The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner/Agency has established by preponderant evidence that there was just cause to dismiss Sakina A. Jones, the Respondent, for alleged misconduct in relation to her teaching of students in alleged violation of Rules 6B- 1.006(3)(a), and 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the Duval County Florida School District or "School Board" charged with regulating the practice standards for teachers and the manner of practice of teachers who are employed by it in the Duval County School District system. The Respondent is licensed to teach in Florida, holding Florida Educator Certificate No. 831562, effective from July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2002. The Respondent has a Bachelor's Degree in Psychology received on December 11, 1998. She has worked as a substitute teacher for the Duval County School District between approximately September 4, 1998 and August 9, 2000, after which time she became a full-time elementary teacher at Annie R. Morgan Elementary School. The Respondent has a Bachelor's Degree in Psychology. Her training and experience in the field of education beyond college, at which she had no academic training as an educator, at the point she commenced her second year of teaching at Annie R. Morgan Elementary School, in August 2002, included the following: substitute teaching experience at elementary schools. teaching ESE students at DuPont Middle School as a substitute teacher. participation in the Teacher Induction Program during the 2000-2001 school year while full time teaching at Annie R. Morgan Elementary School. having a designated mentor (Mrs. Shipley) from whom to seek guidance. completion of a college level introduction to education course while teaching full time during the 2000-2001 school year. completion of a course in "Teaching Diverse Populations" in the summer of 2001. receiving a book called "Positive Discipline." attending a faculty meeting on classroom discipline which focused on steps that could be taken in the classroom before sending a child to the principal's office. The Respondent had no training in the specifics of teaching and disciplining either ESE students or the educable mentally handicapped (EMH) students which she was teaching at times pertinent to this case. The Teachers' Induction Program in which Ms. Jones participated during the 2000-2001 school year is a program for new teachers in the District which includes assessments involving at least two classroom visits a week. Six "domains" are covered in the program including classroom management, instructional planning and testing, some of which are presented in a workshop format. The program requires a year to complete, at the end of which the principal must assess whether a new teacher has passed or failed in her participation in the program. For the 2000-2001 school year Ms. Jones accepted a position as a full-time, third grade teacher at the Annie R. Morgan Elementary School. The principal that year was Delores Milton. After about five weeks, Ms. Jones was shifted to an ESE class, an area in which she had no training. Later that year she was assigned to an EMH class which she was even less qualified to handle in terms of having any specific training in teaching and disciplining EMH students. Ms. Jones, indeed, had serious reservations about taking the EMH job because of her lack of training or experience with EMH children and she related this to her principal and they had a discussion about it. Ultimately, the principal assured her that she could go to workshops and in other ways get additional training and so Ms. Jones accepted the position because it would guarantee her a position so that she would not be on the "surplus list" (being first subject to lay-offs). Carolyn F. Davis was assigned as Principal at Annie R. Morgan Elementary School on July 1, 2001, replacing Ms. Milton. Ms. Jones' EMH teaching assignment continued into the new 2001- 2002 school year. Her class included twelve boys and two girls ranging in advancement from grade one to grade three. A teacher's assistant was assigned to her on a full time basis. The teacher's assistant, at the beginning of the year, was Tiffany Bullard. Ms. Bullard had been working with Ms. Jones as a teaching assistant the prior school year from approximately November 2000 through the end of the school year in May 2001. That had been her first experience as a teacher's assistant. Due to budgetary cuts, Ms. Bullard was "surplused" (laid-off) on September 4, 2001. Several months later she was re-hired at a different school. A second teacher's assistant worked with Ms. Jones in her classroom after Ms. Bullard departed. This was Arnette Felton. Ms. Felton had a year's prior experience as a teacher's assistant at an elementary school as well as a prior year of such experience at Annie R. Morgan Elementary School. She worked with Ms. Jones from September 5, through October 16, 2001. She asked to be relieved when she claimed that Ms. Jones threw a bottle of "white-out" at a student who ducked, such that the bottle hit Ms. Felton. The totality of the credible testimony reveals that this incident did not happen at, least in that fashion, as Ms. Jones never intentionally threw a bottle of white-out at anyone. In reality, there appears to have been some personal friction between Ms. Felton and Ms. Jones which helped to cause Ms. Felton's departure. Ms. Jones' third teacher's assistant was Brenda Medlock. Ms. Medlock has approximately one year and a half of college and had been serving as a teacher's assistant for ten years in the Duval County School system. She remained with Ms. Jones until Ms. Jones was removed from her teaching duties on or about November 19, 2001. Ms. Medlock had no prior experience with EMH students although she had worked with ESE students and had some training of unknown amount and duration in behavior management while working as a teacher's assistant at a prior school. The EMH students in Ms. Jones class were all students with below average I.Q. who function at grade levels significantly below the norm for their age. Their I.Q. range was from 49 to 69. Greater patience is required in disciplining and instructing EMH students. Relevant federal law protects them from being disciplined for reasons of their disability. In all instances with respect to such students, a determination has to be made concerning whether the conduct for which discipline is about to be meted out is a manifestation of the disability, and if so, there can be no discipline. Some of the students had limited communication skills and difficulties with memory and Ms. Jones was aware of this information concerning her students upon getting to know them. Students with a low I.Q., such as Ms. Jones' students, should not appropriately be made to write sentences repetitively as a disciplinary measure. This is because they would typically not understand and cannot practicably execute the requirement. Upon learning that Ms. Jones had made students write sentences repetitively as a disciplinary measure, Principal Carolyn Davis instructed her not to use this form of discipline at a conference the two had on October 23, 2001. Student Raymond Houston testified. He was placed in the bathroom, which was in the classroom, a number of times for a few minutes as "time out" when he misbehaved. Although the light in the bathroom may have been turned off when this occurred, no one prevented any student, being placed in the bathroom as "time out," from turning the light on. Raymond Houston (R.H.) also stated that he and several other students had to do the "duck walk" or "jumping jacks" as discipline for misbehavior on a number of occasions. He was also required to write sentences such as "I will be good" or "I will pay attention" when he had misbehaved. The teacher's assistant, Ms. Bullard, confirmed that the Respondent had placed children into the classroom bathroom for "time outs." The totality of the credible testimony reveals, however, that these sessions lasted only from three to five minutes and no student had been placed in the bathroom as long as an hour or a half-day or anything of that nature. Ms. Jones also made certain male students do pushups for disciplinary reasons, such as R.H. and T.S. In this connection, some of the calisthenics her students performed were done as part of a fitness program she instilled in her daily lesson plan, including the exercise regimen known as "Tae Bo." Most occasions, when students did exercises such as pushups, were not for disciplinary reasons. Student R.H. also was required by the Respondent to wash at the lavatory and put on a clean shirt, which she had in the classroom to give him. This was because he had not bathed in several days and had a bad odor. While some other students may have observed this, it was done for hygiene reasons and was not done in order to berate the student or expose him to unnecessary embarrassment. During the 2001-2002 school year on one occasion, student "Shaquille's" book bag was taken from him by the Respondent and she put it in a trashcan. This was not a trashcan used for refuse or garbage, however, it was simply a trashcan type receptacle where she would keep students' book bags when they did not need them or when they were not supposed to be in possession of them. Ms. Jones also instituted a system which permitted the children to go to the bathroom three times per day. This system was implemented by having the students use tokens, three apiece, which they could use when they needed to go to the bathroom. This was done to help instill order in the classroom. However, those students who were unable, for various reasons, to comply with this bathroom schedule were allowed to go on an as-needed basis. In any event, the three-bathroom-visits policy was ended by the Respondent one month into that school year. All students at the Annie R. Morgan Elementary School receive a free breakfast every morning, at the beginning of the school day. Breakfast is provided in the classrooms to the students at their desks. Ms. Jones had a rigid five-minute time limit, enforced by a timer, during which the children were to eat their breakfast. She would have the students start in unison (those that were present) and when the timer rang after five minutes, she would make the children discard any portion of breakfast not eaten. Ms. Jones was not aware that there was any prohibition against the five-minute time limit for eating breakfast and for discarding unused food. After being instructed by her principal, at their meeting of October 23, 2001, that the students should be allowed fifteen minutes for breakfast, the Respondent complied. The only exception to this, established in the record, was when student James Brown arrived at school late and missed breakfast. This, however, was involved with an agreement the Respondent had with James Brown's mother, who had informed Ms. Jones that if he were late she could assume that he had already had breakfast, because his mother would ensure that he had already breakfast. The denial of his breakfast, on the day in question, was not due to any cruelty or other violation of the rules referenced herein, but rather because she knew that his mother would have already given him breakfast on that day when he was late. Although the Respondent was accused by witness Arnette Felton of throwing objects in the classroom at students, including pencils, chalk, an eraser and a white-out bottle, the preponderant, credible testimony indicates otherwise. Although the Respondent acknowledged tossing snacks, candy, chalk or pencils to students for them to use during the course of their classroom activities, she never purposely and forcefully threw any object at students in anger or as a misguided disciplinary measure or anything of the sort. Further, although as a classroom management technique the Respondent placed students in time-out in the restroom for a few minutes when she felt it necessary to restore order and decorum in the classroom, she never instructed her assistant to forcibly hold the bathroom door shut to "lock-in" a student for disciplinary reasons. Ms. Felton maintained that she observed Kenny Brown come to Ms. Jones' desk, when told not to, so that Ms. Jones, in anger, threw his book bag in the trash, took his folder out of the book bag and threw it in the sink, getting it wet. The most credible testimony does not support that assertion. It is determined this incident did not occur in this fashion. Rather, Ms. Jones, at most, took student K.B.'s book bag from him and placed it in the receptacle for holding book bags, which happened to be in the form of a trashcan, but which was not used as a trash or garbage can, as found in the other instance referenced above. It is true that Ms. Jones criticized Ms. Felton when she was unable to change a CD disc, calling her a "dummy." This was not done in a way that the other persons or students present in the classroom could hear, however. It is also true that Ms. Jones and Mr. Felton got into a verbal altercation in the classroom for which the Respondent, Ms. Jones, received a reprimand from the principal, Ms. Davis, for engaging in an argument in front of the students. Teacher's assistant Brenda Medlock succeeded Ms. Felton as the teaching assistant for the Respondent. She observed James Brown arrive at school, missing breakfast, on October 29, 2001, which has been discussed above. Withholding breakfast may have been contrary to the principal's instruction, but in this regard it was done for a justifiable reason because, due to the understanding with the student's