STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

Petitioner,

vs.

LONTAY FINNEY,

Respondent.

/

Case No. 15-7009TTS

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was held in this case on October 14, 2016, by video teleconferencing sites in Tallahassee and West Palm Beach, Florida, before Administrative Law Judge June C. McKinney of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire

School Board of Palm Beach County Office of General Counsel

3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-323 Post Office Box 19239

West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-9239

For Respondent: Nicholas Anthony Caggia, Esquire

Law Office of Thomas L. Johnson, P.A.

510 Vonderburg Drive, Suite 309 Brandon, Florida 33511

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether there is just cause to terminate Lontay Finney's employment with Palm Beach County School Board based upon the allegations made in its Petition.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated November 19, 2015, Lontay Finney ("Respondent" or "Finney") was notified that Palm Beach County School Board ("Petitioner" or "School Board") took action to suspend Respondent without pay and initiate termination proceedings. The superintendent's November 19 letter alleges that Respondent engaged in an incident of "inappropriate relationship with a student, ethical misconduct, failure to exercise best professional judgment, and failure to follow policy, rule, directive, or statute." On the basis of that conduct, Petitioner alleged that Respondent violated School Board Policies 0.01, 1.013, 3.02, Code of Ethics, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-5.056, 6A-10.080, and 6A-10.081.

Respondent timely elected to dispute the reasons for the termination and requested a hearing. Because he requested a formal proceeding, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH"). A final hearing was originally scheduled for April 7, 2016. After several continuances for good cause the matter proceeded as rescheduled on October 14, 2016.

At hearing, the School Board presented the testimony of five witnesses: Renee Johnson Atkins, mother of former student Reniqua Morgan; Lontay Finney; Dianna Weinbaum, director of Office of Professional Standards; Reniqua Morgan, by video deposition; and Bethanie Woodson, by deposition. Petitioner's

Exhibits 2, 3, 6 through 9, 12 through 16, and 26 through 28 were admitted into evidence. Respondent testified on his own behalf. Respondent's Exhibit 1 was admitted into evidence.

The undersigned took official recognition of policies 0.01, 1.013, 3.02 and rules 6A-5.056, 6A-10.080, and 6A-10.081.

The proceedings were recorded and transcribed. The parties availed themselves of the right to submit proposed recommended orders after the filing of the transcript. The one-volume Transcript of the final hearing was filed with DOAH on

November 3, 2016. Both parties filed timely proposed recommended orders, which have been considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

Unless specifically stated otherwise herein, all references to Florida Statutes and rules shall be to the 2015 codification.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within Palm Beach County, Florida. Article IX, Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat.

2. Finney started his employment with the School Board on December 19, 2005. He was employed pursuant to an annual contract.

   
   

3. Finney taught at Glades Central High School ("Glades Central") from 2010 through 2015. He was last employed as both a science teacher and assistant athletic director. Finney's annual evaluations were acceptable and effective during each year of his employment at Glades Central.

4. As a teacher, Finney was expected to comply with the Code of Ethics. On June 1, 2010, he signed an acknowledgment that he received training, read, and would abide by School Board Policy 3.02, Code of Ethics.

5. Reniqua Morgan ("Morgan") was a female student at Glades Central from 2011 to 2015. She was a cheerleader athlete but never had Finney as a teacher.

6. Finney knew of Morgan as one of the daughters of his teacher colleague, Renee Johnson Atkins ("Atkins") and from seeing Morgan around school. Morgan and Finney also knew who each other were because they had a niece in common and lived in the small town of Belle Glade. However, Finney and Morgan did not associate with one another directly before March 2015.

7. On or about March 22, 2015, Finney initiated contact, reaching out to Morgan by poking her on Facebook. Morgan poked him back and then Finney followed up by inboxing her next. Morgan was surprised that Finney was conversing with her.

8. They continued to chat for several weeks not on an open feed of Facebook but messaging each other's inbox privately.

   
   

9. Between 10:30 and 11:00 p.m. on Sunday, April 12, 2015, Finney initiated a conversation with Morgan and they chatted on Facebook. Finney suggested that the two of them get together and asked Morgan, do you want to "chill?" Morgan agreed and said "I don't mind." They then decided to meet up.

