STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
JOHN L. WINN, AS COMMISSIONER | ) | |||
OF EDUCATION, | ) ) | |||
Petitioner, | ) | |||
) | ||||
vs. | ) | Case | No. | 08-2563PL |
) | ||||
ROBERT THOR NEGEDLY, | ) | |||
) | ||||
Respondent. | ) | |||
| ) |
RECOMMENDED ORDER
This cause came on for final hearing before Harry L. Hooper, Administrative Law Judge with the Division of Administrative Hearings, on October 20, 2008, in Daytona Beach, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Ron Weaver, Esquire
Post Office Box 5675 Douglasville, Georgia 30154-0012
For Respondent: Joan Stewart, Esquire
FEA Legal Services
300 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue is whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined because of Respondent's misconduct.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
John L. Winn, as the Florida Commissioner of Education, charged Respondent Robert Thor Negedly (Mr. Negedly) with committing certain acts requiring that the Florida Education Practices Commission sanction Mr. Negedly with regard to his certification as a teacher.
In an Administrative Complaint entered December 6, 2005, Mr. Negedly was charged in Count 1 with violating Subsection 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Specifically, Count 1 alleged gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude. Count 2 of the Administrative Complaint charged a violation of Subsection 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Specifically, Count 2 alleged conduct that seriously reduced his effectiveness as an employee of a school board. Count 3 of the Administrative Complaint charged a violation of Subsection 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes. Count 3 specifically alleged violations of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education rules.
Further counts alleged rule violations. Count 4 alleged that Mr. Negedly used institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule
6B-1.006(4)(c). Count 5 alleged that Mr. Negedly engaged in harassment or discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interfered with an individual's performance of professional or
work responsibilities or with the orderly processes of education or which created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment; and further, failed to make reasonable effort to assure that each individual was protected from such harassment or discrimination, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(5)(d). Count 6 alleged a violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(5)(o) in that Mr. Negedly sought reprisal against an individual who reported an allegation of a violation of the Florida School Code or State Board of Education Rules as defined in Subsection 1012.795(1), Florida Statutes.
Mr. Negedly disputed the facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint and allied papers were filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on May 23, 2008, about three and one-half years after the last charged offense. The hearing was set for July 31, 2008, in Daytona Beach. Pursuant to a motion by Mr. Negedly, the hearing was re-scheduled for August 25, 2008. A joint motion to reschedule was filed on August 25, 2008. This motion addressed the chaos resulting from the passage through the area of Tropical Storm Fay. Accordingly, the hearing date was moved to October 20, 2008, and heard as scheduled.
At the hearing, the Commissioner presented the testimony of Dennis Neal, Jami Lynn Becker, Kimberly Hemke, Jacqueline Brame,
Laura Summers, Kuulei A. Hepsworth, and Yanian Gonzalez. Mr. Negedly presented the testimony of Joely Negedly and testified on his own behalf. Mr. Negedly offered Exhibits numbered 1 through 8, which were accepted into evidence.
A Transcript was filed on October 24, 2008. Respondent moved to have the time for filing proposed recommended orders enlarged. Accordingly, the time set for filing proposed recommended orders was extended to November 12, 2008.
Thereafter, both parties timely filed Proposed Recommended Orders on November 12, 2008.
References to statutes are to Florida Statutes (2003) unless otherwise noted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Background and parties
Mr. Negedly holds Florida Educator's Certificate 836720, in English, which was valid through June 30, 2008. At all times pertinent, he was employed by the Volusia County School District as a language arts teacher at Heritage Middle School (Heritage).
The Department of Education, which was headed by Petitioner at all times material to this case, is the state agency charged with investigating and prosecuting complaints against teachers holding Florida Educator's Certificates.
The Education Practices Commission is charged with, among other things, imposing discipline on teachers.
The Becker incidents
During the 2004-2005 school year, Jami Lynn Becker was a consultation teacher at Heritage. A consultation teacher advises and otherwise aids teachers who have exceptional student education (ESE) pupils in their classes. She ensured that ESE students were provided the accommodations to which they were entitled.
Mr. Negedly taught sixth-grade language arts at Heritage. There were three ESE students in his class.
