Writer’s Extension: 1120
[email protected]
January 10, 2025
Tom Hosler, Superintendent
Perrysburg Exempted Village School District
Re: Investigation Report of Complaints Filed Against High School Employee John
Henline
Mr. Hosler:
In late May 2024, employee Witness 4 1 reported a complaint alleging that John Henline, her
physical education teacher at the time when she was a high school student (in the early 2000s),
inappropriately touched her during class instruction. In addition to her own complaint, Witness 4 claimed
other incidents involving Mr. Henline from many years ago, specifically related to two other prior
students. Finally, at the same time Witness 4 brought her complaint, employee Witness 1 was present and
claimed that, during her time as a student at Perrysburg High School (in the early 2010s), Mr. Henline
touched her inappropriately as well. The District opened an investigation into the complaints and
consulted with Wood County Children’s Services. Following the District’s initial investigation
throughout the summer of 2024, and upon the request of Superintendent Hosler, I was retained to review
and assess the District’s investigation, conduct additional interviews as necessary, and provide a report of
the investigation’s findings. That report is submitted below.
Summary of the Complaints
May 24, 2024 Complaints
(1) Witness 4, a current employee at Perrysburg High School, claims that while she was a student at
Perrysburg High School and attending physical education class in the early 2000s she was touched
inappropriately by Mr. Henline during class instruction. 2 No report was made at that time.
(2) Witness 1, a current employee at Perrysburg High School, claims that while she was a student on
the dance team at Perrysburg High School in the early 2010s, Mr. Henline evaluated a knee injury
1
Student names and personally identifiable information has been redacted pursuant to Ohio and federal law. See, O.R.C.
3319.321; 20 U.S.C. 1232g, et seq. (FERPA). While certain individuals may have reported the complaint after they were no
longer a student, their names must be redacted in order to protect that information that relates back to their time as a student,
or that would identify the student’s private information.
2
Dates are generalized for privacy.
250 East Broad Street, Suite 900 • Columbus, Ohio 43215
t: 614.222.8686 • f: 614.222.8688 • scottscrivenlaw.com
Page |2
she had (he was the athletic trainer at the time) and inappropriately touched her leg, with her dance
coach present. No report was made at that time.
(3) On behalf of Witness 2, a current Perrysburg High School employee and early 2000s graduate,
Witness 4 alleged that Mr. Henline made an inappropriate comment to Witness 2 after she
graduated in the early 2000s, suggesting that he had flirted with her while she was a student in
high school. No report was made previously.
May 30, 2024 Complaint
(4) On behalf of Witness 5, a Perrysburg High School graduate (in the late 1990s), Witness 4 alleged
that Mr. Henline had a sexual relationship with this student while she was a senior in high school
in the late 1990s. No report was made previously.
Witness 4 filed a police report in May 2022 regarding her complaint, but no charges or further
action was taken by the Police Department. None of the above complaints were previously made to
Perrysburg Schools, however. As they were reported in May 2024, it was determined that all of the above
allegations would be investigated at that time. Witness 4 was made aware of her rights to bring a formal
complaint against Mr. Henline under Title IX, or to bring a formal complaint of retaliation against Mr.
Henline or any other relevant respondent, but she declined to do so. All individuals with alleged
complaints were advised of the District-initiated investigation, other than the late 1990s complainant,
because her whereabouts were not known at that time.
The District Investigation
Following Witness 4’s report on May 24, 2024, and continuing through the summer of 2024, the
District investigated the above incidents by conducting interviews, gathering records, locating witnesses,
and updating the complainants of the process. Those involved in the investigation included Justin Fults,
Director of Student Services, Don Christie, the District’s Executive Director of Human Resources, and
Tom Hosler, District Superintendent. Legal counsel was also consulted throughout.
