STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD ) COUNTY, FLORIDA, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 94-2049
)
DARRYL SINGLETON, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
THIS CAUSE came on for formal hearing before Suzanne F. Hood, Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, on January 23 and 24, 1995, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Eugene Pettis, Esquire
COONEY, HALICZER, MATTSON, LANCE, et al.
301 East Las Olas Boulevard Post Office Box 14546
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302
For Respondent: W. George Allen, Esquire
Law Offices of W. George Allen
305 South Andrews Avenue One River Plaza, Suite 701 Post Office Box 14738
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On March 25, 1994, Dr. Frank R. Petruzielo, Superintendent of Schools of Broward County, Florida, filed an Administrative Complaint recommending that Respondent Darryl Singleton (Respondent) be immediately suspended without pay and, subsequent to proper notice, be dismissed from his employment as an instructional employee of Petitioner School Board of Broward County (Petitioner). Said complaint alleged that Respondent behaved inappropriately with two (2) female students who were enrolled in his weight training class at Hallandale Adult Community School.
By letter dated March 25, 1994, Dr. Petruzielo notified Respondent that the charges would be presented to Petitioner on April 5, 1994, in a Petition for Formal Proceedings, with a recommendation for Respondent's dismissal. This letter also informed Respondent that failure to request a formal hearing on or before April 20, 1994, would result in Petitioner acting on Dr. Petruzielo's recommendation on May 3, 1994.
Respondent requested a formal hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings by letter dated March 28, 1994. In an open meeting on April 5, 1994, Petitioner approved the Petition for Formal Proceedings and authorized that Respondent be suspended immediately, without pay, pending final action on the charges. By letter dated April 12, 1994, Petitioner referred this matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a Hearing Officer.
Hearing Officer Susan B. Kirkland scheduled this case for hearing on August
17 and 18, 1994. On August 3, 1994, Hearing Officer Kirkland granted Petitioner's request for a continuance. Subsequently, the case came on for final hearing before the undersigned on January 23 and 24, 1994.
At the commencement of the hearing, the parties filed a Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation. Petitioner Filed a Motion in Limine to Exclude Character Evidence and a Motion in Limine to Exclude Additional Evidence Beyond Pleading. The Respondent made an ore tenus motion to exclude evidence of character and prior acts. After hearing argument, the undersigned reserved ruling on these motions to be addressed as the parties made specific objections during the hearing.
Petitioner presented the testimony of six (6) witnesses and offered one composite exhibit which was accepted into evidence without objection.
Petitioner presented four (4) exhibits which were marked for identification but never introduced into evidence. The Respondent testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of four witnesses. Respondent offered one composite exhibit which was accepted into evidence without objection.
A transcript of the hearing was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on March 2, 1995. Petitioner filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on March 8, 1995. Respondent filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on March 9, 1995. Specific rulings on the parties' proposed findings of fact are contained in the Appendix attached hereto.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner employed Respondent as an weight training instructor at Hallandale Adult Community School (Hallandale Adult). He taught in that position from August 30, 1993, through November 2, 1993. The summer before, Respondent taught photography in a summer school program at another Broward County school.
As a class instructor, one of Respondent's duties was to record the attendance of the students on student attendance rosters or adult student attendance registers which Petitioner maintained as legal documents.
In the fall of 1993, Respondent taught two (2) weight training classes for students listed on adult student attendance registers. At all times material to this proceeding, the first class for these students was scheduled to begin at 3:45 p.m. and end at 5:15 p.m. The second class was scheduled to begin at 6:00 p.m. and end at 7:30 p.m. The students listed on these registers were taking weight training for academic credit. They were high school students or adults working towards a General Education Degree (GED).
In the fall of 1993, Respondent taught two (2) weight training classes for students listed on adult, vocational, and community education student attendance rosters. At all times material to this proceeding, the first of these classes was scheduled to begin at 3:45 p.m. and end at 5:15 p.m. The second class was scheduled to begin at 6:00 p.m. and end at 7:30 p.m. The students listed on these rosters were adults taking the course for recreational purposes. Respondent recruited these students who paid a fee for the course. The fee supported or justified Respondent's salary for teaching that course.
