Findings Of Fact During 1978 and 1979, Petitioner was employed as a full-time teacher on an annual contract basis with the Leon County School Board. The principal at the Petitioner's school did not recommend him for reappointment for the 1979- 1980 school year. Petitioner, accordingly, was not reappointed. The Leon County School Board has adopted rules relating to the reappointment of teachers. School Board Rule 2.02(3)(a) provides: The building principal shall submit to the Superintendent for reappoint- ment, those members of his faculty recommended for reappointment. These reappointments, upon approval of the Superintendent, shall be recommended to the School Board at least six weeks prior to the close of the post school conference. In accordance with this rule, since Petitioner was not recommended for reappointment by his principal, he was not recommended by the superintendent and not reappointed by the School Board. Petitioner was not terminated from his position as a part of a School Board layoff. The Petitioner's job performance had been satisfactory. He was not recommended for reappointment because the school had three persons available to teach courses for which there were only two positions. The Petitioner was the least senior of the three persons and did not have tenure. Accordingly, he was not recommended for reappointment.
Findings Of Fact This matter comes on before the undersigned for consideration following an Administrative Complaint brought by Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education for the State of Florida, against Robert J. Browne, Respondent. No genuine factual issue is in dispute because no communication, including an election of rights or an appearance from the Respondent, has ever been received. Pursuant to the above-cited rule, the matter was required to proceed to hearing before the undersigned for the presentation of a prima facie case by the Petitioner, regarding the establishment of the reputed facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint upon which the Petitioner seeks revocation of the Respondent's Certificate. The Administrative Complaint is dated July 1, 1981. After the Administrative Complaint was filed, various efforts were made to achieve service of the same on the Respondent. The Respondent never responded to the Administrative Complaint. Diligent search and inquiry failed to locate the Respondent, or a means or location whereby he might be served with the Complaint. Attempts to serve him at his last-known forwarding address resulted in the certi- fied mail being returned unclaimed and unforwardable. The undersigned attempted to serve notice of this proceeding itself upon the Respondent at the last known address with the same result. Service by publication of the Administrative Complaint was achieved by the Petitioner. The Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate Number 440435, Post Graduate, Rank II, which expires on June 30, 1998, authorizing him to engage in the profession of teaching in the areas of mental retardation, junior college, administration, and supervision. At all times pertinent hereto, he was employed at the Exceptional Student Educational Center in Broward County, Florida, at Eastside Elementary School. The Respondent's position was that of administrator or assistant principal at the school. The Respondent was employed at the school during the summer of 1980. Mrs. Annie Turner was employed at the school as the custodian during that same summer. She worked from the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in the evening. She often took her son Ronnie, who was the youngest of seven children, to the school with her during her working hours. She did this in order for him to assist her in her job duties. On an early visit to the school, Ronnie met the Respondent, Mr. Browne. They met on frequent occasions thereafter, when Ronnie was at the school with his mother and talked of sports and other things of interest to Ronnie, and they ultimately struck up a friendship. Mrs. Turner began noticing that her son would go to a distant bathroom in the school and stay an inordinate period of time. This happened on a number of occasions and she noticed that Mr. Browne would follow her son into the mens' bathroom while she was engaged in cleaning another room nearby in the school. She did not feel anything was amiss until this happened on a regular basis. Finally, on a Thursday evening (she does not remember the date), in the summer of 1980, Mr. Browne and Ronnie entered the bathroom and stayed so long she opened the door to check on her son and observed the Respondent on his knees committing a homosexual act on the person of her son. She was not observed by Mr. Browne. She ultimately informed-the County Superintendent and Mr. Browne was confronted with the subject accusation by his superiors. Sometime thereafter the Respondent resigned his position at the school. Mrs. Turner no longer respects Mr. Browne and would not want one of