Ms. Becker's duties included visiting his class in order to provide services to those three students.
On September 16, 2004, immediately before the commencement of classroom activities, Ms. Becker went to
Mr. Negedly's room to inquire if he needed any help. During the conversation, Mr. Negedly mentioned that he and his wife had by happenstance seen Ms. Becker driving into New Smyrna Beach, Florida. Ms. Becker related that she was there to receive counseling regarding a recent divorce.
Mr. Negedly moved the subject of the conversation to his own marriage and related that he was having problems and was sexually frustrated. He stated that he was having impure thoughts. He suggested that he was willing to engage in a
physical relationship with Ms. Becker if she was willing. Ms. Becker was completely shocked by this conversation.
Ms. Becker knew Mr. Negedly's wife, Joely Negedly, because she taught at Heritage also, and Ms. Becker suggested that he should direct his intimate conversations to his wife, not her. Mr. Negedly then revealed that he had the same feelings with another teacher, Jaqueline Brame, in the previous year.
At that point in the conversation, the school bell rang, students entered the classroom, and Ms. Becker told
Mr. Negedly that she would pray for him and then departed for her office. She also made it clear to him that she hoped that this type of conversation would not be repeated. However, that was not to be the case.
About 45 minutes later, Mr. Negedly provided
Ms. Becker with a note saying that he was sorry if what he said was too much, too fast, and that he hoped that he had provided her with some help. During the seventh period, which was
Mr. Negedly's planning period, he came to Ms. Becker's office and renewed the conversations about his sexual frustration and stated that he didn't understand why God intended for man to be with one woman for his entire life. He asked Ms. Becker not to tell others about the conversations.
On one or more occasions, Mr. Negedly came into
Ms. Becker's office at the end of the school day and talked to her for as long as 45 minutes. Both his presence and his conversations during these times made her feel uncomfortable. Ms. Becker is a self-described non-confrontational person and could not bring herself to tell him to leave.
These sort of encounters occurred about seven times over several weeks. Ms. Becker felt that the conversations he initiated were inappropriate. His words made her feel uncomfortable, and she felt that it was necessary for her to take evasive action in order to avoid him and therefore avoid repeat occurrences. She also honored his request not to reveal the nature of his conversations.
At some point, Ms. Becker approached Ms. Brame, the person Mr. Negedly had identified as a previous target of his affections, and told Ms. Brame of her experiences. Ms. Brame related her experience with Mr. Negedly, and Ms. Becker ascertained that they were very similar. As a result,
Ms. Becker resolved to inform higher authority. This plan was shelved, however, by the intervention of Hurricane Jeanne, which resulted in the suspension of school activities.
On September 28, 2004, when school resumed,
Mr. Negedly came into her office and after about 45 minutes
Ms. Becker told him that his conversation was inappropriate. A
few days after that, Ms. Becker reported these events to Mrs. Gunderson, who was an assistant principal and supervisor of ESE.
All of these encounters occurred on school grounds.
However, there was no evidence that any student observed or heard Mr. Negedly's suggestions. Mr. Negedly never touched Ms. Becker, threatened her person, or used sexually explicit language. His actions disturbed her to the extent that her
ability to teach was affected. However, her effectiveness as an employee of the district school board was not seriously compromised.
The Brame incidents
Jacqueline Brame is currently a teacher at River Springs Middle School in the Volusia County School District and was a teacher at Heritage during all times pertinent to this proceeding. Ms. Brame was Mr. Negedly's mentor when he began teaching at Heritage and worked with him on a sixth-grade team of teachers providing education to the same 150 children.
By the beginning of the 2003-2004 school year,
Ms. Brame, Mr. Negedly, and Joely Negedly had become close friends. They mingled socially and would visit one another in their homes. Ms. Brame confided in Mr. Negedly, and Ms. Brame described their relationship as "best friends." Ms. Brame was having marital problems, and she shared intimate details about
this with Mr. Negedly. She valued his advice and respected his opinions about her problems.
After the 2003-2004 school year commenced, Mr. Negedly attempted to move the relationship into a romantic one. He told her that he cared for her deeply and that he was in love with her. These comments made Ms. Brame uncomfortable. She reminded Mr. Negedly that he was married, that she, Ms. Brame, was
Mrs. Negedly's friend, and that his son was in her class. This conversation occurred in school, during the school day.
