STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
LEE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 92-7075
)
CARL B. DIETZ, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, William F. Quattlebaum, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on February 16-17 and March 10, 1993, in Fort Myers, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: John J. Hament, Esquire
1800 Second Street, Suite 785
Sarasota, Florida 34236
For Respondent: Robert J. Coleman, Esquire
2300 McGregor Boulevard Post Office Box 2089
Fort Myers, Florida 33902 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Whether just cause exists for the Petitioner's proposed termination of the professional services contract under which the Respondent is employed.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Respondent Carl B. Dietz was employed as a teacher at the Trafalgar Middle School in Fort Myers, Florida, under a professional services contract by the Lee County School Board.
On November 17, 1992, the Respondent was suspended without pay and benefits pending dismissal. As grounds for the suspension, the Petitioner cited the Respondent's alleged misconduct and harassment involving students, alleged use of profanity, racial slurs and humiliating language directed at students, alleged sexual harassment of female students, and alleged possession of a loaded firearm on school ground.
The Respondent timely appealed the suspension and requested formal hearing. The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings which noticed and conducted the proceeding.
At hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of 16 witnesses and had exhibits numbered 1-12 and 14-15 admitted into evidence. The Respondent presented the testimony of six witnesses, testified on his own behalf, and had exhibits numbered 1-14 admitted into evidence. The prehearing stipulation filed by the parties was admitted as a Hearing Officer exhibit.
A transcript of the hearing was filed. Both parties filed proposed recommended orders. The proposed findings of fact are ruled upon either directly or indirectly as reflected in this Recommended Order, and in the Appendix which is attached and hereby made a part of this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At all times material to this case, Respondent Carl B. Dietz (Dietz) was employed as a member of the instructional staff of Trafalgar Middle School, Lee County School District (District) pursuant to a professional service contract.
Throughout Dietz's employment with the District, his annual evaluations indicate that the quality of his work was deemed an "effective level of performance".
Dietz was initially employed by the District as a regular teacher on August 15, 1985.
Dietz holds Florida Teaching Certificate #543771 issued by the Florida Department of Education. He is certified to teach secondary-level history and junior high school mathematics.
For six years prior to the 1991-92 school year, Dietz taught advanced level American history and math at Cypress Lakes High School. Most of Dietz's students at Cypress Lakes were approximately 16-18 years old.
A decrease in enrollment at Cypress Lakes resulted in a reduction of teaching staff at Cypress Lakes. Because no other high school instructional positions were open, Dietz was offered and accepted a position at Trafalgar Middle School.
During the 1991-92 school year, Dietz taught history to Trafalgar eighth graders.
During the school year 1992-93, Dietz was assigned teaching responsibilities for the Trafalgar Middle School sixth grade PASS program math and social studies classes.
The PASS (Pupils Achieving School Success) program is a state funded project developed to focus specific attention on students identified as at risk of withdrawal from school prior to high school graduation.
Dietz had no previous experience as an instructor in a PASS program. Dietz received no special training for the PASS program. The sixth grade students in the PASS program were approximately 11-12 years old.
The nature of the PASS program may result in students who are less disciplined and more disruptive than the students Dietz had previously taught.
Dietz taught two PASS classes, a morning group and an afternoon group. Students from both classes testified during the hearing. Conflicts in testimony have been resolved as indicated in the following Findings of Fact.
It is alleged that on one day in October, 1992, Dietz, yanked a chair from under a student, resulting in the student's head striking the desk as he fell to the floor.
The evidence establishes that the student was sitting sideways in the chair and was rocking back on the rear legs of the chair. Dietz grabbed the seatback and the chair slid from under the student who fell to the floor.
The greater weight of the evidence is insufficient to establish that the student struck his head during the fall. In any event, the student was not physically injured in the incident.
Dietz asserted that the student had been previously warned about sitting improperly, and that he grabbed the seatback to startle the child and "make the point" that he should sit properly.
There is no evidence that the action of Dietz was an appropriate manner in which to discipline the child for sitting incorrectly in the chair.