Regardless of whether students were officially enrolled for the first or second class or both classes, Respondent allowed the students to attend the class or classes of their choice. Because of this flexibility in attendance patterns, the undersigned does not find the attendance registers and rosters totally reliable as to the days and times that any student was or was not in his or her scheduled class.
In the fall of 1993, S. G., then an eleventh grade student at Hallandale High School (Hallandale High), signed up for biology and weight training classes at Hallandale Adult. The attendance register indicates that she attended Respondent's class on October 12, 14, 19, 21, 26, and 28, 1993. She was scheduled to attend weight training classes on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. However, she sometimes attended the first class depending on whether she attended her biology class.
Respondent performed two skin fold tests on S. G. in the fall of 1993 to determine the amount of fat in her body. On one of those occasions, she was alone with Respondent in the weight room. At that time, Respondent touched her inappropriately near her vaginal area while performing the test on her lower abdomen and buttocks. She did not immediately tell anyone that either of the tests made her feel uncomfortable because she felt Respondent's actions were part of the test and she trusted him.
After Respondent performed the offensive skin fold test, S. G. claims she discussed the test with another student, Lydia (last name unknown). S. G. stated that Lydia was in her biology class and sometimes attended Respondent's classes even though she was not enrolled. She described Lydia as being 5'8'' with long hair pulled up in a pony tail and Hispanic with dark skin. According to S. G., Lydia claimed that Respondent also performed a skin fold test on Lydia and made her feel uncomfortable. Lydia did not testify at the hearing nor did any witness testifying, other than S. G., remember Lydia ever being present in the weight training classes. Under these facts, the undersigned finds that S. G.'s testimony concerning any conversation with Lydia is uncorroborated heresay and therefore insufficient in itself to support a finding of fact.
At the hearing, Respondent denied performing a skin fold test on S. G. However, the undersigned finds S. G.'s testimony in this regard more persuasive than Respondent's testimony.
In the fall of 1993, N. A. G., then a twenty-five (25) year old female adult, signed up for a G.E.D. course and Respondent's weight training class at Hallandale Adult. She attended Respondent's classes on September 13, 14, 15, and 21, 1993. She was scheduled to attend class from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
On the last day N. A. G. attended Respondent's class, he asked to perform a skin fold test on her after the first class ended at 6:00 p.m. N. A.
G. was familiar with the test, which is usually performed on women by another woman because she had experience as an aerobics instructor. When N. A. G. agreed to permit the test, Respondent asked Jason Forentes, N. A. G's nephew, to step out of the weight room. No other students were present during the test.
Respondent first tested N. A. G.'s underarms, back and chest. Next, Respondent asked N. A. G. to take off her leotards so he could perform the test on her legs. N. A. G. went into the bathroom, took off her tights, and put her shorts and shirt back on.
While Respondent was performing the test on the front of N. A. G.'s legs, she complained that Respondent was performing the test too high. Respondent explained that testing the legs in this manner "was a new thing." When N. A. G. felt Respondent's touch against her front vaginal area, she objected again. Respondent told her to turn around so he could test her legs in the back.
N. A. G. turned around and Respondent sat in a chair. Once again Respondent performed the test so high on N. A. G.'s legs that she felt him touching her vaginal area. At that point, she told him to "forget it." She went back into the bathroom to put her leotards on under her shorts.
When N. A. G. returned from the bathroom, she was very nervous. Respondent wanted to know if she would be coming back to class. He stated that he wanted to buy her a bathing suit and take pictures of her. N. A. G. never returned to Respondent's classes. She did not immediately tell anyone about the incident because she had trusted Respondent and was embarrassed. Respondent performed the skin fold test on N. A. G. in an unwarranted and inappropriate manner.