10. Finney did not offer to pick Morgan up at her house.

    
    

    Finney instructed her to meet him at the stop sign, around the corner and down the street from where she lived.1/

11. Morgan, unbeknownst to her mother, met Finney by the stop sign.

12. At the stop sign, Morgan got in Finney's mother's truck with Finney. When Finney first made contact with Morgan that night, he gave her a hug. He then drove her to his home.

13. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Morgan was a 17-year-old minor.

14. Finney did not have permission from Morgan's parents to either pick her up or take her to his house. His inappropriate actions were outside of school and not in connection with any school-related activity in any way.

15. At approximately 12:24 a.m. on Monday, April 13, 2015, Morgan's mother, Atkins, was at her residence and went to use the restroom and she then discovered that Morgan was not at home. Morgan had left home without her permission.

    
    

16. Atkins was worried about Morgan being out that early in the morning because it was "unsafe because [of] the neighborhood that [she] live[d] in, there [were] some people in that neighborhood that [were] unsafe."2/

17. While at Finney's house, Finney and Morgan remained in the parked truck alongside of the house alone together for approximately an hour and a half to two hours and spent some of the time talking and scrolling through Netflix on Finney's phone.

18. Neither Morgan nor Finney can recall the name of any of the movies they watched on Netflix.

19. Morgan's mother was looking for Morgan and found out from Bethanie Woodson ("Woodson"), Morgan's friend, that her daughter was with Finney. Atkins took Woodson with her and drove to Finney's house looking for Morgan.

20. While in the truck with Finney, Morgan's friend contacted her and let her know that her mother was looking for her. Morgan told Finney she needed to go home.

21. Atkins also learned while at Finney's house that Morgan was on the way home, so she got back in her vehicle and returned home.

22. Morgan told Finney to drop her off near the railroad track, which is not the same place he picked her up. He then dropped her off where she suggested near Avenue A, a neighborhood

    
    

    on the opposite side of the railroad tracks from where Morgan lived, and several blocks away from her home.

23. After Finney dropped Morgan off in the early school day morning while it was dark outside, Morgan had to walk down the street, come through the neighborhood and then walk across the bushy railroad tracks to get to her residence. The foot path Morgan took was also unlit, grassy, and rocky near the train tracks. No streetlights were near the tracks.3/

24. When Morgan got home, her mother, sister, and Woodson were waiting for her.

25. Morgan's mother was irate that Morgan had been with Finney and drove Morgan back to Finney's home to address his actions with her daughter. Finney lived with his parents. When Atkins knocked on the door, Finney's father came to the door and Atkins requested to see Finney.

26. Atkins confronted him angrily and berated him for being a teacher, picking up Morgan, and taking her to his house at that hour of the night. Atkins also informed Finney's mother what occurred while she was at their house.

27. Morgan and Finney have had no contact since the incident.

28. Morgan's mother reported the incident to Glades Central. As a result, the principal assigned Finney to his residence by letter, with pay, starting April 13, 2015, pending

    
    

    the investigation or notification of a change in assignment in writing.

29. On April 15, 2015, Finney was assigned to temporary duty at Transportation Services pending investigation.

30. An investigation by the school police found no violation of a criminal law by Finney, and the case was referred to Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards, which is charged with conducting investigations into alleged violations of School Board policy.

31. On or about May 11, 2015, the Office of Professional Standards opened an administrative investigation. Dianna Weinbaum ("Weinbaum"), now director of Office of Professional Standards and former human resources manager, was assigned to investigate the matter.

32. Around the time the investigation was being conducted, Finney deactivated his Facebook page due to the mostly negative comments and statuses, as well as rumors surrounding the incident of him picking up Morgan and taking her to his house.

33. Finney was able to finish the school year working back at Glades Central between investigations.

34. Weinbaum performed a thorough and complete investigation regarding the allegations against Respondent. She interviewed all the witnesses and obtained statements, as well as

    
    

    visited the locations where Finney picked up and dropped off Morgan.

35. On August 4, 2015, consistent with District policy, Respondent was removed from the classroom and reassigned from his teaching position back to a temporary duty location again.