In addition to the investigation, the District consulted with Wood County Children’s Services
regarding the alleged incidents. The District was informed on June 14, 2024 that Children’s Services
did not have the authority to investigate a complaint related to a current adult, even if the complaint
related to alleged events at the time when they were a minor. The District then contacted the Wood
County Prosecutor’s Office to see if they would open an investigation. While Witness 4had filed a
complaint with the local police in May 2022, none of the others had.3 Witness 1 was encouraged
to do so and she filed a complaint with the Perrysburg Police Department in July 2024. However,
no charges were pursued by law enforcement as to either complainant’s allegations.
3
A records request was made for the police report and it was provided to the District. Greg Cole, the District’s SRO, was
indicated as the reporting officer on May 16, 2022. In the report, Witness 4 told the investigating officer that she was touched
with a pencil “on her extreme lower abdomen” and that the pencil did not touch her vagina or exterior labia. Witness 4 was
asked if she was aware of any other concerns and she said, while she knew others had complaints about Mr. Henline, they were
afraid to talk about it, and so she did not go further.
Page |3
In addition to investigating complaints directly with the complainant interviews, the District
inquired as to other potential witnesses and located those individuals for interviews. Still others were
identified as potentially having other complaints or information, and they were interviewed as well. The
most difficult claim to investigate proved to be the allegation that Mr. Henline had a sexual relationship
with a late 1990s graduate. The name of the student was known, but her whereabouts were not, as she
had moved out of town. Her sister continued to live locally and she was asked to provide an interview.
She agreed and was interviewed on August 13, 2024. Although most of her observations were second-
hand, the sister had observed relevant information suggesting that Witness 5 spent significant time at Mr.
Henline’s home during her senior year, allegedly “walking his dog,” and that, when confronted about it,
Witness 5 admitted to her boyfriend that she had a sexual relationship with Mr. Henline. In addition, the
younger sister explained that she had confronted Mr. Henline about these allegations when she was a
student at PHS, and that Mr. Henline admitted it, stating “your sister was 18 and knew what she was
doing.” She was not willing to give the District contact information for her older sister or anyone else.
She was asked if she would discuss the matter with her sister to see if she would be willing to speak to the
District, and she agreed she would.
Ultimately, the District was informed that Witness 5 would not speak with them. Given that
disappointment, efforts were made towards the end of summer 2024 and early fall 2024 to locate the man
who had allegedly been her boyfriend at the time, given that Witness 3 suggested he may have information.
That individual was located and efforts were then made to reach the individual through phone calls, letters,
and certified mail requests. A call was also made to the individual’s place of work, but the individual
would not speak with the District, nor did he respond in any way. Contacts were also made with PHS
graduates from the late 1990s who might have contact information, but that was not successful, either.
The District provided updates to the complainants on September 13, 2024 regarding the status of
the investigation and the fact that a third-party (the undersigned) was retained to review the District’s
investigation and complete any additional investigatory needs.
Overview of the Third-Party Investigation
As a part of the investigation, I interviewed 10 current staff and administrators, including 4 former
Perrysburg students, the initial complainant and others, and respondent John Henline. A second interview
with the initial complainant was conducted to allow for follow-up questions. All members of the
Perrysburg Education Association were provided representation during their interviews.
In addition to interviewing witnesses, I reviewed District e-mail, administrators’ investigative
notes, text communications, journal entries, District calendars and communications, and reports relevant
to the allegations as well as reports from outside agencies, including the Perrysburg Police Department.
Summary of Investigation Findings
Witness 4 Complaint
On October 22, 2024 I interviewed Witness 4, with her union representative present. Although
the District had attempted to hold this interview sooner, Witness 4 had not been available. Witness 4
explained that she began her employment with Perrysburg Schools in the
Page |4
high school, where Mr. Henline worked as a physical education teacher and assistant athletic director. 4
She had no issues working in the same building with Mr. Henline until she learned additional information
about him in May of 2022.
