The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practice alleged in the Employment Complaint of Discrimination filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (“FCHR”), and, if so, what relief should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Black West-Indian male. Respondent is a political subdivision of the State of Florida responsible for operating the public schools in Broward County. Petitioner obtained a temporary teaching certificate from the Florida Department of Education in 2017. In October 2017, Petitioner was hired by Respondent as a teacher at Walker Elementary School. As a new teacher, Petitioner was a contract employee subject to a probationary period of one school year. During the probationary period, Petitioner could be dismissed without cause or resign without breach of contract. Petitioner worked at Walker Elementary School, where he did not have his own classroom, but worked with special-needs children in different classrooms, until the end of the 2017-2018 school year. There were no teaching positions available at that school for the 2018-2019 school year. In August of 2018, Petitioner was transferred by Respondent to Mirror Lake, where he filled a first-grade teaching vacancy. Andrea Gresham was the team leader for first-grade teachers at Mirror Lake. As a new teacher, Petitioner was assigned a mentor to assist him in acclimating to the duties of his position. In addition to being the team leader for all first-grade teachers at Mirror Lake, Ms. Gresham was also Petitioner’s designated mentor. Petitioner reported for work at Mirror Lake on August 7, 2018. At that time, Ms. Gresham took Petitioner on a tour of the campus. She also provided Petitioner with sample lesson plans and homework for the students. Throughout the week, Petitioner prepared for the first day of school for students with Ms. Gresham’s help. These preparations included Ms. Gresham reviewing procedures related to beginning-of-year testing, student homework, teacher planning, and student dismissal at the end of the school day. It was Ms. Gresham’s habit to keep dated notes relevant to her duties as a mentor and team leader. As a best practice, she regularly met with Principal Veliz to discuss the progress of new teachers. Ms. Gresham kept contemporaneous notes of her interactions with Petitioner and kept Principal Veliz advised of her observations. Ms. Gresham observed that Petitioner was not engaged within the team of first-grade teachers and had a difficult time grasping school procedures despite her attempts to guide him. The typical first-grade student is six years old at the beginning of the school year. Given how young these students are, the protocol at Mirror Lake requires teachers to take extra care to ensure that the students are directed to the correct mode of transportation during dismissal. Ms. Gresham explained the dismissal procedures and emphasized their importance to Petitioner on more than one occasion leading up to the students’ first day of school. Each first-grade student is given a lanyard that is color-coded to correspond to that student’s teacher. Teachers are responsible for writing each child’s mode of transportation, as provided to the teacher by the child’s parents, on his or her lanyard every day. At the end of the school day, the children are sorted by their mode of transportation and escorted by a designated teacher or paraprofessional. The students are categorized as: car riders, bus riders, walkers, or attendees of the on-site after-school program. August 15, 2018, was the first day of the school year for students at Mirror Lake. At the end of the school day, Petitioner, along with all of the other first-grade teachers, was responsible for assisting his students in reporting to the appropriate location for their respective modes of transportation. On August 15, 2018, Petitioner and Ms. Gresham were both assigned to the car-rider group. While Petitioner and Ms. Gresham were in the car-rider pickup area, Ms. Gresham became aware that a student was missing when a visibly upset parent exited his vehicle having learned that his child was not present for pick-up. Ms. Gresham sought help from the school resource officer and other teachers in an effort to locate the missing student. Principal Veliz testified credibly that this was the first and last time a student was unaccounted for at dismissal at Mirror Lake. Ms. Gresham asked to see the transportation log that Petitioner had compiled for his students to determine how the child was supposed to go home and where the mistake may have occurred. In reviewing Petitioner’s transportation log, Ms. Gresham noticed that the log had some children’s names listed under two different modes of transportation for the same day. As a result, Petitioner’s transportation log did not add any clarity to the situation. Meanwhile, teachers continued to search the campus for the missing student and the school resource officer escorted the father of the missing student to the office to speak with Principal Veliz. Once the student dismissal process was complete for the day, Principal Veliz convened a faculty meeting. During the meeting, the faculty learned that a second student from Petitioner’s class was missing. Principal Veliz adjourned the faculty meeting and assembled the team leaders in the office to assist in locating the two missing students. Petitioner returned to his classroom and did not join the effort to locate the missing students. The team leaders proceeded to call private daycares to ask if the missing students may have been transported to such a facility by mistake. Through these phone calls, both of the missing students were located at the same daycare. Thereafter, the children were reunited with their parents. Principal Veliz met with the parents of the children who had been mistakenly sent to the wrong location on August 15, 2018. Principal Veliz personally paid for the daycare center’s charges with respect to one of the students who had been inadvertently sent there. Principal Veliz testified that the parents were upset that their children had been misplaced and that the parents of one of the children requested a transfer to another first-grade teacher. Ms. Gresham had the opportunity to examine the lanyard belonging to one of the students who had gone missing during dismissal. She observed that Petitioner had written on the lanyard that the student was to ride the bus that day, although the parents had previously informed Petitioner that the student was to be picked up by car. In conducting a routine observational visit to Petitioner’s classroom during the first week of school, Principal Veliz observed conditions that she considered of urgent concern with respect to Petitioner’s academic practices and overall classroom management. She observed a lack of structure, including students in Petitioner’s class wandering around the room and playing with pencils as though they were swords without any redirection. Principal Veliz also observed that Petitioner was using obsolete and ineffective teaching methods. Principal Veliz contacted the school district’s employee relations and talent acquisition office to discuss Petitioner’s employment status. Principal Veliz was notified that Petitioner was still within his one-year probationary term, and that his employment could be terminated without a formal hearing or progressive disciplinary measures. Principal Veliz made the decision to terminate Petitioner’s employment prior to the end of his probationary status based on his unsatisfactory performance. Principal Veliz obtained a form letter from the school district’s human resources department, which she modified to fit Petitioner’s circumstances. The letter was dated August 23, 2018. The letter stated that Petitioner’s name would be submitted to the next School Board meeting for termination of employment during a probationary period and that Petitioner could choose to resign in lieu of termination. Petitioner chose not to sign the document. Petitioner’s employment was terminated at the next meeting of the School Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of October, 2020, 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 16th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Rudyard Julius 19101 Northwest 11th Street Pembroke Pines, Florida 33029 (eServed) Michael T. Burke, Esquire Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper & Hochman, P.A. 2455 East Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 1000 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304 (eServed) Cheyenne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Raymond Wantroba (Respondent), a teacher employed by the School Board of Broward County (School Board), committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by the School Board and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Broward County, Florida; and Robert Runcie was Superintendent of Schools (Superintendent). Respondent has been employed by the School Board since 2004 and holds a professional services contract, issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a). Respondent taught at Lyons Creek for nine years. Respondent has been employed as a teacher for over 25 years. During the 2012-13 school year, Respondent was assigned to teach physical education and a math class at Lyons Creek. Bernard Brennan also taught physical education at Lyons Creek during the 2012-13 school year. S.R., a 13-year-old male, was a seventh grade student at Lyons