36. On October 8, 2015, a pre-determination meeting was held with the director of the Office of Professional Standards and Finney, who was represented by counsel regarding the interactions between Finney and Morgan. Finney was provided a copy of the investigative file.

37. At the end of the investigation, it was determined that Finney's actions were both an inappropriate relationship with Morgan and posed a clear threat to Morgan's health, safety and welfare. Weinbaum recommended discipline for Finney consistent with discipline received by other employees based on the superintendent and School Board's position that employees who engage in inappropriate relationships with students and who endanger the health, welfare and safety of a child will be terminated.

38. On November 19, 2015, Petitioner notified Finney of the superintendent's recommendation for termination of his employment at the School Board Meeting set for December 9, 2015. The School Board accepted the superintendent's recommendation and voted to

    
    

    suspend Finney for 15 days and thereafter terminate his employment.

39. Finney timely requested a hearing to contest the superintendent's recommendation.

40. Finney's disciplinary history does not include any discipline for actions similar to these for which suspension and termination are recommended.

41. Petitioner charged Finney by Petition with soliciting an inappropriate relationship with a student that jeopardized her health, safety and welfare. The Petition charged Finney with the following violations:

    1. School Board Policies 0.01(2)(c),(2)(f) Commitment to the Student Principle 1; 3.02(4)(a)(b)(d)(e),(g); 3.02 5(a),(a)(iii),(a)(v),(a)(vii); Code of Ethics; 1.013(1) and (4), Responsibilities of School district Personnel and Staff; School Board Policies 1.013 and 3.27, Criteria for Suspension and Dismissal, and Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida;

    2. the Collective Bargaining Agreement Article II, Section M; and (C) Rule 6A-5.056 (2)(a),(b) and (4) F.A.C., Criteria for Suspension and Dismissal; 6A-10.081 (3)(a) and (3)(e), F.A.C.; 6A-10.080(1),(2) and (3)

       F.A.C. Code of Ethics for the Education Profession of Florida; and 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (3)(h) F.A.C. Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession.

       
       

42. During the final hearing in this matter, Finney testified that his decision to drive Morgan to his house "was a lapse in judgment and it was just a bad decision that I made."

    
    

43. At hearing, the testimony and exhibits established that Finney initiated contact with Morgan and solicited an inappropriate relationship with a student that jeopardized her health, safety and welfare.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

44. DOAH has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and of the parties thereto pursuant to sections

    120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2016).

    
    

45. The School Board is seeking to terminate Respondent from employment. Normally, the burden of proof in an employment case such as this one would be a preponderance of the evidence standard. Allen v. Sch. Bd. of Dade Cnty., 571 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat. However, the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA"), Article II, section M, requires Petitioner to prove its case by clear and convincing evidence.

46. The Supreme Court of Florida has ruled that:

    
    

    Clear and convincing evidence requires that the evidence must be found to be credible; the facts to which the witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered; the testimony must be precise and lacking in confusion as to the facts at issue. The evidence must be of such a weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established.

    
    

    In re Henson, 913 So. 2d 579, 590 (Fla. 2005) (quoting Slomowitz

    
    

    v. Walker, 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)).

    
    

47. In the Petition filed in this proceeding, the School Board charges that Finney violated a variety of School Board policies, as well as administrative rules. It alleges generally that Respondent's inappropriate actions with Morgan establish "just cause" for his termination.

    School Board Policy 0.01(2)

    
    

48. The undersigned will begin with Petitioner's charge that Respondent failed to have concern for the health, safety, and wellbeing of Morgan, which is defined as:

    Policy 0.01(2)[4/] Commitment to the Student, Principle I

    
    

    * * *

    
    

    3) Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning or to health and safety.

    
    

    * * *

    
    

    6) Shall not use professional relationships with students for private advantage.

    
    

49. In Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order, Respondent asserts that Finney and Morgan had a "friendship that went outside their relationship as teacher and student at the same school. . . . and of itself, is neither wrong nor unethical." The undersigned is not persuaded by such argument and rejects the Respondent's proposition.

