STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DONALD ALLEN,
Petitioner,
vs.
FLORIDA AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL UNIVERSITY,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 03-4284
)
)
)
)
)
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
This cause came on for formal hearing before Robert S. Cohen, Administrative Law Judge with the Division of Administrative Hearings, on April 1, 2004, in Tallahassee, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: H. B. Stivers, Esquire
Levine, Stivers & Myers
245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Respondent: Linda Barge-Miles, Esquire
Florida A & M University Office of the General Counsel Lee Hall, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32307
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue is whether Petitioner should be dismissed from his employment as a tenured professor at Florida A & M
University as proposed in a termination letter dated October 17, 2003, on the grounds that he violated Rules 6C3-10.103
and 6C3-10.230, Florida Administrative Code.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On November 10, 2003, Petitioner filed a Formal Protest Petition and Request for Hearing with Respondent which challenged the disciplinary action that had been taken against him. The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Initial Order was entered on November 18, 2003. By a Notice of Hearing dated November 24, 2003, a final hearing was scheduled for February 20, 2004. On February 17, 2004, Respondent filed an Emergency Motion for Continuance based on the unavailability of an indispensable witness. On February 18, 2004, the motion was granted and the hearing was rescheduled for April 1, 2004, and was held as scheduled.
The parties filed their Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation which provides, in pertinent part, that as the party seeking to terminate Petitioner’s employment, Respondent must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it had just cause to terminate Petitioner’s employment.
At the final hearing, Respondent presented the live testimony of Carrie Gavin, Director of the Office of Equal Opportunity Programs; Dr. Larry E. Rivers, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences; and David M. Voss, Assistant to the
Provost for Faculty Relations. Respondent also presented the videotaped deposition of Brandi McSwain, a former student at Florida A & M University. Respondent offered Exhibits
numbered 1 through 12, all of which were received into evidence.
Petitioner testified on his own behalf, and presented the deposition testimony of Dr. Yvonne Bell, Chairperson of the Department of Psychology. Petitioner offered Exhibits
numbered 1 through 5, all of which were received into evidence. By Stipulation and subsequent Order, Petitioner’s Exhibit 1 was provided to the undersigned on April 15, 2004.
A Transcript of the hearing was filed on April 14, 2004. The parties agreed at the conclusion of the hearing that the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law would be
due 20 days from the date of the filing of the transcript. On April 29, 2004, Respondent filed a Stipulated Motion to Extend Time to File the Proposed Recommended Orders which was granted. The proposed recommended orders were due May 12, 2004. The parties have timely filed their Proposed Recommended Orders.
References to statutes are to Florida Statutes (2003) unless otherwise noted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner, Dr. Donald Allen, was hired by Respondent, Florida A & M University, as an associate professor in 1993.
Three to four years later, Petitioner attained the status of tenured professor, which he held until his termination from employment on September 18, 2003.
Petitioner is also known as Dr. Daudi Ajani ya Azibo.
While employed by Respondent, Petitioner authored numerous scholarly articles and books. Dr. Allen was recognized by the International Association of Black Psychologists as a distinguished psychologist. Petitioner has also been recognized by the Journal of Black Psychology for his work and, as a result, Respondent’s Psychology Department has been regarded as the top department in Black Psychology. The Journal of Black Psychology has devoted two issues solely to Petitioner’s work, a heretofore unprecedented move.
During the fall semester of 2002, Petitioner taught a course for Respondent in Black Psychology. The class held approximately 100 students, one of whom was a woman named Brandi McSwain.
Ms. McSwain received a passing grade on her first test in Petitioner’s class, but received a failing grade on her second test when she and three other students were caught cheating on the test.
Petitioner informed the four students who had cheated on the test that they would have to pass the final two tests in
the class in order to receive a passing grade. Each of the four students, except Ms. McSwain, passed the final two tests.
Ms. McSwain approached Petitioner after class on the Thursday before Thanksgiving 2002, to discuss her failing grade on the second test while Dr. Allen was conducting office hours in an adjacent classroom.