mother, Ms. Jones knew that he had already had breakfast when he got to school that day when he arrived at school late. Ms. Medlock also observed, on October 29, 2001, that, after the students were disruptive, the Respondent put a sentence on the board, "I will pay attention," and required all of the students to write that sentence repetitively for approximately fifteen to twenty-five minutes. Some of the students had the ability to write the sentence only a few times or only once. This episode was in violation of instructions given by the principal at the meeting she had with the Respondent on October 23, 2001. The principal had a conference with Ms. Jones on October 23, 2001, in which Ms. Jones admitted that she had placed students in the bathroom for time-out for disciplinary purposes and that she had given children only five minutes in which to eat breakfast. She was informed that fifteen minutes were allowed for eating breakfast and she was directed not to use the bathroom for time-out disciplinary purposes anymore. She refrained from doing so thereafter. She was also directed not to withhold food from a child which she complied with thereafter, with the exception of the James Brown breakfast episode, which was adequately explained by the Respondent to not involve any disciplinary or disparagement reason for its occurrence. Ms. Jones did, as found above, violate the instruction from Ms. Davis about not requiring students to write sentences repetitively, as a disciplinary measure, by the incident she caused on October 29, 2001, found above. In summary, it is significant that the only sources of factual information are the testimony of the teacher's assistants who were assigned to the Respondent during the 2001- 2002 school year. An analysis of their testimony shows that none of them had any affection for the Respondent and it appears from examination of their testimony, and the Respondent's testimony, that each had specific reasons for harboring resentment or animosity toward the Respondent. Their attitudes towards the Respondent appeared less than friendly, so that their testimony, taken together, with the instances of admissions by the Respondent show that some of the situations described happened, but did not happen in the heinous way described in the testimony of the teacher's assistants Ms. Felton and Ms. Medlock. Although some of these situations, which occurred as part of the Respondent's attempt to properly deal with her classroom environment, may have justifiably resulted in criticism of the Respondent, the statement of the Petitioner's own witnesses show that there was no formal standard and no formal definition of acceptable versus unacceptable conduct imparted to the Respondent before she embarked on her duties with this EMH class. The Petitioner's representatives acknowledge that there was no advance training or instruction given to the Respondent. The Respondent was required to seek assistance and additional training largely on her own initiative with little support from the school administration. Consequently, as the Respondent attempted to develop techniques for the management of her classroom and for the instruction of her students, numerous events occurred that were later deemed inappropriate, although she had not been instructed in advance that they were inappropriate. Some of these occurrences or events were due to poor judgment on her part as well, and the resentment occasioned in her teacher's assistants or "para-professionals" was probably partly the result of her own failure to adequately control her temper on occasions. However, the fact remains that as soon as the Respondent was notified of any perceived inappropriate behavior, or classroom or student management techniques, she modified her conduct or techniques accordingly, so as to comply with those instructions. The only time she continued behavior that had been deemed unacceptable by the principal concerned the subject of the breakfast of one student, for whom she had a specific instruction from the student's parent that the student did not need to have breakfast when he arrived late, because he would already have had breakfast. The other occasion of continued behavior that was unacceptable was the single, October 29, 2001, requirement of students to write repetitive sentences, which was directly contrary to the instructions she received from the principal on October 23, 2001. Since the only complaints were made to the administration by the paraprofessionals and the investigation therefore concentrated on those individual's statements, there is no substantial, credible evidence that the Respondent's actions rose to the level of intentional embarrassment or disparagement of students or otherwise constituted a breach of the Code of Ethics for educators, as embodied in the rules on which the Respondent's termination was based. Although the Respondent's actions were mis-directed in several instances and constituted exhibitions of poor judgment on some occasions, they have not risen to the level of a violation of the ethical requirements imposed on teachers.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the School Board of Duval County compensating the Respondent for the salary and benefits to which she is entitled from the date of her termination of employment (suspension without pay) forward to the end of the 2001-2002 School Year. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Hertz, Esquire Duval Teachers United 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Ernst D. Mueller, Esquire City of Jacksonville Office of the General Counsel 117 West Duval Street Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 John C. Fryer, Jr., Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8182 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Sharon Lambeth, should be reprimanded and reassigned from her position as Countryside High School principal to a position as a supervisor with the school system's Title I office, at the same rate of pay.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Sharon Lambeth, has been involved in the field of education for over 20 years. She moved to Volusia County in 1985 to begin her career in Florida. She began as assistant director of personnel but went through target selection and became an elementary school assistant principal, an elementary school principal, and then the principal of Volusia County's largest high school. She married and moved to Pinellas County in 1993 and was hired as an assistant principal at Gibbs High School for the 1993-94 school year. She was promoted to principal of Countryside High School for the 1994-95 school year. During her tenure in Pinellas County, Lambeth was a very effective principal and generally very well-liked (although, like almost all principals, she had her detractors as well as her supporters.) Lambeth's performance evaluations during her tenure in Pinellas County through May 8, 1998, have been excellent. Lambeth's employment as principal of Countryside High School has been under successive annual contracts with the Pinellas County Schools. The contract for the 1997/98 school year provided, in pertinent part: . . . The Board may, upon recommendation of the Superintendent, transfer and assign the Employee to a similar position in any other location of the district, provided that the duties shall be similar to the duties originally assigned, and the salary shall be heretofore set forth. * * * 5. The Board may suspend or remove the Employee for just cause. The Employee shall not be entitled to receive any salary from and after the date of such suspension or removal unless such suspension is revoked and in no event shall the Employee be entitled to any compensation subsequent to the cancellation of this contract. * * * 11. Failure of either party to fulfill the obligations under this contract, and to carry out the lawful provisions, hereof, or as otherwise provided by law, shall constitute sufficient grounds for the termination of this contract by the other party, provided, however, no termination shall be effective without reasonable notice. On April 28, 1998, Lambeth again was appointed to a position for the 1998/99 school year, "subject to assignment and transfer." Lambeth accepted the appointment on May 8, 1998. There exist Pinellas Administrators Association Personnel Practices and Grievance Procedures. These documents were developed jointly by the Superintendent of Schools and the Executive Board of the Pinellas Administrators Association; they were approved by the School Board on July 14, 1976. The Personnel Practices provide in pertinent part: COMPLAINTS A. Complaints, oral or written, involving administrators or supervisors shall be investigated through line offices. A copy of such a complaint shall be immediately forwarded to the employee concerned so that he may respond. The employee shall be entitled to know the name of the person or group making the complaint. * * * TERMINATION Termination for Cause. Administrative and supervisory personnel may be terminated for cause on the same grounds as delineated in F.S. 231.36(6) at the discretion of the School Board. Termination shall include discharge, suspension without pay, demotion in salary or status, or any other action involving fault on the part of such administrator or supervisor. * * * C. Any administrator or supervisor terminated for cause subjected to a personnel action as defined above shall have the right to register his complaint through the Pinellas administrators' grievance procedures. However, the significance of these documents is not clear; nor is it clear that they are still are applicable at this time. They apparently are not duly promulgated School Board policy, and the School Board does not refer to them in the conduct of its employment relationships. They also are not part of Lambeth's employment contract. Even if generally applicable, it also was not clear whether they would apply to administrators who are not members of the Pinellas Administrators Association, and there was no evidence that Lambeth is a member. In August 1997, someone approached Countryside assistant principal, Kathleen Novak, to explain the circumstances of a 1997 graduate. The student was a few points short of the minimum grade required in certain core high school courses by either his college's admission requirements, the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA's) athletic scholarship requirements, or both. Novak went to her principal, Lambeth, to discuss the matter. Another assistant principal, Paula Flott, also participated in the discussion. The outcome of the discussion was that Lambeth asked Novak and Flott to try to contact "their" teachers (i.e., the teachers "assigned" to them for purposes of supervision and division of duties) to find out if there were any grades that could be raised enough through re-testing to meet the minimum requirements the student needed to meet. Before contacting the teachers, Novak first had occasion to confer with yet another assistant principal, Henry Moore. Moore helped Novak review the student's report cards and identified two grades he thought could be raised enough to give the student the minimum grade required. One was a "mid-point" grade in a history class the student took during his junior year (1995-96). Under School Board Policy 6Gx52-8.24(2)(g): "At the mid-point of each grade level, i.e., 3.5, 2.5, 1.5, .5, it will be the option of the teacher, subject to review by the principal, as to whether the higher or lower grade will be given." Moore also identified a psychology grade from the student's senior year (1996-97) which was borderline. It is not clear from the evidence whether Moore thought it was necessary to contact the history teacher, David Ferguson, about the mid-point grade. Moore understood Countyside's unwritten policy to be that, if a student improved his or her grade during the grading period, a mid-point grade would be increased to the next higher whole number or letter grade unless the teacher went to the principal to justify deviating from the policy. There was some evidence to suggest that Moore thought Lambeth, as principal, could raise the mid-point grade without re-testing; but the evidence was not clear that Moore communicated this to Novak or Lambeth at the time. In any event, Moore testified to his assumption that Novak would next contact the teachers concerning re-evaluation of the two grades. The next day, Novak reported to Lambeth the results of her conversation with Moore. Lambeth decided that the student should re-take the final examinations in both classes. She testified that she instructed Novak to contact the teachers about the re-evaluations and re-testing. Novak denied receiving explicit instructions to contact the teachers at this point. It is found that Novak would not have disregarded a direct instruction to contact the teachers. It is more probable that Lambeth simply instructed Novak to proceed to take care of it and assumed that Novak would contact the teachers. Novak also saw Flott that day. Flott told Novak that Flott had not contacted any of "her" teachers yet. Novak told Flott not to worry about it, that Novak had "taken care of it." Flott assumed Novak meant Novak had contacted the teachers. Actually, Novak meant that, since the two grades Novak and Moore already had been identified were enough, there was no need for Flott to contact any of "her" teachers. At this time during the summer, the teachers were on vacation, and Novak researched files of past exams maintained by the school administration to document grades and reproduced the final exams for the grades she