This article has been updated to reflect the foreshadowed subsequent judgment on the amount of damages to be awarded to Mr Doulis.

Introduction

Exactly 11 years after enduring the 'final straw' of his teaching career the Supreme Court of Victoria (Court) has awarded a teacher almost $770,000 in damages for pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and compensation for economic loss. According to the Age, Mr Doulis's future economic losses have been calculated at approximately $500,000, bringing his total payout to $1,279,751. The Court handed down its initial judgement on 5 September 2014.

Teachers, as we know, have the second-highest rate of stress claims, as compared to other industries. Mental illnesses, such as depression, are recognised conditions which can arise in the workplace as legitimately as an injured back or other physical injury.

For schools, this story is an unfortunate cautionary tale. Mr Peter Doulis (Mr Doulis) went from being a 'bright', 'enthusiastic', 'very bubbly' and 'active' teacher who was involved in the Duke of Edinburgh Scheme and other extra curricular activities to a person who was 'withdrawn', 'stressed over little things' and 'no longer found excitement in life', to the point where he 'broke down and cried'.

The Legal Case

Mr Doulis taught Information Technology subjects. In early 1998, he began to work at Werribee Secondary College in Victoria. Between 2000 and 2004, mental stress injuries sustained as a result of the negligence of the College caused Mr Doulis to suffer a chronic depressive disorder, associated anxiety, and suicidal ideation. He lost the capacity to work, and is uneasy going outside his house.

In 2013, he sued the State of Victoria for negligence arising from the actions of the principals and staff of the College. He argued that the State, through the College, owed him a duty of care that included providing a:

• safe system of work;
• safe equipment with which to work;
• safe place to work; and
• appropriate supervision of his work.

The Rundown School

In 1989, Werribee College, according to Justice Ginnane, 'was rundown and had a poor reputation'. From 1994, Mr Steve Butyn became, and remains, Principal of the College. He managed three Assistant Principals, who were all involved in this case.

To the credit of Mr Butyn, in his tenure at the College, he transformed it into what Justice Ginnane described as 'one of the finest schools in the western suburbs of Melbourne' that now holds a waiting list of students.

Part of this remarkable transformation was the introduction of homogeneous classes. This system of classes is based on the division of students into groups of achievement ability, rather than having them mixed or randomised - allowing a teacher to focus on the needs of the class at large, and teach to their level.

The 'Feral' Class

Mr Doulis took on some of these classes. In fact, he took on several of the second-lowest (of five levels) of classes, with admirable and laudable enthusiasm. He also took on the lowest of the classes, the foundation classes.

These classes were described by Mr Doulis, in a somewhat understated manner, as hard to discipline and impossible to teach. Over the course of his tenure at the college, he endured incidents and conduct which included:

• swearing and abuse directed at him;
• a student who used a deodorant can and lighter as a flamethrower on another student;
• writing obscenities on the board;
• aggression and threats directed towards him; and
• a student who split open another student's head, and also broke a window.

Mr Doulis said these students were 'all hyper' and 'virtually crawling up the walls outside the classroom'. He said that a detention slip given to a student would be torn up in front of him or thrown away. Evidently, detentions were also not followed up by other teachers. Another teacher described these classes as the worst behaved and most difficult cohort that he had ever taught. That teacher said one student made a death threat against him.

Mr Doulis had the highest, or near highest allocation of low or foundational classes. He taught up to 15 periods of low or foundation classes, of approximately 22 periods of teaching, including one that was called a 'feral' class by a teacher, because that teacher had lost control of it.

Between 2000 and 2004, Mr Doulis performed competently. His performance reviews suggested that he did not have any difficulty teaching low and foundation classes. The College agreed that there was no suggestion that he could not handle these classes. In 2003, when requesting his class allotment for 2004, Mr Doulis requested that he not be allotted foundation classes, and that he wished to teach higher classes. Notwithstanding this request, he was allocated a foundation class to teach in semester one, as well as two medium/low classes for semester two of 2004.

The Final Straw

Mr Doulis gave evidence that in semester two of 2003, he was not coping with his classes and just trying to get through them as best he could. He was 'tense, unhappy, lacking in energy and unable to sleep'. These classes kept him awake at night. He was very stressed, and at times lost his composure at school.

On 5 September 2003, things came to a head. Whilst he was teaching a foundation class, he was forced to break up a fight between two students. At this point, one student said to him 'you're gone. I'm going to get you'. That student was sent to the year coordinator. When he went to check on this student after class, the student had left and was standing in front of the school offices. The student was said to have looked at Mr Doulis and made a throat-slitting motion.