Ms. McSwain asked Petitioner if she could earn extra credit to make up for her failing grade. She offered to “do anything” in order to improve her test score. Dr. Allen asked Ms. McSwain to write her telephone number on the test paper so that he could contact her about her failing grade. Requesting a student’s telephone number was something Petitioner routinely did when he had too many students to handle during office hours.
On November 23, 2002, Petitioner called Ms. McSwain to discuss her failing test score. Ms. McSwain offered to write a research paper or perform another assignment in order to earn credit for the failing grade. Petitioner informed Ms. McSwain that she would have to take the remaining two tests, along with the other three students who had cheated, then he would work with her to improve her score on the test on which she had been caught cheating.
During the telephone conversation, a discussion took place between Dr. Allen and Ms. McSwain concerning trading sexual favors for a better grade on the failed test. Petitioner
claims that Ms. McSwain initiated the discussion of exchanging sex for an “A” on the test. Ms. McSwain claims that Dr. Allen initiated the conversation of the exchange of sex for a good grade.
Petitioner told Ms. McSwain that he did not trade sex for grades.
Ms. McSwain told Petitioner that she just wanted to have sexual relations with him, not in exchange for grades, but because she had a “crush” on him.
Petitioner believed that Ms. McSwain was attempting to exchange sexual relations for an “A” grade on the test she failed, and he repeatedly told her that he would not exchange sex for an improved grade. He stated the following: “Get the hell out of here. You’ve got to be kidding. There is no way you want me on you. I’m short, fat, bald, and 50.”
Ms. McSwain convinced Petitioner that she wanted to have sex with him regardless of the impact on her grade. She said the sex she was offering was not about grades. “No sir, I just want to have sex with you.”
Ms. McSwain purchased a tape recorder at a local Wal-Mart so that she could tape the conversations she had with Petitioner concerning their proposed sexual liaison.
Petitioner and Ms. McSwain exchanged several telephone calls concerning arranging a sexual liaison. They finally
agreed to meet at the Albertson’s grocery store on North Monroe Street in Tallahassee, then to proceed to a motel down the street.
Petitioner and Ms. McSwain met at the Albertson’s, then proceeded to the Super 8 Motel down the street, arriving around midnight.
Petitioner proceeded to rent the room in his own name, paying cash, while Ms. McSwain waited in her car.
Petitioner came out to Ms. McSwain’s car and told her the room number, then he went up to the motel room. Ms. McSwain joined him in the room a few minutes later.
Upon entering the room, and on several occasions when she was in the room with Dr. Allen, Ms. McSwain asked if she was going to get an “A” if she performed various sexual acts with
him.
Petitioner and Ms. McSwain discussed the sexual acts
that he wanted her to perform and she repeatedly asked him if she was going to get her “A” if she performed one or another of the acts. Dr. Allen repeatedly told Ms. McSwain that this was not about grades and that he refused to trade sex for grades.
Ms. McSwain testified that she spent no more than five minutes in the motel room with Petitioner, yet the tape recording she made while she was with Petitioner lasted approximately 30 minutes.
Petitioner and Ms. McSwain caressed and discussed explicitly the sexual acts in which they were going to engage. Ms. McSwain began to dance for Petitioner and, as she began to remove her clothes, asked if he was going to give her an “A” for what she was doing or, presumably, for what she was about to do with him. Petitioner continued to tell her that “there is no grade in this.”
At some point in the motel room, before any actual sexual intercourse took place, Ms. McSwain removed the tape recorder from her purse and said to Petitioner “I got you!” As she left the room with her tape recorder in hand, Ms. McSwain told Petitioner that he had better give her an “A” or she was going to turn over the tape to his wife and the people at Florida A & M.
Dr. Allen did not dispute meeting Ms. McSwain at the motel, or that they agreed to engage in sex. Petitioner asserts a consensual sexual relationship and Ms. McSwain asserts a “sex for grades” scenario.
The audiotape of the meeting at the hotel is largely inaudible, although enough of it is audible to make the following conclusions:
Approximately 10 minutes into the tape, Ms. Mcswain states she is trying to get an “A.”
Approximately 12 minutes into the tape, Dr. Allen says, “not related to grade”; Ms. McSwain responds that she is trying to get a good grade.