and Moore had identified. Novak then made arrangements for the student to retake the exams and notified Lambeth that the student had improved his grades enough to meet the student's college requirements. When Novak reported to Lambeth, the deadline for the student's college requirements was imminent. Lambeth assumed but did not ask whether Novak had contacted the teachers whose grades were involved. Lambeth did not ask to see any documentation of the teachers' assent to a grade change or any documentation of the retesting. Lambeth just told Novak to change the grades in the official records and notify the college and/or the NCAA. Novak responded that she did not know how to do this. Lambeth told her to get assistance from clerical personnel who knew how to change grades; Lambeth herself took care of notifying the college and/or the NCAA. To notify the college and/or the NCAA, Lambeth modified a form used by Countryside's athletic department to document that a student-athlete's grade had been properly re-evaluated so as to regain eligibility to participate in interscholastic athletics. The form utilized had a place for the signature of the teacher whose grade was being re-evaluated. In modifying the form for purposes of notifying the college and/or the NCAA, Lambeth deleted the provision for the teacher's signature. Lambeth signed the form as principal on August 15, 1997, and sent the notification to the college and/or the NCAA. Lambeth denied that she deleted the teacher signature provision in the form because she knew the teachers were unaware of the grade re-evaluations. Although the teachers were at school on August 15, 1997, preparing for the start of the 1997-98 school year, Lambeth said she dispensed with the teacher signature provision in order to expedite the notification. A few days after the start of the 1997-98 school year, the girl friend of the student whose grades were changed told Ferguson that the student had retaken Ferguson's final exam. Ferguson was busy and told the girl that they would discuss it later, which they did about a month later. For another month or more, Ferguson did nothing about it. Towards the end of October or early November 1997, Ferguson approached Lambeth to let her know what had happened and that students were talking about it. To his surprise, Lambeth told him she knew all about it, having been directly involved herself in the grade re-evaluation. Lambeth did not act as if she saw anything wrong with what was done; she even seemed proud of her participation. Ferguson, who did not think it was right for one of his assigned grades to be re-evaluated without his knowledge, was taken off-guard by Lambeth's response and decided not to say anything else about it at the time. In about December 1997, Ferguson found the time to spend several hours looking into the circumstances of the grade re-evaluations. He discovered that the grades were changed in the student's official transcript, but that the changes were not otherwise documented. The lack of documentation also seemed wrong to Ferguson. During the spring semester of the 1997-98 school year, Ferguson approached Jim Watters, the psychology teacher whose assigned grade was changed. By this time, Watters was at a different school, and Ferguson thought it would be logical for Watters to be the one to complain about the grade changes since Ferguson not only still was at Countryside but also had to deal with Lambeth in his capacity as Pinellas Classroom Teachers Association (PCTA) union representative. Watters told Ferguson that he did not want to complain because he was near retirement and did not want controversy at that point in his career. Subsequently, Ferguson sought the advice of the PCTA as to whether he would be opening himself to discipline if he did not report the incident to the school district administration. It was concluded that the incident should be reported. On April 23, 1998, Rik McNeill of the PCTA contacted Dr. Martha O'Howell, an administrator in the school district's Office of Professional Standards, to report the grade change incident; the next day, Jade Moore of the PCTA sent O'Howell a letter reporting the incident. On or about April 30, 1998, O'Howell's office began an investigation of the reported incident. On May 11, 1998, O'Howell interviewed Lambeth, Novak, and others at Countryside and took written statements from them. When O'Howell told Lambeth that teachers had complained, Lambeth wondered aloud why, since they had participated. Novak's statement, on the other hand, was that the teachers were not notified or involved because they were not at school at the time. On May 14, 1998, O'Howell re-interviewed Lambeth and Novak. In her re-interview of Lambeth, the principal maintained her understanding that Novak had discussed re-testing with the teachers whose grades were involved. During her re-interview of Novak, O'Howell asked Novak for the second time to produce the re-tests she administered, but Novak reiterated that she could not find the re-tests or any documentation that re-testing had in fact taken place. She got the impression that O'Howell questioned the truth of her assertion that re-tests actually had been administered and became defensive. Novak got the impression that it was very important for her to be able to produce the re- tests. On May 21, 1998, Novak submitted a supplement to her earlier written statement. In the supplement, Novak expressed confusion about Ferguson's complaint in light of her recollection that Ferguson had told her "emphatically last year that it wasn't his responsibility to give early exams or make up exams if they might extend beyond contract hours" and said: "That's administration's problem, not mine." Afraid of what might happen to her if she could not produce the re-tests (that it could end her career and jeopardize her retirement benefits), Novak panicked. She tried to again re- produce the examination questions, and she forged answers. She presented the forgeries to O'Howell on June 2, 1998. O'Howell quickly saw through Novak's inept forgeries for what they were, and Novak was in even more trouble than she thought she was in before the forgeries. On or about June 9, 1998, Lambeth asked for a meeting with the investigator and Area Supervisor Bill Williamson. Their assessment of the situation was that it was "serious"; they suggested that Lambeth consider what parents would think. But Lambeth also knew about Novak's forgeries and assumed that Novak had become the focus of the investigation, not her. Indeed, at a meeting on June 18, 1998, O'Howell informed Novak that her job was in jeopardy; O'Howell said she was prepared to recommend that the Superintendent terminate her employment. At that point, Novak retained an attorney, who asked to meet with the School Superintendent, J. Howard Hinesley, and the School Board's attorney, Wesley Bridges. The meeting took place on June 24, 1998. At the meeting on June 24, 1998, Novak and her attorney tried to explain to Hinesley and Bridges why Novak forged the re- tests. They also told Hinesley and Bridges that Novak thought Lambeth was trying to blame Novak for the incident but that Lambeth never told Novak to contact the teachers whose grades were involved. Hinesley took this and other information given by Novak at the meeting into consideration in evaluating the situation. Based on the discussion at this meeting, Hinesley decided to reprimand and demote Novak to an instructional position with no reduction in pay, instead of terminating her employment. On or about June 29, 1998, Area Supervisor Williamson told Lambeth that it was time to have a meeting to resolve the matter. Williamson again emphasized that it was "serious," this time communicating to Lambeth that she was also in jeopardy. The meeting was set for July 2, 1998. At this point, Lambeth hired an attorney. The meeting was attended by Lambeth, Hinesley, their attorneys, Williamson, and O'Howell. Lambeth was informed that she was being removed as principal at Countryside for her role in the grade change incident and would be transferred to another position. She was told that a letter to that effect had been mailed to her. She was required to hand over her office keys and was told to make arrangement to clean-out her office at 5 p.m. She was told that she would not be allowed to return to campus without campus police being present. Campus police escorted her to her car. On or about July 8, 1998, Lambeth received Hinesley's letter dated July 2, 1998. Besides reciting facts found through the investigation, the letter accused Lambeth of failing "to ensure that the teachers of the two courses involved had knowledge of or approved the final examination re-takes and the subsequent grade changes" and "to ensure that the re-takes were properly administered and graded and that the results were documented." The letter reprimanded Lambeth for "violation of School Board Policy 6Gx52-8.23, as well as the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida." (School Board Policy 6Gx52-8.23 sets the district's High School Credit and Student Performance Standards; section (6) of the rule provides that a student's mastery of performance standards "shall be determined by the teacher with the principal's approval.") The letter also stated that Lambeth's conduct "reflects a lack of sound professional judgment and seriously diminishes your effectiveness as a school leader." As a result, the letter stated, Lambeth was being removed her from her position as Countryside High School principal, was being placed on administrative leave, and would be reassigned to another position. By letter dated July 8, 1998, Hinesley notified Lambeth that she was being reassigned as a supervisor with the school system's Title I office. Lambeth's contract was not changed, and her pay was not reduced. Her new position is classified as Level 4 in the School Board's personnel system, while high school principal is a Level 8 position. There are some similarities between the two positions, but there also are differences. Both positions require a master's degree, certification in administration and supervision, and five years of related professional experience; a program supervisor for Title I also requires an additional minimum of three years of teaching experience. Both positions involve working with teachers; but while a principal supervises 95 teachers (plus non-teacher personnel and 1500 to 2000 students) at a school site, a Title I program supervisor works with but does not supervise principals, assistant principals, and teachers at 18 different elementary schools. Both jobs involve budget planning, but the nature of the budgets are different; a Title I program supervisor reviews budgets for federal funds. There is no provision for re-evaluating a student's grades after graduation. There is a policy to allow a student who has passed all 24 courses required to graduate, but did not earn the minimum grade point average (GPA) required to receive a diploma, to "walk" at graduation , receive a "certificate of completion," and return to school in the summer and/or an additional year of high school to re-take classes to hopefully raise his or her GPA enough to receive a high school diploma. But there is no evidence that the student involved in this case did not receive a diploma when he graduated at the end of the 1996-97 school year. He was no longer a student and should not have been able to change his grades at that point. In circumstances when it would be permissible to re- evaluate a student's grades, it should only be done in consultation with the teacher who assigned the grade. Subject to the requirement that grading policies are followed, student grading is the province of the teacher's exercise of professional judgment, subject only to the principal's approval. The integrity of the grading system depends the teacher's exercise of professional judgment. Likewise, the "education contract" among the administration, teachers, students, and parents presumes and requires integrity in the grading process. School Board Policy 6Gx52-8.28(4)(g) is clear that, in the case of "mid-point" grades, it is the "option of the teacher, subject to review by the principal, as to whether the higher or lower grade will be given." Clearly, this policy gives the principal the ability to review the teacher's grade and argue forcefully that a different grade should be assigned. Some teachers would succumb to the principal's choice, either because of the force of the principal's arguments or because of fear of the possible consequences of disagreeing with their principal. The policy may even enable a principal to overrule the teacher. But it is a violation of policy for a principal to change a grade without following the mid-point grade policy. Because of the importance of integrity in the grading system, it is incumbent on the principal to take reasonable steps to ensure that teachers are involved in any grade re-evaluation. Clearly, a principal must delegate responsibilities to assistant principals when necessary and appropriate, and a principal should be entitled to rely on an assistant principal to follow the principal's instructions (whether expressed ad hoc or in policy). For that reason, Lambeth normally would have been entitled to expect an assistant principal to involve the teacher in any grade re-evaluation. But re-evaluation of a student who had graduated was not normal, and Lambeth should have made it clear to Novak that Novak was not to proceed with re-testing and grade re- evaluation without the teachers' participation. It is not clear from the evidence that Lambeth made reasonable