It was on May 3, 2022 that Witness 4 was at a teacher work day when one of the women
complained about teacher John Henline and some inappropriate comments or jokes he had made. Witness
4 to share what she claimed happened during her time as a student in physical education class at Perrysburg
High School in the early 2000s. She explained that, during a class lesson on bowling, she was sitting on
the floor and asked Mr. Henline to come over to show her how to keep score. She claims that he picked
up her score card, placed it on her leg at about her knee, wrote on it, moved it up her leg a bit, wrote on it
again, and then moved it up further. She felt something touch her below her belly button and above her
private area – she does not know if it was the pencil Mr. Henline was writing with or part of his
hand/fingers. As he was giving instructions, Witness 4 was uncomfortable and said “OK, I get it.” She
did not report it to anyone at the school. The women discussed whether they would tell anyone else about
it, and they decided not to. Witness 4 describes this day as being the start of a change in how she felt
about Mr. Henline, explaining that, because she heard stories about others having issues with him like
this, it made it seem more likely that what he did to her had been intentional, and that was quite traumatic
for her.
Then, on May 12, 2022, one of Witness 4’s coworkers told her that Mr. Henline allegedly used a
lint roller on a senior female student’s leg. 5 Another coworker chimed in and said that after she graduated
from high school in the late 2000s she was working as a waitress at a bar/restaurant and Mr. Henline, who
was there as a customer, said to her “you know I used to hit on you in high school.” That evening, Witness
4 met a female friend of hers for dinner who happened to be a police officer. She told her friend about
the above and her friend told her she needed to report it. The friend told Witness 4 she needed to at the
very least send a text to her building principal right then, and so she did.
There was an event at school that evening, so Witness 4went back to the school to talk to Mr.
Cookson, her building principal. Witness 4 said that, when she was a student, Mr. Henline “took a piece
of paper and wrote up [her] legs.” She said she had also heard that more recently Mr. Henline used a lint
roller on a student’s leg. She told him this because she thought the incidents were similar, and that would
suggest there was validity to the current student’s story. Witness 4 said that Mr. Cookson told her that he
had investigated the matter along with Jessica Molina, then Director of Student Services, and they “didn’t
find anything,” but that he would follow up and get back to her. The following day, Friday May 13, 2022,
Witness 4 was distressed and crying, and so she needed to stay home from work. Principal Cookson
reached out to her with information regarding the employee assistance program, available through their
health insurance. On Saturday, she spoke with Principal Cookson over the phone and said that “learning
how it happened to another [student] clarified what happened to her.” She asked if they should involve
SRO Greg Cole and, according to Witness 4, Mr. Cookson told her that could be “messy” and asked her
what her goal was. Witness 4 also alleges that Mr. Cookson said that “he has coached with [Mr. Henline]
for 25 years and has never heard him say anything off color about a girl in the high school.” Mr. Cookson
4
Mr. Henline was hired by Perrysburg Schools in 1995. During his first 17 years with the District he taught Health/Physical
Education and coached football, basketball, and served as an athletic trainer. After that time, he taught Health/Physical
Education and served as the Assistant Athletic Director, which was also his employment during this investigation.
5
Mr. Henline kept the District’s Facility Dog, Taft, in his home and escorted Taft throughout the school day. The lint roller
apparently was for dog hair.
Page |5
believes that what he said to Witness 4 about Mr. Henline was that he worked with Mr. Henline for 10
years as a basketball coach, that he had been around him a lot, sometimes staying in the same room on
trips, and that he was not saying what she said didn’t happen, but that in all the times he’d been with him,
he “had never heard Mr. Henline talk in a derogative way about women or girls.” He does remember
asking Witness 4 what her “end goal” was, and that she did not have an answer.
As promised, the following week Mr. Cookson went to Witness 4 to tell her what was learned in
the “lint roller” investigation. He told her that they did a thorough investigation and that “nothing was
done wrong; maybe a little weird.” Witness 4 was upset. She spoke to SRO Cole and said “why did I
even do this,” referring to her own report to Mr. Cookson. He suggested she file a police report, and so
she did.