her children in a school where he was principal or a teacher due to her apprehension regarding their physical and emotional welfare. The testimony of Ronnie Turner corroborates that of his mother, Annie Turner, and in addition, establishes that the homosexual act observed by Mrs. Turner occurred on three (3) other occasions in a substantially similar fashion and location. The occasion when Annie Turner discovered the Respondent committing a homosexual act on her son was the fourth and last of those occasions, all of which occurred during a three-week period during the summer of 1980. Ronnie Turner sougnt on several occasions to avoid association with the Respondent during this time after he became aware of the Respondent's intentions. He would not want to attend a school at which the Respondent was employed and fears that the same fate will befall other children at any school at which the Respondent should be employed. Ronnie Turner was fourteen years of age at the time the pertinent events occurred. After the Respondent resigned from his position with the Broward County School System, there ultimately ensued an Administrative Complaint brought by Ralph Turlington, Commissioner of Education of the State of Florida, seeking revocation of the Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence in the record and the pleadings and arguments of counsel for the Petitioner, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Robert J. Browne, have his Teacher's Certificate in and for the State of Florida revoked permanently. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 19th day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire BERG AND HOLDER 203-B South Monroe Street Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Robert J. Browne 1771 Northeast 12th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304
The Issue The issues are whether Respondents, James A. Shanks Middle School, Havana Magnet School, and/or Carter-Parramore Academy, subjected Petitioner to discrimination on the basis of his age, sex, or race, in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes,1 and/or whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner for the exercise of protected rights under section 760.10.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Gadsden County School District is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). It is the governing body responsible for the administration of public schools in Gadsden County and is therefore treated as a Respondent in this proceeding, though unnamed by Petitioner. James A. Shanks Middle School, a public school of Gadsden County, is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). Havana Magnet School, a public school in Gadsden County, is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). Carter-Parramore Academy, a public school in Gadsden County, is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). Mr. Jones, who was 63 years old at the time of the hearing, is a black male. Mr. Jones’s complaint is that he applied for open teaching positions in January 2020 at two Gadsden County public schools, applied for a third position in October 2020, and did not receive an interview for any of the positions. Mr. Jones alleges that the failure to interview him constituted discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and/or age. Mr. Jones has worked in the recent past as a substitute teacher for the School District. The record established that Mr. Jones was eligible for a temporary teaching and professional teaching certificate for social sciences from October 12, 2017, through October 12, 2020. Mr. Jones was not eligible for certificates in other educational areas. Mr. Jones testified, and the School District did not dispute, that he has applied for “hundreds” of positions with the School Board over the years. These applications were mostly for teaching positions but also included a range of jobs from bus driver to deputy superintendent. Mr. Jones has filed two discrimination complaints against the School District prior to the instant cases that resulted in DOAH Recommended Orders. In the most recent case, Jones v. Gadsden County School Board, Case No. 20-4489, 2021 WL 1256500 (Fla. DOAH Mar. 30, 2021), ALJ James H. Peterson III found that the School District’s internal application system had labeled Mr. Jones as “ineligible” for employment, and that Mr. Jones had therefore been summarily excluded from the pool of candidates for several positions with the School District. The School District explained that Mr. Jones stated on his application that he had a criminal record, which triggered an automatic “ineligible” notification on the School District’s internal employment application system. ALJ Peterson went on to find that the evidence established that Mr. Jones had been cleared by the Department of Education and that he had, in fact, been eligible for employment by the School District. ALJ Peterson found that the School District’s employment