It is alleged that in October, 1992, Dietz addressed a child (whose pronunciation of his first name was poor) by a mispronunciation of the child's name as a means of encouraging the child to pronounce the name correctly. Upon requesting Dietz to correctly pronounce the name, Dietz discontinued his practice. The evidence fails to establish that the child was harmed by the mispronunciation of his name.
In October, 1992, Dietz removed a non-functioning clock from the classroom wall and threw it down. The battery came out of the clock and struck a female student's leg, but no injury resulted. The allegation that Dietz's removal of the clock was accompanied by a remark that the "piece of shit" clock was not working is not supported by the greater weight of credible evidence.
It is alleged that Dietz threw a pencil and book at one student who came to class without materials. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Dietz slammed a book down on the table in front of the student, who was being seated away from class as a disciplinary measure. The evidence also establishes that Dietz tossed a pencil to the child. The evidence fails to indicate that tossing a pencil to a sixth grade child is an appropriate method of distributing school supplies. The pencil would have hit the child had he not moved from the path of the projectile, however the evidence does not establish any intent to injure the child by Dietz.
In October, 1992, four female students from Dietz's afternoon class locked themselves in a bathroom stall during a rest room break and remained there when the break ended. Standing in the school hallway, Dietz reached into the bathroom, knocked on the stall door and directed the female students to return to class. It is alleged that upon exiting the bathroom, Dietz addressed the students as "lesbians," "perverts" and "gaywads." The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Dietz used such language in the presence of the female students or that his action in directing the students to return to class was inappropriate.
It is alleged that at various times in the classroom during the 1992-
93 school year, Dietz uttered the following words and phrases: "nigger," "nigger shit," and "nigger talk," and instructed one student to "take your black ass back to Africa." The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Dietz used such language in the classroom.
It is alleged that at various times in the classroom during the 1992-
93 school year, Dietz uttered the following words: "ass," "assholes," "shit," "hell," "fucking assholes," and "fucking jerks." The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Dietz used such language in the classroom.
It is alleged that on one occasion at the end of the class session during the 1992-93 school year, Dietz instructed a student in the completed class to get his "fat ass" out of the classroom. There was testimony that Dietz directed the student to get his "fat carcass" out of the classroom. While the greater weight of the credible and persuasive evidence establishes that Dietz indeed addressed the child as "fat", it is insufficient to establish that Dietz used the word "ass" in the presence of the child. The evidence fails to establish that use of the descriptive word "fat" resulted in injury to the child.
It is alleged that in October, 1992, Dietz threw a plastic cup at a student. The evidence fails to support the allegation.
It is alleged that in October, 1992, Dietz threatened to tell the mother of a student that the child was "a big fat lump of nothing." The evidence fails to support the allegation.
In October, 1992, a student inquired of Dietz as to whether he believed the students in the class were "brats." Dietz replied in the affirmative. The student then asked if Dietz thought the inquiring student was a "brat." Dietz again replied in the affirmative.
It is alleged that Dietz drove onto the school grounds with a loaded and cased handgun locked in the glove box of his car. It is alleged that on the day questioned about the gun, Dietz admitted having the gun in the car.
The evidence fails to establish that, on the day questioned, Dietz (who owned several vehicles) had the gun in the glove box of the car driven. However, the evidence establishes that, on at least one occasion, Dietz drove onto the school grounds with a loaded and cased handgun locked in the glove box of his vehicle.
The all times material to this case, there was no written School Board policy prohibiting a loaded and cased weapon from being on the school grounds locked in a vehicle glove box. There were no oral directives to faculty that a loaded and cased weapon, locked in a vehicle glove box, was prohibited from school grounds. At one time in the Spring of 1992, the school principal brought a firearm onto school grounds, the thereafter loaded and fired the weapon as part of a demonstration. The District's assertion that the related alleged violation of federal law is sufficient to support termination is rejected.
On October 28, 1992, a number of Dietz's students went to the office of a school guidance counselor and voiced a number of complaints about alleged conduct. The counselor noted the complaints and reported the matter to the assistant principal of the school.