Respondent admits that he performed a skin fold test on N. A. G. at Hallandale Adult. However, he denies touching her inappropriately. The undersigned does not find Respondent's testimony persuasive to the extent it conflicts with the testimony of N. A. G.
There is no persuasive record evidence that S. G. and N. A. G. ever met each other before the hearing or that they ever discussed their testimony concerning the skin fold tests with each other. Additionally, there is no persuasive record evidence that S. G. ever knew N. A. G. as Lydia.
Sometime prior to October 28, 1993, S. G. told Respondent and other people in the class that she wanted to have some pictures taken in order to get a job modeling at the local flea market. Respondent told S. G. he would take the pictures between classes on October 28, 1993 and directed her to bring some clothes, including a bathing suit, to class.
When S. G. showed up for the photography session, Respondent had two cameras, a .35 millimeter. and a 110 camera. No one else was present in the weight room.
When Respondent first took pictures of S. G. in her bathing suit, he adjusted the top of her two piece suit to make her chest look big. He also adjusted the bottom of the suit to make the sides higher. Respondent's behavior was unwarranted and made S. G. feel uncomfortable.
Respondent next took pictures of S. G. in a sundress.
Eventually Respondent told S. G. to change back into her bathing suit. He told S. G. to go into the interior office and lay down on a towel he had placed on the floor. After taking some pictures, Respondent told S. G. that her pubic hair was showing on the sides at the bottom of her suit. Respondent put his hand underneath S. G.'s suit and touched her near her vaginal area making her feel very uncomfortable. When S. G. pulled back, Respondent asked if he was hurting her. Respondent then told S. G. "I'm a photographer, I don't think like that. You don't have to tell your friends, you don't have to tell your parents." Respondent's denial of this unwarranted, inappropriate conduct is contrary to S. G.'s more persuasive testimony.
While S. G. changed her clothes, Respondent opened the door for the second period students to come into the weight area.
D. S., then an eleventh grade student at Miramar High School, enrolled for both of Respondent's classes in the fall of 1993. Depending on his work schedule, D. S. attended one or both of the classes. On October 28, 1993, D. S. attended the first class. After the break between the classes, D. S. went back into the classroom to tell Respondent that he would not stay for the second class because he had to pick up his paycheck at Publix.
When D. S. came into the classroom, S. G. asked him how he got to school. D. S. told S. G. that he drove his car. S. G. then asked D. S. if he would give her a ride to her boyfriend's place of employment. D. S. agreed to give S. G. a ride.
On the way to the parking lot, S. G. repeatedly told D. S. that Respondent had taken the pictures of her for her portfolio and had touched her in the wrong way. S. G. was very upset. D. S. went back into the classroom with S. G. to get her book bag.
S. G.'s boyfriend was not at work on the evening of October 28, 1993.
S. G. told him about the incident on Friday, October 29, 1993. She told her mother on Saturday, October 30, 1993. On Monday, November 1, 1993, the incident was reported to the school resource officer at Hallandale High.
Kathleen Doody, Assistant Principal at Hallandale Adult, became aware of allegations concerning Respondent's inappropriate behavior towards S. G. on November 2, 1993. She met with Respondent and a Hallandale police officer in her office at about 3:15 p.m. During the meeting, Respondent stated that he had been to dinner with Frank Gaines, another adult student, during the break between classes on October 28, 1993. Respondent was visibly shaken during this meeting and denied all allegations.
On November 3, 1993, Mr. Kent (the Principal), Ms. Doody, and Respondent met again. At that time, the school was aware of allegations made by a second student. Mr. Kent told Respondent he was being removed from his position as weight training instructor.
Frank Gaines, a teacher at another Broward County school, attended Respondent's classes from the beginning of September through October of 1993, depending on his work schedule. On Mondays and Wednesdays, Mr. Gaines usually attended Respondent's first class then left to teach his own class at another school. Mr. Gaines usually attended both of Respondent's classes on Tuesdays and Thursdays. On the days that Mr. Gaines attended both classes, he normally ate dinner with Respondent between the classes. However, on Thursday, October
28, 1993, Mr. Gaines departed from his normal routine and left before 5:00 p.m. in order to teach a class at another school.