Creek during the 2012-13 school year. During that school year, Respondent taught S.R. physical education during fourth period, which was the first class after lunch. While the physical education class was coed, students would change from school clothes into gym clothes in non-coed locker rooms and change back into school clothes after concluding the class activity. S.R. had a locker, which he shared with A.D., another male student. S.R. and A.D. kept their school clothes in the locker while they were in their gym clothes. Mr. Brennan knew S.R. and he knew S.R.’s mother, who is a teacher at Lyons Creek. Mr. Brennan joked around with S.R. by hiding his shoes, a backpack, and a jacket on different occasions. Respondent did not typically joke around with S.R. On February 6, 2013, Respondent saw a group of eighth grade male students playing with a woman’s undergarment (lacy, purple panties) during his first period class. Respondent took the underwear and placed it in the office he shared with Mr. Brennan. During lunch hour on February 6, Mr. Barker was resting in Respondent’s office when Respondent placed the panties on Mr. Barker’s leg. Respondent used his cell phone to take a picture of Mr. Barker with the panties on his leg. Mr. Barker heard the cell phone take the picture, gave the panties back to Respondent, and left Respondent’s office. Mr. Barker did not see what Respondent did with the panties. On February 6 during Respondent’s class, S.R. and A.D. changed from their school clothes into their gym clothes. They placed their school clothing and school shoes in the locker they shared. S.R. and A.D. both testified that they locked the locker before leaving the locker room for the class activity.1/ Following the class activity, S.R. and A.D. began to change back into their school clothes. When S.R. tried to put his foot into his shoe, he discovered the panties stuffed into his shoe. When he took the panties out of his shoe, he was among between 30 and 40 classmates, many of whom laughed at him. Respondent was also present and laughed when S.R. took the panties out of his shoe. Respondent asked S.R. if the panties were his and if he wore them every day. S.R. was embarrassed by the incident. Respondent denied at the formal hearing that he put the panties in S.R.’s shoe, and he denied making the statements attributed to him by S.R. and A.D. That denial is not credible in light of the other, more credible evidence presented by the School Board. Respondent asserts that he put the panties in a communal locker near S.R.’s locker because Mr. Brennan wanted to put the panties in S.R.’s locker.2/ Respondent also asserted that he put the panties in the communal locker in an effort to ease his relationship with Mr. Brennan.3/ Mr. Brennan testified, credibly, that he knew nothing about the panties until the following day. S.R.’s mother heard about the incident the day it happened. That afternoon as they were walking towards her car to leave school, S.R. explained to his mother what had happened. S.R. and his mother immediately found an assistant principal and reported the incident. The school administration began an investigation into the incident the following day. On February 7, Respondent spoke to S.R. without any other adult present and asked him to “clear the air” with the school administration so he and Mr. Brennan would not get into trouble. S.R. did not know who put the panties in his shoe, but he suspected Mr. Brennan. The record is not clear as to what Respondent wanted S.R. to tell the school administrators. On February 8, Dr. Toomer sent Respondent a letter advising him that there would be a pre-disciplinary meeting conducted February 14. Respondent was advised he could be represented at that meeting. During the pre-disciplinary meeting on February 14, Respondent admitted to Dr. Toomer that he had placed the panties in S.R.’s locker. Respondent stated the he wanted to feel accepted by Mr. Brennan and Mr. Barker. Although there was no direct evidence that Respondent had a key or the combination to the lock on S.R.’s locker, his admission to Dr. Toomer establishes that Respondent put the panties in S.R.’s locker. Prior to the incident involving the panties, Respondent had been counseled about his classroom management, locker room supervision, behavior management, and his own behavior on occasions in 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2011. In May 2012, Respondent’s employment was suspended without pay for three days following his refusal to allow a student to use the bathroom. In January 2013, Debra Harrington, an assistant principal at Lyons Creek, counseled Respondent about the lack of adult supervision in the locker room. Ms. Harrington notified Respondent in writing as to her concerns and expectations (School Board’s Exhibit 11). Ms. Harrington advised Respondent that failure to adhere to her expectations could result in further discipline. Dr. Toomer recommended to the Superintendent that Respondent’s employment be terminated. In turn, the Superintendent recommended to the School Board that Respondent’s employment be terminated. On April 9, 2013, the School Board accepted the Superintendent’s recommendation that Respondent’s employment be terminated. The School Board suspended Respondent’s employment without pay and instituted these proceedings. With his mother’s approval, S.R. remained a student in Respondent’s fourth period physical education class until Respondent’s employment was suspended. Respondent testified that he did not intend to hurt any student and was remorseful for his behavior.
Recommendation The following recommendations are based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order suspend Raymond Wantroba’s employment without pay through the end of the 2013-2014 School Year. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: 1. The Respondent has been, at all times material to this proceeding, employed by the Board as a certified teacher. 2 The Respondent was issued a professional service contract by the Board in accordance with Section 231.36(3)(a), Florida Statutes, and at all times material to this proceeding was employed by the Board under that professional service contract. The Respondent has been employed by the Board as both a Health Teacher and a Coach since 1986. Since the beginning of the 1989-90 school year, the Respondent has taught Health to tenth grade level students at Clearwater High School. The Board has a strong substance abuse prevention program throughout all of its schools in Pinellas County, Florida. It was one of Respondent's responsibilities in teaching Health to instruct the students on substance abuse and its prevention. Respondent has attended workshops on substance abuse prevention presented by the Board while employed as a Health Teacher by the Board. On November 5, 1980, The Respondent was charged with disorderly conduct in violation of an Ordinance (Section 14-33M) of the City of Clearwater and issued a citation (Notice To Appear - Ordinance Violation) instead of being arrested. The citation gave the Respondent the option of appearing in County Court on November 21, 1980 or paying the minimum fine of $27.00. Respondent paid the fine without a court appearance. On August 19, 1986, the Respondent completed Form PCS-1919, Notice To All New And Rehired Employees and in the section designated for reporting all arrests, citations or convictions on criminal charges the Respondent answered "None", notwithstanding that the form cautioned those reporting to report a citation even if in doubt as to whether the citation was criminal and that failure to report could result in dismissal. While the Respondent exercised poor judgment in not seeking clarification of this portion of PCS Form 1919, it is clear that the Respondent misunderstood the charge made against him in the citation on November 5, 1980. Respondent considered the charge non-criminal since it was an ordinance violation and he was not arrested. It was not Respondent's intent to deceive the Board or to submit fraudulent information when he failed to divulge the citation issued against him on November 5, 1980 for disorderly conduct in the PCS Form 1919 dated August 19, 1986. On January 22, 1987, in an effort to expunge the record in this case, the Court, on Respondent's oral motion, entered an order allowing the Respondent to withdraw his guilty plea. The record does not reveal a plea of guilty being entered by the Respondent per se. Apparently, the court considered paying the fine the same as a guilty plea. The court then allowed the Respondent to enter a plea of nolo contendere whereupon the court entered an order withholding adjudication and placing Respondent on 24 hours probation. The plea and Order were both dated nunc pro tunc, November 14, 1980. The court then entered an order dated January 22, 1987, expunging and sealing the Respondent's criminal records in this case. By order dated September 30, 1993, the court, on a motion by the State of Florida, entered an order unsealing and disseminating the Respondent's criminal history records in this case. On July 12, 1987, the Respondent was issued a citation for violation of Ordinance 3-5b, St. Petersburg Beach, Florida for having an open container of alcoholic beverage (8 ounces beer in plastic cup) on the public beach where an open container of alcoholic beverages was prohibited. The Respondent was attending a party and several other persons were likewise cited for this same violation. The citation gave the Respondent