He told Ms. Brame that he wanted to have a physical relationship with her. This continued even when Ms. Brame was seven months pregnant. After each advance and rebuff,
Mr. Negedly would apologize. His pursuit continued for almost a year. On numerous occasions she would tell him that his advances were unwelcome and inappropriate. Ms. Brame, like
Ms. Becker, described herself as someone who did not like confrontation, and she did not firmly tell him that his behavior was unacceptable.
Once when Ms. Brame had temporarily abandoned her marital home as the result of a domestic dispute, Mr. Negedly invited her to stay at his home. Ms. Negedly was out of the area at this time because of her duties as a consultant for the college boards, but their children were present in the home. Ms. Brame refused. However, she did not take the invitation to
be an invitation for sex. She said that had Ms. Negedly not been away during this time, she might have accepted the invitation.
Mr. Negedly's pursuit made Ms. Brame uncomfortable and occasionally sick to her stomach. It adversely affected her emotions and affected her teaching. The events happened in school, in the school cafeteria, and after school, but in connection with school activities. As a result of his unwelcome overtures she had to attend counseling. However, her effectiveness as an employee of the district school board was not seriously reduced or compromised.
Eventually Ms. Brame restructured their relationship.
She transformed it into a professional friendship and maintained this status through the 2003-2004 school year. At no time during these encounters did Mr. Negedly touch Ms. Brame inappropriately or use sexually explicit language. Most if not all of the encounters occurred on school grounds or in connection with school activities. However, there was no evidence that any student observed or heard Mr. Negedly's overtures.
Ms. Brame did not tell anyone in authority about Mr. Negedly's behavior. She cared deeply for Mr. Negedly and his family. She believed remaining silent was her Christian
duty. She stated during the hearing that she does not believe he should be removed from the teaching profession.
Ms. Brame's allegations surfaced during the investigation into Mr. Negedly's conduct that resulted from Ms. Becker's allegations.
The Hepsworth incidents
Ms. Kuuleialoha Hepsworth was a teacher's assistant at Heritage during the first semester of 2004. She was in charge of the "lunch club." This informal organization provided lunches to teachers who desired to have their lunch prepared by commercial providers. Ms. Hepsworth would collect money from participating teachers, acquire the food at nearby restaurants, and deliver them to those who had placed orders with her.
Once when Mr. Negedly handed her money to be used for purchasing lunch, she claimed he inappropriately brushed the bottom of her hand.
Mr. Negedly was the sponsor for the school yearbook and in connection with that duty, he was taking pictures of children in a seventh-period classroom Ms. Hepsworth was teaching. Ms. Hepsworth testified that he said that he was intrigued with her and that "he wanted to pursue her." She said she asked him, "What about your wife?" She said he then asked her if "I would do his wife too, because that would be too cool."
Ms. Hepsworth claimed that she was "freaked out." She related that this latter incident occurred on the Friday before Mr. Negedly was removed from the school because of the Becker allegations. She was asked on October 28, 2004, to give a statement to an investigator and that is when she revealed her alleged encounters.
The alleged behavior of Mr. Negedly as related by Ms. Hepsworth was so dissimilar to the events related by
Ms. Becker and Ms. Brame that it is deemed unworthy of belief. Mr. Negedly
Mr. Negedly's targets were women who did not like confrontation and who sought unsuccessfully to communicate their discomfort passively. Had they been confrontational with him, or if they had reported his behavior to higher authority immediately, the behavior could have been corrected locally, and the downward spiral of unpleasantness which has resulted, could have been avoided.
On the other hand, these two women may have been selected as targets because of Mr. Negedly's perception that they were unlikely to either harshly react to his overtures or immediately report him to those in authority.
Mr. Negedly's certificate expired June 30, 2008. He was employed as a teacher from the beginning of the 2000-2001 school year until the latter part of the school year 2005-2006.
Mr. Negedly received a certificate of appreciation for his outstanding dedication to education from the assistant principal of Heritage, on May 7, 2002. All of his performance assessments indicated that he met standards, and he had no disciplinary record prior to the discipline at issue in this case.