Johnny Thornton, an adult working towards his G.E.D., attended Respondent's classes in the fall of 1993. The attendance register indicates that he attended Respondent's 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. class beginning September 1, 1993 and that he withdrew from that class on September 27, 1993, in order to transfer to another class. The class registers and rosters do not reflect which class Mr. Thornton transferred into.
Regardless of what the attendance records show, it is evident from Mr. Thornton's testimony and the testimony of other witnesses that Mr. Thornton frequently attended one or both of the classes.
Mr. Thornton could not remember whether he was present in class on October 28, 1993, but stated that Respondent never was alone with a student during the break between classes. He does remember being present when the police came to question Respondent on November 2, 1993. The undersigned does not find Mr. Thornton's testimony persuasive because of his inability to remember people's names, dates, and times.
Jenny Casillas, an adult, was scheduled to attend Respondent's 6:00
p.m. to 7:30 p.m. class on Tuesdays and Thursdays beginning on September 9, 1993, through October 26, 1993. Respondent marked Ms. Casillas absent on October 28, 1993.
Ms. Casillas testified that some days before October 28, 1993, S. G. asked Respondent if he knew anybody who could take some pictures of her. According to Ms. Casillas, Respondent told S. G. that he did. Respondent's testimony that S. G. first inquired about someone who could take pictures of her on October 28, 1993, is less persuasive than the testimony of Ms. Casillas and
S. G. that the conversation took place prior to October 28, 1993.
Ms. Casillas testified that she called Respondent on October 28, 1993, around 4:15 p.m. to tell him she would be late. She also testified that she arrived in class at 4:45 p.m. According to Ms. Casillas, October 28, 1993, was the day she asked Respondent to give her a diet plan to help her gain weight. She claims she was the last one to leave with Respondent after the first class ended at 5:25 p.m.
At the hearing, Respondent testified before Ms. Casillas gave her testimony. Respondent claims he left the classroom on October 28, 1993, in the company of Ms. Casillas, Mr. Thornton, and a few other students, and that he was never alone with any student. Respondent's testimony contradicts Ms. Casillas's testimony that she was alone with Respondent as they left the classroom on October 28, 1995.
Respondent and Ms. Casillas testified that after leaving the classroom on October 28, 1993, she and Respondent sat on a patio for about ten (10) minutes while he wrote out a diet plan. Their testimony that Ms. Casillas was late but attended the first class on October 28, 1993, and was with Respondent until approximately 5:53 p.m. is contrary to S. G.'s more persuasive testimony.
On November 2, 1993, Ms. Casillas warned Respondent that he should be careful because S. G. was trying to get a lot of attention by raising her hand and asking for a lot of help. Ms. Casillas's testimony that she felt S. G. had a crush on Respondent is unpersuasive.
Respondent's brother, Michael Singleton, was S. G.'s classmate in the fall of 1993 at Hallandale High. He testified that one day in the fall of 1993,
S. G. told him Respondent was "fine" and wanted Respondent's telephone number. Respondent's brother claims he told S. G. to get the phone number herself. The testimony of Michael Singleton is contrary to S. G.'s more persuasive testimony.
S. G. admits that one day in weight training class, she told Respondent that his brother was "mean." She was not serious when she made this statement. She said it because of the way Respondent's brother "played around" and she said it just "to joke around."
The testimony of Ms. Casillas and Respondent's brother is rejected to the extent their testimony attempts to establish a motive for S. G. fabricating the facts of the photography session. 43. On November 1, 1993, George L. Davis, a detective from the Hallandale Police Department, began an investigation into the allegations against Respondent. He interviewed N. A. G. on or before November 3, 1993. Prior to that time, N. A. G. had not discussed her concern over the improper skin fold test with anyone.