application system erroneously labeled Mr. Jones as ineligible for employment, but that this error was a simple mistake and not evidence of unlawful discrimination or retaliation. In a Recommended Order entered on March 30, 2021, ALJ Peterson recommended that the FCHR enter a Final Order dismissing Mr. Jones’s petition for failure to provide evidence of discrimination. The hearing in DOAH Case No. 20-4489 was completed on December 16, 2020. After the hearing made it aware of its error, and well before ALJ Peterson issued his Recommended Order, the School District corrected the error and manually removed the “ineligible” designation from Mr. Jones’s employment application. In an email dated January 27, 2021, counsel for the School District advised Mr. Jones his application status had been changed from “ineligible” to “complete” and that his criminal history would no longer prevent him from applying for employment with the School District. As to the applications at issue in these consolidated cases, Mr. Jones applied for social studies teaching positions at Carter-Parramore Academy and James A. Shanks Middle School in January 2020, and applied for a social studies teaching position at Havana Magnet School in October 2020. These applications were all made before the School District had corrected Mr. Jones’s application status in light of the hearing before ALJ Peterson. On each of these applications, Mr. Jones did not receive an interview because the School District’s employment application system showed him as “ineligible.” Major Willie Jackson, a 58-year-old black male, has been the principal at Carter-Parramore Academy for three years. Mr. Jackson testified that Mr. Jones had worked for him at James A. Shanks Middle School about five years ago as a one-on-one assistant for an exceptional education student, but that Mr. Jones had been hired by the school’s Exceptional Student Education department, not by him. Mr. Jackson recalled interviewing Mr. Jones for another position at James A. Shanks Middle School but could not recall whom he ultimately hired. Mr. Jackson testified that he did not interview Mr. Jones for the social studies teaching position at Carter-Parramore Academy in January 2020 because the School District’s application system showed that Mr. Jones was ineligible for employment. Mr. Jackson stated that he would have interviewed Mr. Jones but for the erroneous statement as to his eligibility. Mr. Jackson ultimately hired John Leprell, a white male in his early forties. Mr. Jackson testified that he had no knowledge of any prior FCHR complaints that Mr. Jones had made. Mr. Jackson credibly testified that none of his decisions was based on Mr. Jones’s age, race, or sex, or in retaliation for engaging in protected activity. Parish Williams, a black male over the age of 40, was the principal at Havana Magnet School in January 2020. He testified that he did not know Mr. Jones and did not know his age or race before the hearing in the instant cases. Mr. Williams also testified that he was unaware of any FCHR or other complaints that Mr. Jones had made against the School District. Mr. Williams testified that he did not interview Mr. Jones for the open social studies teaching position at Havana Magnet School because the School District’s application system indicated that Mr. Jones was ineligible. Mr. Williams stated that he would probably have interviewed Mr. Jones had he not been flagged as ineligible. Mr. Williams ultimately hired Patrice Monroe, a black female, for the position. Mr. Williams credibly testified that his decision on the job position was not based on Mr. Jones’s race, age, or sex, or in retaliation for engaging in protected activity. Maurice Stokes, a black male over the age of 40, was principal at James A. Shanks Middle School when Mr. Jones applied for a social studies teaching position in October 2020. Mr. Stokes stated that he did not know Mr. Jones personally but had seen him before. Mr. Stokes could not recall whether Mr. Jones had applied for the position, but he knew that he did not interview Mr. Jones. Mr. Stokes testified that he would not interview Mr. Jones or any other candidate who was listed as “ineligible” on the School District’s employment application system. Mr. Stokes hired Ken Hubbard, a 60-year-old black male, for the social studies position. Mr. Stokes testified that he hired Mr. Hubbard because he was the best social studies candidate available. Mr. Stokes had no knowledge of any FCHR complaints that Mr. Jones had made against the School District. Mr. Stokes credibly testified that his decision was not based on Mr. Jones’s race, age, or sex, or in retaliation for engaging in protected activity. Sonya Jackson, Human Resources Director for the School District, testified about the process by which the School District corrected Mr. Jones’s information in its database. She testified that Mr. Jones has continued to make applications since the “ineligible” status was removed from his record. Ms. Jackson