On October 29, 1992, the assistant principal met with Dietz to discuss the allegations. According to the assistant principal, Dietz admitted to the alleged behaviors, except for one specific accusation regarding addressing a specific student as a "fucking ass." According to Dietz, he did not admit that such behaviors occurred and instead asserts that he attempted to explain some of the reasons for the allegations, including the grades assigned to some of the complaining students. The conflict in recollections is reconciled in favor of Dietz.
On October 30, 1992, Dietz met with the principal of the school, during which time Dietz admitted that he had previously stored a loaded and cased handgun in the glove box of one of the vehicles he drove onto school grounds.
On October 30, 1992, Dietz was suspended with pay based on the allegations of improper conduct.
In November, 1992, an employee of the superintendent of the Lee County school district undertook an investigation of the allegations regarding Dietz.
On November 10, 1992, a predetermination conference was held.
On November 13, 1992, Dietz was advised that on November 17, 1992, the district superintendant would recommend to the school board that Dietz be suspended without pay and benefits pending termination of employment.
Effective November 17, 1992, the board elected to suspend Dietz without pay and benefits. Dietz was notified of the board action by letter dated November 25, 1993. The letter provided that Dietz could request a formal administrative hearing on the matter.
By letter dated November 19, 1992, Dietz requested formal hearing of the board's November 17 action.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The professional services contract under which the Respondent was employed specifically provides that the Respondent may not be dismissed except for just cause as provided in Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The issue presented for consideration in this case is whether just cause exists for the termination of Mr. Dietz.
Just cause includes, but is not limited to, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
The Petitioner alleges that the Respondent's professional service contract should not be renewed due to misconduct in office. In order to prevail, the Petitioner must, by a preponderance of the evidence, establish the facts supporting the dismissal. In this case, as to the Respondent's alleged misconduct, the burden has not been met.
Misconduct in office is defined as a violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession as adopted in Rule 6B-1.001, Florida Administrative Code, and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, which is so serious as to impair the individual's effectiveness in the school system. Rule 6B-4.009(3), Florida Administrative Code.
The behavior of the Respondent in such instances as are set forth in the Findings of Fact contained herein were clearly not the mature actions expected of a teacher in a sixth grade setting. Grabbing a seatback to startle a child and "make the point" that he should sit properly is not an appropriate method of encouraging a child to sit properly. Tossing a pencil to a sixth grade child is not an appropriate method of distributing supplies. Dietz's response in the affirmative to the "brats" question was unnecessary. However, the evidence fails to establish that such behaviors are so serious as to impair the Respondent's effectiveness in the school system or warrant termination of his employment. As to remaining allegations, the evidence supporting such assertions was not credible or persuasive.
As to the possession of the weapon, the District asserts that the related alleged violation of federal law is cause for termination. While possession of the weapon may be cause for federal legal action, it is not cause, absent contrary District policy existing at the time of the event, for termination of Dietz's employment. No such policy was is existance at the time.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED that the School District of Lee County enter a Final Order reinstating the employment of Carl B. Dietz and providing for back pay and benefits retroactive to November 17, 1992.
DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of July, 1993 in Tallahassee, Florida.
WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 1993.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-7075
To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties.
Petitioner
The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows:
6-8. Rejected, immaterial.
Rejected, not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence.
Rejected. The rest room discussion is irrelevant. The greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence fails to establish that the chair was "yanked" from under the student or that the student struck his head. The alleged lack of an apology is irrelevant.
Rejected as to Dietz interaction with Mr. Nolan, irrelevant.
Rejected, as to the discussion of poster touching, irrelevant. Rejected, as to the alleged "black talk" remark, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence.
Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence.
Rejected as to alleged remark that the class "sucks", not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence.
20-21. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence.
23-25. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence.
26. Rejected, subordinate.
28-29. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. 30, 32. Rejected, subordinate. Recitation of testimony not appropriate
finding of fact.