the option of appearing in court on August 7, 1987 or paying a fine of $32.00 within ten days of the citation. Respondent chose to pay the fine. The Respondent was not arrested. The citation clearly indicated this to be an ordinance violation and not a misdemeanor. On May 24, 1991, Respondent had, individually, made the decision to disconnect his father from a life support system. After the decision to disconnect, the Respondent, being very depressed, exhibited a human weakness during a troubled time in his life in attempting to overcome his depression by smoking marijuana. While smoking the marijuana in a restaurant parking lot, the Respondent was observed by law enforcement officers and charged with possession of less than 20 grams of marijuana, a misdemeanor, requiring a mandatory court appearance. On June 17, 1993, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge. The court withheld adjudication of guilt and required Respondent to pay court costs in the amount of $300.00. On June 10, 1993, the Respondent completed an Application For Renewal Of A Professional Florida Educator's Certificate. On Page two, section three, of the application, under the heading "Date of Arrest", the Respondent listed those incidents referred to in Findings of Fact 7, 12 and 13 above. Because of these admissions by the Respondent, the matter was investigated. After the investigation, the Superintendent advise the Respondent by letter dated August 17, 1993, that he was suspended with pay pending the meeting of the Board on September 8, 1993, and at that time the Superintendent would recommend to the Board that the Respondent's suspension be sustained and his employment with the Board be terminated effective September 9, 1993. Sometime after the investigation was completed, an article, discussing the incidents surrounding Respondent's recommended dismissal, was published in the St. Petersburg Times. There was no evidence of any other article appearing in the St. Petersburg Times or any other publication where the incidents surrounding Respondent's dismissal were discussed. The Superintendent received telephone calls from "some parents" expressing their concern over the incidents of Respondent's dismissal reported in the St. Petersburg Times' article. Based on these telephone calls and the fact that the incidents had become known to the public because of the newspaper article, the Superintendent was of the opinion that Respondent's effectiveness in the school system had been impaired. Robert L. Evans, Principal of Clearwater High School, was also of the opinion that Respondent's effectiveness in the school system had been impaired. Mr. Evans' opinion was based primarily on the effect this matter would have on Respondent teaching a health course that emphasized substance abuse and its prevention where the students were aware that Respondent had been charged with possession of marijuana. Apparently, Mr. Evans had discussed the incidents with the Superintendent and other members of the administrative staff but there was no evidence that Mr. Evans had discussed the incidents with any students, teachers, parents or anyone else in the general public. Rudy Coffin, a Coach and Health and Driver's Education Teacher, has known Respondent for a number of years. Mr. Coffin discussed the incidents with numerous students at the school and it was his testimony that the consensus of those students was that they understood the circumstances, that the Respondent deserved another chance and they wanted Respondent back teaching. It was Mr. Coffin's opinion that Respondent would use these incidents as a positive teaching message in substance abuse prevention, for example, what not to do, from experience. From his knowledge of the Respondent and his discussion with the students, it was Mr. Coffin's opinion that Respondent's effectiveness in the school system had not been impaired. Michael Kessinger, a teacher at Clearwater High School, has known Respondent a number of a years and considers Respondent one of the most effective teachers he has known. Respondent has coached Mr. Kessinger's daughter in girl's basketball and Mr. Kessinger would not hesitate to allow Respondent to coach his daughter again. Like Mr. Coffin, Mr. Kessinger feels that Respondent would use these incidents as a positive teaching message in substance abuse. From his knowledge of Respondent and having discussed these incidents with students in the school, Mr. Kessinger is of the opinion that the students want Respondent back teaching and that his effectiveness in the school system has not been impaired. Respondent's colleagues, even Mr. Evans, spoke highly of his past performance, particularly of his ability to work with students on the lower end of the grade scale who are candidates for dropping out of school. Respondent has in the past been instrumental in numerous students staying in school because of his willingness to invest some time with the student to let the student know that he was interested in their situation. There was no evidence that Respondent's conduct, in and of itself, was so egregious or that the community of Pinellas County thought it so egregious, that it was self evident, without anything more, that such conduct had impaired the Respondent's effectiveness in the school system. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish facts to show that Respondent's effectiveness in the school system has not been impaired, notwithstanding the testimony and opinions of Superintendent Hinesley and Edward Evans to the contrary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board enter a Final Order dismissing the charges against the Respondent, reinstating Respondent to his teaching position and granting Respondent back pay to and including September 9, 1993. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 23rd day of December, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-4972 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed findings of fact 1, 2, 6, 8, and 9 are adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 2, 22, 14 and 15, respectively. Proposed finding of fact 3 is adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7 except that there is no evidence that Respondent was arrested. Proposed finding of fact 4 is adopted in Finding of Fact 8 with the exception of the date the document was completed which appears to be August 19, 1986 rather than August 9, 1986. Proposed finding of fact 5 is rejected in that there was competent substantial evidence to show that document was not falsified. See Finding of Fact 9. Proposed finding of fact 7 is adopted in Finding of Fact 13 with the exception that the record does not show that Respondent was arrested. Proposed finding of fact 10 is covered in the Preliminary Statement. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: The following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1(1,3); 2(12); 3(7,9,10); 4(13); 5(14); 6(16); 7(17,18 21); 8(22); 9(19,20) and 10(9). Proposed finding of fact 11 is neither material nor relevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. J. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent Pinellas County Schools Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Keith B. Martin, Esquire Pinellas County Schools Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Lawrence D. Black, Esquire 650 Seminole Boulevard Largo, Florida 34640-3625 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether there is just cause to suspend Respondent, George Young (Respondent), as alleged in the letter of the superintendent of schools dated June 9, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly constituted entity charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the Indian River County Public School District. As such, it has the authority to regulate all personnel matters for the school district, including those personnel decisions affecting the professional teaching staff. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent, George Young, was an employee of the School Board and was subject to the disciplinary rules and regulations pertinent to employees of the school district. At all times material to this case, Respondent was assigned to teach at Sebastian River High School and served as head baseball coach for the varsity team. For purposes of this case, all acts or omissions complained of were in connection with Respondent’s responsibilities as a baseball coach. By way of background, the allegations of this case evolved from an underlying incident that must be disclosed in order to put the proper perspective on Respondent’s role and responsibility in connection with the allegations. During March of 2008, Respondent scheduled his team to participate in a baseball tournament held in Broward County, Florida. The tournament location and schedule made it convenient for the team to remain near the site for one night of the tournament. This was not the first over-night venture for Respondent and the teams he coached. Prior to tournaments it was Respondent’s policy to instruct the team that they were representatives of the school. Respondent encouraged the students to refrain from horseplay, roughhousing, or misbehavior that could discredit them or the school. In short, the team members were to conduct themselves as gentlemen. Nevertheless, some of the students did engage in poor conduct. More specifically, several of the players began to wrestle in one of the hotel rooms. Some unspecified number of the players