Approximately 13 minutes into the tape, Dr. Allen states he does not swap grades for sex.
Approximately 14-15 minutes into the tape, Ms. McSwain states that she is not having sex unless she gets a grade.
Approximately 15 minutes into the tape, Ms. McSwain states she wants an “A,” then asks “I’ll get an ‘A’ if I have sex?”
Approximately 17 minutes into the tape, Ms. McSwain states, “if I don’t get an ‘A,’ I’m not going to do it.”
Approximately 18-19 minutes into the tape, she asks for an incomplete and states that she is not going to allow this class to ruin her life.
Approximately 22-23 minutes into the tape, Ms. McSwain says, “I want an ‘A,’ and no one hears this if I get it. I don’t want to hurt anyone.”
Approximately 31 minutes into the tape, Ms. McSwain leaves the motel room.
Petitioner has had no contact with Ms. McSwain since November 24, 2002.
Ms. McSwain did not return to the Black Psychology class for the remainder of the semester following their encounter at the motel.
Ms. McSwain reported the incident with Petitioner to the Office of Equal Opportunity Programs on November 27, 2002, and met with the Director, Ms. Carrie Gavin.
Ms. Gavin advised Ms. McSwain of Respondent’s rules and regulations and provided her with a form for filing a formal complaint against Petitioner.
Ms. Gavin met with Ms. McSwain again on December 4, 2002, at which time she reviewed the audiotape made by
Ms. McSwain of the meeting in the motel room. Ms. McSwain did not file a formal complaint at that time.
Petitioner completed his grades on December 13 or 14 and submitted them to Respondent on or before December 16, 2002.
On December 17, 2002, Ms. McSwain filed a complaint of sexual harassment against Petitioner, after Petitioner’s grades had been posted.
Ms. Gavin notified Petitioner of the filing of the formal complaint by Ms. McSwain.
Petitioner filed a written response to the allegations of the formal complaint.
Ms. Gavin conducted an investigation into the allegations of Ms. McSwain’s complaint and concluded that “there was merit to the complaint.”
The report generated by Ms. Gavin recommended that Petitioner should be terminated from employment because of prior disciplinary action pursuant to Rule 6C3-10.103, Florida Administrative Code.
The report found that Petitioner had engaged in quid pro quo sexual harassment and had created a hostile environment with respect to Ms. McSwain. The basis of these charges was that “a sexual relationship was discussed during the point of dealing with grades” in discussion between a professor and a student.
The recommendations from Ms. Gavin were reviewed by Respondent’s President, Dr. Fred Gainous, who issued a letter upholding the termination of Petitioner pursuant to
Rules 6C3-10.103 and 10-230, Florida Administrative Code.
Ms. Gavin indicated that over the last five years, five or six informal sexual harassment complaints and 15 or 16 formal sexual harassment complaints had been filed with her office. Of the formal complaints, eight had been substantiated and resulted in disciplinary action being taken.
Respondent believes in the principle of progressive discipline. Disciplinary actions range from a written reprimand
to a dismissal. Any employee with a second substantiated violation of the discrimination rule receives a recommendation of dismissal.
Dr. Frederick Humphries, Respondent’s former president, issued a written reprimand to Petitioner for retaliation on April 20, 1999. Petitioner had retaliated against a group of students by providing a survey to “those members of his class who had not filed a sexual harassment complaint against him.” Also contained in that letter was language stating that any further infractions could lead to termination.
Dr. Larry Rivers, Dean of Respondent’s College of Arts and Sciences, was informed of Ms. McSwain’s sexual harassment complaint by Dr. John Chambers, his assistant dean at the time, who informed him that Ms. McSwain did not feel comfortable returning to Petitioner’s class. Dr. Rivers instructed
Mr. Chambers to make alternative arrangements for Ms. McSwain to complete the class.
Petitioner issued Ms. McSwain a grade of “I” (incomplete) in the Black Psychology class.
Ms. McSwain enrolled in one class during the summer semester 2003, but failed to complete it. She withdrew from the University in July 2002.