33. Rejected, unnecessary.
34-40. Rejected, subordinate, unnecessary.
Rejected, irrelevant.
Rejected, unnecessary.
Respondent
The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows:
11. Rejected as to allegation of child striking head in fall, not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence.
13, 15. Rejected, subordinate.
16. Rejected as to force of toss or intent to strike child, irrelevant, no evidence that such action is appropriate regardless of intent.
17-20, 22. Rejected, subordinate.
Rejected, subordinate.
Rejected, unnecessary
25-30. Rejected, subordinate.
31-38. Rejected, goes to credibility of witnesses which has been determined as reflected in the Findings of Fact set forth herein.
42, 44. Rejected, unnecessary.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Dr. James A. Adams Superintendent
Lee County School District 2055 Central Avenue
Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988
John J. Hament, Esquire
1800 Second Street, Suite 785
Sarasota, Florida 34236
Robert J. Coleman, Esquire 2300 McGregor Boulevard Post Office Box 2089
Fort Myers, Florida 33902
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least ten days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
LEE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 92-7075
)
CARL B. DIETZ, )
)
Respondent. )
)
FINAL ORDER
THIS CAUSE came on to be heard before the School Board of' Lee County, Florida upon the Respondent, Carl B. Dietz, having requested a formal hearing of the School Board's action of November 17, 1992 to suspend the Respondent without pay and benefits pending dismissal. The School Board, having been fully advised
in the premises, and having reviewed the complete record below, including the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order, the transcript of the hearing and the Petitioner's Exceptions to Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law and Recommendation, and having heard oral argument, it is thereupon ordered, considered and adjudged as follows:
The Findings of Fact set forth in the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order are adopted and incorporated by reference herein.
Except as to certain Conclusions of Law and the Recommended Penalty which is specifically rejected, the Recommended Order entered by the Department of Administrative Hearings dated July 27, 1993 is otherwise adopted as this agency's Final Order. A copy of the Recommended Order is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part of this Final Order as though the document were set out herein verbatim except as to those Conclusions of Law and the Recommended Penalty which have been modified herein.
The Petitioner timely filed Exceptions to the Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law and Recommended Penalty. These Exceptions were reviewed and individually ruled upon by the School Board wherein all five Exceptions were accepted. A copy of the Petitioner's Exceptions to the Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law and Recommended Penalty is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and made a part of this Final Order to the extent that it modifies or replaces the Conclusions of Law and the Recommended Penalty as set forth in the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer.
The School Board ruled on the Petitioner's Exceptions as follows:
Exception 1 is accepted by the School Board because the correct legal standard under 231.36(1)(a), F.S. is "just cause" and not "misconduct in office" as stated by the Hearing Officer in Conclusion of Law No. 43.
Exception 2 is accepted by the School Board because the term "misconduct in office" is not the controlling legal standard in the case but is rather just one of many definitions of the correct legal standard which is "just cause".
Exception 3 is accepted by the School Board because a part of Conclusion of Law No. 45 again relies solely upon the term "misconduct in office" instead of the correct standard which is "just cause".
Exception 4 is accepted by the School Board because there is no requirement that a School Board Policy be in place to conclude that the possession of a loaded weapon on school grounds constitutes "just cause" for termination.
Exception 5 is accepted by the School Board because the findings of fact do rise to the level of "just cause".
The Conclusions of Law as set forth within the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order are adopted and incorporated herein by reference, except to the extent that they are rejected or modified as follows:
Conclusion of Law No. 43 is hereby modified as follows:
The Petitioner alleges that the Respondent's professional service contract
should not be renewed due to misconduct in office just cause. In order to prevail, the Petitioner must, by a preponderance of the evidence, establish the facts supporting the dismissal. In this case, as to the Respondent's alleged misconduct, the burden Petitioner has not been met established "bust cause".
Conclusion of Law No. 44 is modified by deleting the existing language and replacing it with new language as follows:
Misconduct in office is not the controlling standard in this case but is only one of many definitions of the correct standard which is "just cause".