    
    

50. The School Board demonstrated by clear and convincing credible evidence that Finney solicited an inappropriate relationship with a minor and failed to make any reasonable effort to protect Morgan's safety. Finney placed Morgan in an unsafe situation by initiating a meeting with her, instructing her to meet him down the street from her home, picking her up late at night, and dropping her off alone in the wee hours of the morning to walk home alone in the dark, on a school day, across a railroad track, and through a path. Morgan's welfare and safety were in jeopardy. And Finney made no effort to ensure that she was safe. Protection of children is one of the fundamental duties of a teacher and Finney put Morgan in harm's way by leaving her alone. Finney's actions and inactions of putting Morgan in an unsafe environment was in violation of

    policy 0.01(2)3.

    
    

51. Petitioner has failed to sustain the charge against Respondent for violation of policy 0.01(2)6.

    School Board Policy 1.013

    
    

52. The School Board also charged Finney with violating policy 1.013(1), entitled "Responsibilities of School District Personnel and Staff," which provides in relevant part:

    1. It shall be the responsibility of the personnel employed by the district School Board to carry out their assigned duties in accordance to federal laws, rules, state statutes, state board of education rules,

    
    

    school board policy, superintendent's administrative directives and local school and area rules.

    
    

    4. Teachers.

    It shall be the duty of the teacher to provide instruction, leadership, classroom management and guidance to pupils through democratic experience §231.09, F.S. Teachers shall perform duties prescribed by school Board policies relating, but not limited, to helping students master challenging standards and meet all state and local requirements for achievement; teaching efficiently and faithfully; using prescribed materials and methods, including technology-based instruction; recordkeeping; and fulfilling the terms of any contract, unless released from the contract by the school board.

    
    

53. By Finney violating policy 0.01(2)3., above, Petitioner also demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that Finney violated policy 1.013(1).

54. Petitioner failed to prove Finney violated policy 1.013(4).

    School Board Policy 3.02

    
    

55. Petitioner also alleges Finney violated policies 3.02(4)(a), (b), (d), (e), and (g); and 3.02(5)(a), (a)(iii), (a)(v), (a)(vii), and (a)(viii), entitled "Code of Ethics," which

    reads:

    
    

    1. Accountability and Compliance Each employee agrees and pledges:

       
       

       1. To provide the best example possible; striving to demonstrate excellence, integrity and responsibility in the workplace.

          
          

       2. To obey local, state and national laws, codes and regulations.

          
          

          * * *

          
          

          1. To treat all students and individuals with respect and to strive to be fair in all matters.

             
             

          2. To create an environment of trust, response and non-discrimination, by not permitting discriminatory, demeaning or harassing behavior of students or colleagues.

          
          

          * * *

          
          

          (g) To avoid conflicts of interest or any appearance of impropriety

          
          

    2. Ethical Standards.

    a. Abuse of Students – We are committed to ensuring that employee-student relationships are positive, professional and non- exploitative. We will not tolerate improper employee-student relationships. Each employee should always maintain a professional relationship with students, both in and outside of the classroom. Unethical conduct includes but is not limited to:

    
    

    * * *

    
    

    (iii) Using one's professional relationship or authority with students for one's personal advantage

    
    

    * * *

    
    

    (v) Engaging in any sexually related behavior with a student with or without consent of the student. Sexually related behavior shall include, but not be limited to, such behaviors as sexual jokes; Sexual remarks; sexual kidding or teasing; sexual innuendo; pressure for dates or sexual favors; Inappropriate physical touching, kissing, or grabbing; rate; threats of

    
    

    physical harm; sexual assault and any sexual act as provided for in Section 1012.315, Florida Statutes.

    
    

    * * *

    
    

    1. Engaging in misconduct which affects the health, safety and welfare of a student(s)

       
       

    2. Soliciting, encouraging, participating or consummating an inappropriate written, verbal, or physical relationships with a student.

    
    

56. Contrary to Petitioner's assertion, it has failed to demonstrate any violation of policies 3.02(4)(a), (d), (e), and (g); and 5(a)(iii), (a)(v), and (a)(viii) because Finney's actions did not occur in the workplace; no evidence showed Finney was disrespectful or unfair; the record lacks any credible evidence that Finney discriminated, demeaned or harassed a student; no evidence was presented that Finney's actions created a conflict of interest; no credible evidence supports any sexual- related behavior; and no evidence of a physical relationship was proven.