As previously noted, he was given the additional duty of yearbook sponsor at Heritage. He was also made sponsor of the Junior Beta Club.
Heritage Principal Dennis Neal wrote a recommendation dated May 7, 2004, when Mr. Negedly applied for a Stetson University Teacher Scholar Grant that related, "Mr. Negedly continues to demonstrate high professional standards and a dedication to his students' success both in and out of the classroom. He is a valuable team player who can be counted on to go above the norm in all his endeavors. I commend
Mr. Negedly on taking on the challenge of an advanced degree and professional growth."
When Mr. Negedly was teaching English at David Hinson Middle School, he was chosen teacher of the month for October 2005 by students and teachers.
Subsequent to the exposure of Mr. Negedly's transgressions, he attended counseling with his wife at Associated Psychiatric Services in New Smyrna Beach, Florida.
As late as April 13, 2005, counseling continued. The counseling was ordered and paid for by the Volusia School District.
In January 2005, the school board punished Mr. Negedly by suspending him for five days without pay.
As a result of Mr. Negedly's lack of judgment, he was taken from his classroom at Heritage and transferred to the district headquarters; his wife had to obtain a transfer to another school; Mrs. Negedly and her child were the subject of incorrect and hurtful conversations by students, faculty, and others; and Mr. Negedly, who sincerely loved teaching, lost his career.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding. §§ 120.57(1) and 1012.796(6) Fla. Stat. (2007).
The material allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Department of Banking and Finance v. Osborne Stern and Company, Inc., 670 So. 2d 932, 933 (Fla. 1996) and Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d 292, 294 (Fla. 1987).
Subsection 1012.795, Florida Statutes, provides as follows:
1012.795 Education Practices Commission; authority to discipline.--
The Education Practices Commission may suspend the educator certificate of any person as defined in s. 1012.01(2) or (3) for a period of time not to exceed 3 years, thereby denying that person the right to teach for that period of time, after which the holder may return to teaching as provided in subsection (4); may revoke the educator certificate of any person, thereby denying that person the right to teach for a period of time not to exceed 10 years, with reinstatement subject to the provisions of subsection (4); may revoke permanently the educator certificate of any person; may suspend the educator certificate, upon order of the court, of any person found to have a delinquent child support obligation; or may impose any other penalty provided by law, provided it can be shown that the person:
* * *
(c) Has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude.
* * *
Upon investigation, has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces that person's effectiveness as an employee of the district school board.
* * *
(i) Has violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education rules.
Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006 provides in part, as follows:
6B-1.006 Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida.
The following disciplinary rule shall constitute the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida.
Violation of any of these principles shall subject the individual to revocation or suspension of the individual educator’s certificate, or the other penalties as provided by law.
* * *
Obligation to the public requires that the individual:
* * *
Shall not use institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage.
* * *
Obligation to the profession of education requires that the individual:
* * *
Shall not engage in harassment or discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interferes with an individual’s performance of professional or work responsibilities or with the orderly processes of education or which creates a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment; and, further, shall make reasonable effort to assure that each individual is protected from such harassment or discrimination.
* * *
(o) Shall seek no reprisal against any individual who has reported any allegation
of a violation of the Florida School Code or State Board of Education Rules as defined in Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes.
* * *
Section 1012.796, Florida Statutes, provides for a disciplinary scheme whereby the Department investigates legally sufficient complaints brought before it that involves allegations of misconduct by certificated personnel. Specifically, it provides in Subsection 1012.796(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as follows:
1012.796 Complaints against teachers and administrators; procedure; penalties.--
(1)(a) The Department of Education shall cause to be investigated expeditiously any complaint filed before it or otherwise called to its attention which, if legally sufficient, contains grounds for the revocation or suspension of a certificate or any other appropriate penalty as set forth in subsection (7). The complaint is legally sufficient if it contains the ultimate facts which show a violation has occurred as provided in s. 1012.795 and defined by rule of the State Board of Education. The department shall investigate or continue to investigate and take appropriate action on a complaint even though the original complainant withdraws the complaint or otherwise indicates a desire not to cause it to be investigated or prosecuted to completion. The department may investigate or continue to investigate and take action on a complaint filed against a person whose educator certificate has expired if the act or acts that are the basis for the complaint were allegedly committed while that person possessed an educator certificate.