efforts make this clear to Novak. By the same token, because the situation was not normal, Lambeth should have made some effort to ensure that Novak properly documented the re-take of the examinations and the grade change instead of relying entirely on Novak. There is no question but that Lambeth's effectiveness as a school leader diminished as a result of this grade change incident. As Lambeth pointed out at final hearing, most principals have their supporters and detractors, and predictably there were some teachers and parents who testified that the grade change incident did not reduce Lambeth's effectiveness as far as they were concerned. But most of these witnesses did not know all of the facts and circumstances of the case and spoke from their limited perspectives. Meanwhile, there were many witnesses who testified that Lambeth's effectiveness was seriously diminished in their view, and they were not all detractors of Lambeth; they included Hinesley, other Pinellas County school administrators, retired Pinellas County School Superintendent Scott Rose, administrators from other school districts, teachers at other schools, and parents. Some of these also did not know all of the facts and circumstances of the case and spoke from their limited perspectives; but some knew all or most of the facts and circumstances and spoke from broader perspectives. Some witnesses expressed the idea that the reduction in effectiveness would not be insurmountable or permanent if Lambeth would admit her error, ask for forgiveness, and promise not to do it again. Unfortunately, Lambeth did not admit error until her testimony at the end of her case-in-chief. While she complained that she was not given the opportunity to do so before the meeting on July 2, 1998, she missed innumerable opportunities since; indeed, much of her case seemed aimed at proving that she had done nothing wrong. The authenticity of her eleventh-hour repentance is suspect. At the same time, while Lambeth's effectiveness certainly was diminished by the incident (and her refusal to admit her error, ask for forgiveness, and promise not to do it again), it is not clear just how seriously her effectiveness has been diminished. There were mitigating factors. First, Lambeth has an excellent record as an effective administrator. Second, while her efforts were misguided, her motive was to help a student gain educational benefits. The student was African- American and, while the Petitioner criticized Lambeth for testifying in deposition that the student's minority status was a factor in her efforts to help, the School Board in fact has a policy of emphasizing the delivery of educational benefits to minority students. Also, after what she has been through, it seems unlikely that Lambeth would be foolish enough to repeat this or any similar grade change blunder in the future. A reprimand and reassignment to Title I program supervisor certainly is a setback for Lambeth's career as a school principal. But, contrary to Lambeth's concern and contention in this case, it is found that such an action does not necessarily mean the end of Lambeth's career as a school principal in this or any other school district. Certainly, if Lambeth's offense is as minor as she contends it was, she may well be able to convince a school superintendent other than Hinesley to assign her as a school principal. It certainly seemed that retired School Superintendent Rose would have been open to the idea; there is no reason to be certain that others may not also consider Lambeth for a principal position. If Hinesley's position as Pinellas School Superintendent is as tenuous as Lambeth's evidence attempted to suggest (i.e., that he may be just one School Board vote from being the former Pinellas School Superintendent), the chances are that it may not be long before Lambeth could apply to a subsequent Pinellas School Superintendent for such a position. It even seems possible (although perhaps not likely) that Hinesley himself might reconsider and reassign Lambeth as a principal at some point in the future. Lambeth also contended that other School Board employees have been treated more leniently for worse offenses. But the evidence did not prove selective enforcement against Lambeth. The other situations either were too dissimilar to compare, or Lambeth's treatment was not clearly excessively harsh by comparison. Lambeth first points to the treatment of Novak. While it is true that Novak forged the re-tests, she was Lambeth's subordinate and subject to Lambeth's direction, and her treatment (reassignment to a completely nonsupervisory position) was somewhat harsher than Lambeth's. Lambeth also points to Ferguson, who Lambeth contends went unpunished after alleged violation of School Board Policy 6Gx52-6.22 by posting a copy of a portion of the School Board's investigative report on Lambeth and Novak on the bulletin board in the teacher's lounge. But Policy 6Gx52-6.22 provides: Employees shall not use the classroom, nor any other part of school facilities, as a platform for making disparaging remarks against students, parents, teachers and/or administrators. Conduct contrary to this policy may constitute grounds for disciplinary action. In addition, it is not clear that posting information about an investigation that was of genuine concern to the teachers is the same thing as using the bulletin board "as a platform for making disparaging remarks." Nonetheless, Lambeth's replacement as Countryside's principal considered the posting to be bad for morale and asked Ferguson to remove it. Initially, Ferguson refused to remove it; eventually, he removed it at the request of and as a favor to Jade Moore of the PCTA. (The evidence was that Hinesley was not aware of the posting.) Lambeth's other evidence on this point consisted of letters of reprimand to a principal and an assistant principal for not following proper procedures and immediately notifying the proper authorities of allegations of sexual abuse. It is not clear that these offenses are so similar to Lambeth's as to have required the School Board in fairness to also remove and reassign them.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order dismissing the Amended Petition for a Name Clearing, Due Process and Florida Statute 120.57 Hearing and approving the reassignment of the Respondent, Sharon Lambeth, to Title I program supervisor under the same contract and at the same pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 2nd day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Oscar Blasingame, Esquire Orange Park Center 696 First Avenue, North, Suite 400 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Louis Kwall, Esquire Kwall, Showers & Coleman, P.A. 133 North Ft. Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33755 Dr. J. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street, Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-2942
The Issue The issue is whether respondent should be dismissed from his position as a physical education teacher aide for the reasons cited in petitioner's letter of March 12, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Wilson McKenzie, Jr., was employed as a physical education teacher aide at St. Petersburg Challenge (SPC) in St. Petersburg, Florida. The school is a part of the public school system operated by petitioner, School Board of Pinellas County (Board). Respondent's employment with the Board began on August 16, 1990, when he was assigned as a full time physical education teacher aide at Melrose Elementary School (MES). In early September McKenzie was reassigned to work at MES during the morning hours only and then during the afternoon hours at SPC, a drop-out prevention school for disadvantaged fourth and fifth graders. Pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between the Pinellas Educational Support Personnel Association and the Board, respondent served in a probationary status during his first six months of employment. Under the same agreement, he was continued in that status for an additional ninety days after his first evaluation. According to Article 9, Section 1 of the agreement, a probationary employee may be terminated "for any reason", and the Board's termination letter of March 12, 1991, relied upon that provision of the agreement as its authority for terminating McKenzie. Pending the outcome of this proceeding, McKenzie has remained in a suspended without pay status since March 28, 1991. The Board's Reasons for Termination Respondent's performance at MES during the morning hours was apparently satisfactory since petitioner, in its charging letter of March 12, 1991, chose not to rely upon any performance deficiencies at MES as a basis for termination. 1/ As the first ground for terminating respondent, petitioner alleged that respondent was deficient in the "area of relationships with students". To support this charge, petitioner presented the testimony of ten students, all fifth graders at SPC during school year 1990-91 and who came in contact with respondent. While some of the students gave conflicting versions of what transpired, and thus their complaints were questionable, it is found that, contrary to school policy and orders from his supervising teacher, respondent yelled at and argued with students during physical education class in an effort to enforce class discipline. In addition, he placed his hand on students' shoulders or backs and would pinch them despite their requests that he not do so, and twice called students insulting names (e.g., bitch) in the presence of other students. It was further established that on several occasions respondent went to the home of a student to discuss school problems instead of inviting the parent to come to the school. He also had difficulty in maintaining classroom discipline. Several of the students testified that respondent made them uncomfortable by "staring" at them during class or lunch period. Finally, respondent was observed by several students looking up the dress of a female student who sat on the floor with her legs spread apart. In fairness to respondent, however, it should be noted that in some instances the students were acting in an unruly fashion or were violating cafeteria rules by talking loudly and "trading" food, thus prompting respondent to yell at them. Even so, it is fair to say that respondent had numerous difficulties in his relationships with students and most of the students who testified disliked respondent and appeared to be afraid of him. In addition to the above ground, petitioner has cited respondent's failure to follow "directives from superiors" as a second reason for terminating his employment. This charge stems primarily from respondent's sponsorship of a dance program for students that he conducted after school hours. Respondent's group was known as the Very Important Kids Association and was made up of young, disadvantaged children from the south side of St. Petersburg. Respondent was told early on by various superiors, including the SPC principal, assistant principal and physical education teacher, that group activities should not be arranged during school hours, the group should not meet on school property and respondent should refrain from asking students to join his group during school hours. Despite having at least three formal conferences with SPC administrators concerning this matter, and receiving written memoranda with specific instructions, respondent continued to violate these instructions by asking students during school hours to join his group. By doing so, respondent failed to follow "directives from superiors" as alleged in the charging document. Respondent's Case Respondent, who is 27 years old, maintained at hearing that he was "set up" on these charges by unnamed individuals and that he gave his best effort at doing a good job. McKenzie pointed out that he had no problems at MES and that all problems were encountered at SPC. He stated he is sincerely interested in helping underprivileged children and offered a number of letters from third parties to corroborate this contention. Through cross-examination, respondent established that several complaints offered by the testifying students were caused by their own misbehavior and respondent's subsequent efforts to discipline them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of the allegations in the charging document and that he be terminated from his position as a teacher aide. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 1991.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(f), (g), and (j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., 5., and 8., and, 6A- 10.081(2)(b)1., and 3., as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. If it is found that Respondent has committed any of the statute or rule violations alleged, the penalty that should be imposed must also be determined.