Dr. Rivers has taught both undergraduate and graduate level courses for Respondent for approximately 25 years. In his role as a department chair and as dean, he has discussed his belief that it is always unprofessional for a professor to have any type of relationship, other than an academic one, with a student. The teacher-student relationship is one based upon power, with the teacher wielding the power.
Respondent has no rule or regulation that prevents a faculty member from having a consensual relationship with an adult (greater than age 18) student.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding. § 120.57(1), Fla. Stat.
As the party seeking to terminate Petitioner’s employment, Respondent must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the allegations which form the basis for the termination are true. Allen v. School Board of Dade County, 571 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
Pursuant to the Joint Prehearing Stipulation filed by the parties, the issues to be determined are whether Petitioner placed a student in a “quid pro quo” sexual harassment situation and/or whether Petitioner’s conduct unreasonably interfered with a student’s educational performance by creating an intimidating
educational environment in violation of Rule 6C3-10.103, Florida Administrative Code. Also to be determined is whether Petitioner’s actions amounted to misconduct in violation of
Rule 6C3-10.230, Florida Administrative Code.
Rule 6C3-10.103, Florida Administrative Code, governs the determination of whether sexual harassment occurred in this matter. It provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
(6)(b) Harassment shall include:
Any slurs, innuendoes or other verbal or physical conduct reflecting on an individual’s race, ethnic background, gender or handicap condition which has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive educational or work environment; has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the individual’s work or school performance or participation; or otherwise adversely affects an individual’s employment or educational opportunities.
The denial of or the provision of aid, benefits, grades, rewards, employment, faculty assistance, services, or treatment on the basis of sexual advances or requests for sexual favors.
Sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment or educational career; submission to or rejection of such conduct is used as a basis for educational or employment decisions affecting the individual; or such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work or educational
performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working or educational environment.
Sexual harassment cases based upon carried-out threats by supervisors often are referred to as “quid pro quo” cases. Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 753 (1998). To establish a prima facie claim for sexual harassment under a theory of quid pro quo, Petitioner has the burden of proving the following by a preponderance of the evidence:
(a) she belonged to a protected class; (b) she was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment; (c) the harassment was based on sex; (d) the student’s reaction to the harassment affected tangible aspects of the student’s educational status; and
(e) Dr. Allen knew or should have known of the harassment and took no remedial action. See, e.g., Polly v. Houston Lighting &
Power Co., 803 F. Supp. 1, (S.D. Tex. 1992), adopted in part, summary judgment granted in part, 825 F. Supp. 135 (S.D. Tex.); Spencer v. General Electric Co., 894 F.2d 651 (4th Cir. 1990); Sparks v. Regional Medical Center Bd., 792 F. Supp. 735 (N.D. Ala. 1992).
In a matter such as this, the issue that must be addressed is whether Ms. McSwain, by her conduct, indicated that the alleged sexual advances were unwelcome, not whether her participation in them was voluntary. Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 106 S. Ct. 2399 (1986).
Petitioner is correct when he states that Respondent has no statutes, rules or regulations that prohibit a consensual relationship between a member of the Florida A & M faculty and a student over the age of 18. However, the existence of such a relationship must be carefully scrutinized when a student complains of harassment to determine whether, in fact, the relationship is truly voluntary and consensual. In the present case, I do not find the relationship to be truly voluntary and consensual.
The relationship between a teacher and a student, even an adult student, is inherently unequal and is one in which the teacher operates from a position of great power, especially when the student is a member of a class being taught by the professor. The testimony of Dr. Larry Rivers, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, and a long-time member of the Florida A & M faculty, who stated that he believes no serious social or sexual relationships should exist between a professor and one of his or her students is persuasive. Dr. Rivers has consistently educated his professors in this regard. In order for such a relationship to be truly consensual, the student must not participate in a class taught by the professor with whom he or she has the relationship since the temptation for abuse and harassment is too great to ignore.