When I interviewed Mr. Cookson, his memory of the lint roller investigation was that “the girl
said it didn’t happen.” He believed that Mr. Henline had said he “got the lint roller for her and basically
threw it to her to use it.” Mr. Cookson explained that he did not report this to Human Resources at the
time because there had been no findings; if he had found that Mr. Henline touched the student’s leg with
the lint roller, he would need to tell HR. The investigation notes from the time were reviewed as a part of
this investigation and the notes stated that both the student involved and a witness reported that Mr.
Henline did use the lint roller on the girl’s leg. Given this information, I asked Mr. Cookson why he
believed Mr. Henline over the student? He did not have an answer.
Over the summer of 2022, Witness 4 spoke to an acquaintance with whom she had worked at a
prior job who was the younger sister of Witness 5, both graduates of PHS. Witness 4 told the woman
what she alleged happened with Mr. Henline during her physical education class and the woman proceeded
to tell Witness 4 that Mr. Henline had a sexual relationship with her sister while the sister was a senior in
high school in the late 1990s. Witness 4 did not report this to Perrysburg Schools, law enforcement, or
Children’s Services.
For the entire following school year (2022-2023), Witness 4 had no issues with Mr. Henline and
she did not make any reports to Perrysburg administration about Mr. Henline. There was a report made
against Mr. Henline about his conduct towards a student in a CPR class he taught in March 2023, however.
The complaint alleged that while a student was practicing CPR on a dummy, Mr. Henline made a comment
about how what she was doing looked sexual. Kellie Johnson, the High School Assistant Principal at that
time, investigated. The student provided a written statement, indicating that Mr. Henline made the
comment alleged, and another student who was present and interviewed confirmed the same. Mr. Cookson
then sent an e-mail to Mr. Henline on March 14, 2023 that said “as I mentioned to you today in our
meeting, the claims made by a PHS student of your alleged misconduct during the CPR training session
could not be confirmed through the PHS Administrative team’s investigative efforts. However, please let
this email serve as a reminder that as a Perrysburg Schools employee you are expected to conduct yourself
in a professional manner at all times when working with, or around, students.” [emphasis added]. Mr.
Cookson did not have an explanation for this discrepancy when I interviewed him.
Witness 4 again raised no concerns for the next school year (2023-2024) until the last several days
of school. On May 24, 2024, Witness 4 was wrapping up in a meeting with coworkers at the Commodore
Building when a discussion about the following school year’s office locations led her to believe she may
have an office in close proximity to Mr. Henline’s office. Dr. Justin Fults, Director of Student Services,
Page |8
and that after school she claimed that she would go to Mr. Henline’s house to walk his dog. Witness 3
recalls that Witness 5 on several occasions would leave their home and say she was going to do so.
Witness 3 was apprehensive to give any details about what she knew about her sister’s relationship with
Mr. Henline. She said “there was a physical relationship” and that she did not know how long it lasted.6
She said she learned about it one year after it happened, and that it happened at the end of Witness 5’s
senior year of high school. That would have been just prior to Witness 3 starting her own senior year at
Perrysburg High School. Witness 3 stated that she confronted Mr. Henline about this at school during her
senior year and that Mr. Henline’s response was “your sister was 18 and she knew what she was doing.”
Mr. Henline was questioned about whether he had ever had a relationship with a student, which
he initially denied. As the questions closed in on the alleged relationship with Witness 5, minor
admissions were made, but the student’s name was not shared. First, Mr. Henline claimed that he had
never had any female students at his home. He later admitted that he “had a backyard dog door and we
all got talking and got the dog out,” “probably 3 or 4 times.” He said he could not remember the name of
the student, but that they were a that was a “helper in gym class” and that he was
“assuming he was with her at his home.” After further questioning, Mr. Henline stated that just one time
she came by his house and asked to walk his dog. He still did not admit that she entered his home until
much later in the interview, at which time he said he was drinking a beer in the home and the two simply
sat in his living room and talked. He then said that when she went to leave they kissed. He was not sure
of her age at the time. He said he was invited to her graduation party, and he attended. He tried to call
her a few times, but she did not return his call. He also believed he reached out to her after she left for
college, and that she did not respond. After additional time had passed and the issue was revisited, Mr.