57. However, Petitioner did prove by clear and convincing evidence that Finney's violation of policy 0.01(2)3., in paragraph 50, is a violation of policy 3.02(4)(b). Additionally, the evidence, taken as a whole, demonstrates that Finney engaged in inappropriate conduct. Finney's misconduct started with his initial contact of poking a minor female student on Facebook, and

    
    

    continued with approximately three weeks of private conversations before inviting her to meet him at night. His inappropriate conduct continued and escalated when Finney instructed Morgan to go to the stop sign to meet, and he picked her up away from her house at the stop sign without her parents' permission. Finney's actions continued to be inappropriate when he hugged Morgan when she got in his truck, sat alone in his mother's truck at his residence driveway with Morgan for over an hour, and ultimately dropped her off around two in the morning where she had to cross a railroad track and go down an unlit path in an unsafe environment. Finney's misconduct and wrongdoing affected Morgan's level of safety and put her welfare in jeopardy in violation of policy 3.02(5)(a)(vii).

    School Board Policy 3.27

    
    

58. Petitioner also cited as a basis for discipline and termination its policy 3.27, entitled "Suspension and Dismissal of Employees." This policy does not provide substantive violations, but describes the procedure by which disciplinary matters are handled. This case has been handled in accordance with Policy 3.27.

    Rule 6A-10.080 Code of Ethics

    
    

59. Petitioner also alleges that there is just cause to terminate Respondent's employment based upon a violation of

    
    

    rule 6A-10.080(2) and (3), Code of Ethics, which provides in pertinent part:

    1. The educator's primary professional concern will always be for the student and for the development of the student's potential. The educator will therefore strive for professional growth and will seek to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity.

       
       

    2. Aware of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of one's Colleagues, of students, of parents, and of the other members of the community, the educator strives to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct.

    
    

60. In Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner contends that Respondent ran afoul of the Code of Ethics by initiating a conversation with minor Morgan and asking her to "chill" late at night without any parents' permission and with no relationship to any educational purpose. The School Board also asserts Finney further violated the policy when he picked Morgan up and dropped her off away from her home on a dark street, which required her to cross the railroad tracks and walk a dark path in a dangerous neighborhood to get home. The undersigned agrees with Petitioner's assertion. Finney's conduct lacked decency and did not represent the high moral standards or integrity required of educators by the Code of Ethics. At hearing, Finney even admitted that he failed to exercise the best professional

    
    

    judgment during his interactions with Morgan on the night in question, which is a violation of rule 6A-10.080(2).

61. Additionally, the interaction with Morgan from the night in question ultimately caused Finney to close his Facebook account because he was receiving a majority of negative comments regarding the incident with Morgan. Negative comments demonstrate that the incident was talked about in the community and Finney was not maintaining the level of respect expected of an educator or the comments would have been positive, which also shows Finney failed to demonstrate and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct in violation of rule 6A-10.080(3).

    Rule 6A-10.081

    
    

62. Petitioner also asserts that Respondent violated rule 6A-10.081, entitled "Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida," which provides:

    * * *

    
    

    1. Obligation to the student requires that the individual:

       
       

       1. Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and /or safety.

    
    

    * * *

    
    

    (e) Shall not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement.

    
    

    * * *

    
    

    (h) Shall not exploit a relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage.

    
    

63. As detailed in paragraphs 50 and 56 above, Finney also violated rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) by not making any reasonable effort to protect Morgan from an unsafe environment. To the contrary, Finney directly placed Morgan in the unsafe environment and left her there at approximately two in the morning alone.

64. The record is void of credible evidence to demonstrate Finney violated rules 6A-10.081(3)(e) or (h).

65. Teachers are held to a higher moral standard than others in the community because they are leaders and role models. See Adams v. State Prof'l Practices Council, 406 So. 2d 1170, 1172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

66. The Petition cites to the CBA, which dictates that Petitioner must adhere to a policy of progressive discipline "except in cases which clearly constitute. . . the actions/inactions of the employee constitute such clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable school rules and regulations."