Mr Doulis said that at this point he felt 'totally threatened and alone'. He said that when he asked a colleague whether he had seen the incident, the colleague just shrugged his shoulders. Mr Doulis broke down in tears and walked out of the school and into the street.

On 8 September 2003, Mr Doulis went to see an Assistant Principal. He said that he told that colleague that 'I can't go on like this anymore... I need to talk to [the Principal] about what's been happening'. That meeting was arranged. In this meeting, Mr Doulis recalled that he was distraught and broken down in tears, repeating that he could no longer teach the low and foundation classes and was not coping. He said that he wanted support for these classes, but 'was not given any hope' in this meeting.

The management team at the College had various differing recollections about what was happening. Significantly, their impression was that his distress was also caused by Mr Doulis's personal circumstances, including the erratic sleeping patterns of his newborn baby, concerns about not being able to take paid sick leave, and his own sleeping problems. In any case, it was arranged that Mr Doulis would take paid sick leave. Significantly, it was suggested that Mr Doulis was sent home 'because of his mental state', not as a means of alleviating his stress from his classes. The College did not enquire about his well-being or put any support measures in place once he returned to work.

The Attempted Return

On Mr Doulis's return on 11 September 2003, he prepared a letter to the Principal stating that:

• he was experiencing a high level of stress because of the classes he had been allotted;
• he requested a more equitable spread of classes;
• the majority of his classes were difficult to discipline and had behavioural problems that he considered he did not receive support for;
• in light of the stress, that he would need to withdraw from extra curricular activities; and
• ultimately, he would like to teach VCE (year 11 and year 12) classes.

The letter indicated he wanted the support of the College in seeking a suitable position at another school.

It was found by the Court that although the Principal received this letter, it was not acted on for various reasons. The Court noted the Principal's busy workload and duties, and speculated that the Principal may have delegated the task of dealing with Mr Doulis's classes to an Assistant Principal.

Soon after this, Mr Doulis was diagnosed by a psychologist with a 'major depressive disorder'. However, he returned to the school to give it a second chance of sorts.

Despite requesting no low or foundation classes in 2004, Mr Doulis was nevertheless allocated two low/medium classes. His response to this was that he 'felt totally alone, hopeless and helpless, and, for the first time, he seriously considered suicide'.

Mr Doulis carried on teaching until finally, an incident in which he was sent to teach in (what appeared to him to be) an asbestos contaminated classroom caused him to declare 'that's it for me. I'm not coming back here. I'm gone. I've had it'. He did not return to work at the College.

The Unfortunate Aftermath

Mr Doulis did not return to his career of full-time teaching. He attempted to teach at two schools, in 2005 and 2006, but was unable to carry on. His life after this, described by the Judge, involved hospitalisations, suicidal ideation and medications, which also strained his personal relationships. His wife obtained her diploma of education, and returned to work as a teacher. He does not have the capacity to work.

The Legal Decision

Justice Ginnane found that the College breached the duty of care it owed to Mr Doulis because it did not lessen his low classes and foundation classes until 2004, and then, not completely. It also did not monitor him or otherwise support him after his return to work. The Court accepted that Mr Doulis's chronic severe major depressive condition was caused by the College's breach of its duty owed to him.

The Worthy Lessons

Although this story speaks of some evident lessons, some are worth repeating.

The Court held that it was reasonably foreseeable to the College, possessing the information that it did, that there was a significant risk of Mr Doulis sustaining a recognisable psychiatric injury arising from his duties. The College failed in its duty of care to Mr Doulis to take steps to minimise this risk.

Whatever the reasons that Mr Doulis presented with his problems, the College should have taken his concerns more seriously, and should have done more.

In defence of the Principal and Assistant Principals, their evidence stated that, had they known the effect of teaching low and foundation classes on Mr Doulis's mental health, they would have taken action to change his class allotments.

Although it is a minor point, this case also speaks to the importance of record keeping. Contemporaneous notes can be the most reliable evidence that is presented in a court. This case, decided in 2014, needed to rely on witness's memories that, more than 10 years later, were shown to be less than perfect. There were considerable differences in the evidence of the witnesses which were attributed not to any attempt to mislead, but to the passing of time, and the busy workload of teachers and principals.

Support is available for anyone who may be interested in information on suicide prevention by phoning Lifeline 13 11 14; Mensline 1300 789 978; Kids Helpline 1800 551 800.