There are numerous significant inconsistencies in
Ms. McSwain’s deposition testimony, most especially her failure to acknowledge that she received a failing grade on the test in question, and her statement that she was in the motel room with Dr. Allen for no more than five minutes when her own audiotape of the rendezvous clearly negates this alleged fact. Further, Petitioner’s testimony is more credible concerning the fact that Ms. McSwain initiated the offer of sex for an “A” grade. The fact that Petitioner asked Ms. McSwain to write her telephone number on her test paper so that he could contact her, in and of itself, is not persuasive of his intent to initiate a quid pro quo sexual relationship. Her offer “to do anything” to improve her grade on the exam demonstrates her willingness to initiate a sexual relationship with Petitioner for one reason only, to improve her grade in Petitioner’s class and, perhaps, to thereby help save her Florida Bright Futures Scholarship which was in jeopardy of being revoked for failure to maintain the required grade point average.
The fact that Ms. McSwain repeatedly stated that she expected to receive an “A” for participating in a sexual liaison with Petitioner lends credence to the fact that this was purely a quid pro quo situation. I am not persuaded by Petitioner’s claims that Ms. McSwain repudiated her request for a higher grade by making statements such as, “I like having sex with
older dudes,” or “I only want to have sex with you.” These statements were made so near in time to her request for an “A” in exchange for sex, that no reasonable person could separate them. Even in the motel room, Ms. McSwain, at each escalation of the sexual encounter, repeatedly asked if she were going to get her “A” if she performed one sexual act or another. The fact that Petitioner may have repeatedly told Ms. McSwain that he was not trading an “A” for sex, is not enough to negate her clear understanding and intent to initiate sex with Petitioner for one reason only, to receive an “A” on the test she had failed when she was caught cheating in Petitioner’s class.
Respondent has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the relationship was not consensual. In the employment context, courts have largely held that, in cases of consensual relationships, where there is no mention of employment issues, a quid pro quo claim cannot be established. See, e.g., Walker v. Sullair Corp., 736 F. Supp. 94 (W.D. N.C. 1990), aff’d in part without op. and rev’d in part without op.
on other grounds, 946 F.2d 888 (4th Cir.); Koster v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 687 F. Supp. 848, (S.D. N.Y. 1988); Grubka v. Dept. of Treasury, 858 F. 2d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1988), later proceeding, 924 F.2d 1039; Reichman v. Bureau of Affirmative
Action, 536 F. Supp. 1149 (M.D. Penn. 1982). Applying the employment cases to this academic context, “employment issues”
(or, more accurately here, educational issues) were constantly on or just below the surface of every conversation between Dr. Allen and Ms. McSwain. Statements like “I’ll do anything for a grade; Do I get my ‘A’ now? After I do this do I get my ‘A’?” clearly bring the academic issue of improving her grade into the motel room. To believe otherwise would be ingenuous, at best.
Respondent has clearly made a prima facie showing of a quid pro quo sexual harassment case by proving each of the five elements. Ms. McSwain belongs to a protected group, namely, she is a student covered by Rule 6C3-10.103, Florida Administrative Code. She was subject to unwelcome sexual harassment in that she offered sex only to improve her grade, not, as Petitioner, repeatedly asserts, because she had a crush on him. The harassment complained of was based on sex. Ms. McSwain’s reaction to the sexual harassment affected tangible aspects of her educational status: she expected to receive a higher grade if she had sex with Petitioner. In fact, Ms. McSwain waited until December 17, 2002, the day after grades were posted for Petitioner’s class, to file her sexual harassment complaint. Clearly, she expected to receive her “A” from Petitioner in exchange either for the preludes to sex she performed with Petitioner in the motel room or for the fact she still had the audiotape of the encounter in her possession. Petitioner knew
or should have known of the harassment and took no effective remedial action. Other than stating to Ms. McSwain that the sexual encounter in the motel room would not result in a better grade, he continued to pursue the relationship in the face of her repeated requests for an “A” in exchange for various sexual acts.
The fact, as asserted by Petitioner, that Ms. McSwain attempted to “catch” him doing something wrong when she taped their encounter in the motel room is irrelevant to the issue of whether Petitioner sexually harassed Ms. McSwain. Petitioner knew or should have known that Ms. McSwain met him in the motel room to “do anything” to get her “A.” Petitioner’s refusal to actually give Ms. McSwain the “A” fails to negate the fact that he knew that was her precise demand of him if sex with him were to become a reality.