During the hearing, Respondent attempted to demonstrate the proper way to administer a skin fold test. However, this demonstration does not change the fact that Respondent administered the tests to S. G. and N. A. G. improperly and in the process, inappropriately touched both students.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter in this case. Sections 120.57(1) and 231.36, Florida Statues.
Under the terms of a professional service contract, Respondent may be dismissed from employment only for just cause including misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Sections 231.36(1)(a), 231.36(3), 231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes.
To establish "just cause" in this case, Petitioner has the burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence that Respondent is guilty of the charges in the Administrative Complaint. Dileo v. School Bd. of Dade County, 569 So. 2d 883, 884 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990).
The Administrative Complaint alleges violations of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(e), 6B- 1.006(3)(f), 6B-1.006(3)(g), 6B-1.006(4)(a), 6B- 1.006(4)(b), 6B-1.006(5)(b), 6B-1.006(5)(c), 6B-4.009(2), and 6B- 4.009(3), Florida Administrative Code.
The undersigned concludes that Petitioner has met its burden of proof on charges that Respondent is guilty of immoral conduct as defined by Rule 6B- 1.009(2), Florida Administrative Code:
Immorality is defined as conduct that is inconsistent with the standards of public education and good morals. It is conduct
sufficiently notorious to bring the individual concerned or the education profession into public disgrace or disregard or impair the individual's service in the community.
Petitioner has also met its burden of proof on charges that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office as defined by Rule 6B-1.009(3), Florida Administrative Code:
Misconduct in office is defined as a violation
of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in as adopted in Rule 6B-1.001, F.A.C., and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B-1.006, F.A.C., which is so serious as
to impair the individual's effectiveness in the school system.
Respondent's conduct towards S. G. and N. A. G. violates the following provisions of Rule 6B-1.006(3), Florida Administrative Code:
Obligation to the student requires that the individual:
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.
* * *
Shall not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement.
Shall not intentionally violate or deny a student's legal rights.
Shall not harass or discriminate against any student on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national or ethnic origin, political beliefs, marital status, handicapping condition,
sexual orientation, or social and family background and shall make reasonable effort to assure that each student is protected from harassment or discrimination.
Respondent's violation of these rules and ethical principles is sufficient to warrant Respondent's dismissal as an instructor in the public schools of Broward County. The undersigned does not find Rules 6B-1.006(4)(a), 6B-1.006(4)(b), 6B- 1.006(5)(b), 6B-1.006(5)(c), Florida Administrative Code, applicable here or necessary to justify Respondent's dismissal for just cause.
Based and the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing Respondent from his employment as an instructor in the public schools of Broward County.
DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 13th day of April, 1995.
SUZANNE F. HOOD, Hearing Officer 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 13th day of April, 1995.
APPENDIX
The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties to this case.
Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts 1.-2. Accepted in paragraph 6.
3.-4. Accepted in paragraph 7.
5.-6. Accepted in paragraph 18-20.
Accepted in paragraph 22.
Accepted in paragraphs 18, 19, & 23.
Accepted in paragraphs 24-26.
Accepted in paragraph 27.
Accepted in paragraph 17.
Accepted in paragraph 10.
13.-14. Accepted but irrelevant and immaterial.
15. Accepted in paragraph 10.
16.-18. Accepted in paragraph 11.
Accepted in paragraph 12.
Accepted in paragraph 13-14. 21.-23. Accepted in paragraph 15.
24. Accepted in paragraph 17.
25.-29. Accepted in paragraphs 24-26.
Accepted in paragraphs 28.
Accepted in paragraph 6.
Accepted in paragraph 2 but see paragraphs 3-5.
Accepted to the extent necessary in paragraph 10.
Accepted as modified in paragraphs 3-4.
Accepted in paragraph 34.
36.-37. Accepted in paragraph 28.
Accepted as to the substance of Kathleen Doody's testimony, but not included in findings of fact to the extent it constitutes conclusions of law. See paragraphs 7, 15, 20, & 22.
Accepted in paragraph 34.
40.-43. Accepted as to the substance of Ronald Wright's expert testimony.