turned on their teammate, H.C. Without Respondent’s knowledge or consent, the players wrestled H.C. (the victim) to a bed, pulled down his pants, and placed a plastic soda bottle at or near his rectum. It is unknown whether the bottle actually penetrated the victim, but the fact that an assault was perpetrated by the student players is certain. After the assault, the victim escaped the room and fled to another hotel room. Several team players observed the victim to be quite upset. Moreover, at least one player believed that the student was so upset he was crying. Word spread among some of the players that something bad had happened to the victim. The details of the assault were not general knowledge. At least two adults who accompanied the team on the trip were also made aware that something untoward had occurred to the victim. At least one of the parents told Respondent that night that something had occurred. No specifics of the incident were disclosed to Respondent. He knew, however, that wrestling had occurred and that someone was upset. Respondent made no effort to personally discover what had happened to the victim that night. Presumably, he chalked it up as adolescent roughhousing. The next morning Respondent called a team meeting before the team left the hotel. It was his custom to speak to the team before checkout but on this morning he had the additional task of attempting to find out what had occurred the night before. Not surprisingly, no one disclosed the full details of the assault. From the hotel the team went on to a meal and played in the tournament. Respondent did not pursue further inquiry into the assault. Respondent did not question anyone individually regarding the events. Approximately one week later the victim's parents heard about the assault. A parent telephoned them to share information that something had occurred on the tournament trip. They were stunned and surprised to learn of the incident. They questioned their sons (both of whom were on the tournament trip) and decided something needed to be done to punish the students who committed the assault. To that end, they went to Respondent's home and asked him about the incident. Respondent was surprised to learn of the details of the assault and represented that something would be done to appropriately discipline the perpetrators of the deed. The weight of the credible evidence supports the finding that on the night of the parents' visit to Respondent's home, Respondent knew that the victim had been wrestled to the bed, had had his pants pulled down exposing his buttocks, and that a bottle may have been involved at or near the student's rectum. The bottle portion of the assault was stated as a possibility as the victim's parents at that time had not confirmed whether or not the bottle was used or merely threatened. Nevertheless, when Respondent reported the incident the next day to the athletic director, the possibility of a bottle being involved in the assault was omitted. Since Respondent did not disclose the full details of the assault, including the fact that a bottle may have been involved, to the athletic director, the punishment initially to be administered to the student perpetrators did not satisfy the victim's parents when they learned what would be imposed. Instead, they demanded that more harsh consequences befall the students who were involved in the assault. Their report of the incident conflicted with Respondent's story to the athletic director. It soon became clear that while the parents may have been willing to spare their son the embarrassment of the bottle portion of the story when they believed the penalty imposed against his attackers would be great, they were not going to let the perpetrators skate by on the penalty initially chosen. Thus Respondent's willingness to leave out the bottle portion of the assault became critical to the matter. In fact, the omission of the bottle portion of the incident became the key allegation against Respondent. The superintendent's letter setting forth the allegation against Respondent stated, in part: On April 8, 2008, you told Athletic Director, Michael Stutzke, that an incident occurred during an out of town baseball tournament that involved wrestling with someone's pants being pulled down. When you made that statement you knew that was not the complete story, because the night before, you met with a student's parents who told you their son's (the victim) pants were taken down and a bottle put near his rectum during the course of this incident. This is the same incident you described to Mr. Stutzke as mere wrestling and someone's pants pulled down. The credible weight of the evidence supports the finding that Respondent knew he had not given Mr. Stutzke the complete story of the incident. Although Respondent at that time may not have known for a fact that a bottle was used in the commission of the assault, he knew that the rumor of the bottle's use was in question. An investigation of the matter would have proved or disproved the bottle portion of the story. Respondent did not, however, reveal that portion of the allegations to school authorities. Although Respondent may have entertained the misguided notion that he was protecting the victim from embarrassment by not disclosing the full details of the assault, his failure to make school officials aware of the incident and the potential allegation of the bottle demonstrates a failure to fully and honestly conduct himself professionally. Respondent has enjoyed a long, successful, and popular run as a baseball coach in the district. At the end of the day, however, responsibility for the safety and well-being of his team rested with him. That job is unrelated to the success of the team or their desire to play in tournaments. Moreover, school authorities must be able to rely on a coach's veracity to completely and accurately report any incident that may occur during a school-sanctioned event. The stipulated facts of the parties provided: On March 31, 2008, George Young was the head coach for the Sebastian River High School Varsity Baseball team. On March 31, 2008, the Sebastian River High School Varsity Baseball team attended a baseball game in Plantation, Florida. Kevin Browning, Director of Human Resources, investigated allegations of an incident that occurred on March 31, 2008 involving the baseball team. Browning released his Report and Recommendation on June 26, 2008. Young was given a three day suspension, which is the subject of the appeal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Indian River County School Board enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension of Respondent and denying his claim for salary reimbursement. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 29th day of July, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Wilensky, Esquire Dubiner & Wilensky, P.A. 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 325 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-4349 Wayne L. Helsby, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue, Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32789 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Harry J. La Cava, Ed.D Superintendent Indian River County School Board 1900 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3150
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by petitioner as a biology teacher at McArthur High School for the past ten years. He previously taught school in southern Illinois. Nicholas Tricoli attended McArthur High School during the 1980-81 school year and was then in the ninth grade. Tricoli was assigned to Respondent's biology class during the first semester, which he failed. He was thereafter transferred to the biology class of Mr. John Lyzott for the second semester. The charges against Respondent involve a single incident which took place during a class change period on May 19, 1981. Uncontroverted testimony established that Respondent followed Tricoli into Lyzott's biology classroom, grabbed Tricoli by the front of his shirt and stated, "I told you never to call me that again," or words of similar import. He continued to hold Tricoli by his shirt and either pushed him backward over a counter or Tricoli, in the struggle to free himself, leaned backward over the counter, resulting in a blow to the back of his head. The incident was witnessed by Lyzott and two of his students, Fred Stoltzfus and Kelly Lathan. Their testimony established that Respondent demonstrated substantial anger, that he held Tricoli helpless for one or two minutes and spoke angrily to him during that time. Stoltzfus testified that Berg raised his hand as if to strike Tricoli, but neither Stoltzfus nor any other witness saw him strike Tricoli. Subsequently, Mr. Tom Patterson, the school board investigator, observed a bump on Tricoli's head, which resulted from contact with the counter described above. Patterson also observed a laceration inside Tricoli's mouth which was allegedly caused by a blow to his face. Although there is little doubt the laceration occurred during the struggle, the evidence is not sufficient to establish that Respondent struck Tricoli. Respondent had no official basis to enter Lyzott's classroom or discipline Tricoli, who was not then his student. Lyzott was in fear that Berg, who was obviously angry, would injure Tricoli and attempted to dissuade Respondent during the course of the incident. It should be noted that Tricoli is about five feet five inches tall and weighs about 