School District Hires Fraudulent Superintendent - Blames Recruiting Firm
U.S. Department of Justice launches investigation of school district
Professional liability lawsuits against recruiters are rare, but when they occur, they tend to be doozies. We report on one here.
Background
If you have not read the headlines about the Des Moines School District hiring an undocumented alien with a criminal record to oversee the largest school district in Iowa, here are two samples:
HANNAH FINGERHUT
Zoe Sottile, Priscilla Alvarez
Ian Roberts, a native of Guyana, was hired as the District's Superintendent in May 2023 at a salary of $270,000 a year. As superintendent, he oversaw over 30,000 students and 5,000 employees in the Des Moines public school system. In May 2024, an immigration judge in long-running Dallas, Texas, proceeding ordered that Roberts be removed from the U.S. However, at that time there was no effort by immigration authorities to enforce the ruling. On September 26, 2005, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") announced the arrest of Roberts, and events then unfolded in rapid succession. The Iowa Board of Educational Examiners promptly revoked Roberts' administrator license. The Des Moines School Board placed Roberts on unpaid administrative leave. The next day, Roberts resigned. Here is the ICE press release:
In early October, the School District board held a news conference in which they blamed specialty executive recruiting firm JC Consulting for the whole mess, asserting, "The search firm did not do its job," while at the same time acknowledging that the District was aware of "discrepancies" in Roberts' resume and credentials at the time he was hired. You can listen here:
The search firm
JG Consulting is the trade name for One-Fourth Consulting LLC, a national executive search firm specializing in leadership recruitment in education. The firm's services include executive search, executive coaching, strategic planning, and organizational support.
The lawsuit
On October 3, The District launched a lawsuit against JC Consulting. The lawsuit asserts the following claims:
- Breach of Contract: alleging that JG Consulting failed to fulfill its contractual obligations.
"JG Consulting’s contractual obligations included, among other things, advertising the position; recruiting; reviewing applications and resumes; conducting public domain searches; performing comprehensive reference checks; and presenting qualified candidates to the District."
"JG Consulting further agreed to exercise due diligence in conducting comprehensive reference calls and to arrange for comprehensive criminal, credit, and background checks."
- Negligence: failing to exercise reasonable care in vetting Roberts.
JG Consulting breached [its] duty by, among other things, failing to conduct or arrange for comprehensive criminal, credit, and background checks on Roberts; failing to conduct adequate reference checks; failing to verify Roberts’ legal eligibility to hold the superintendent position; and otherwise failing to exercise reasonable diligence in the vetting process.
- Negligent Misrepresentation: misrepresenting Roberts as a qualified candidate.
"JG Consulting represented to the District that Roberts was a suitable candidate for the position.... That representation was false."
- Indemnity.
"The Agreement provides that JG Consulting will indemnify the District for any and all losses suffered as a result of JG Consulting’s errors or omissions."
The damages sought by the District include "the costs of employing, compensating, and now replacing Roberts, as well as reputational harm."
Read the entire lawsuit here:
The response
In response to the lawsuit, JC Consulting issued the following statement:
“At JG Consulting, we are proud of our extensive record of successfully supporting school districts across the nation in identifying candidates for the position of school superintendent and related executive roles. Educating our young people is a tremendous responsibility and we take very seriously the role we play in that process.
"In our more than decade-long history of doing this important work, we’ve worked with schools to complete more than 65 searches for school superintendents as well as more than 200 others in executive roles.
"While it is true that school system leaders in Des Moines are fully within their rights to file suit, we likewise have rights, including the right to defend ourselves, which we fully intend to do. We stand by our record and all of the work that we do.
"That the district has decided to litigate about their choice of candidate is unfortunate and unwarranted. We will answer those claims in a court of law.”
The Justice Department steps in
On September 30, 2025, just two business days after Roberts' arrest, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a press release announcing, "Justice Department Opens Investigation into Des Moines Public Schools for Race-Based Employment Practices." It is unlikely that this is a coincidence - ICE and the Justice Department almost certainly coordinated their activities here. The investigation was launched via a letter to the District suggesting that its affirmative action plan, which allegedly includes race-based quotas, violates the anti-discrimination provisions contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Here is the letter:
As readers of Staffing Legal News know, this approach would be consistent with President Trump's Executive Order declaring affirmative action discriminatory and unlawful:
Bill Josey
If the District thought they had troubles before, the Superintendent fiasco is not much of a problem compared to a potential civil rights enforcement action by the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. The consequences could be everything from large financial remedies to an injunction or consent agreement governing the District's hiring practices - likely all of the above if the usual outcome prevails.
Considerations for search recruiters
The District's lawsuit squarely presents the question, "What degree of responsibility does a search recruiter have to verify the credentials and qualifications of a candidate?" The answer to this question always starts with the service contract. Here, the District asserts that the recruiting firm had the following contractual duties:
"JG Consulting’s contractual obligations included, among other things, advertising the position; recruiting; reviewing applications and resumes; conducting public domain searches; performing comprehensive reference checks; and presenting qualified candidates to the District."
"JG Consulting further agreed to exercise due diligence in conducting comprehensive reference calls and to arrange for comprehensive criminal, credit, and background checks."
"The Agreement provides that JG Consulting will indemnify the District for any and all losses suffered as a result of JG Consulting’s errors or omissions."
The one that sticks out is the recruiter's alleged obligation to "arrange for comprehensive criminal, credit, and background checks." This is not ordinarily a search recruiter's function. In virtually all cases, the industry standard is for criminal and credit (when relevant) checks to be conducted by the client. A search firm that undertakes this duty is accepting an unusually high risk. In fact, some search contracts expressly disclaim performing any vetting outside of preliminary work such as reference checks.
The actual search agreement was not attached to the District's lawsuit and has yet to be made public. But an important factor in the case could be whether the agreement has a limitation of liability provision excluding "consequential damages" from the available remedies. The remedies sought by the District, "compensation paid to Roberts, costs associated with his removal and replacement, reputational harm, and the District’s attorney’s fees and expenses," sound like consequential damages and could potentially be excluded. Another factor is whether the indemnity provision is limited to "third-party claims," as opposed to losses suffered solely by the client. This third-party claim limitation is often found in search and staffing agreements and would likely defeat the indemnity claim if present.
The next level to consider after contract terms is a recruiter's general duty of care outside of the contractual framework, that is, under the applicable state common law. Unlike professions like medicine, law, and engineering, there is little experience to fall back on here, because these claims are rare. And unlike these fields, there are no ready-made testifying experts who will, for a fee, opine on whether the standard of care was met or breached. Nevertheless, if this case goes to trial, each party may need to dig up an expert to support its position.
The client's responsibility
An interesting fact came out during the District's press conference - it does not use e-verify to confirm that its employees are authorized to work in the U.S. Instead, the District only performs an I-9 document check, easily overcome by individuals seeking to work unlawfully. JG Recruiting's attorneys will likely seize upon this fact in an attempt to allocate some or all of the fault to the District.
Lesson(s) learned
- Contract terms are important.
- Review your firm's affirmative action policies in light of recent regulatory changes.
Member discussion