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, the documentary evidence admitted, and the record as a whole, the following facts are found: Respondent held Florida Educator's Certificate Number 1294936, covering the areas of English, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), and Reading, which was valid through June 30, 2020. At all times material to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as a Reading Teacher at Don Estridge High Tech Middle School ("Don Estridge") in the Palm Beach County School District. C.V.'s Relevant Background During the 2017-2018 school year, C.V. was an eighth-grade student at Don Estridge. Respondent was his intensive reading teacher. Intensive reading is a remedial course for students who are reading below grade level. Prior to working with Respondent, C.V.'s grades were below average. He received D's and F's in school. In 2016, C.V.'s mother, Renee Horn, married C.V.'s stepfather, Charles Horn. Prior to that marriage, C.V. was an only child living alone with his mother from the time he was two years old. C.V.'s stepfather also had children from a previous relationship. At the time C.V. met Respondent, his parents observed that he was having a difficult time adjusting to their newly- blended family. C.V.'s parents allowed him to spend time with his biological father. However, in their parental judgment, they believed that it was in C.V.'s best interest to limit visitation with his biological father. C.V.'s parents observed that C.V. displayed signs of non-characteristic fragility and volatility while he was under the instruction of Respondent, which concerned them. C.V.'s parents believed that the demonstrated emotional changes in C.V. were related to his friendship with Respondent and his resistance to the parents' desire to draw more boundaries with respect to that friendship. C.V. did not testify. Therefore, the source, or sources, of the behavioral issues observed by his parents and other adults around him were not conclusively established. Respondent's Relevant Background Respondent viewed herself as a teacher who was relatable to her students. She was an enthusiastic and energetic educator who enjoyed taking the time to help students whom she described as having previously slipped through the cracks. Respondent regularly provided extra help to students who requested it. Her door was open to any of her students who desired additional assistance with their school work. She regularly provided academic help to students during her lunch break. Tutoring C.V. first began receiving extra help with his school work from Respondent during his lunch period. In addition to C.V., Respondent regularly had between five and 15 other students in her classroom during the seventh-grade lunch period. This was also the time allotted to Respondent for her own lunch break. There was also a group varying between five and ten students whom she allowed to come to her classroom to work while she was teaching another class. Additionally, C.V. came to Respondent for help with his work in the mornings before school started. After C.V. began spending extra time working with Respondent, his grades improved. C.V.'s parents were aware of the correlation between the help from Respondent and the improvement in C.V.'s academic performance. In December of 2017, C.V.'s mother contacted Respondent and asked her to tutor C.V. outside of school on a private basis in exchange for payment. Respondent communicated with C.V.'s mother through email and text messages. Respondent authorized C.V.'s mother to give Respondent's cell phone number to C.V. so that he could communicate with her directly for educational purposes while the mother was at work. There was no evidence of the content of any text messages between Respondent and C.V. C.V. rode the school bus as his mode of transportation to return home after school. He was unable to stay after school for tutoring and still take the bus to get home. Although it was common for teachers to tutor students at a public library located near Don Estridge, Respondent found that when doing so, she often had to wait with students after tutoring sessions at the library for parents to arrive to provide transportation. This sometimes interfered with Respondent's ability to pick up her own children from preschool on time. For that reason, Respondent tutored C.V. after school at his home. She ensured that others were present at the home during tutoring sessions. Respondent also continued helping C.V. at school outside of his scheduled time in her class on an unpaid basis. With the consent of C.V.'s mother, Respondent transported C.V. from the school to his home either after helping him at school or when she was going to his home to tutor him. There was one occasion when Respondent drove C.V. to school for which it was unclear whether the parents gave her permission to do so. Believing that C.V. had developed an unhealthy attachment to Respondent, C.V.'s parents desired to limit his interaction with her. However, they did not terminate the tutoring sessions. Additionally, C.V.'s mother initiated contact between Respondent and C.V. on matters unrelated to academics amid the parents' efforts to create boundaries in the relationship. C.V.'s Time Spent in Respondent's Classroom In order to come to her classroom during their designated lunch periods, students were required to have a pass signed by Respondent. Those students who came to Respondent's classroom during lunch regularly reused the same pass to eliminate the need for her to create a new pass each time. C.V., along with other students, had such a pass issued by Respondent. Several witnesses testified that C.V. had a sticker on the back of his student identification card, which they characterized as a permanent pass placed there by Respondent, enabling C.V. to visit her classroom at any time. However, the provenance and meaning of the sticker were never conclusively established. On several occasions, C.V. left his elective music class to do work from other classes in Respondent's classroom. He did so with the coordinated permission of Respondent and the music teacher. Respondent believed that it was reasonable for C.V. to do so because her classroom provided a quieter environment for his studies and he was ahead in the music class because of his existing background in piano. When C.V.'s parents learned how much time C.V. was spending in Respondent's classroom during the school day, they thought that it was excessive. Church Attendance and Sharing Religious Beliefs Respondent served as an unpaid worship leader and co-runner of the children's ministry at a church where her father was the pastor. Neither she, nor any other person, served in a role designated to recruit members to the church. Respondent did not receive any incentive from the church to bring in new members. Respondent played music of various genres in her classroom. Sometimes she played Christian music. Respondent wore a cross necklace to school. When asked, she was open with students about the general fact that she was a Christian and that she attended church. Witnesses observed flyers with information about Respondent's father's church on her desk. It was not established that any students received, or even saw, the flyers. Some of Respondent's students have attended her father's church. When a student expressed interest in the church, Respondent did not give the student information about the church without express permission from a parent. With the permission of his parents, C.V. attended Respondent's father's church on several occasions. His parents attended the church with him on one occasion. Also, with the permission of his parents, C.V. was transported to and from church by Respondent or her husband and spent time with Respondent's family at her home after church. At some point, C.V. told some of his classmates that he attended Respondent's church. The nature of C.V.'s comments to his classmates about attending church with Respondent remains unclear. The evidence did not establish that Respondent directed him to do so. Admittedly out of frustration, Respondent posted a Psalm on the door outside of her classroom before leaving Don Estridge on her last day. She had contemplated handing the Psalm to Principal Capitano, but chose to place it on the door instead. A teacher observed the Psalm on the door, and an assistant principal removed it. Overnight Visits On one occasion, C.V. spent the night at Respondent's home with her family while his mother was out of town on a business trip. Having the impression that C.V. was unhappy at the prospect of going on the trip, Respondent and C.V.'s mother arranged for C.V. to stay with Respondent and her family for the weekend. C.V. spent the night at Respondent's home on a second occasion, which was also coordinated between Respondent and C.V.'s mother. C.V. expressed that he wanted to live with Respondent and that he knew more about her than her husband. Exchanging Gifts C.V.'s mother gave Respondent a number of gifts during the time when she was C.V.'s teacher. As a Christmas gift, C.V.'s mother gave Respondent a $100 gift card and two lipsticks. Later, she gave Respondent dresses for her daughters. Finally, for Valentine's Day, she gave Respondent a stuffed animal and a thermal water bottle. Respondent considered the series of gifts to be very generous. C.V.'s birthday was in February. Respondent wanted to reciprocate the generosity of C.V.'s mother by buying C.V. clothes for his birthday. Respondent sought permission from C.V.'s mother to purchase him clothing, which his mother declined. Believing that C.V.'s mother declined the gifts out of social politeness, Respondent ultimately bought him clothing for his birthday. Virginity Conversation One day during class, some of Respondent's students were discussing the topic of virginity among themselves. Respondent was not a party to the conversation until C.V. asked her at what age she thought kids should lose their virginity. Respondent believed that this was an age-appropriate topic for her 12- and 13-year old students to be curious about, but she declined to answer the question. She then told C.V. that it was not an appropriate question for her and that he should ask his mother instead. Although numerous witnesses testified to what they thought Respondent said to her students about virginity, Respondent is the only witness who was present during the conversation. Her testimony on the subject was credible. Principal Capitano testified that if a student brings up the topic of virginity to a teacher, the teacher should respond by saying that it is not an appropriate conversation to have. Meeting with the Guidance Counselor and Aftermath On March 12, 2018, Respondent became concerned that C.V. was exhibiting behavior that caused her to fear that he was considering harming himself. Although she did not believe that C.V. wanted to go, Respondent escorted him to see one of the school's guidance counselors, Kristen Saffici. Respondent took this action because she believed it was her obligation to do so based on C.V.'s behavior, which she considered potentially self-injurious. Counselor Saffici and Principal Capitano agreed that bringing C.V. to a guidance counselor was the appropriate course of action for Respondent under the circumstances. Respondent remained in the meeting with Counselor Saffici and C.V. Respondent told Counselor Saffici about her impressions of the problems C.V. was having. Over the course of explaining the background of what she believed to be C.V.'s problems, Respondent stated that she "loved him like a son." Counselor Saffici thought that the statement was inappropriate. From Respondent's perspective, saying that she loved C.V. like a son was a device she regularly employed with students to offset, or soften, a concurrent critical statement. During the meeting, Counselor Saffici observed that C.V. appeared withdrawn and sullen. He had his backpack on the table with his head down on the backpack and did not make eye contact. Respondent consoled C.V. by rubbing his head. Counselor Saffici believed that Respondent's behavior toward C.V. was not appropriate. Counselor Saffici, however, did not perceive the behavior to be sexual in nature. Based on her observations, Counselor Saffici believed that Respondent had no mal intent. It was her opinion that Respondent had C.V.'s best interest at heart. Following the meeting with Counselor Saffici, the school resource officer, Gary Chapman, interviewed C.V. independently to determine whether C.V. was a threat to himself or others. Officer Chapman concluded that C.V. was not considering self-harm at that time. Based on the interview, Officer Chapman's understanding was that C.V.'s emotional distress was related to his desire to see his biological father more often. C.V.'s parents met with Principal Capitano, Counselor Saffici, and Officer Chapman. Having determined that there was no reason to suspect a sexual relationship between Respondent and C.V., Officer Chapman closed his investigation. Principal Capitano told Respondent not to have further contact with C.V. The next day, C.V. came, unexpectedly, to Respondent's classroom to see her. Respondent spoke to him, but tried to get him to leave without alarming him or being rude. After C.V. left, Respondent immediately advised Principal Capitano and Counselor Saffici that he came to her classroom, and Respondent sought their guidance on what to do. Feeling that she did not have clear direction on what to do if C.V. came back, Respondent posted a Psalm on her door and left Don Estridge after her first-period class. In a letter dated March 16, 2018, Principal Capitano recommended Respondent's termination as a probationary employee at Don Estridge, effective March 27, 2018. The letter did not specify a reason for Respondent's termination, but stated: "Probationary Contract Employees may be dismissed without cause or may resign without breach of contract." Principal Capitano, however, testified that she recommended Respondent's termination because she believed that Respondent had violated the Code of Ethics. Specifically, Principal Capitano thought that Respondent put herself in a position where her relationship with a student was causing him duress. Following the events of March 12, 2018, C.V.'s parents arranged for C.V. to talk to a therapist. Thereafter, they observed improvements in his behavior. The content of the discussions C.V. had with his therapist was not conclusively established. Overall Nature of C.V. and Respondent's Relationship C.V.'s parents believed that C.V. saw Respondent as a girlfriend. However, they never thought that Respondent considered the relationship romantic or that anything sexual occurred. Some of Respondent's colleagues thought that her relationship with C.V. was uncomfortable or lacked appropriate boundaries. C.V.'s mother, viewed Respondent as a positive role model. In encouraging Respondent's relationship with C.V. in some respects, while attempting to establish more boundaries in others, C.V.'s parents were trying to balance the dramatic improvement in C.V.'s grades with what they believed to be C.V.'s unhealthy attachment to Respondent. Respondent believed that C.V. was very bright, but not applying himself in school. It was her desire to help him fulfill his potential. On a social level, she thought that he was a polite young man who shared hobbies with her husband and interacted well with her daughters.