130 pounds, while Berg is over six feet tall and weighs over 200 pounds. Respondent testified that he became angered when Tricoli referred to him as "a dick" while passing in the hallway, and that Tricoli had previously made a similar remark in the presence of other students. Respondent then followed Tricoli into Lyzott's classroom, grabbed him by the shirt and attempted to extract an agreement from him to stop referring to Berg as "a dick." However, Tricoli remained silent and Respondent perceived him to be smirking, which further angered him. Respondent's testimony regarding the name-calling was not corroborated but is nonetheless credible. Respondent has no reputation for erratic behavior, loss of self-control or abuse of students. Conversely, Tricoli's denial of the offensive remarks was not credible. Tricoli was overheard by another teacher bragging to fellow students about getting Berg fired, and offering a large sum of money to one student to obtain his testimony in a civil suit against Berg. Respondent demonstrated through the testimony of Lyzott and five other male teachers at McArthur High School that school administrators do not vigorously enforce discipline. These teachers also believe the principal does not support them in their efforts to discipline troublemakers. Their testimony established that it is not uncommon for a teacher to physically restrain an unruly student. However, none of the incidents of physical intervention or approved corporal punishment which they related were in any way analagous to Respondent's attack on Tricoli. Petitioner, through the testimony of the McArthur High School principal and the Broward County Associate Superintendent for personnel, established that corporal punishment policies require prior approval of such punishment which is then administered by the principal or his designee. These policies are set forth in rules and statutes which are made available to all teachers.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Respondent’s employment with the Polk County School Board should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Petitioner employed the Respondent as a teacher pursuant to a Professional Services Contract. On April 1, 1999, the Respondent, then employed as a teacher at Jenkins Middle School in Haines City, Florida, became involved in an incident between a student and the parent of another student, during which the parent physically assaulted the student. The Respondent’s involvement was deemed to be inappropriate by the school principal. On April 19, 1999, the Respondent received a letter of reprimand for his actions during the incident. Although the Respondent noted that he did not agree with the reprimand, there was no appeal taken. By September of 1999, the Respondent had transferred to Crystal Lake Middle School in Lakeland, Florida, where he taught math. During his first month there, the Respondent told a male student that the student looked and behaved like a girl. The student complained to Eileen Killebrew, the school’s principal, who wrote a letter of reprimand to the Respondent dated September 24, 1999, noting that middle school students are "very emotional and impressionable" and that they look to teachers for "guidance and support." She warned the Respondent that his students "certainly do not expect to be demeaned in any way." She advised the Respondent that "further instances of inappropriate behavior will call for further disciplinary action." The Respondent received a copy of the letter and did not challenge the reprimand. By November of 1999, a number of additional complaints against the Respondent had been received from students or parents. By letter dated November 2, 1999, the principal advised the Respondent of the specific complaints (essentially a pattern of making disparaging or otherwise inappropriate remarks to students, to parents of students and to other teachers) and asked that he submit a written response to the allegations. The Respondent did not submit the requested response, but instead met with the principal to discuss the matter. By letter of reprimand dated November 17, 1999, the principal again advised the Respondent that his behavior was unacceptable and warned that additional instances would result in further disciplinary action. The Respondent received a copy of the letter and no appeal of the reprimand was taken. On February 8, 2000, the Respondent wrote a disciplinary referral for a student. On the referral, the Respondent wrote that he had told the student to "shut his redneck mouth up." Disciplinary referrals are commonly sent to the student’s parents. On February 10, 2000, the principal issued another letter of reprimand to the Respondent, stating that she found it "reprehensible that you would resort to this kind of childish behavior when dealing with students." She further wrote that she had "serious concerns about your teaching effectiveness and indeed about your professional future unless improvements are made." She again warned that further incidents could result in more severe disciplinary action. In August of 2000, the principal received information regarding inappropriate statements made to a parent during a meeting of the parent and her female child with the school’s guidance counselor. The Respondent was not involved in the meeting but apparently walked into the room where the meeting was taking place. In discussing the incident, the principal also learned that the Respondent had previously used the female student to pass his phone number to a college student interning at the school and to whom the Respondent was attracted. By letter dated August 23, 2000, the principal reprimanded the Respondent for his behavior and warned further inappropriate behavior would result in her requesting that he be suspended from teaching. In September of 2000, the Respondent was involved in two separate events. In one incident, the Respondent made inappropriate remarks to a student about the child’s mother. The child told the mother, who came to the school and complained to the principal. In the other incident, a teacher at the school reported an incident where the Respondent pushed or struck a child on the forehead. By letter dated September 22, 2000, the principal advised the Respondent of the complaints and scheduled a conference with him to discuss the situation. She advised that he could bring a representative to the conference. The conference occurred on September 25, 2000. The Respondent attended the meeting and was accompanied by a representative from the Polk County Education Association. During the meeting, the Respondent acknowledged the incidents. By letter to the Polk County School Superintendent dated September 25, 2000, the principal requested that "the next step in progressive discipline be taken" and that the Respondent be suspended without pay for five days from his teaching position. By letter dated September 28, 2000, from the Polk County Superintendent of Schools, the Respondent was advised that he would be suspended without pay for five days beginning October 2, 2000. The suspension occurred as scheduled. On or about May 16, 2001, the Respondent became involved in events with two students in separate classes. In the first incident, students in the Respondent’s classroom were completing a math exercise which required coloring answers on a score sheet. The Respondent noticed that one of the students was incorrectly coloring the sheet and made a disparaging statement to the student about his work, stating that if the instructions had been written in "clown" the student might have understood them. The Respondent and the student eventually engaged in a verbal altercation during which the Respondent used the word "stupid." The student understood the Respondent to say that the student was stupid. The Respondent asserts that he actually said the child was "acting stupid." In any case, the Respondent wrote a disciplinary referral on the student. At the change of classes, the student told a close friend who was coming into the Respondent’s classroom about the disciplinary referral. The friend asked the Respondent about the referral and the Respondent declined to answer the question, instead suggesting that after school, the friend could ask his "boyfriend" about the incident. The friend concluded that the Respondent was suggesting that the children were homosexual. The students complained to the principal about the Respondent’s statements. The principal asked the Respondent to respond to the allegations, which he did by written statement. Although the Respondent’s statement does not address use of the word "stupid" in reference to the first child, the statement acknowledges that he told the second student to get the information by asking his "boyfriend" though he denied he had intended to imply homosexuality in his remark. By letter to the Polk County School Superintendent dated May 18, 2001, the principal requested termination of the Respondent’s employment with the Polk County School System. By letter from the Polk County School Superintendent dated May 21, 2001, the Respondent was notified that the Superintendent would recommend to the School Board that his employment be terminated. In the letter, the grounds for the termination are identified as the Respondent’s "continued unprofessional and inappropriate behavior with students including embarrassing and disparaging remarks." By letter from the Polk County School Superintendent dated June 14, 2001, the Respondent was notified that the School Board had accepted the Superintendent’s recommendation that his employment would be suspended pending an administrative hearing. Based on the continuing pattern of unprofessional behavior towards students, parents and other teachers, the Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher has been diminished to the extent that the Crystal Lake Middle School principal does not want the Respondent to return as a teacher at her school.