Subsection 1012.796(7), Florida Statutes, provides one or more penalties as follows:
A panel of the commission shall enter a final order either dismissing the complaint or imposing one or more of the following penalties:
Denial of an application for a teaching certificate or for an administrative or supervisory endorsement on a teaching certificate. The denial may provide that the applicant may not reapply for certification, and that the department may refuse to consider that applicant's application, for a specified period of time or permanently.
Revocation or suspension of a certificate.
Imposition of an administrative fine not to exceed $2,000 for each count or separate offense.
Placement of the teacher, administrator, or supervisor on probation for a period of time and subject to such conditions as the commission may specify, including requiring the certified teacher, administrator, or supervisor to complete additional appropriate college courses or work with another certified educator, with the administrative costs of monitoring the probation assessed to the educator placed on probation. An educator who has been placed on probation shall, at a minimum:
Immediately notify the investigative office in the Department of Education upon employment or termination of employment in the state in any public or private position requiring a Florida educator's certificate.
Have his or her immediate supervisor submit annual performance reports to the
investigative office in the Department of Education.
Pay to the commission within the first 6 months of each probation year the administrative costs of monitoring probation assessed to the educator.
Violate no law and shall fully comply with all district school board policies, school rules, and State Board of Education rules.
Satisfactorily perform his or her assigned duties in a competent, professional manner.
Bear all costs of complying with the terms of a final order entered by the commission.
Restriction of the authorized scope of practice of the teacher, administrator, or supervisor.
Reprimand of the teacher, administrator, or supervisor in writing, with a copy to be placed in the certification file of such person.
Imposition of an administrative sanction, upon a person whose teaching certificate has expired, for an act or acts committed while that person possessed a teaching certificate or an expired certificate subject to late renewal, which sanction bars that person from applying for a new certificate for a period of 10 years or less, or permanently.
Refer the teacher, administrator, or supervisor to the recovery network program provided in s. 1012.798 under such terms and conditions as the commission may specify.
Gross immorality is defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(2), as: "[C]onduct that is inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals. It is
conduct sufficiently notorious to bring the individual concerned or the education profession into public disgrace or disrespect and impair the individual's service in the community." Moral turpitude is defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B- 4.009(6), as follows: "Moral turpitude is a crime that is evidenced by an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which, according to the accepted standards of the time a man owes to his or her fellow man or to society in general, and the doing of the act itself and not its prohibition by statute fixes the moral turpitude."
Mr. Negedly did not violate Subsection 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count 1. He committed no acts of gross immorality and committed no act involving moral turpitude, as defined above.
Mr. Negedly's conduct did not seriously reduce his effectiveness as an employee of a school board in violation of Subsection 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count 2. Mr. Negedly's behavior undoubtedly reduced his
effectiveness as a teacher, but to the extent it was reduced, it was not seriously reduced. After removal from his classroom, he
was eventually assigned to another school where teachers and students voted him teacher of the month for October 2005.
Mr. Negedly's conduct did not violate the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education rules, as set forth in Count 3. This will be discussed in more detail under each of the rule allegations.
No evidence was adduced that Mr. Negedly used institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(4)(c), as alleged in Count 4.
It was not proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Negedly engaged in harassment or discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interfered with an individual's performance of professional or work responsibilities or with the orderly processes of education or which created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment; and further, failed to make reasonable effort to assure that each individual was protected from such harassment or discrimination, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(5)(d) as alleged in Count 5.
In Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787-88 (1998), the U.S. Supreme Court provided as follows:
So, in Harris, we explained that in order to be actionable under the statute, a sexually objectionable environment must be both objectively and subjectively offensive, one that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive, and one that the victim in fact did perceive to be so. 510 U.S. at 21-22.
We directed courts to determine whether an environment is sufficiently hostile or abusive by "looking at all the circumstances," including the "frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance." 510 U.S. at 23. Most recently, we explained that Title VII does not prohibit "genuine but innocuous differences in the ways men and women routinely interact with members of the same sex and of the opposite sex." Oncale, 523 U.S. at 81 (slip op., at 6). A recurring point in these opinions is that "simple teasing," id., at 82 (slip op., at 7), offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the "terms and conditions of employment."
