Former Visalia Unified bus drivers allege poor maintenance, retaliation

With the first day of school nearly a week away, the Visalia Unified School District (VUSD) finds itself on the receiving end of a civil rights lawsuit filed in Tulare County Superior Court by two former school bus drivers, Dan Rushing and Robert Gonzales, who claim that the VUSD unlawfully terminated them without investigation, notice, or a chance to respond to any alleged misconduct.

The complaint, filed on May 29, 2025, claims that Rushing and Gonzales were wrongfully terminated and retaliated against after raising concerns with their supervisor regarding the poor condition and inadequate maintenance of VUSD buses, and an incident involving an emergency maneuver during a school field trip near Interstate 5.

They also claim that officials at VUSD reported the incident to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), resulting in the temporary suspension of Gonzales’ Class C License and Rushing’s license being completely revoked. A further review of the case by the DMV resulted in the reinstatement of Mr. Rushing’s Class C License.

Both plaintiffs are longtime residents of Tulare County and were employed as permanent part-time classified employees within the VUSD transportation department in 2023.

Rushing, who says he is African American, and Gonzales, who says he is Hispanic, assert through their attorney that they fared much less favorably than their white coworkers.

Fresno-based attorney Jared Gordon is representing both Rushing and Gonzales in this case.

The Valley Voice attempted to contact the plaintiff’s attorney, Mr. Gordon, and VUSD Public Information Officer Cristina Gutierrez for comment. As of the publication date, no formal response has been issued by VUSD or by the plaintiffs’ legal representation.

A case management conference has been scheduled for Oct. 15.

Field Trip Emergency Sparks Termination

According to the court document, on April 21, 2023, Rushing and Gonzales were assigned to transport students and adult chaperones from Visalia to Santa Clara and back for a school-sponsored field trip.

On the way to Santa Clara, while traveling northbound on Interstate 5 near the junction with State Route 152, the bus that Gonzales was driving experienced a mechanical emergency that caused a safety alarm to alert, forcing Gonzales to pull over before the bus became completely disabled.

Unable to resolve the issue immediately and concerned for the safety of the students and chaperones on board, Rushing and Gonzales decided to transfer all passengers from the disabled bus to the other, fully operational bus that Rushing was driving.

The relocation was carried out under the supervision of trip chaperones and a band leader, according to the lawsuit, with the stated goal of reaching a safer location off the highway at the next freeway exit that offered access to basic services.

The emergency maneuver required the operational bus to exceed its normal capacity temporarily, which the drivers argue was legally justified under California regulations governing school bus safety during emergencies.

Gonzales remained behind with the stalled vehicle and later discovered that a student had triggered an emergency door latch, which in turn sounded the alarm and disabled the ignition system for safety.

Once the issue was fixed, Gonzales was able to restart the bus and rejoin the group at Casa De Fruta off Highway 152. The field trip ultimately resumed and was completed without further incident, the lawsuit states.

Termination Without Hearing or Investigation

The plaintiffs assert that in the days following the trip, they received no work assignments and were not contacted by supervisors regarding the event.

On April 26, they say they received voicemails and text messages from VUSD’s Director of Transportation informing them that their services were no longer needed, and that no formal letters of termination were delivered nor were explanations provided.

The lawsuit contends that neither plaintiff was interviewed about the field trip incident, nor were any chaperones or school staff members consulted during the district’s decision-making process.

Rushing and Gonzales claim that they were not provided with any written charges, documentation, or notice of their right to a hearing, as required by California Education Code. They also claim they were not provided documentation for health coverage through COBRA or other standard post-termination information.

DMV Action and Career Fallout

Soon after the terminations, the plaintiffs discovered that the VUSD had submitted reports to the California Department of Motor Vehicles indicating that the two individuals had been involved in what the district described as a “safety-related incident.”

As a result, Rushing’s Class C license was revoked, and Gonzales’ license was suspended for 90 days.

Rushing later appealed the DMV’s action, and after a review, the DMV reversed its decision and fully reinstated Rushing’s driver’s license, determining that he had acted lawfully during the field trip incident and had not violated any transportation laws or safety standards.

Despite the DMV ruling in Rushing’s favor, the plaintiffs state that VUSD did not offer reinstatement or reconsideration to their positions, claiming that the language used by VUSD in the initial report to the DMV resulted in “substantially reduced income.”

Discrimination and Retaliation Claims

Both plaintiffs state that they had previously raised concerns, starting in March 2023, with their supervisor in the district’s transportation department regarding the poor condition and inadequate maintenance of school buses.

Those concerns included warnings about worn brake pads, malfunctioning headlights and horns, and vehicles that were not suitable for student transport.

In one meeting, according to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs and another driver confronted a maintenance supervisor identified only as “Brett.”

The pair claim that Brett responded with hostility and condescension, and that a third driver present at that meeting reportedly resigned shortly thereafter.

They say that their terminations were retaliatory and prompted in part by these maintenance complaints – along with race and age.

Both Rushing and Gonzales were over the age of 40 at the time and belong to minority groups – in contrast, the suit claims that other younger, white drivers employed by VUSD were treated more favorably despite having more serious records of misconduct.

The lawsuit alleges that in one case, a “white driver who was younger than [the pair] crashed their VUSD bus three times, causing thousands of dollars of damage each time, but was never even asked to take a drug or alcohol test, and was still employed by VUSD as a bus driver at the time of the filing of [the] Complaint.”

Alleged Psychological and Financial Harm

The plaintiffs further contend that their sudden loss of employment and the revocation or suspension of their licenses caused both financial hardship and emotional distress.

According to the court documents, each sought psychological treatment and counseling to help cope with anxiety, stress, and difficulty sleeping.

Legal Relief Sought

The lawsuit outlines seven separate causes of action. These include claims of unlawful termination under state education law, denial of due process under the California Constitution, discrimination based on age and race, and multiple counts of retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act and California Labor Code provisions.

The plaintiffs are seeking reinstatement to their former roles, along with compensation for lost wages, emotional distress, and legal costs. They also request declaratory and injunctive relief, including court-mandated policy reforms and anti-discrimination training within the Visalia Unified School District.