stated that Mr. Jones was called for an interview on a maintenance supervisor position for which he had applied, but that he turned down the interview. Mr. Jones testified at length but provided no evidence that the School District or any of its personnel had discriminated against him based on his race, age, or sex, or that anyone retaliated against him for exercising his right to file complaints of discrimination with the FCHR. Mr. Jones claimed that in 2008 the School District dismissed him from a teaching job in a manner disallowed by statute,2 and that it has spent the last 13 years covering its tracks by placing false records in his employment file. He complained that the School District only hires women for teaching positions, though two of the three jobs he applied for in these cases were eventually filled by men. Mr. Jones appears to assume that when someone of a different race, age, or sex is hired for a job that he seeks, the result is due to discrimination against him. If the person hired is a woman, then Mr. Jones was discriminated against based on sex. If the person hired is younger, then it is age discrimination. Mr. Jones had no real answer when confronted with the hiring of Mr. Hubbard, a 60-year-old back male, at James A. Shanks Middle School. He also could not explain away the fact that the hiring decision in each of the three cases was made by a principal who was black, male, and over 40 years of age. Mr. Jones provided no evidence that any of the decisions not to interview him were causally linked to protected activity. Mr. Jones established that he is prolifically litigious but failed to establish that his activities are as well known in the community as he believes. Each of the principals credibly testified that they were unaware that Mr. Jones had engaged in protected activity. 2 Mr. Jones never provided a citation to the law he claimed the School District violated by dismissing him. In summary, Mr. Jones offered insufficient evidence that he was discriminated against based on his race, age, or sex. Mr. Jones also offered insufficient evidence that he was subjected to unlawful retaliation. Mr. Jones offered no credible evidence disputing the non- discriminatory reason given by the School District for its failures to interview him for the three positions at issue. Mr. Jones offered no credible evidence that the School District’s stated reason for not hiring him was a pretext for discrimination based on his age, race, or sex.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Ronald David Jones, pro se 1821 McKelvy Street Quincy, Florida 32351 For Respondents: William Breen Armistead, Esquire Coppins Monroe, P.A. 1319 Thomaswood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that neither James A. Shanks Middle School, Havana Magnet School, nor Carter-Parramore Academy committed an unlawful employment practice, and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. 3 Brungart was decided under the Family and Medical Leave Act, but its reasoning as to the element of retaliation has been repeatedly applied in cases involving Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. See e.g., Mitchell v. Mercedes-Benz U.S. Int’l, Inc., 637 Fed. Appx. 535, 539 (11th Cir. 2015); and Willis v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 619 Fed. Appx. 960, 962 (11th Cir. 2015). DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 2021. Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 William Breen Armistead, Esquire Coppins Monroe, P.A. 1319 Thomaswood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Stanley Gorsica, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Ronald David Jones 1821 McKelvy Street Quincy, Florida 32351 Gwendolyn P. Adkins, Esquire Coppins, Monroe, Adkins and Dincman, P.A. 1319 Thomaswood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether Respondent, a middle school teacher, violated section 1012.795(1)(d) and (1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., (2)(a)5., (2)(a)8., (2)(c)1., (2)(c)8., and (2)(c)9., as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint (AAC); and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate number 1299379, covering the area of music. The certificate is valid through June 30, 2020. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as a Music Teacher at LMS in the Manatee County School District. The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796. The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting misconduct allegations against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. Background On April 28, 2017, Respondent submitted a resignation letter to MCSD, and later that same day rescinded this resignation letter. Based on a prior investigation, on May 17, 2017, Respondent was issued a letter of reprimand by the LMS principal for poor judgement and poor classroom management. MCSD Office of Professional Standards started another investigation of Respondent in May 2017. In June 2017, PPD served a subpoena on Respondent, and seized his electronic devices. On August 4, 2017, Respondent was temporarily reassigned to MCSD transportation office. On August 17, 2017, MCSD placed Respondent on paid administrative leave. In August 2017, Investigator Nelson completed an investigation report that went to MCSD senior administrators, including the superintendent and its legal counsel. A practice of MCSD is that once an investigation is opened involving a union member, that union member is represented by a union paid counsel. MCSD communicates solely through the employee’s counsel. At the time, Respondent was a union member, and was represented by counsel during the pertinent MCSD’s investigations. On August 30, 2017, Respondent was not present when his counsel met with Investigator Nelson and MCSD general counsel. They advised Respondent’s counsel of the evidence found regarding Respondent, and that MCSD was going to move forward with the termination of Respondent’s employment. Respondent’s counsel was informed that Respondent could resign his teaching position in lieu of termination. Respondent submitted a letter of resignation to the Manatee County School Board (Board), dated September 1, 2017, providing for his resignation to become effective on September 12, 2017. Further, this letter provided that Respondent would not seek “reemployment” with MCSD. The Board was scheduled to meet on September 12, 2017, and would have considered any termination requests. Once Respondent resigned, MCSD did not have any further jurisdiction over Respondent. Dr. Breslin served as an assistant principal at SCSD’s Booker High School (Booker) when Respondent applied for a position there shortly after he resigned from MCSD. She was on the committee that interviewed the various candidates, including Respondent, and decided to hire Respondent. Respondent was hired by SCSD and taught at Booker. During his probationary period, Respondent was released from his SCSD employment. Material Allegations The material allegations upon which the charged violations are predicated are, in their entirety, as follows: During the 2016-2017 school year, Respondent engaged in an inappropriate relationship with K.A., a sixteen year old female student, as evidenced by a picture of Respondent and K.A. kissing. On or about September 5, 2017, in the midst of a district investigation into inappropriate relationships between Respondent and female students, Respondent resigned in lieu of termination from his teaching position with the district, to be effective September 12, 2017. On or about September 22, 2017, Respondent submitted an application for a teaching position with Sarasota County Public Schools. Respondent fraudulently answered 'no' to the following questions: Have you ever: failed to fulfill a teaching or administrative contract? had any disciplinary action taken against you by any Board of Education? been removed or dismissed from any position? resigned in lieu of termination? On the last page of Respondent’s SCSD application, he certified that his answers were true and to the best of his knowledge. Pictures In June 2017, pursuant to a search warrant, the PPD seized Respondent’s laptop computer and two cell phones, and sent them to FDLE for analysis. FDLE Analyst Carson was assigned to retrieve any pictures and/or text messages from Respondent’s devices. FDLE Analyst Carson issued the results via a report to the PPD. The FDLE report was not admitted into evidence. Mr. Oyler (and other PPD officers) reviewed the FDLE report, including the pictures4/ taken from Respondent’s devices, and found no evidence of an inappropriate relationship as alleged by a female LMS student. However, Mr. Oyler observed pictures of Respondent with another young (female) person. Mr. Oyler contacted LMS Resource Officer Moore to determine the identity of this other young female. Officer Moore, a 17-year employee of PPD, has been a resource officer assigned and stationed at LMS since 2013. In early 2016, Respondent was investigated for “some allegations,” and Officer Moore had a conversation with Respondent about his interactions with female students. Officer Moore advised Respondent to: So you just protect yourself. Make sure you’re keeping the door [to his classroom] open if you can between classes with view so the other [band/orchestra] teacher has observation. Don’t be alone with students, especially female students. Make sure you’re protecting yourself and making smart choices about it. Officer Moore knows N.A., the mother of K.A.5/ During the 2016-2017 school year, Officer Moore and N.A. both worked at LMS. Officer Moore would see K.A., a MCSD student, when she came to LMS to wait for her mother. Additionally, Officer Moore socialized with the A. family at various parties, including K.A.’s graduation from high school in May 2018. At the hearing, Officer Moore was shown a picture retrieved from Respondent’s devices of two people kissing, specifically Petitioner’s Exhibit 