STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 80-1373

)

LOUIS FYFE, JR., )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal administrative hearing was conducted in the above matter on September 25, 1980, and on January 19, 1981, in Melbourne, Florida. The following appearances were entered: Craig R. Wilson, West Palm Beach, Florida, appeared on behalf of the Petitioner; at the hearing conducted on September 25, 1950, Robert A. Graham, Melbourne, Florida, appeared on behalf of the Respondent, and at the continuation of the hearing conducted on January 19, 1981, the Respondent appeared on his own behalf.

On or about June 12, 1980, the Professional Practices Council filed a "Petition for the Revocation of Teacher's Certificate" against the Respondent, Louis Fyfe, Jr. During the course of this proceeding, the Professional Practices Council was redesignated the Education Practices Commission, and cases that had been pending before the Professional Practices Council were statutorily transferred to the Education Practices Commission. Section 9, Chapter 80-190, Laws of Florida. The Respondent requested a hearing with respect to the allegations contained in the Petition, and the matter was forwarded to the office of the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a Hearing Officer and the scheduling of a hearing in accordance with Section 120.57(1)(b)3, Florida Statutes, on or about June 22, 1980. By notice dated September 9, 1980, the final hearing was scheduled to be conducted on September 25, 1980.

The Petitioner at that time presented its evidence in support of the administrative complaint. At the conclusion of that presentation, the Petitioner and the Respondent, acting through counsel, appeared prepared to stipulate that the Respondent had been guilty of the allegations set out in the Petition, and as to a recommended disposition of the matter. The hearing was concluded, and the stipulation was to be reduced to writing and formally submitted to the undersigned. Thereafter, the Respondent discharged his counsel, refused to finalize the stipulation, and requested a rehearing. The request for rehearing was denied; however, Respondent was granted an opportunity to present evidence in his favor, and a continuation of the final hearing was scheduled for January 19, 1981. The Respondent appeared at the continued hearing on his own behalf, testified and presented additional evidence. The parties agreed to a briefing schedule which would run from receipt of the transcript of the continued hearing. The transcript was filed with the undersigned on February 20, 1981; however, the Respondent did not receive a copy of it, and requested an extension of time for him to file his post-hearing

submission. The Petitioner has filed a proposed recommended order, and Respondent has filed a final summation.

The issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondent has committed violations of Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, and whether his teaching certificate should be suspended or revoked.

The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The proposed findings and conclusions have been adopted only to the extent that they have been expressly adopted in the findings of fact and conclusions of law set out herein. They have otherwise been rejected as being either contrary to the evidence, or irrelevant to the issues.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Respondent holds a valid teaching certificate issued in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 231, Florida Statutes. Prior to March, 1980, the Respondent had been employed at the Eau Gallie High School in Brevard County, Florida, as an "audiovisual specialist" for more than ten years. During his tenure at Eau Gallie High School, the Respondent received satisfactory evaluations, and he generally performed his responsibilities in a diligent and acceptable manner.

   
   

2. The Respondent's basic responsibilities were to coordinate audiovisual programs at Eau Gallie High School. Students would be assigned to work with the Respondent as student assistants or aides. He would have a number of students, generally approximately four, to assist him during each period of the school day. The Respondent was considered the students' teacher and his room was the students' classroom during the period that they served as student assistants.

   
   

3. During February, 1980, two of the Respondent's female students found a copy of "Hustler" magazine and "Penthouse" magazine in the Respondent's classroom. The students reported this to the school's assistant principal. An investigation ensued, and resulted in the Respondent's being terminated from his teaching position, and in these proceedings.

   
   

4. During the 1979-80 school year, Michelle Douglas was a student in the eleventh grade at Eau Gallie High School. She served as an aide in the Respondent's class during the sixth hour of the school day from 1:00 p.m. until 2:00 p.m. Her duties were to log equipment in and out, and to run errands for the Respondent. On several occasions, the Respondent embarrassed and humiliated Michelle Douglas by making suggestive comments about her in the presence of other students, and on one occasion by physically touching her in a sexually suggestive manner. On one occasion, Miss Douglas was seated in the classroom. The Respondent approached her and put his hand on her knee, and moved his hand up her leg on the outside of her dress approximately six inches before she stopped him and ran out of the classroom. On several occasions, the Respondent made comments to Michelle Douglas such as, "Here comes your friend with a nice butt," in connection with one of Michelle Douglas's friends. In conversations with some of the male students in his classroom, the Respondent said that Michelle Douglas would be a "good lay" and, "I bet you'd like to hop on her," in the presence of Michelle Douglas. These were not the only comments of this sort that the Respondent made in the presence of Michelle Douglas, but are demonstrative.

   
   

5. During the 1979-80 school year, Vicki Kendall was a student at the Eau Gallie High School. She served as an audiovisual aide in the Respondent's class

   during the fourth hour of the day during the school year. Her duties were to log in films and equipment, and to assist in the ordering of films. On several occasions during the school year, the Respondent made sexually suggestive comments about Vicki Kendall in the presence of other students. He commented about her figure and about the clothes she was wearing. On one occasion he said in reference to a portion of her anatomy, "Look at the shape of that thing." On one occasion in the presence of other students he called her a "cold fish." While the Respondent did not make any direct physical contact with Vicki Kendall, on one occasion he did blow in her ear while she was in the classroom.