These standards for judging hostility are sufficiently demanding to ensure that Title VII does not become a "general civility code." Id. at (slip op., at 6). Properly applied, they will filter out complaints attacking "the ordinary tribulations of the workplace, such as the sporadic use of abusive language, gender-related jokes, and occasional teasing." B. Lindemann & D. Kadue, Sexual Harassment in Employment Law
175 (1992) (hereinafter Lindemann & Kadue) (footnotes omitted). We have made it clear that conduct must be extreme to amount to a change in the terms and conditions of employment, and the Courts of Appeals have heeded this view. See, e.g., Carrero v. New York City Housing Auth., 890 F.2d 569, 577- 578 (CA2 1989); Moylan v. Maries County, 792
F.2d 746, 749-750 (CA8 1986); See also 1
Lindemann & Grossman 805-807, n. 290 (collecting cases granting summary judgment for employers because the alleged harassment was not actionably severe or pervasive).
Although the foregoing addresses Title VII, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(5)(d) may provide some less difficult degree of proof, Faragher is nevertheless illuminating. Certainly, conduct that fails to meet the test of Faragher might meet the test of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(5)(d) if the conduct occurred in the presence of students. In this case, no evidence was adduced demonstrating that students witnessed Mr. Negedly's conduct with Ms. Becker and Ms. Brame.
Violations of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B- 1.006(5)(d) were found in Tom Gallagher vs. Tom Jenkins, Case No. 00-3345PL (DOAH March 30, 2001) (Final Order, September 19, 2001) (the teacher told fellow teachers that he had a gun in a manner that caused them to be afraid); Jim Horne vs. Carlos A. Troche, Case No. 03-3160PL (DOAH August 5, 2004) (Final Order, November 17, 2004) (the teacher made a sexual overture to a parent in front of students and discussed sexual matters in the presence of students that embarrassed them); and Duval County
School Board vs. Emory Trawick, Frank T. Brogan vs. Emory Trawick, Case Nos. 95-5328; 96-1336 (DOAH December 13, 1996) (Final Order, March 10, 1997) (a principal called female teachers to his office, locked his office door, and rubbed their
shoulders, and grabbed a teacher by her hips and pulled her to his lap).
Mr. Negedly may have violated the "general civility code," but his actions were not sufficiently egregious to permit a finding that he violated Florida Administrative Code
Rule 6B-1.006(5)(d), as alleged in Count 5.
No facts whatsoever proved that Mr. Negedly sought reprisal against any individual who has reported an allegation of a violation of the Florida School Code or State Board of Education Rules as defined in Subsection 1012.795(1), Florida Statutes, in violation of Florida Administrative Code
Rule 6B-1.006(5)(o), as alleged in Count 6.
it is
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the
Administrative Complaint.
DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
S
HARRY L. HOOPER
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 December, 2008.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education
325 West Gaines Street, Room 224
Tallahassee, Florida | 32399-0400 |
Joan Stewart, Esquire FEA Legal Services 300 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida | 32301 |
Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 5675 Douglasville, Georgia | 30154-0012 |
Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief
Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education
Turlington Building, Suite 224-E
325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education
Turlington Building, Suite 1244
325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Mar. 27, 2009 | Agency Final Order | |
| Dec. 04, 2008 | Recommended Order | Respondent teacher suggested to two teachers that he wished to have a physical relationship with them. This conduct was found to be inappropriate, but insufficiently serious to warrant having his teacher`s certificate disciplined. |
RICHARD CORCORAN, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs LASHON JENIECE MILLER, 08-002563PL (2008)
JOHN L. WINN, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs WALTER RUFFIN, 08-002563PL (2008)
DR. ERIC J. SMITH, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs BILAL MUHAMMAD, 08-002563PL (2008)
RUSSELL JOHN DAVIS, JR. vs. EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION, 08-002563PL (2008)
FRANK T. BROGAN, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs RUBY LIGHTSEY, 08-002563PL (2008)