Henline admitted more – that on the day the student visited his home they laid on his bed, and he kissed
her stomach. He did not admit to any further physical contact. Mr. Henline was very scattered regarding
the timeframe. He initially admitted that this happened “towards the end of the school year” [of her senior
year]. When he was asked how old she was, he said “18.” When asked how he knew that, he said “because
seniors are 18.” When he was advised that not all seniors are 18, he changed his story to say that she
probably came over during the first week or two of the summer.
When asked about whether he was confronted by Witness 5’s younger sister at school, Mr. Henline
stated he did not remember it. After being informed what was alleged by Witness 3, he said he “kind of”
remembered something like that, and that he probably did say what was alleged.
Following Mr. Henline’s interview on December 5, 2024, he was immediately placed on
administrative leave. In a follow-up meeting, Mr. Henline was advised that he could resign his
employment from the District, or the Superintendent would make a recommendation to the Board to
initiate the termination of his contract. Mr. Henline offered his resignation from the District, and reports
of professional misconduct were made to the State Board of Education, Office of Professional Conduct.
Witness 1 Complaint
As was explained above, as Witness 4 shared her complaint with Mr. Fults and Ms. Bacon on May
24, 2024, employee Witness 1 joined them and brought a complaint of her own. Specifically, she alleged
6
Witness 4 said that Witness 3 claimed to have overheard Witness 5 say to her boyfriend, in an argument about John Henline,
“you want me to admit we had sex, we did.” Witness 3 did not say that in her interview in this investigation, however.
Page |9
that while she was on the Perrysburg High School dance team in the early 2010s, she had injured her knee
during practice. Mr. Henline was the athletic trainer at the time and came to evaluate her, along with her
coach Miranda Calhoun. Witness 1 alleged that Mr. Henline touched her leg and went all the way up to
her pelvic bone (over her shorts) “to the point where the coach intervened and made him stop” and also
made a comment about where he was touching. Witness 1 said that she never told anyone at the school.
The District located the high school dance team coach from that time, Miranda Calhoun. Ms.
Calhoun agreed to cooperate with an interview and, in doing so, stated that she had no memory of Witness
1’s allegations or of any time when she had concerns with Mr. Henline’s touching of a student as an
athletic trainer. Mr. Henline was asked about this alleged incident. He explained that evaluating a knee
for an injury would require contact with the leg beyond the knee (both above and below the knee), but he
did not recall any contact as Witness 1 alleged.
A report was also made to the Perrysburg Police Department, and Witness 1 told her story to a
detective there. The Police Department interviewed the dance team coach as well. Ultimately, no charges
were filed.
Witness 2 Complaint
Witness 2 graduated from Perrysburg High School in the early 2000s. She is now a teaching
employee in the District. She affirmed the initial report made by Witness 4, that after she graduated from
PHS she was a waitress at the bar/restaurant . She explained that Mr. Henline came to the restaurant
with a friend/PHS staff member. She was approximately age 19 at the time. While they were at the
restaurant, she alleges that Mr. Henline told her “you know we flirted with you [or hit on you] when you
were in high school.” Mr. Henline did not have any recall of this, but he stated in his interview that he
“was probably drunk and who knows what I said.”
Witness 2 suggested that the District speak with another previous student who may have
experiences with Mr. Henline relevant to the investigation, although she did not state what those
experiences were. Dr. Fults reached out to that individual and she indicated that she was not comfortable
getting involved and did not think she had “anything relevant to today” to share. She was asked to follow
up if she changed her mind, but she has not as of the date of this report.
Investigation Conclusions
In evaluating the allegations herein, and in order for those allegations to be substantiated, a burden
of proof is used that requires a “preponderance of evidence,” i.e., the evidence demonstrates that it is more
likely than not that the conduct occurred. Put another way, the standard of proof requires that the evidence
demonstrates that the percent certainty that the conduct occurred is more than 50%.