Not included in findings of facts to the extent his testimony constitutes conclusions of law. See paragraphs 7, 15, 20, & 22.
44.-49. Accepted in paragraphs 35-38.
Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact
Respondent did not number his proposed findings of fact. Consequently, the undersigned has numbered Respondent's paragraphs in order to specifically address each proposed fact.
1. Accept the substance of Kathleen Doody's testimony. See paragraphs 28-
Irrelevant whether Respondent knew S. G. before she enrolled in his class. Accept that S. G. testified concerning an alleged conversation with another student named "Lydia" (last name unknown) who was not identified as N. A. G. Reject any finding of fact based on S. G.'s unpersuasive and uncorroborated testimony concerning the substance of that conversation with "Lydia." See paragraph 8.
Accept that George Davis interviewed N. A. G. on or before November 3, 1993. See paragraph 43. S. G. testified that she talked to another student, Lydia (last name unknown), and gave a description of her. See paragraph 8. Reject any finding of fact based on S. G.'s unpersuasive and uncorroborated testimony concerning the substance of that alleged conversation with "Lydia." See paragraph 8. Accept that N. A. G. and S. G. never knew each other before the hearing. See paragraph 17.
Accept that on November 2, 1993, Jennie Casillas warned Respondent about S. G. trying to get a lot of attention from Respondent. However, Ms. Casillas's testimony that she felt S. G. had a crush on Respondent is unpersuasive and rejected. See paragraph 39.
Rejected. See paragraph 40.
Rejected. See paragraph 38.
S. G. admitted telling Respondent that his brother was "mean." See paragraph 41. S. G. and Michael Singleton knew each other as former classmates. See paragraph 40. Reject Respondent's testimony that he never inappropriately touched either S. G. or N. A. G. and that he never took pictures of S. G. See paragraphs 9, 16, 28, 37, 38. Reject that the mechanics of performing the skin fold test shows the impossibility of Respondent using his fingers in the manner alleged by S. G. and N. A. G. The balance of Respondent's paragraph 6 is rejected as repetitive, argumentative, irrelevant or unsupported by persuasive competent substantial evidence.
Not a finding of fact.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Eugene K Pettis, Esquire Cooney, Haliczer, Mattson,
Lance, et al.
Post Office Box 14546
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302
W. George Allen, Esquire
Law Offices of W. George Allen Post Office Box 14738
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302
Dr. Frank R. Petruzielo Superintendent of Schools Broward County Schools
600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
The Honorable Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
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 10 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
================================================================= THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA,
Petitioner,
vs. Case No. 94-2049
DARRYL SINGLETON,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
THIS CAUSE coming on to be heard before THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA on July 18, 1995, upon the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer SUZANNE F. HOOD, dated April 13, 1995, said Recommended Order consisting of Preliminary Statement, Statement of the Issues, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation; the Respondent, DARRYL SINGLETON's Exceptions Against the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Recommendations, dated June 7, 1995 and the Petitioner's Response to the Exceptions Filed by the Respondent, Darryl K. Singleton, dated June 28, 1995, and the Board hearing oral arguments of counsel for and otherwise being fully advised in the premises,
IT IS THEREUPON ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
The Exception asserting that the facts and law do not justify Respondent's dismissal for just cause is rejected in that there is substantial, competent evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer's Facts and Law to justify the Respondent's dismissal for just cause.
That the Board accepts in its entirety the Hearing Officer's Preliminary Statement, Statement of the Issues, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation and hereby enters its Final Order Dismissing the Respondent from his employment as an instructor in the public schools of Broward County, Florida.
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida this 18th day of July, 1995.
MIRIAM M. OLIPHANT, Chairperson The School Board of Broward County, Florida
COPIES FURNISHED:
W. George Allen, Esquire Eugene Pettis, Esquire Dr. Frank R. Petruzielo
Hearing Officer Susan F. Hood
APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER
THIS ORDER may be appealed by filing notices of appeal and a filing fee, as set out in Section 120.68(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 9110(b) and (c), within thirty (30) days of the date of the entry of this ORDER.