   
   

6. During the 1979-80 school year, Kelly Huskey was a student in the twelfth grade at Eau Gallie High School. During the second semester of the school year, she served as an audiovisual aide in the Respondent's classroom during the fourth hour. On one occasion Miss Huskey was trying to learn how to thread a projector. The Respondent came up behind her and grabbed her around the waist very tightly. This was not an innocent touching, but was provocative, and from the perspective of the student could easily have been taken, and was taken as a sexual advance.

   
   

7. During the 1979-80 school year, Deborah Ann Bowman was a student in the twelfth grade at Eau Gallie High School. She was not a student in the Respondent's class, but she frequently ate lunch in his classroom with a friend. On one occasion Respondent talked with the male students in the classroom about how nice Miss Bowman's sweater looked on her and how nice it fitted. On another occasion on school property Miss Bowman was laying out material for a sewing project. The Respondent approached her from behind, put his hand on her back and whispered in her ear, "I wanted you to know I like your bikini underwear." There was no appropriate reason for this remark.

   
   

8. During the 1979-80 school year, Ramonda Shannon was employed at the Eau Collie High School as an occupational placement specialist. Ms. Shannon utilized an office or storage facility which she could only enter through the Respondent's classroom. On one occasion she walked through the Respondent's classroom to get to that facility. The Respondent said to her, "You are wearing a bra, aren't you?"; he then said that some students said that she must not be because her "boobs" were bouncing up and down. This was said in the presence of students, and students were in a position to overhear the comments. Apparently several students had suggested to the Respondent that Ms. Shannon was not wearing a bra, but there was no appropriate reason for the comment to be made, and Ms. Shannon was understandably humiliated. Approximately four years ago, Ms. Shannon went through the Respondent's classroom, and several female students were looking at literature which included pictures of nude girls. In reference to the literature, the Respondent said that he did not need to look at such pictures in order to get a "hard-on."

   
   

9. During February, 1980, the Respondent had an issue of "Penthouse" magazine and "Hustler", magazine in his classroom. The evidence is unclear as to precisely how these magazines came to be in the Respondent's classroom. The Respondent was aware that they were there, and had placed them at the bottom of several stacks of magazines. These stacks of magazines were available to be read by students in the Respondent's class during the lunch hour, and he knew that students in his class frequently perused the magazines. The magazines were actually viewed by several students. The magazines were received in evidence at the final hearing. The magazines included pictures and articles of a sexually provocative nature.

10. The Respondent made numerous other sexually suggestive comments in his classroom in the presence or his students. While many or these comments were not specifically alleged in the administrative complaint, they are the same sort as those which were alleged. On one occasion he told Michelle Douglas that if he made love to her, she would not have to worry because he had had a vasectomy. Numerous other comments of this genre were made by the Respondent in his classroom.

    
    

11. The Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher and an employee of the Brevard County school system has been seriously reduced as a result of his conduct as set out herein. It would not be possible for administrators in a school system to have confidence in leaving students, especially teenage female students, in the Respondent's charge. Furthermore, students, especially female students, could not feel secure in the Respondent's presence. While the evidence does not establish that the Respondent actually fondled or made overt physical sexual contact with any of his students, it is clear that he caused many of his students embarrassment and humiliation, and that they properly and logically regarded his comments and conduct as sexually threatening.

    
    

12. The Respondent responded to the charges and the testimony by denying that some of the acts took place, by stating that taken in proper context the acts were not improper, and by alleging that other teachers were guilty of worse conduct and that the administrators of the school were corrupt. His testimony and explanations are not persuasive and demonstrate a failure to understand the seriousness of sexually, provocative language and conduct on the part of a teacher toward students, and a lack of any motivation for rehabilitation.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

13. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding. Sections 120.57(1), 120.60, Florida Statutes.

    
    

14. Under the provisions of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes (1979), which were in effect at the time that the Respondent engaged in the conduct set out in the Findings of Fact above, and at the time that the administrative complaint was filed by the Petitioner, the teaching certificate of any person can be suspended or revoked if it is shown that the certificate holder has been guilty of gross immorality, or ". . . of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the school board . . . ." The instances of misconduct set out in the Findings of Fact above, taken together, constitute gross immorality and personal conduct which seriously reduces Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher.

    
    

15. Based on the repeated acts of misconduct by the Respondent, the fact that the Respondent has sought to justify his improper conduct, and has in numerous cases expressed neither denial nor contrition, it is appropriate that the Respondent be permanently removed from the classroom, and especially from any position in which he would have charge of young women.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, hereby,

RECOMMENDED:

That a final order be entered by the Education Practices Commission finding the Respondent guilty of violations of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, and permanently revoking the Respondent's teaching certificate.

RECOMMENDED this 6th day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida.

G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 1981.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Craig R. Wilson, Esquire Ruffolo & Wilson

The Law Building

315 Third Street

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

Mr. Louis Fyfe, Jr.

230 Micanopy Court

Indian Harbor Beach, Florida 32935

Mr. Donald Griesheimer Executive Director

Education Practices Commission

125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 80-001373

Orders for Case No: 80-001373