By Adam Pagnucco.
Former MCPS Principal Joel Beidleman, who was at the center of a scandal that brought down former Superintendent Monifa McKnight and cost taxpayers more than $2 million, has appealed his termination for sexual harassment to the Maryland State Board of Education. Unfortunately for Beidleman, the board found that his termination was justified.
According to the board’s opinion, Beidleman was terminated by the Montgomery County Board of Education on January 23, 2024 for “misconduct in office for sexual harassment and workplace bullying.” (That was more than five months after the Washington Post broke the story of the accusations against him and his subsequent promotion.) A state administrative law judge (ALJ) found against him and the state board heard oral arguments on the case on June 24, 2025. The board voted on the same day and issued its decision three days later. All present board members voted to affirm the decision of the school board to terminate him.
In its discussion of the factual background, the board stated “the conduct includes making comments about the appearance of female subordinates and directing offensive remarks and jokes of a sexual nature at subordinates, having an inappropriate relationship with a female subordinate, and creating a school environment of intimidation, fear, and disrespect. The information came to light through various complaints, the media, an investigation by a private law firm hired by the local board, and an investigation by the Montgomery County Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”).”
MCPS did not conduct a Loudermill (pre-disciplinary) conference until December 18, four months after the Post article was published. McKnight placed Beidleman on administrative leave without pay three days later, after which Beidleman withdrew his request for a hearing and decided “not to participate in this process.” The school board terminated him the following month.
Beidleman made a few arguments in his appeal to the state. He cited “his highly effective performance evaluations and maintains that many employees were disgruntled with him due to his implementation of the countywide middle school reforms.” He claimed that “the local board coerced him into briefly pausing his participation in his appeal [from the superintendent’s decision] by conditioning payment of earned money on his agreement to waive his appeal rights, and that this coercive conduct is good reason for him not submitting evidence at the local board level.” He went on to state “that the local board would not pay him for his accrued leave until he exhausted the appeal process or ended his appeal and accepted the termination, and that he needed the money because he had retained counsel and had divorce proceedings with his ex-wife.” But the ALJ responded, “Wanting immediate payment is not a good reason for failing to present the evidence in the hearing before the local board.” The state board agreed.
Beidleman wanted to introduce new evidence in his case but the ALJ again found against him. The ALJ wrote:
*****
The OIG found that the Appellant had bullied staff by yelling and screaming at them, publicly shaming them, verbally intimidating them, attempting to transfer a staff member who disagreed with him, and calling staff while they were on leave. The OIG discovered staff were afraid to express professional disagreement with the Appellant and were afraid they would lose their positions. The OIG also found that the Appellant sexually harassed and engaged in offensive conduct toward employees. The Appellant pursued a sexual relationship with an employee who was seeking a promotion to assistant principal. He made sexual comments regarding the appearance of female staff. The OIG learned female staff altered their appearance and sought to avoid the Appellant’s unwanted comments. In addition, the OIG found that the Appellant was involved in a sexual/romantic relationship with a subordinate employee….
The Appellant did not present any convincing evidence that the incidents substantiated by the OIG did not occur…. The Appellant’s vague assertions, denials, and obfuscations contained in his written statement are not credible or convincing. Moreover, the Appellant’s apparent success in boosting student achievement does not mitigate or outweigh the Appellant’s misconduct toward staff….
*****
The state board wrote, “The preponderance of the evidence in this case supports the Appellant’s termination for misconduct in office.”
Beidleman did not get what he wanted from the state board of education. Could he prevail in court if he takes it there? That’s a question for another day, but let’s remember how searingly hot it was for MCPS in the fall of 2023. Media coverage of the scandal was non-stop. MCPS had hired a crisis management contractor – an act later found by the inspector general to violate procurement policy – and retaliated against an internal investigator who looked into the allegations against Beidleman. Adding to the turmoil, McKnight went on medical leave. Despite the epic crisis, the district still took months to take action against Beidleman. It was one of the worst shows of incompetence ever seen in Montgomery County government.
Hopefully nothing like this will ever happen again in any agency funded by county taxpayers.