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint and all charges contained therein. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of January, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRITTANY O. FINKBEINER 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 15th day of January, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 (eServed) Mark S. Wilensky, Esquire Dubiner & Wilensky, LLC 1200 Corporate Center Way, Suite 200 Wellington, Florida 33414-8594 (eServed) Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 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) Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an annual contract teacher with the Dave County Public Schools and hold a Florida State teacher's certificate. Although she had worked as a teacher assistant in the past, her first year of employment as a full time teacher was the 1980-81 school year. Respondent was a teacher at Melrose Elementary School for the 1981-81 school year. At the beginning of the school year, she was assigned to teach a Compensatory Education Class. These are small classes and, in Ms. Harper's case, never exceeded 11 students. She was, however, required to keep and retain student records to enable subsequent teachers to determine at what level the student was functioning. After Respondent was transferred from the Compensatory Education classroom, the assistant principal requested that she turn in the records for the class. Respondent stated that she had destroyed them. Respondent's next assignment at Melrose Elementary School was as the teacher of a fifth-sixth grade combination regular education class. The assistant principal officially observed Respondent in the classroom three times and unofficially observed her on additional occasions. She found that Respondent lacked effective instructional planning based on Respondent's failure to complete lesson plans. The collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the Respondent's union stated that lesson plans were an essential part of the teaching process and a proper subject for evaluation. On one occasion, the school was preparing for and audit. Auditors (administrators from other schools) check teacher's plan books, grade books and other teaching materials. The assistant principal contracted Respondent several times in advance of the audit in an attempt to prepare her for it. However, Respondent failed to develop the required lesson plans, so the assistant principal wrote out a week's plans for her. She asked Respondent to take the plans home over the weekend and copy them in her own handwriting. The following Monday at the beginning of the audit, Respondent had only filled out plans for Monday, Tuesday and Friday. There were no lesson plans to be delivered to the auditors regarding Wednesday or Thursday. Testimony of Respondent's supervisor established that she was unable to control the students in her classroom, primarily because she did not assign them anything to do. Furthermore, she sent her students out to play without supervision and left her classroom unattended on several occasions, even though she had previously been instructed by her supervisor not to do so. Respondent received an unacceptable performance rating in the area of "techniques of instruction." This rating was based on the fact that Respondent did not pretest her students and therefore had no knowledge of what the student did or did not know, what he needed to be taught or where to place him in the classroom. As a result, she attempted to teach students division when those students had not yet mastered prerequisite skills. She did not divide her class into ability groups so that she could teach groups of students at their levels of comprehension, and she did not maintain student profiles which would have shown her a particular student's abilities and deficiencies. Respondent either did not assign homework to her students or they did not return it because she had no records to indicate such assignment or files containing student homework. Her records of student grades were incomplete and only sporadically maintained. In the spring of 1982, two students from Respondent's class ran into the principal's office crying. The female student had welts on her chest and face; and the male student had similar injuries to his arms. These injuries were the result of an attack by Respondent. She had not been authorized to administer corporal punishment by her supervisor. Although there was another incident where Respondent chased a student with a ruler, this was the only situation in her teaching career where her loss of control had serious consequences. She appears to regret this incident. Ms. Harper was reassigned to South Hialeah Elementary School for the school year 1982-83. When she reported to South Hialeah Elementary School on September 20, 1982, she was given a lesson plan format, a teacher handbook and other pertinent teaching materials. Respondent received a two day orientation during which she was permitted to read the handbook, observe other teachers and talk with the grade level chairman. She was given instruction in writing lesson plans in the format used throughout the county and required by the UTD-School Board Contract. She was then assigned a regular fourth grade classroom. On her second day of teaching, the assistant principal noted an unacceptable noise level emanating from Respondent's classroom during the announcement period. When she walked into the room, she found Respondent preparing her lesson plans with the students out of control. The assistant principal advised Respondent that this was not the proper time to prepare lesson plans. The next day the situation was the same, and fights broke out between students. The assistant principal was concerned for the safety of these students because of the fights and because Ms. Harper's classroom was on the second floor and students were leaning out of the windows. On October 4, 1982, the assistant principal conducted a formal evaluation of Respondent's classroom teaching, and initially found Respondent preparing lesson plans and not instructing or supervising her students. During the reading lesson, Respondent did not give individual directions to the students, but merely told them all to open their books to a particular page. Since the students were not all working in the same book because they were functioning at different levels of achievement, this created confusion. Finally, the students who had the same book as Respondent were instructed to read, while other students did nothing. After a brief period of instruction, the class was told to go to the bathroom even though this was the middle of the reading lesson and not an appropriate time for such a break. The assistant principal noted that Respondent did not have a classroom schedule or rules. The classroom was in constant confusion and Respondent repeatedly screamed at the children in unsuccessful attempts to maintain order. The assistant principal determined that these problems had to be addressed immediately. Accordingly, in addition to a regular long-term prescription, she gave Respondent a list of short-term objectives to accomplish within the next two days. These objectives consisted of the development of lesson plans and a schedule, arranging a more effective floor plan in the classroom, making provisions for participation by all of the students and developing a set of classroom rules. The assistant principal advised Respondent that if she had any difficulty accomplishing these objectives, she should contact her immediately. The short-term objectives were never accomplished. Respondent did not develop classroom rules. Although the assistant principal and other teachers attempted to teach her to write lesson plans, this was relatively unsuccessful. The principal observed the classroom on October 6, and found that no improvements had been made. She also noted that Respondent had not complied with the outline for lesson plans required by the contract between the UTD and the School Board. Neither had she complied with school's requirements for pupil progression forms. The principal advised Respondent to attempt once again to work on the short-term prescription assigned on October 4, 1982. Subsequent observations and assistance did not result in any noticeable improvement. Respondent was unable to understand the need for organizing students in groups according to their abilities. Her students contained to wander aimlessly about the classroom. She was unable to document required student information even after repeated demonstrations. She did not test students and she failed to record their grades, except sporadically. Other teachers and parents complained about classroom conduct. Some parents requested that their children be moved out of Ms. Harper's class. Others complained to school officials about telephone calls from Ms. Harper at 2:00 a.m. or 6:00 a.m. Even the school custodian complained because Respondent's students repeatedly threw papers out of the windows. The principal arranged for Respondent to meet with the grade level chairman and the assistant principal to learn to develop lesson plans. She obtained information about classes at the Teacher Education Center of Florida International University and directed Ms. Harper to attend the classes. She subsequently determined that Respondent had not attended. Respondent told the principal that she could not attend because of car trouble. At the hearing, Respondent stated that not only did she have car trouble, but since she was a single parent, she lacked the time and money to attend the classes. She conceded, however, that the classes were free. In a further effort to assist her, Respondent was excused from her regular classroom duties to observe successful teachers. On one occasion she was found taking a coffee break instead. Again, there was not improvement apparent from this remedial measure. At the principal's request, the School Board's area director observed Respondent on November 11, 1982. Her testimony established that Respondent worked with only one group of three students in the classroom and the reading lesson being taught to those children was below their appropriate level. She also observed that there were no records indicating the progress of Respondent's students and that the students were talking continually. Due to her numerous difficulties in teaching and the lack of progress in correcting the deficiencies, the principal, assistant principal and area director concluded that Respondent lacked the requisite competence to continue in her contract position. A recommendation of dismissal to the School Board followed on January 6, 1983, Respondent was suspended. After her suspension, Respondent secured employment as a teacher of English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) at the Tri-City Community Association. Testimony of its director established that Respondent is an effective teacher of ESOL and that she trains other teachers to perform this function.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's Florida teaching certificate and providing the right of reapplication after one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 315 Third Street, Suite 204 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Ellen Leesfield, Esquire 2929 S.W. Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Donald L. Griesheimer, Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment action by discriminating against Petitioner based on his age and gender in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes; and (b) whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner for filing a grievance.