Filed in Official School Board Records this 18th day of
July, 1995.
Ellen Ruth Kohli Supervisor, Official School Board Records
=================================================================
DISTRICT COURT OPINION
=================================================================
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 1996
DARRYL SINGLETON, NOT FINAL UNTIL THE TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION,
Appellant, AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.
vs. CASE NO. 95-2913
DOAH CASE NO. 94-2049
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA,
Appellee.
/ Decision filed June 19, 1996
Appeal from The School Board of Broward County, Florida; L.T. Case No. 94-2049.
W. George Allen and Virginia D. Stow of Law Offices of W. George Allen, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Robert Paul Vignola of Marko & Stephany, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee. PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
FARMER, KLEIN AND GROSS, J.J., CONCUR.
MANDATE
From
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
This cause having been brought to the Court by appeal, and after due consideration the Court having issued its opinion;
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED dthat such further proceedings be had in said cause as may be in accordance with the opinion of this Court, and with the rules of procedure and laws of the State of Florida.
WITNESS the Honorable Bobby W. Gunther, Chief Judge of the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, and seal of the said Court of West Palm Beach, Florida on this day.
DATE: July 9, 1996
CASE NO.: 95-2913
COUNTY OF ORIGIN: State of Florida Division of Administrative
Hearings
T.C. CASE NO.: 94-2049
STYLE: Singleton v. School Board of Broward County
Marilyn Beuttenmuller, Clerk District Court of Appeal Fourth District
ORIGINAL TO: State, Division of Administrative Hearings cc: W. George Allen
Robert Paul Vignola Suzanne F. Hood
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jul. 15, 1996 | Fourth DCA Opinion and Mandate (Affirmed) filed. |
| Jun. 24, 1996 | Fourth DCA Opinion (Affirmed) filed. |
| May 03, 1996 | (Petitioner) Notice of Vacation filed. |
| Apr. 15, 1996 | (From E. Pettis & D. Cooney) Stipulation for Substitution of Counsel (For HO Signature) filed. |
| Apr. 04, 1996 | (From E. Pettis & D. Cooney) Stipulation for Substitution of Counsel filed. |
| Dec. 22, 1995 | (BY ORDER OF THE COURT) extension of time granted filed. |
| Nov. 03, 1995 | (Petitioner) Designation to Reporter and Reporter's Acknowledgement filed. |
| Oct. 24, 1995 | BY ORDER OF THE COURT: (Motion for extension of time to file brief is granted) filed. |
| Oct. 16, 1995 | BY ORDER OF THE COURT (Appeal was timely filed) filed. |
| Sep. 21, 1995 | Letter from W. George Allen to Suzanne Hood (RE;Copy of Final Order) filed. |
| Sep. 01, 1995 | AGENCY APPEAL, ONCE THE RETENTION SCHEDULE OF -KEEP ONE YEAR AFTER CLOSURE- IS MET, CASE FILE IS RETURNED TO AGENCY GENERAL COUNSEL. -ac |
| Aug. 29, 1995 | From the District Court notice that the appeal was untimely filed filed. |
| Aug. 22, 1995 | AGENCY APPEAL, ONCE THE RETENTION SCHEDULE OF -KEEP ONE YEAR AFTER CLOSURE- IS MET, CASE FILE IS RETURNED TO AGENCY GENERAL COUNSEL. -ac |
| Aug. 21, 1995 | Final Order filed. |
| Aug. 18, 1995 | Letter to Eugene Pettis from W. George Allen Re: Final Order filed. |
| Jul. 10, 1995 | Respondent's Amended Exceptions to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Recommendations filed. |
| Jul. 03, 1995 | Petitioner's Response to the Exceptions Filed by Respondent, Darryl K. Singleton filed. |
| Jun. 09, 1995 | Exceptions of Respondent, Darryl Singleton Against The Findings of Fact And Conclusions of Law And Recommendation filed. |
| Apr. 13, 1995 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 01/23 & 24/95. |