Conclusion of Law No. 45 is modified as follows:
The behavior of the Respondent in such instances as are set forth in the Findings of Fact contained herein were clearly not the mature actions expected of a teacher in a sixth grade setting. Grabbing a seatback to startle a child and "make the point" that he should sit properly is not an appropriate method of encouraging a child to sit properly. Tossing a pencil to a sixth grade child is not an appropriate method of distributing supplies. Dietz's response in the affirmative to the "brats" question was unnecessary. However, the evidence fails to establish that such behavior are so serious as to impair the Respondent's effectiveness in the school system or warrant termination of his employment. As to remaining allegations,
the evidence supporting such assertions was not credible or persuasive.
As to the possession of the weapon, the District asserts that the related alleged violation of federal law is cause for termination. While possession of the weapon may not be cause for federal legal action, it is not cause, absent contrary District policy termination of Dietz's employment. No such policy was in existence at the time.
There is no requirement that a School Board Policy be in place to conclude that possession of a loaded weapon on school grounds constitutes "just cause" for termination.
In the judgment and discretion of the School Board, the Recommended Penalty of the Hearing Officer is inadequate and the penalty must be increased. This decision is based upon a complete review of the record and the Hearing
Officer's Findings of Fact adopted by the School Board, particularly Findings of Fact Nos. 14, 16-20, 24, 27, 29 and 33, all of which are determined to establish a pattern of misjudgment and inappropriate behavior which rises to the level of just cause for termination.
The Recommended Penalty of the Hearing Officer is hereby increased to termination of employment. The Respondent is hereby terminated from employment with the School Board of Lee County,
This Final Order may be appealed to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, Post Office Box 327, 1005 East Memorial Boulevard, Lakeland, Florida 33802, telephone (813) 499-2290. The appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of rendition of this Order by filing a notice of appeal with the School Board and the second copy with the District Court of Appeal.
ENTERED in an open meeting of the School Board of Lee County, Florida this 19th day of October, 1993.
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
David S. Graham, Chairman
================================================================= DISTRICT COURT OPINION
=================================================================
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL SECOND DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
CARL B. DIETZ, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v. CASE NO. 93-03971
DOAH CASE NO. 92-7075
LEE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
Appellee.
/ Opinion filed August 24, 1994.
Appeal from the Lee County School Board. Robert J. Coleman, Fort Myers, for Appellant.
Marianne Kantor, Fort Myers, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., Concur. BLUE, J., Concurs specially. BLUE, Judge, Specially concurring.
I concur in affirming the final agency action of the Lee County School Board which resulted in the termination of the professional service contract of Carl B. Dietz. I agree section 231.36, Florida Statutes (1991), provides no objective standard by which school boards are required to judge the conduct of instructional staff, resulting in school boards exercising a nearly pure subjective analysis when deciding to terminate a teacher during the term of a professional service contract. I write because I am not sure the legislature intended to endow school boards with this absolute discretion. If not, section
231.36 should be amended to clarify the conduct that would warrant the dismissal of teachers holding a professional service contract.
Section 231.36 appears to provide for three status categories for instructional staff: continuing contract, professional service contract, and probationary status. Each category carries a separate standard for dismissal. Probationary status provides no rights to continuing employment and is required for three years preceding either a continuing contract or a professional service contract.
A continuing contract applies only to instructional staff attaining their contract status before July 1984. Persons holding continuing contracts are subject to dismissal for conduct constituting one of the so-called "seven deadly sins:" immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, drunkenness, or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. 231.36(4)(c)
By statute, all contracts except continuing must contain provisions allowing dismissal during the term only for bust cause. 231.36(1)(a). The statute then defines "just cause" as including but not limited to: misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Just cause therefore includes but is not limited to five of the seven deadly sins. We assume that drunkenness and immorality, which are not included in the non-exclusive list of sins constituting just cause, would also be grounds for dismissal.