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Polk County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Thomas D. Lindemann as a teacher at Crystal Lake Middle School. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _______________________________ WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 2001. Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Boswell & Dunlap, LLP 245 South Central Avenue Bartow, Florida 33831 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Jim Thornhill, Superintendent Polk County School Board 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33831-0391 Charlie Crist, Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Ms. Lee's teaching certificate should be revoked because she has been guilty of dishonesty in maintaining student grades and has engaged in a course of conduct which seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the School Board of St. Lucie County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Cynthia Lee holds a Florida teaching certificate, and has been a teacher for 11 years in the public schools of St. Lucie County. She earned a bachelor's degree in special education for grades kindergarten through 12 and in elementary education, grades 1 through 6. She also has received a Master's degree in administration and supervision from Nova University. During her last year of teaching, Ms. Lee had been transferred to Lakewood Park Elementary School where Allen Edwards was principal and Linda Francine Applebee was an Assistant Principal. She taught a self-contained third grade class. For reasons which were not satisfactorily explained, the school administrators made meticulous notes of observations of Ms. Lee's performance at school. For example, on August 25, 1986, it was recorded that Ms. Lee had an open Bible on a shelf in her classroom, and had assembled her students at 3:00 to wait for the school bus rather than releasing them from the classroom. On August 27, it was recorded that she spoke with students in the suspension room; on August 28, it was recorded that Ms. Lee had not made marks in student folders to indicate their attendance on the first day of class. On September 3, it was documented that she had assembled her students for the reading laboratory at 10:01 a.m, as opposed to 10:05 a.m., and on October 9, it was recorded that Ms. Lee had a cup of something to drink after lunch. Eventually these surveillance notes gave way to more serious confrontations with the administration. In November of 1987, Ms. Lee received a reprimand for returning to her classroom after she had left school one morning because of an eye problem. Appropriate arrangements were made to have a substitute in her classroom for about an hour, because she thought that her visit at the doctor's office would be brief. The assistant principal, Ms. Applebee, then determined to retain the substitute to stay with Ms. Lee's class for the rest of the day, "in the interest of continuity." Ms. Applebee left a message with the doctor's secretary that Ms. Lee should return home after she was finished with her appointment. Ms. Lee did not understand why she had been given permission to leave and return, but then received a message not to return to school while at the doctor's office. She had left items at the school which she would not ordinarily leave overnight. When Ms. Lee returned to school, Ms. Applebee was quite upset, and Ms. Lee thereafter received a reprimand stating that "your return to the classroom after seeing the doctor was a flagrant disregard for the authority of the school administration." This response by the administration to Ms. Lee's return to the campus was petty, and indicative of the administration's general hostility to Ms. Lee. During the school year, Mr. Edwards decided that it would be appropriate to have another teacher assist Ms. Lee with her lesson plans, to help her develop more specific learning objectives for her class. At first, the chairperson of the third grade teachers at the school, Altamese Hilick, assisted Ms. Lee with lesson plans in reading. Later, the district coordinators for mathematics, Alice Hosty, and for language arts, Marsha Cully, came to Ms. Lee's classroom, observed her teaching, and made suggestions for her to improve her classroom management and curriculum. Third grade students at Lakewood Park Elementary School used the mathematics text published by D.C. Heath & Company; pre- and post-tests are coordinated with teaching materials used at the school. Students were given the pre-test before a unit of instruction was given, instructed, and then the post- test was administered. Similar pre- and post-tests were used in the reading and language arts program at the school, based on materials and a text published by Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc. The pre- and post-test results were charted on group profile sheets for the entire class, in individual folders for the students and in the students' cumulative records. After the tests were given, Ms. Lee corrected the students' papers by placing Xs on wrong answers and check marks on correct answers. The tests were then placed on a shelf in the back of her classroom in a place that would have been open to anyone who entered the classroom. Teachers or administrators ordinarily were on campus before Ms. Lee arrived in the morning and others would remain after Ms. Lee had left in the afternoon. The door to her classroom was unlocked. Despite the administration's general unfriendliness, Ms. Lee's contention that any alteration of the tests was done to discredit her by someone with access to her classroom, but not by herself, is rejected. Marsha Cully wrote a memorandum to Mr. Edwards on January 29, 1987, explaining that when she had visited Ms. Lee's class, she randomly checked the group profile sheets for the class. The profiles showed that all the students in Ms. Lee's top reading group had scored 100 per cent on each skill and subtest. Ms. Cully's review of the graded tests themselves revealed that Ms. Lee's students had not performed that well. Ms. Hosty submitted a similar memorandum about Ms. Lee's mathematics skills checklist and pre- and post-tests to Mr. Edwards on February 9, 1987, noting that on at least one test paper, an "X" indicating a wrong answer had been whited-out, an answer changed, and a student given a perfect score. Ms. Lee adamantly maintains that she never erased Xs on graded tests to replace them with check marks, changed answers for students by erasing incorrect answers, replaced them with correct answers, or whited-out markings on student test papers. The School Board retained Antonio M. Laurito, a forensic document examiner for the regional crime laboratory at Indian River Community College, to review the tests, Ms. Lee's group profile sheets, individual student records and known samples of her handwriting. Mr. Laurito eschewed reliance on exemplars knowingly prepared for comparison to questioned documents. He concluded that she had changed several of the students' test grades and their scores on school records. Ms. Lillian Newman was retained by Ms. Lee, who reviewed handwriting exemplars which she saw Ms. Lee prepare, with knowledge that the exemplars would be used for comparison with the questioned documents in this case. Ms. Newman also reviewed a large number of Ms. Lee's cancelled checks as additional exemplars. Ms. Newman found the evidence inconclusive on whether the questioned documents were prepared by Ms. Lee. Having carefully considered the testimony of both handwriting experts and the exhibits which they relied on, the opinions expressed by Mr. Laurito are more persuasive, and convincing. Ms. Lee altered the students' work on their tests, and recorded and maintained false test results in student records for the class and for individual students which overstated their achievement. That conduct has seriously reduced her effectiveness as a teacher.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the teaching certificate of Cynthia June Lee be revoked by the Education Practices Commission for a period of three years, after which she may reapply for a new certificate as provided in Section 231.28(4)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 88-4623 Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact by the Commissioner of Education Covered in finding of fact 1. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 4. To the extent necessary, covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 7. Covered in finding of fact 7. Covered in finding of fact 7. Covered in findings of fact 8 and 10. Covered in finding of fact 9. Rejected as subordinate to finding of fact 10. Covered in finding of fact 10. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Facts by Ms. Lee Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. To the extent necessary, covered in finding of fact 1. Subordinate to finding of fact 5. Subordinate to finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 6. Rejected because Ms. Lee's testimony has not been accepted. Covered in finding of fact 6. Implicit in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 6. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 6. To the extent necessary, covered in finding of fact 6. To the extent necessary, covered in finding of fact 6. To the extent necessary, covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 6. Rejected as inconsistent with my view of the evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as inconsistent with my view of the evidence. Rejected as inconsistent with my view of the evidence. Rejected as inconsistent with my view of the evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate to finding of fact 10. Rejected as unnecessary. These changes were performed by Ms. Lee. 29. Covered in finding of fact 7. Covered in finding of fact 8. Rejected as unnecessary, the exemplars Mr. Larito used were done by Ms. Lee, and his reason for not asking her to execute an exemplar is persuasive. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 9. 35. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate to finding of fact 10. 39.-49. Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate to finding of fact 10. The testimony of Mr. Larito was accepted and more persuasive. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. 52.-60. Rejected as unnecessary. 61.-67. Covered in finding of fact 3. 68.-75. Covered in finding of fact 2. COPIES FURNISHED: Martin Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Room 418, Knott Building Tallahassee, FL 32399 Criag R. Wilson, Esquire Suite 302 215 Fifth Street West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Rev. Cynthia Lee 3201 Boston Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34950 Leslie Holland, Esquire FEA/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Sydney H. McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol PL-08 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 =================================================================
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has held a teaching certificate issued by the State of Florida, valid through June 30, 2002. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, as a language arts (English) teacher, assigned to Lake Stevens Middle School and subsequently assigned to her own home as an alternate work site. On May 4, 1995, Lucille Collins, an assistant principal at Lake Stevens, conducted a conference with a student, that student’s parent, and Respondent. During the conference, Respondent became enraged and began shouting at Collins. Collins terminated the conference and attempted to return to her office. Respondent followed her, continuing to shout as the two proceeded toward Collins’ office. The student and the parent witnessed Respondent's behavior. On February 8, 1996, Assistant Principal Collins convened a conference with Respondent and Dorothy Johnson, the principal’s secretary, to address conflicts between Respondent and Johnson. Toward the end of the meeting, Respondent became agitated. She began shouting at Collins and trying to provoke another argument with Johnson. On May 2, 1996, Respondent entered the teachers’ workroom and started yelling at Collins. Collins directed Respondent to stop and to come meet with her privately, but Respondent refused twice to meet with Collins. Respondent remained “out of control” and continued yelling as she moved through the office and out into the hall near the cafeteria. On May 15, 1996, Collins conducted a TADS observation of Respondent. A TADS observation is an extended and formal observation of a teacher in a classroom to determine if the teacher possesses the minimum competencies required of a classroom teacher. The trained observer is required to assess six categories that must be deemed satisfactory in order for the teacher to receive an acceptable evaluation. The teacher undergoing the TADS observation is required to submit to the observer lesson plans, student folders, and the grade book. On that day Respondent was unable to produce a lesson plan or grade book. Respondent was given five days to produce the required materials. As of May 20 Respondent had not complied. However, she did eventually comply, and the TADS observation showing Respondent was deficient was then voided. On October 2, 1996, Dr. James Monroe, Executive Director of the Office of Professional Standards for the Miami- Dade School Board, directed Respondent to attend a conference- for-the-record on October 7. The purpose of the conference was to address an act of battery by Respondent and her fitness for future employment. Respondent attended the meeting. At the meeting, she was referred to Dr. Michael Hendrickson for a psychological evaluation. Respondent went to Hendrickson who opined that Respondent was able to return to her teaching duties, with the following recommendations: (1) that Respondent seek help through the School Board’s Employee Assistance Program; (2) that Respondent undergo a neurological examination to rule out any neurological problems; and (3) that Respondent undergo psychotherapy once a week for a year. Based upon that evaluation, Respondent was permitted to return to her classroom. Shortly thereafter, an event known as “Back to School Night” was held at Lake Stevens. During that evening, teachers at Lake Stevens are required to be present in their classrooms to meet with parents. Respondent did not attend and did not advise the administrators at the school that she would not attend. Several parents complained to the principal and to Assistant Principal Collins that Respondent was not in attendance and that they were concerned because they had not received progress reports from Respondent and did not know if their children were passing or failing in Respondent’s class. Due to the parents’ concerns, the principal instructed Collins to conduct another TADS observation of Respondent. On October 22, 1996, Collins conducted another TADS observation of Respondent. She observed that Respondent's grade book had no recorded grades for periods five and six. She noted that the student folders contained no graded assignments. Respondent could not produce any graded tests, quizzes, weekly exams, unit tests, or progress checks. Respondent had not completed organizing the students' class work, homework, or folders in any observable fashion. In addition, Respondent's lesson plans were incomplete. On October 30, 1996, Collins reviewed with Respondent her written evaluation of Respondent's performance during the TADS observation. The written report noted Respondent's deficiencies and directed Respondent to comply with a prescription plan. Respondent was given specific deadlines, as follows: submit five sample graded tests and five writing portfolios to Collins by October 31; submit a complete and up- to-date grade book to Collins by November 1; complete all student folders and portfolios and have them available for review by November 1; read relevant portions of the TADS Prescription Manual by November 12, and submit activities for review and discussion with her department chairperson by November 12. Respondent acknowledged receipt of these directives by signing the TADS report on October 30. Respondent failed to comply with those directives and has never complied with them. Collins reported to Principal Willie B. Turner Respondent's failure to comply with her directives. On December 11, 1996, Principal Turner sent Respondent a memorandum directing her to report for a conference-for-the- record to be held in his office on December 16. The purpose of the conference was to discuss Respondent's non-compliance with the TADS prescription plan. On December 12 Respondent approached Principal Turner while he was on bus duty in front of Lake Stevens Middle School. Turner invited Respondent to speak to him after he was finished. Respondent came to his office and began "venting" at Turner, screaming at him and using "choice words." Turner told Respondent to leave his office, but she refused. Other staff members who were attracted by Respondent's screaming attempted to remove Respondent from Turner's office. With the help of the school's resource office, they were eventually able to do so. Immediately after the December 12 incident in Turner's office, Respondent was removed from Lake Stevens Middle School and assigned to work at her home. The conference originally scheduled to be held at Lake Stevens was re-scheduled to be held at the Office of Professional Standards on December 16. At the meeting, which Respondent attended, she was directed by Dr. James Monroe to contact the Employee Assistance Program immediately, undergo the required neurological evaluation, and attend the required psychotherapy once a week for a year. On or about January 9, 1997, Respondent contacted the Employee Assistance Program but declined to participate. On January 31, 1997, Dr. Monroe sent Respondent a memorandum in which he noted that she had not complied with his three prior directives. Respondent was given five additional days to comply and was informed that her continued failure to comply would be considered gross insubordination. Respondent attended a follow-up visit with Dr. Hendrickson on March 6, 1997. Following this visit, Hendrickson advised Dr. Monroe in writing that Respondent should undergo a psychiatric evaluation to assess her behavior and aggressive outbursts. Upon receiving Hendrickson's report, Dr. Monroe scheduled a meeting with Respondent for March 25. Respondent acknowledged receipt of that notice on March 19. Respondent attended the March 25 meeting. By that time, she had complied with the requirement that she undergo a neurological examination. At the meeting, she presented to Dr. Monroe a letter from a Dr. Cheryl Nowell indicating that Respondent had commenced psychotherapy on January 21, 1997. At that time, however, Respondent had still not undergone a psychiatric evaluation. On April 8, 1997, Dr. Monroe sent Respondent a memorandum summarizing the March 25 meeting. He again directed Respondent to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, gave Respondent five days to comply, and advised Respondent that her failure to comply would be considered gross insubordination. Dr. Monroe transmitted the information furnished by Respondent at the March 25 meeting to Dr. Hendrickson for review. After reviewing the information, Dr. Hendrickson wrote to Dr. Monroe that he believed that Respondent still needed to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Dr. Monroe subsequently advised Respondent of that continuing requirement. Respondent did not undergo a psychiatric evaluation. On April 29, 1997, Dr. Monroe notified Respondent that she was to report for a conference at the Office of Professional Standards on May 1. Respondent signed the notice on April 29. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Respondent's continued refusal to comply with prior directives. On April 30, 1997, Respondent contacted Dr. Joyce Annunziata, the Assistant Superintendent of the Office of Professional Standards. Respondent, through her union representative, advised Annunziata that Respondent would not attend the meeting unless she was escorted by an uniformed Metro-Dade County deputy or City of Miami police officer. Respondent stated her reason to be that she was in fear of her life due to what she perceived to be threats from Dr. James Monroe. Dr. Annunziata investigated Respondent's assertion and found it to be without merit. Her union representatives at every prior meeting with Dr. Monroe had accompanied Respondent, and Dr. Monroe had not physically threatened Respondent. Respondent failed to appear for the May 1 meeting. At her request, the meeting was re-scheduled for May 2. Respondent continued to insist a deputy sheriff or police officer accompany her. On May 2, Dr. Annunziata notified Respondent's union representative in writing that Respondent's demand for an uniformed law enforcement officer would not be met, that Respondent must decide if she would attend the meeting or not, and that Respondent's failure to attend the meeting would be considered gross insubordination. Respondent failed to attend the meeting. On that day Principal Turner recommended that the Miami-Dade County School Board terminate Respondent from further employment. Dr. Monroe decided to give Respondent one more chance. He re-scheduled the meeting for May 13, 1997, sent Respondent a written notice, and read the notice to Respondent over the telephone. Respondent was advised that her failure to attend the re-scheduled meeting would result in termination of her employment. Despite having notice, Respondent did not attend the May 13 meeting as she had failed to attend the May 1 and 2 meetings. On June 13, 1997, Respondent received an overall unacceptable TADS evaluation for the 1996-97 school year. She achieved an unacceptable rating in the categories of preparation and planning, assessment techniques, and professional responsibilities. Respondent's continuing failure to attend the conferences scheduled by Dr. Monroe constitutes gross insubordination. Further, Respondent's failure to comply with the reasonable TADS prescriptive plan given her to overcome her classroom deficiencies constitutes gross insubordination. Respondent's failure, in conjunction with her TADS observation, to have records of students' grades, graded assignments, graded exams, lesson plans, and student writing portfolios constitutes incompetence. Respondent received an unacceptable evaluation based upon her classroom performance on October 26, 1996. She achieved two subsequent unacceptable evaluations for professional responsibility for her continuing failure to comply with directives given to her, not for conduct in her classroom. Finally, she achieved an unacceptable annual evaluation. In light of Respondent's long-standing history of aggressive behavior, the Miami-Dade County School Board's requirement that she submit to a psychiatric examination was reasonable. Respondent's failure to comply with that directive was unreasonable and further constitutes gross insubordination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her and permanently revoking her teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 17th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 J. Wiley Horton, Esquire Pennington Law firm Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Helen B. Williams Post Office Box 551894 Carol City, Florida 33055-0894
Findings Of Fact During the 1985-86 school year Respondent Gregory Hunter Stephens was a student in the tenth grade at Miami Sunset Senior High School. On April 18, 1986, during the lunch period Respondent drove into the faculty parking lot in his Corvette with the police following closely behind. It was determined that during his lunch break Respondent had been driving his Corvette in a nearby condominium development threatening residents and throwing beer cans on the lawns. The residents had summoned the police. An Assistant Principal held a conference with Respondent's father whose response was that the police should have better things to do than to bother his son for drinking beer and driving around during his lunch break. Respondent was given a three-day suspension. On May 22, 1986, Respondent got into a fight in class, a Group III violation of the Code of Student Conduct. A conference was held with Respondent's father, and Respondent was given a ten-day suspension. Although other informal discussions were held with Respondent's father during that school year, by the end of the third grading period Respondent's grades were one "C," one "D," and 4 "Fs." His absences from his classes during the third grading period alone ranged between 2 and 13. He received only a "3" for his effort in each and every class. During the 1985-86 school year, Respondent was absent 95 days out of the 180-day school year. On March 3, 1987, an Assistant Principal observed Respondent leaving the campus during Respondent's second-period class. He stopped Respondent and gave him a warning. A few minutes later he caught Respondent again attempting to leave. Respondent's mother was contacted, and Respondent was given a "work detail detention." On April 2, 1987, a fight broke out off campus between a group of Latin students and a group of Anglo students. On the following day Respondent admitted to an Assistant Principal that he was one of the participants. All of the students involved (including Respondent) were suspended for three days for that Group III Code violation. On October 19, 1987, Respondent was nearly involved in a collision in the parking lot. Respondent got out of his car and started pushing the other driver. A fight ensued. Respondent's parents were contacted, and he was given a ten-day suspension. By the time of the October 19th incident, Respondent had already been absent 6 days that school year. Further, although the Assistant Principal had two conferences with Respondent's father during the month of October, Respondent was receiving one "C," one "D," and five "Fs" in his classes. A Child Study Team was convened, and a meeting was held on November 3, 1987. Respondent and his parents refused to attend. The Team recommended that Respondent be transferred to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-South, based upon the October 19, 1987, incident, his failing grades during the most-recent two years, and Respondent's chronic aggressive behavior which constituted a threat to the welfare of the other students. It was determined that Respondent required assistance a normal school could not provide and that a structured environment would be more appropriate since the educators at Miami Sunset Senior High School had unsuccessfully attempted to modify Respondent's behavior by conferences between Respondent and a counselor, meetings between Respondent's parents and assistant principals, indoor suspensions, outdoor suspensions, and work detail suspensions
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assigning Respondent Gregory Hunter Stephens to the opportunity school program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-South until such time as his performance reveals that he can be returned to the regular school program. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of March, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675, Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: JOSEPH A. FERNANDEZ, SUPERINTENDENT SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132 FRANK R. HARDER, ESQUIRE 175 FONTAINEBLEAU BOULEVARD SUITE 2A-3 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33172 LANA STEPHENS 15490 S.W. 85TH LANE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33183 MADELYN P. SCHERE, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT BOARD ATTORNEY DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132 PHYLLIS O. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT BOARD ATTORNEY DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132