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a public taxing district responsible for educating Bay County's children from pre-kindergarten through high school. Respondent employs roughly 6000 instructional, support, and administrative personnel. Respondent's instructional employees are covered by Respondent's anti-discrimination policy and a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Respondent and the local bargaining unit, the Association of Bay County Educators (ABCE). The CBA governs many aspects of the employment relationship between the District and its teachers, including procedures for involuntary transfers and lay offs due to funding issues. Respondent's schools are divided as follows: (a) high school includes ninth grade through twelfth grade; (b) middle school includes sixth grade through eighth grade; and (c) elementary school includes kindergarten ages through fifth grade. Petitioner is a 51-year-old male. He began working for Respondent as a teacher in 1990. For the 2008/2009 school year, Petitioner worked as a teacher at Respondent's Haney Technical High School and Center (Haney). At that time, Haney operated two concurrent programs: a technical education program and a high school program. Petitioner taught physical education and science in the high school program. During the 2008/2009 school year, Respondent decided to eliminate the Haney high school program due to budget cuts and lower student census. Respondent also made the decision to combine the Haney technical education program with an adult education program from another closed school. The Haney high school program was not Respondent's only major adjustment for economic reasons. Respondent also closed five other schools and cut over 100 positions. This process resulted in 154 displaced teachers. All of Haney's high school teaching positions, including Petitioner's, were to be eliminated. Sandra Davis, principal at Haney, asked for voluntary transfers. No one in the high school program volunteered to transfer. Ms. Davis requested that certain high school teachers remain at Haney to teach in the restructured program at Haney. Ms. Davis made the decision to keep the teachers at Haney based on consideration of the projected need in the restructured Haney program for the upcoming year and after considering the teachers' certifications and experience. Teachers with continuing contracts or professional service contracts, who were not to remain at Haney, were placed in the displaced teachers' pool. The pool included Petitioner and all teachers who worked in schools or programs that Respondent intended to eliminate. There was a meeting on April 20, 2009, between Superintendent William Husfelt, the District's Personnel Department, and the displaced teachers in the District. At the meeting Respondent explained the procedures for transferring/reassigning displaced teachers. The displaced teachers were provided with a list of all of Respondent's vacant positions. Respondent then asked each displaced teacher to list their top three positions. Every teacher was granted an interview for their top three positions. Petitioner selected positions at Hiland Park Elementary School, Lynn Haven Elementary School, and Mowat Middle School. According to Petitioner, he listed the middle school because it was close to his home. He was granted and attended interviews for all three positions. Petitioner recently obtained his certification in elementary education. However, he had no recent substantive experience teaching elementary students. The principals who interviewed the displaced teachers selected the people to fill vacant positions at their respective schools on a competitive basis. During one such interview, it became apparent that Petitioner was not as familiar with the method of teaching reading as more experienced teachers and/or even other recently certified elementary education professionals. The vast majority of Petitioner's experience was teaching high school students. He was used to working with students more similar in age and behavior to middle school students. The principals who interviewed Petitioner did not select him to fill any of his top three positions. At the end of this interview/selection process, there were 34 teachers who were not selected for any position, including Petitioner. During the hearing, Petitioner confirmed that he did not believe any discrimination or retaliation took place prior to and through the time of the interviews. Petitioner understood it was a competitive selection process with over 100 applicants. On or about April 28, 2009, Respondent conducted a second meeting with the remaining displaced teachers. At the meeting, displaced teachers were again asked to list their top three choices for placement from the remaining vacant positions. Petitioner listed Hiland Park Elementary, Tommy Smith Elementary, and Lucille Moore Elementary. Superintendent considered the displaced teachers' lists, their certifications and experience, the vacant positions, and other factors. At no time did Respondent promise to place a displaced teacher in a position of the teachers' choice. Superintendent Husfelt placed Petitioner at Everitt Middle School, teaching science. Petitioner was qualified to fill the position, but it was not one of his choices on his second top-three list. Female applicants were appointed to fill all of the positions at the elementary schools. On or about May 11, 2009, Petitioner and Ms. Davis met to discuss Petitioner's informal grievance relative to his involuntary transfer. Ms. Davis denied the informal grievance. On May 26, 2009, Petitioner filed a formal Grievance with Ms. Davis regarding his involuntary transfer/reassignment. She denied the grievance. On June 10, 2009, Petitioner and Superintendent Husfelt's designee, Pat Martin, had a Step II grievance meeting. Respondent subsequently denied Petitioner's grievance. Sometime in June 2009, Petitioner applied for five vacant positions at Hiland Elementary School. There were fifth grade vacancies, two fourth-grade vacancies, and one third-grade vacancies. Petitioner received an interview for these positions. However, all five positions were filled with female teachers. The involuntary transfer did not cause Petitioner to suffer any loss of pay, benefits, or seniority. The new position was approximately five miles away from his former position. During the hearing, Petitioner testified that he researched the Internet to determine the percentage of male teachers in Respondent's elementary schools, kindergarten through grade five. According to Petitioner, four percent of the teachers are male. Respondent presented evidence that approximately 11.58 percent of its elementary school teachers, kindergarten through sixth grade, are male. These raw statistics, standing alone, are not competent evidence that Respondent is intentionally excluding male teachers in its elementary schools. Petitioner admitted during the hearing that he had no evidence regarding the age of Respondent's elementary school teachers, male or female. Therefore, there is no evidence of age discrimination. Petitioner stated at hearing that the transfer to the middle school caused him to suffer an adverse action because industrial air pollution in the area caused him to take more sick leave than when he taught at Haney, about five miles away. This argument has not been considered here because Petitioner raised it for the first time during the hearing and because Petitioner had no competent medical evidence to support his claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 30th day of June, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Christopher Jackson, Esquire Harrison, Sale, McCloy, Duncan & Jackson, Chtd. 304 Magnolia Avenue Panama City, Florida Gerry D. McQuagge 1608 Georgia Avenue 32401 Lynn Haven, Florida 32444 Jerry Long, Ed. D. 803 Skyland Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher pursuant to a continuing contract. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been assigned to Miami Southridge Senior High School where he taught advanced mathematics courses, such as trigonometry, calculus, and math analysis. At the request of a friend, on November 7, 1986, Respondent sent approximately two ounces of cocaine to his friend via United Parcel Service. He was subsequently indicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The indictment contained two counts alleging that Respondent was guilty of having committed a felony. The case was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Respondent pled guilty to Count 1 of that indictment and not guilty to Count 2. He was adjudicated guilty of Count 1, use of a communication facility for the commission of a felony in violation of Title 21, U.S.C., Section 843(b). Count 2 was dismissed. On August 8, 1990, he was sentenced to two years of probation, residency in a community treatment center with a work-release program for a period of three months, a fine in the amount of $1,000, and court costs in the amount of $50.00. The School Board of Dade County has demonstrated its concern for the problems created by drug abuse in the community. As a result of this concern, the School Board has established a drug-free work place policy, curricula for students, a trust counselor program, and an employee assistance program, all designed to combat drug abuse. Dismissal from employment is not an automatic consequence of a teacher's involvement with illegal drugs. Nor does a conviction of a felony automatically require that a teacher be terminated. Circumstances are taken into consideration. Teachers who use drugs are referred to the employee assistance program for help in overcoming their drug use. Teachers who attend the employee assistance program are not necessarily discharged from employment even though notoriety may have surrounded their drug usage. There is no allegation or evidence that Respondent has ever used illegal drugs. Similarly, there is no evidence or allegation that Respondent had any involvement with illegal drugs other than the occasion on which he mailed cocaine to his friend. Annual evaluations are performed on every teacher in the Dade County Public Schools. A teacher is rated either acceptable or unacceptable. Respondent has always been given an acceptable rating. On Respondent's 1984- 1985 annual evaluation, the principal of Miami Southridge Senior High School added the following comment: "Michael is a super teacher. Has outstanding relationships with students and peers. Contributes greatly to the school. Great!". On Respondent's 1985-1986 annual evaluation, his principal added the following comment: "Cooperative, positive and supportive. Encourages students to excel. Very competitive." On Respondent's 1986-1987 annual evaluation, which covered the time period when Respondent transmitted the cocaine to his friend, his principal wrote the following comment: "An outstanding teacher. Concerned and devoted." On Respondent's 1987-1988 annual evaluation, his principal wrote: "Displays confidence and poise in the classroom. Very devoted and conscientious." On Respondent's annual evaluation for 1988-1989 his principal wrote: "A very concerned and caring instructor. Contributes greatly to the overall operation of the school." Former students of Respondent testified in this proceeding. Some were his students subsequent to the date that he committed his criminal act. Respondent has inspired those students to study math, has helped them to learn to the extent that they receive "As" in their college math courses, and has taught them a love for math such that they are currently majoring in math on their way to becoming math teachers. Some of these students did poorly in math before having Respondent as a math teacher. These students have recommended to others that they take math from Respondent and hope that Respondent will still be available to teach math to their children. The principal at Miami Southridge Senior High School and the math department chairperson have no objection to Respondent being returned to that school to continue teaching math classes. The math department chairperson describes Respondent as a teacher who is excellent with children, far above the norm. She recognizes Respondent as having an unusual ability "to get difficult information across to the students" and have them enjoy it. No notoriety attached to Respondent's criminal act which occurred in November of 1986. He continued to teach until September 28, 1990, when Petitioner removed him from the classroom. All notoriety concerning Respondent's criminal act was caused by the Petitioner itself. Respondent's attorney advised Respondent's principal of the criminal conviction, and Respondent's principal then notified other employees of the Dade County Public Schools. As a result of the principal's notification, Respondent was removed from the classroom, at which time other School Board employees became aware of the problem. Thereafter, Petitioner determined to suspend Respondent and initiate dismissal proceedings, which determination then caused additional notoriety. Petitioner admits that any notoriety at the school site was not caused by Respondent's criminal act but rather was due to Respondent's removal from his classroom assignment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: finding that Respondent has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; suspending Respondent without pay effective at the close of business on October 24, 1990, and continuing through the end of the 1990-1991 school year; and reinstating Respondent as a classroom teacher effective at the beginning of the 1991-1992 school year. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of March, 1991. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 12th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-7, and 13 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 8, 9, 12, and 14 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law, recitation of the testimony, or argument of counsel. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 10 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 11 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Betty Castor Commission of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board of Dade County, Florida 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33132 Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Esquire 2800 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33137-4198 Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by the School Board of Dade County as a classroom teacher. During the 1980-1981 school year, Respondent was assigned to Southwood Junior High School as a science teacher. During that school year, Dr. E. L. Burck was the principal at Southwood. In August, 1980, Respondent applied for a part-time position teaching photography during the evenings at Robert Morgan Vocational Technical Institute. When Dr. John D. White, the vice principal at Robert Morgan, hired Respondent, he explained to Respondent that it would be necessary for Respondent to qualify for a teaching certificate in the area of photography. Respondent told White that he believed he was certifiable based upon his work experience and indicated to White that he would pursue the necessary steps to obtain his certification. At the time that White hired Respondent to teach part-time during the fall 1950 semester, White knew that Respondent was employed full-time at Southwood. During the fall 1980 semester, the administrators at Robert Morgan determined they wished a full-time program at Robert Morgan and decided that if enough students would be generated, they would need a full-time photography teacher in January, 1981. The possibility of a full-time position was discussed with Respondent. Respondent decided that if he could obtain a full-time position at Robert Morgan in January, he would pursue obtaining certification; however, if he could not obtain a full-time position, he would not pursue obtaining certification since it was difficult to teach full-time at Southwood in addition to part-time at Robert Morgan. During December, 1980, while enrollment was underway at Robert Morgan and it appeared probable that a full-time photography position would become available, Respondent spoke with Dr. Burck at Southwood regarding the possibility of transferring to Robert Morgan on a full-time basis beginning January 5, 1981, the first day of classes following the Christmas, 1980, vacation. Burck explained to Respondent the procedures relating to such a transfer of assignment and further explained that he needed to have definite information as soon as a final decision had been made so that he could initiate procedures for obtaining a teacher to replace Respondent. Just prior to Christmas vacation, Dr. White (as the potential "receiving principal") and Dr. Burck (as the potential "sending principal") discussed the possibility of the full-time photography class and the possibility of Respondent's transfer to Robert Morgan to teach that class. White explained that he did not yet know if the full-time class would materialize but that he would give Burck two weeks' notice in order that Burck could find a replacement teacher. Burck conveyed to Respondent the content of this conversation and advised Respondent that until such time as the class materialized and Respondent was replaced at Southwood, Respondent was still a staff member at Southwood and Burck expected to see him on January 5, 1981. Respondent did not report for work at Southwood on Monday, January 5, 1981, and failed to advise anyone at Southwood that he did not intend to return to teach his classes. Burck and another employee of Southwood attempted to locate Respondent. On January 6, 1981, White ascertained that there was sufficient enrollment for the full-time photography teacher's position at Robert Morgan. He instructed an employee at Robert Morgan to process the necessary paperwork to hire Respondent full-time. It was discovered that Respondent did not have, nor had he applied for, his vocational certificate covering the field of photography. Since White had told Respondent in August, 1980, to obtain certification and Respondent had apparently done nothing to do so, White gave to Respondent a deadline of Friday, January 9, 1981, to obtain verification of his ability to secure the proper teaching certificate. Also on January 6, 1981, White and Burck discussed Respondent's employment. White advised Burck that Respondent was teaching part-time at Robert Morgan and that there appeared to be a problem with Respondent's certification. Burck then talked with Respondent, and Respondent told Burck that he was teaching at Robert Morgan as a full-time instructor and that the certification problem would be resolved shortly. Burck told Respondent he needed an immediate resolution because Respondent's students at Southwood were without a regular teacher. Burck reminded Respondent that Respondent's assignment was at Southwood and that no transfer had been officially requested or granted. Burck contacted Dr. Thomas Peeler, South Area Director, and requested Dr. Peeler's assistance in resolving Respondent's status. On January 7, 1981, Dr. Peeler contacted White at Robert Morgan and advised White that Respondent was not reporting to work at Southwood. White had assumed that Respondent was reporting to his assigned school. Peeler instructed White to advise Respondent that he was to report to work at Southwood the following day. On January 7, White told Respondent to report to Southwood the following day. On January 8, White again advised Respondent that he was to report to work at Southwood. On January 9, White released Respondent from his part-time teaching assignment at Robert Morgan since Respondent had not achieved either obtaining the required certification or obtaining verification that he was in fact certifiable. Also on January 9, Burck contacted Respondent and advised Respondent that he had not been transferred and was still assigned to Southwood. On Monday, January 12, 1981, Dr. Peeler, the South Area Director, ordered Respondent to report to his teaching position at Southwood on Tuesday, January 13. Later that same day, Dr. Burck ordered Respondent to return to work on the 13th. Respondent told Dr. Burck that he would not return to work. On January 13, Dr. Peeler wrote Respondent, ordering him again to immediately report to his teaching assignment at Southwood. Peeler advised Respondent that his failure to report could result in suspension. In view of Respondent's continued refusal to obey orders, and in view of Respondent's advice to Burck the evening of January 12 that he would not report to Southwood to fulfill his teaching duties, a replacement teacher was located to fill Respondent's position as a science teacher at Southwood. Between January 5, 1981, and January 30, 1981, Respondent did not report to his assigned teaching position despite repeated orders from his superiors, Respondent knew that his place of employment had not been changed, and Respondent was absent from his teaching duties without leave. On January 30, 1981, a conference was held among Mr. Eldridge Williams, the Executive Director of the Office of Personnel for the Dade County Public Schools, Dr. Thomas Peeler, the South Area Director, and Respondent to discuss Respondent's repeated failure to report to work and Respondent's employment status. At that meeting, Respondent offered to return to work at Southwood on February 2, 1981; however, his position had been filled. Insofar as payroll status, Respondent was classified as absent without leave. No alternate position was available for placement of Respondent through the remainder of the 1980-1981 school year. On March 9, 1981, Patrick Gray, the Assistant Superintendent in the Office of Personnel, wrote Respondent regarding the south area supervisor's recommendation that Respondent be suspended or dismissed from employment. Gray's letter ordered Respondent to immediately return to Southwood or to resign or to retire in order that his employment status could be resolved. At the time he wrote that letter, Gray was not aware that Respondent's position at Southwood had been filled. In response to his letter of March 9, Gray received a letter from Respondent dated March 16, 1981, requesting another conference. A second conference between Respondent and Eldridge Williams was scheduled for April 2, but Respondent refused to meet with only Williams. Accordingly, a conference was scheduled for April 17, 1981, with Patrick Gray, Eldridge Williams, Dr. Peeler and Respondent. As a result of that conference, Respondent submitted a leave request dated April 22, 1981, requesting leave for the period of April 27, 1981, through the end of the school year in June, 1981. This request for leave was approved by Gray on August 7, 1981, retroactive for the period requested. A formal letter of reprimand dated October 13, 1981, was issued to Respondent as a result of his insubordination in refusing to report as ordered to Southwood Junior High School. During the 1981-1982 school year, Respondent was assigned to Redland Junior High School as a science teacher. Utilizing proper procedures, Respondent was absent on September 16, September 28, October 6, October 22, October 23, October 26, October 27, October 28, October 29, October 30, November 2, November 3, November 4 and November 5, 1981. On September 28 and October 6, Respondent utilized personal leave. On the other 12 days, he utilized sick leave. On November 5, 1981, Respondent advised Judy Cobb, Assistant Principal at Redland Junior High School, that he was looking for another job. Cobb advised Norman Lindeblad, Principal of Redland Junior High School, of this conversation with Respondent. On Friday, November 6, 1981, Respondent advised Lindeblad that he would not be returning to his teaching assignment at Redland Junior High School. Respondent told Lindeblad to fill Respondent's teaching position, and Lindeblad advised Respondent that he could not do so without receiving such directive in writing. Lindeblad advised Respondent that he expected Respondent to report to his teaching position on Tuesday, November 10, 1981, absent some other resolution of the problem such as approved personal leave or resignation. Late in the evening on November 9, 1981, Respondent telephoned Lindeblad at home and advised Lindeblad that he would not report on Tuesday, November 10, 1981, to teach his classes. On Tuesday, November 10, 1981, Respondent once again advised Lindeblad that he would not return to his teaching position at Redland. Respondent scheduled an appointment with Lindeblad on November 11 to finally resolve his status, and Lindeblad advised Respondent that unless verification of illness was provided, Lindeblad would commence recording Respondent's leave as leave without pay beginning on Friday, November 6, 1981. On November 11, 1981, Respondent appeared at Redland Junior High School and gave to Lindeblad a memorandum authorizing Lindeblad to replace Respondent in his science teaching position as of Wednesday, November 11, 1981. On November 16, 1981, the personnel office received an application for leave without pay from Respondent, which application was dated November 11, 1981, and which application requested leave effective November 11, 1981, due to Respondent's ill health. The portion of the application for leave requiring the signature and recommendation of the principal was not completed. Although the application required a statement from a physician justifying the request if the request were based upon ill health, Respondent provided only a short letter signed by a therapist possessing a degree in education stating that Respondent felt stress and frustration. No information regarding any physical symptoms, diagnosis or prognosis was volunteered. Since proper procedures require the principal's recommendation for extended leave, Lindeblad was asked to provide his recommendation to the personnel office. On November 18, 1981, Lindeblad sent a memorandum to the Office of Personnel stating that he did not recommend approval of leave for Respondent since no statement from a physician had been provided to verify Respondent's alleged ill health and because Lindeblad felt that the Respondent had begun unauthorized leave before he even requested leave. On November 19, 1981, Patrick Gray advised Respondent that Respondent's request for leave was not approved. Respondent was further advised that since he refused to carry out his teaching assignments for the second year in a row and since Respondent was simply attempting to obtain a teaching position in an area for which he was not certified and could not be certified, then Respondent's options were limited to either resignation or suffering suspension and dismissal proceedings. Respondent did not resign, and dismissal proceedings were initiated. Respondent was absent in accordance with proper procedures for the 14 days ending on November 5, 1981, as set forth in Paragraph numbered 24. Commencing on November 6, 1981, Respondent was absent without leave. Although Respondent eventually obtained verification of his work experience for the addition of photography to his teaching certificate, as of October 1, 1981, Respondent was still not certifiable for the reason that he still needed three full years of teaching experience and 14 semester hours of credit in vocational education courses. By the time of the final hearing in this cause, Respondent had still not obtained a teaching certificate enabling him to teach photography.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of gross insubordination, incompetency, willful neglect of duty and absence without leave; dismissing Respondent from employment by the School Board of Dade County; and denying Respondent's claim for back pay. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Esquire 3000 Executive Building, Suite 300 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Robert F. McKee, Esquire 341 Plant Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Lindsay Hopkins Building 1410 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