Although the statutory language requiring just cause for dismissal has been in effect for more than ten years, there are no cases that examine the definition beyond the language of the statute. It could be argued that the legislature intended dismissal would occur only when conduct involved one of the listed offenses or actions equally inappropriate. This argument is strengthened because the professional service contract carries the right to have the contract renewed unless the school board follows specific procedures set out in section 231.36(3)(e). The elaborate protections appear to include a probationary year even after notification of deficiencies.
For dismissal within the term, just cause is the necessary test with no guarantee of an additional probationary year. In amending section 231.36 and creating a new contract status for teachers (professional service) and by failing to further define just cause, the legislature gave school boards broad discretion to determine when a teacher may be dismissed during the contract term.
In the case before us, the school board charged that Dietz made racial slurs, used profanity in the classroom and sexually harassed female students. No one could argue that, if proven, these charges would constitute grounds for dismissal. However, an administrative hearing resulted in a conclusion that these serious charges were not supported by the evidence. The hearing officer made factual findings that Dietz had engaged in inappropriate conduct but that the conduct did not make him ineffective in the classroom and recommended Dietz be reinstated with back pay.
As it is required to do, the school board accepted the factual findings but determined there was just cause to terminate Dietz's contract. I agree with the majority -- that the legislature left that determination to the respective wisdom of each school board by providing no definite parameters to the term "just cause." If this was not the legislature's intent, section 231.36 should be amended.
MANDATE
From
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
STYLE: Carl B. Dietz v. Lee County School Board COUNTY: Lee
APPELLATE CASE NO: 93-03971 TRIAL COURT CASE NO: 92-7075
This cause having been brought to this Court by appeal and after due consideration, the Court having issued its opinion;
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED that further proceedings be had in said cause in accordance with the opinion of this Court and with tile rules of procedure and laws of the State of Florida.
WITNESS, The Honorable Richard H. Frank
Chief Judge of District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Second District, and the Seal of the said Court at Lakeland, Florida on this day September 12, 1994
William A. Haddad
Clerk, District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Sep. 15, 1994 | Second DCA Opinion filed. |
| Nov. 05, 1993 | Final Order filed. |
| Jul. 27, 1993 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 02/16&17/93 &03/10/93. |
| May 24, 1993 | Respondent`s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed. |
| May 24, 1993 | Petitioner`s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order filed. |
| May 17, 1993 | Letter to WFQ from John M. Hament (re: Notice of change of counsel) filed. |
| May 03, 1993 | Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed Findings of Fact sand Orders filed. |
| Apr. 02, 1993 | Transcript of Proceedings (Vols 1-4) filed. |
| Mar. 22, 1993 | Exhibits filed. (From Court Reporter) |
| Mar. 10, 1993 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Feb. 19, 1993 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 3-12-93; 9:30am; Fort Myers) |
| Feb. 17, 1993 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held, continued to 3-12-93; 9:30am; Ft. Myers) |
| Feb. 11, 1993 | Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Prehearing Stipulation; Prehearing Stipulation filed. |
| Feb. 03, 1993 | Respondent`s response to Petitioner`s Request for Production of Documents filed. |
| Jan. 25, 1993 | CC (Petitioner) Notice of Service of Interrogatories filed. |
| Jan. 25, 1993 | CC (no enclosures) Letter to Robert J. Coleman from John M. Hamment (re: documents) filed. |
| Dec. 21, 1992 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for February 16-17, 1993; 9:30am; Fort Myers) |
| Dec. 21, 1992 | Order Establishing Prehearing Procedure sent out. |
| Dec. 15, 1992 | Joint Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Dec. 14, 1992 | Respondent`s Request for Production of Documents; Notice of Service of Respondent`s Interrogs. to Petitioner filed. |
| Dec. 03, 1992 | Initial Order issued. |
| Nov. 30, 1992 | Agency referral letter; Petition for Suspension Without Pay and Termination of Employment; Notice of Appearance and Request for Formal Administrative Hearing, letter form filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Aug. 24, 1994 | Opinion | |
| Oct. 19, 1993 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jul. 27, 1993 | Recommended Order | Teacher behavior inappropiate but not to warrant termination of employment. |
