings and opportunities to correct her behavior and that the district had failed to present sufficient credible evidence of the charges against her. The arbitrator judged that the misgendering of students, which Dykes acknowledged doing, was not sufficient to constitute “conduct unbecoming a teacher” which the district had cited as the basis for her termination. The arbitrator also found accusations that Dykes had held prayer meetings with students and had urged them to “pray away the gay” to be unfounded. The arbitrator further determined that Dykes had demonstrated that she cares about all students and that her return poses no threat to student safety.

Dykes’ Personal Statement

Dykes’ personal statement follows.

I have seen the strong reaction of some community members to the Arbitrator’s decision to reinstate me. Today I am releasing the Arbitrator’s decision in order to provide some much-needed context in this situation. I was very pleased with this decision, which found not only that I did not receive due process in my termination, but more importantly that the “evidence” of the charges against me was insufficient and that it is in the best interest of the students for me to return to my job. I maintained my innocence throughout this entire process, and I believe this decision is a start in the process of my full vindication.

Many have continued to make false and harmful allegations about me. Let me be clear, I am innocent. I deeply share everyone’s concern about the safety and well-being of all students, including those who identify as LGBTQIA+ and I will never waver in my commitment to help all students. I look forward to returning to Amherst Regional Middle School this school year. Due to ongoing litigation with the school district, I will refrain from commenting further.

Arbitrator’s Decision
The 31-page decision of arbitrator Eileen A. Cenci provided a detailed summary of both Dykes’ complaint and the school district’s response.

Dykes’ Complaint
In her claim of unlawful dismissal in 2023 under G.L. c. 71 §42, Dykes found fault with all charges against her, claiming that the accusations were fabricated or unsubstantiated. Although she did not dispute that she had misgendered students or that doing so is improper, she denied that she had done so intentionally. In her claim she makes the following charges:

that the district failed to give a) proper written intent to dismiss with an explanation of grounds and b) sufficient details and documentation to permit a response. (In addition, she charged that the exact grounds for her termination were insufficiently spelled out.)
that the charges against her were “largely unsubstantiated,” and the district had failed to give her proper notification of complaints against her, and the district had failed to implement progressive, corrective discipline prior to dismissal.
that only two students were specifically named by any witness as having been misgendered by Dykes. Although three other witnesses testified that Dykes repeatedly misgendered students, they did not identify a single instance in which she did so in front of students other than themselves. The allegations pertaining to misgendering additional students were vague and general, and did not name or identify the students in question. According to Dykes, she apologized and corrected herself after each of the incidents where she misgendered students in their presence and there is no evidence that she intended to harm or disrespect the students, and she continued to work successfully with the students she had misgendered.
that case law supports the argument that the charges did not rise to the level of “conduct unbecoming a teacher.”
that evidence of Dykes’ service toward marginalized students challenges the credibility of much of the evidence against her.

that the absence of arbitration testimony by Talib Sadiq, the principal who made the decision to terminate Dykes, compounded the problem of identifying the basis for the dismissal. It is unclear, based upon the record, which claims Principal Sadiq believed to be true, which allegations he did not, whether he assumed unattibuted statements to be true, or which allegations he took most seriously.
that former Superintendent Mike Morris acknowledged that it was not uncommon for ARMS staff at that time to accidentally misgender students, and the school expected that staff who did so would apologize, acknowledge the mistake, and repair any damage with the student, and that that is exactly what Dykes did.
that the outrage in the community concerning accusations against Dykes was fomented by inaccurate reporting in The Graphic and should not have been used to justify the job termination.

School District’s Response
The district’s response was overseen by Interim Superintendent Doug Slaughter. Both Slaugher, and previous Superintendent Michael Morris testified at the arbitration. Morris was superintendent at the time that complaints were lodged against Dykes. Slaughter was interim superintendent at the time of Dykes’ dismissal.

The district maintained that Dykes had violated multiple school policies and procedures including the following school policies:

1. According to the district, “the evidence suggests that Dykes’ conduct must have been intentional, since she misgendered students “so frequently” even after being corrected. The District is not required to prove that Dykes misgendered students intentionally in order to show that by repeating that behavior she violated school policies and engaged in “conduct unbecoming a teacher.” As a counselor, Dykes should have been well aware that LGBTQIA+ students are at higher risk for suicide and need additional support. Whether her repeated misgendering was done intentionally or simply in disregard of her professional responsibilities, her behavior constituted “conduct unbecoming a teacher” in addition to violating school policies.”

2. The district maintained that the testimony that Dykes had made inappropriate comments to students related to gender and sexual orientation was credible and convincing, despite her denials. Both witnesses’ testimony was consistent with what Title IX investigator Attorney Ed Mitnick reported during his investigation, and neither had any motive to fabricate such testimony against Dykes.

3. Case law was cited to argue that the termination of employment is consistent with the best interest of the pupils.

4. There has already been community disruption as a result of Dykes’ conduct, as reported in the article in The Graphic. Although one of the many allegations was not substantiated in the Title IX investigation, the community outrage grew from other allegations, which were substantiated.