| Mar. 09, 1995 | (Respondent) Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Mar. 08, 1995 | Petitioner's Recommended Order filed. |
| Mar. 02, 1995 | Transcript (Volumes I, II, tagged) filed. |
| Jan. 25, 1995 | Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation; Respondent's Amended Witness List filed. |
| Jan. 23, 1995 | Petitioner's Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Motion in Limine to Exclude Character Evidence; Petitioner's Motion in Limine to Exclude Character Evidence filed. |
| Jan. 23, 1995 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Jan. 23, 1995 | Subpoena Ad Testificandum Subpoena Duces Tecum; Records Custodian: filed. |
| Jan. 20, 1995 | (2) Subpoena Ad Testificandum filed. |
| Jan. 18, 1995 | Amended Notice of Hearing (as to location only) sent out. (hearing set for January 23-24, 1995; 10:00am; Ft. Lauderdale) |
| Jan. 17, 1995 | (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Jan. 17, 1995 | (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Jan. 12, 1995 | Petitioner's Response to Request for Production; Petitioner's Answer to Respondent's Witness Interrogatory filed. |
| Jan. 10, 1995 | (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Jan. 06, 1995 | (Petitioner) Re-Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Dec. 29, 1994 | (2) Subpoena Ad Testificandum filed. |
| Dec. 27, 1994 | Petitioner's Amended Witness List filed. |
| Dec. 19, 1994 | (Respondent) Notice of Service of Respondent`s Answer to Petitioner`s Witness Interrogatory to Respondent filed. |
| Dec. 12, 1994 | First Supplement To Petitioner's Witness List filed. |
| Dec. 08, 1994 | Respondent's Amended Witness List; Second Request To Produce filed. |
| Dec. 01, 1994 | Third Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Jan. 23-24, 1995;10:00am; Ft. Laud) |
| Nov. 28, 1994 | Respondent's Witness Interrogatory to Petitioner filed. |
| Nov. 28, 1994 | Respondent's Second Supplemental Witness List filed. |
| Nov. 21, 1994 | (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Nov. 04, 1994 | Petitioner's Witness Interrog. to Respondent filed. |
| Oct. 24, 1994 | Respondent's Supplemental Witness List filed. |
| Oct. 21, 1994 | Respondent's Witness List filed. |
| Sep. 12, 1994 | Second Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Jan. 3-4, 1995; 10:00am; Ft. Laud) |
| Aug. 24, 1994 | Letter to SLS from Eugene K. Pettis (re: respondent's unavailability for final hearing) filed. |
| Aug. 05, 1994 | Petitioner's Response to Request for Production filed. |
| Aug. 03, 1994 | Order Continuing Hearing And Requiring Response sent out. (hearing date to be rescheduled at a later date; parties to file status report by 8/15/94) |
| Aug. 02, 1994 | (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Aug. 02, 1994 | Petitioner's Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Jul. 15, 1994 | Deposition Taken of Sulin Fontana Gilmet; Deposition Taken of Nydia Gonzalez; Notice of Filing filed. (From W. George Allen) |
| Jul. 05, 1994 | (Respondent) Request to Produce filed. |
| May 26, 1994 | Subpoena Ad Testificandum filed. (From W. George Allen) |
| May 10, 1994 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 8/17-18/94; 10:00am; Ft. Lauderdale) |
| May 10, 1994 | Order of Prehearing Instructions sent out. |
| May 09, 1994 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| May 04, 1994 | Joint Response filed. |
| Apr. 22, 1994 | Initial Order issued. |
| Apr. 15, 1994 | Agency referral letter; Request for Administrative Hearing, letter form; Petition for Formal Proceedings; Administrative Complaint; Agency Action letter filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jun. 19, 1996 | Opinion | |
| Jul. 18, 1995 | Agency Final Order | |
| Apr. 13, 1995 | Recommended Order | Respondent inappropriately touched students in weight training class while performing skin fold test and while taking photographs. |