Respondent dismissed Petitioner from his employment as a tenured professor on the basis of this being his second violation of Rule 6C3-10.103, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner’s first violation occurred in 1997 when he was reprimanded for retaliating against several students through his providing a class survey “to those students who had not filed discrimination charges against him.” At that time, Petitioner was informed that any future violations of Rule 6C3-10.103, Florida Administrative Code, would result in further
disciplinary action taken against him, which could include dismissal. Respondent’s policy has been to reprimand a professor for a first violation of Rule 6C3-10.103, Florida Administrative Code, then to dismiss the professor for a second violation. The recommended penalty of dismissal in this case is consistent with Respondent’s prior employment disciplinary practices.
In addition to Respondent’s allegations that Petitioner engaged in quid pro quo sexual harassment of a student, it has alleged that Petitioner’s actions amounted to misconduct in violation of Rule 6C3-10.230, Florida Administrative Code. This rule provides, in pertinent part, that:
(5) The President or President’s designee may discipline a faculty or A & P employee for just cause in accordance with the provisions set forth herein. Counseling of any nature or degree shall not be considered disciplinary action.
* * *
(a) Just cause shall be defined as:
* * *
2. Misconduct.
The rule fails to define the term “misconduct,” and Respondent admits that the collective bargaining agreement that was in effect at the time of the incident and defined
“misconduct” is no longer in effect at Florida A & M. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “misconduct” as “a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior.” A professor attempting to establish a sexual relationship with one of his students, especially when he knows the student is expecting an improved grade as a consequence of the relationship, certainly fits within the dictionary definition of “misconduct.” Further, the fact that Petitioner’s actions constitute a quid pro quo sexual harassment situation in violation of Rule 6C3-10.103(6)(b), Florida Administrative Code, meets the definition of “misconduct” as a transgression of an established rule, as well as a forbidden act and improper or wrongful behavior.
Florida A & M University has a legal duty to provide a learning environment that is free from discriminatory behavior. The University can do this only by strict enforcement of its rules and by holding its faculty and staff accountable for their actions. The relationship between Petitioner and Ms. McSwain was not consensual. The preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that Ms. McSwain was interested in engaging in sex with Petitioner only in exchange for a better grade on the test she had failed when she was caught cheating. Petitioner’s claims that he knew Ms. McSwain wanted to have sex with him
regardless of whether he altered her grade are exceedingly difficult to believe. The fact that he repeatedly rebuffed her inquiries concerning the “A” she sought, yet still chose to believe she wanted a sexual relationship with no strings attached is little more than the wanton fantasy of a lecherous man. It is a fantasy based neither on reality nor common sense.
Respondent has applied its disciplinary procedures in this instance consistently with its prior practices. Petitioner has violated Rule 6C3-10.103, Florida Administrative Code, on two occasions, and his dismissal as a tenured professor, although harsh, is supported by the evidence and prior practice of Florida A & M University. Additionally, Petitioner’s violation of Rule 6C3-10.103, Florida Administrative Code, as well as his violation of several other accepted definitions of the term “misconduct” results in a finding that he has violated Rule 6C3-10.230, Florida Administrative Code, and further supports his dismissal from the University.
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it
is
RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered affirming the dismissal of Dr. Allen from his position at Florida A & M University.
DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
S
ROBERT S. COHEN
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 2004.
COPIES FURNISHED:
H. B. Stivers, Esquire Levine, Stivers & Myers
245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Linda Barge-Miles, Esquire Florida A & M University Office of the General Counsel Lee Hall, Room 300
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
Avery D. McKnight, Acting General Counsel Florida A & M University
Office of the General Counsel
300 Lee Hall
Tallahassee, Florida 32307-3100
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within
15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Sep. 02, 2004 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jun. 04, 2004 | Recommended Order | Petitioner violated Rules 6C3-10.103(6)(b) and 6C3-10.230, Florida Administrative Code, by engaging in quid pro quo sexual harassment of one of his students, which further amounted to misconduct as a professor. Recommend Petitioner`s dismissal. |