67. Additionally, to bypass progressive discipline and terminate Respondent, who does not have a disciplinary history, sections 1012.33(1)(a) and (6), Florida Statutes, also provide in pertinent part that Petitioner may terminate instructional staff during the term of their employment contract only for "just

    
    

    cause." § 1012.33(1)(a) and (6), Fla. Stat. "Just cause" is defined in section 1012.33(1)(a) to include, but not limited to, "misconduct in office," "incompetency," "gross insubordination," and "willful neglect of duty."

    Misconduct in Office

    
    

68. The Petition asserts that Respondent also committed "Misconduct in office," which is defined by the State Board of Education in rule 6A-5.056(2), which provides:

    1. "Misconduct in Office" means one or more of the following:

       
       

       1. A violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6A-10.080, F.A.C.;

          
          

       2. A violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6A- 10.081, F.A.C.;

          
          

       3. A violation of the adopted school board rules;

          
          

       4. Behavior that disrupts the student's learning environment; or

          
          

       5. Behavior that reduces the teacher's ability or his or her colleagues' ability to effectively perform duties.

    
    

69. Section 1012.33(1)(a) provides a list of aspirational prohibitions that qualify as "just cause." However, there is no question that a male teacher taking a minor female out late at night, sitting in a truck with her alone in his driveway for several hours instead of taking her in his home, and then

    
    

    dropping her off in a neighborhood over from where she resides, which causes her to have to cross the railroad tracks alone in an unsafe environment around 2:00 a.m. in the dark and then take a foot path the remainder of the way home is absolutely prohibited. Dropping a minor off to find her way home in the dark in an unsafe neighborhood is an action that is "clearly flagrant behavior and purposeful" and in violation of all the reasonable school rules and regulations to keep a child safe from harmful conditions under the CBA.

70. Additionally, the School Board has established "just cause" for termination as alleged in the Petition by proving by clear and convincing evidence that Finney committed misconduct in office when he violated the Code of Ethics in paragraphs 59 and 60 above, the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida in paragraph 62 above, as well as the numerous violations of the following policies 0.01(2)3.,

    1.013(1), 3.02(4)(b), and 3.02(5)(a)(vii); and rules 6A-10.080(2) and (3), 6A-5.056(2), and 6A-10.081(3)(a).

71. Therefore, Petitioner has proven the allegations in the Petition by clear and convincing evidence.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, enter a final order:

1. dismissing charges of violations of policies 0.01(2)6., 3.02(4)(a), (d), (e), and (g); 5(a), (a)(iii), (a)(v), and (a)(viii); 1.013(4); and rule 6A-10.081(3)(e) and (h);

2. finding Respondent in violation of rules 6A-10.080(2) and (3), 6A-5.056(2), 6A-10.081(3)(a), policies 0.01(2)3., 1.013(1), 3.02(4)(b), and 3.02(5)(a)(vii), as charged; and

3. upholding Respondent's suspension without pay and termination for just cause.

DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

JUNE C. MCKINNEY

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of January, 2017.

ENDNOTES

1/ Morgan's testimony as to Finney instructing her to meet him at the stop sign is found to be credible.

2/ The undersigned finds Atkins' testimony credible regarding the neighborhood being unsafe.

3/ Respondent's claims that the area Morgan walked through to get home was lit is rejected because the undersigned finds the testimony of more than one witness that the area was unlit more credible.

4/ While both parties cite to School Board Policy 0.01(2)(c)

in their Proposed Recommended Orders, Petitioner's Exhibit 18, page 70, which both parties identify as policy 0.01(2)(c) does not have a subsection (c) but a subsection (3) with the identical language referenced by the parties as (c). Hence, the undersigned will refer to the policy as listed in exhibit 18, policy 0.01(2)3 and 0.01(2)6.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Nicholas Anthony Caggia, Esquire

Law Office of Thomas L. Johnson, P.A.

510 Vonderburg Drive, Suite 309 Brandon, Florida 33511 (eServed)

Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire School Board of Palm Beach County Office of General Counsel

3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-323 Post Office Box 19239

West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-9239 (eServed)

Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1514

325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)

Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)

Dr. Robert Avossa, Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board

3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869

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.

Docket for Case No: 15-007009TTS

Orders for Case No: 15-007009TTS