For five years, a high school teacher collected a salary almost double what government officials now say was proper. When the alleged error was discovered, the Education Department halved the teacher’s pay and demanded she return $93,948. On Monday, she sued to stop the clawback, according to court records.
Desiree Parson had taught elementary school in the Virgin Islands for nearly 20 years. Although she had secured tenure and other benefits from her long service, and was nearing retirement, she left the $65,201 job in December 2019 to instruct JROTC students at Charlotte Amalie High School — at an annual salary of $108,377.18, according to her federal lawsuit.
The job offer and pay rate were approved by the director of Human Resources, the deputy commissioner of Fiscal Administration, the commissioner of Education, and the director of Personnel, Parsons’ attorney said in the lawsuit.
Then, without notice, the Education Department slashed her pay in March 2025 by roughly 49% to $55,493.97, according to the lawsuit. Over five years, the alleged overpayment would come to more than $264,400.
In March 2026, after cutting Parson’s salary, Education officials demanded she repay $93,948.22 — at a minimum of $500 biweekly. The repayment mandate came from Education Department Personnel Director Nicole Jacobs, the same person who had extended the $108,377.18 job offer, according to court records.
“The notion that a long-tenured educator — years away from retirement in a protected civil service position — would voluntarily accept a reduction in pay to move into an unclassified, at-will role is not merely unlikely; it is facially absurd,” Parsons’ lawyers wrote. “No reasonable employer recruiting an experienced educator would expect acceptance of such terms; no reasonable educator approaching retirement would agree to them. The Department’s position is contradicted by basic economic reality.”
The pay rate was confirmed and reapproved several times over the years through multiple internal and external audits, according to court records.
“Ms. Parson committed no wrongdoing. She did not set her own salary, approve her own personnel actions, or misrepresent any fact. The relief she seeks — restoration of her contracted salary, back pay, withdrawal of the repayment demand, and appropriate damages — is compelled by the Constitution, by federal statute, by contract, and by equity,” according to court records.
Parsons alleged the pay reduction and repayment demand were unlawful. She had received no complaints about her performance. Furthermore, Parsons had already paid five years’ income taxes on the original contracted salary, money she would not be able to recoup, according to the suit.