5. Dykes is unable to foster a safe, supportive and accepting environment at ARMS for at least a portion of her caseload and is therefore unable to do her job.

Arbitrator’s Judgement
The arbitrator emphasized that her judgement was based solely on information presented in arbitration, noting that several witnesses who had testified elsewhere (e.g. those who had testified in the Title IX and non-Title IX investigations) did not testify in arbitration, including then-Principal Talib Sadiq, who had signed her dismissal. The testimony of witnesses who spoke to Investigator Mitnick, but did not testify at the arbitration, was therefore not evidence in the arbitration proceedings. Similarly, only documents introduced into evidence at arbitration were considered.

The full text of arbitrator Eileen A. Cenci’s determinations follow.

1.Dykes Did Not Receive Adequate Notice or Due Process Under G.L. c. 71 §42

“The names of individuals who were misgendered and the names of those who heard the misgendering or inappropriate comments were not provided with the Notice of Intent to Dismiss. Nor were the times, dates and locations where the conduct that led to the dismissal had occurred. Instead, the entire 65-page Title IX report was attached as supporting evidence. That report was extensive and included a great deal of material that was beyond the information presented at arbitration in support of the dismissal, including charges against Ms. Dykes that were not supported by the Investigation. Based upon the lack of specificity in the Notice of Intent to Dismiss and Dismissal Notice, it would have been difficult for Ms. Dykes to know the exact reasons for her dismissal. The process was further flawed because many of the complaints about Ms. Dykes that came to light in the school newspaper article, at public school committee meetings and in the course of the Title IX investigation, had not previously been brought to her attention as ongoing problems.”

2. The District Has Not Met Its Burden of Proving That the Complainant Violated District Policies or Engaged in Conduct Unbecoming a Teacher

“Though a few witnesses testified at arbitration that Ms. Dykes misgendered students more often than other teachers, and failed to improve even after promising to try, there is no real evidence supporting the conclusion that Ms. Dykes did worse than other staff members. There is some anecdotal evidence provided by a few witnesses, but no documented evidence that Ms. Dykes misgendered with unusual frequency. Certainly, she was never placed on notice by anyone at the school that she was misgendering students at an unacceptable level prior to being placed on leave in May 2023. She was never counselled, retrained or discipline [sic]. She was never notified, either orally or in writing, that her misgendering of students violated school policies or was considered conduct unbecoming a teacher. Though some witnesses testified they forwarded complaints to Superintendent Morris, he denied ever receiving them prior to being notified in March 2023 that a Title IX complaint was being filed.”

“Ms. Dykes was not aware, prior to the Title IX investigation and subsequent Notice of Intent to Dismiss, that anyone alleged she had made a sexually inappropriate comment to a student. Because Principal Saliq, who made the decision to dismiss, did not testify, it is not entirely clear which comments that were discussed in the Title IX report he considered inappropriate.”

3. Returning Ms. Dykes to Her Former Position is Consistent With the Best Interests of the Students

“It is true that the community was outraged by the allegations made against Ms. Dykes, as well as other school employees, in the student newspaper, in other newspapers and at school committee meetings in the spring of 2023. The Title IX report, when it was released in September 2023, did not substantiate all those initial allegations. Moreover, not all the allegations substantiated in the Title IX report have been proved at arbitration. Much of the initial community outrage against at least some staff members may well have dissipated as the additional facts have come to light. Moreover, not all the outrage associated with the initial allegations was directed toward Ms. Dykes. The issues that brought about intense community concern were widespread and involved the culture of the middle school and the actions of numerous staff members. It is only the proven allegations against Ms. Dykes, which have been considered in the current arbitration proceeding, and it is only her conduct that should be of concern to the community if she is returned to her previous employment.”

Conclusion
“There is substantial evidence that Ms. Dykes cared about the LBGTQ+ students assigned to her, and worked to improve their school experience, despite some misgendering and missteps in communication. She served as faculty advisor for the ALANA, and she worked with that group and others to create an inclusive environment, including organizing Kindness Lunches for students who might feel marginalized. She created a safe space for children who felt bullied or overwhelmed, where they could come and get away from things that were troubling them for awhile. She also worked on the Sixth Grade Step-Up program, which assisted students transitioning to the middle school. In that capacity she helped develop an Intake form that asked students for their pronouns, so that they could be addressed by their preferred pronouns from the start of their middle school experience. Even the parents of Student A, who filed the Title IX complaint, thanked Ms. Dykes for her efforts to help their child, and stated that they would not want the entire matter to ruin her career. Given the vast gulf between the accusations against Ms. Dykes, and the actual evidence presented at arbitration, I am unable to conclude that she would be unable, with proper supervision, to work effectively in the best interests of all students in the Amherst-Pelham School District.”

Spread the love

Tags: Amherst Regional Public Schools (ARPS), LGBTQ, public safety, school superintendent, social justice, Title IX

Leave a Reply