With regard to nearly all of the allegations in this District-initiated investigation, several years, if
not decades, have passed. Memories have certainly faded, and in most cases corroborating witnesses are
not available, nor are there written records of relevance. While there is limited documented evidence and
testimony, it was my perception that the testimony given was credible. Nearly all witnesses cooperated
and discrepancies between documented evidence and spoken testimony were rare, typically only for easily
corrected items such as dates. Mr. Henline’s credibility suffered in that his admissions were given in slow
P a g e | 10
drips as it relates to the allegations involving Witness 5. However, zero evidence was given in this
investigation by Witness 5 herself, such that there is no evidence to compare his testimony to. Indeed,
Witness 5 was contacted through both of her social media accounts (Facebook and Instagram) prior to and
after Mr. Henline’s interview and she did not respond.
Regarding the complaints by Witness 4, it is my conclusion that there is a preponderance of
evidence to suggest that Mr. Henline would have placed a bowling score card on her lap to provide her
instruction in physical education class, as he explained that would be his practice. Given the time that has
passed, I cannot reach a conclusion regarding his intent or whether a pencil accidentally touched her lower
abdomen area, although it is certainly possible. I do not find that there is a preponderance of evidence to
suggest that Principal Aaron Cookson retaliated against Witness 4 for her complaint, based upon the
factual evidence summarized above. However, I find it more likely than not that Mr. Cookson was
conflicted in his investigations of Mr. Henline in all of the examples given, and that he should have
withdrawn himself from any involvement in those matters. The fact that in both recent student incidents
he reached the conclusion that the allegations did not occur, despite student testimony otherwise,
demonstrates his conflict and/or bias in favor of Mr. Henline. Mr. Cookson acknowledged that if there
was an allegation that Mr. Henline touched a student’s body he would need to report that to Human
Resources, but could not then explain why he did not report the incident involving the student and the lint
roller.
With regard to the allegations involving Witness 5, it is my conclusion by a preponderance of the
evidence that Mr. Henline had a physical/intimate relationship with Witness 5 while she was a student,
during her senior year of high school in the late 1990s. Mr. Henline admitted to having physical contact
with Witness 5 in his home, but ultimately did not admit to doing so while she was enrolled in Perrysburg
Schools. It was my impression by his back and forth in the interview that Mr. Henline was unsure
regarding the law, unsure of the student’s age, and was attempting to hedge his own personal responsibility
by claiming the relationship did not start until after the student graduated. That evidence was not
supported by the other witness testimony and did not appear credible.
With regard to the allegations involving Witness 1, I cannot reach a conclusion by a preponderance
of the evidence that Mr. Henline engaged in misconduct. Witness 1 explained that Mr. Henline assisted
her in his capacity as athletic trainer, in the presence of her coach. The coach did not recall any misconduct
or inappropriate touching by Mr. Henline towards any student, at any time. If she had witnessed such a
thing, she would have been required to report suspected abuse of a child, and she did not.
With regard to the allegation involving Witness 2, I conclude by a preponderance of the evidence
that Mr. Henline did make the comment to her after she graduated, as alleged. Specifically, it was alleged
that, after she graduated, Mr. Henline was a customer at a restaurant where she worked and he told her
that he “hit on her [or flirted with her] while she was in high school.” Witness 2 does not recall Mr.
Henline actually doing anything that would constitute flirting with her or hitting on her while she was in
high school. Because Witness 2 was 19 years old at the time of the comment, the allegation does not
apply to her time as a student, nor was Mr. Henline acting as her educator at the time of the comment.
This concludes my investigation findings regarding the above-referenced complaints. It is my
understanding that you will review these findings, communicate them to the complainants, offer
P a g e | 11
supportive measures as are reasonable, and evaluate opportunities for corrective action in response to these
findings. I remain available to assist the District as you move forward with these efforts.
Sincerely,
Jessica K. Philemond
Investigator
Cc: Complainants
Don Christie, Executive Director of Human Resources
Justin Fults, Student Services Director