18, page 39 (hereafter referred to as the “kissing photograph”). When shown the kissing photograph, Officer Moore expressed no doubt or hesitation in identifying the two persons kissing: Respondent and K.A. Further, Officer Moore identified Respondent and K.A., individually or together, in the remaining pictures of Petitioner’s Exhibit 18, pages 40-47. Officer Moore’s testimony is found credible. Investigator Nelson conducted two investigations of Respondent, and met with him five or six times. When shown the pictures retrieved from Respondent’s devices, Investigator Nelson expressed no doubt or hesitation in identifying Respondent in all of the pictures found in Petitioner’s Exhibit 18, including the kissing photograph. Investigator Nelson’s testimony is found credible. Respondent’s counsel, through questioning of Mr. Oyler intimated that K.A. manipulated and uploaded multiple altered images to Respondent’s electronic devices. Mr. Oyler provided that he had heard K.A. “saying that she modified the images,” or that she had “doctored the photos.” K.A. did not testify in this hearing, nor did any other students. However, Mr. Oyler interviewed K.A. during the course of the PPD investigation. Initially K.A. denied having any relationship with Respondent. However, when Mr. Oyler presented K.A. with all the pictures found in Petitioner’s Exhibit 18, her reaction left Mr. Oyler with the impression that K.A. and Respondent had “more of a romantic, physical relationship.” Mr. Oyler’s testimony is found credible. Pastor Mazon was asked the following question: “Do you recognize the male in that photograph [the kissing photograph]?” He answered “Not really, not from that angle . . . no, not really.” He was then asked specifically: “Does that appear to be Mr. Peterson [Respondent] in that photograph?” Pastor Mazon responded: “It would be hard for me to tell from the side view like that. I would have to see it from the front.” And when shown the same kissing photograph in color and asked if the male was Respondent, Pastor Mazon replied: “That’s still a hard call for me. You know, skin tone. But then I see a scar from – on behind the ear, which I never saw, which I never - - that’s kind of hard for me, yeah. . . . I wouldn’t be able to identify him in that fashion.” Pastor Mazon was unable to confirm or deny that Respondent was in the kissing photograph, yet he positively identified Respondent in each remaining picture of Petitioner’s Exhibit 18. Pastor Mazon’s testimony lacks clarity and credibility as he waffled on identifying Respondent in the first picture, but had no hesitation in the remaining pictures. Ms. Bellamy, Respondent’s aunt, testified that she did not recognize the male in the kissing photograph. In the remaining pictures, Ms. Bellamy confirmed Respondent was in the pictures on pages 40 and 42 of Exhibit 18, but was not in the pictures on pages 41 or 43 through 47. Ms. Bellamy did confirm that Respondent was in the picture in Petitioner’s Exhibit 20. As Respondent’s relative, Ms. Bellamy’s testimony appears to be selective and is not found credible. Sarasota County School District Petitioner’s Exhibit 17, which was admitted without objection, provided that Respondent was under contract with MCSD to serve as an instructional employee for the 2017-2018 school year. Petitioner’s Exhibit 12, Respondent’s resignation letter, which was admitted without objection, provided that Respondent resigned his MCSD position for the 2017-2018 school year, effective September 12, 2017. Further, Respondent agreed to not seek reemployment with MCSD. Dr. Breslin was an assistant principal at Booker in Sarasota, Florida, for the 2017-2018 school year. She served on the committee that interviewed candidates for a teaching position at Booker. Dr. Breslin reviewed and relied upon Respondent’s SCSD application, and interviewed Respondent (with the other committee members) for the Booker teaching position. Further, Dr. Breslin performed the reference checks regarding Respondent’s application. Dr. Breslin was instrumental in the decision to hire Respondent for the position at Booker. Dr. Breslin was never provided a copy of Respondent’s letter of reprimand or his MCSD resignation letter. Further, during SCSD’s interview process, Dr. Breslin was not told that Respondent had been under investigation by MCSD. Dr. Breslin confirmed that by Respondent’s failure to tell her (or the committee) of these (the letter of reprimand, his resignation letter from MCSD, and/or the investigation), Respondent gave a false presentation. Had Dr. Breslin known of any of these, Respondent would not have been brought in for an interview and would not have been hired. Dr. Bowden testified that Respondent was released from his SCSD teaching contract during his probationary period. Typically, SCSD does not provide a reason for an employee’s release. However in this case, Respondent’s employment was terminated based on his arrest. Dr. Bowden also testified that Respondent’s failure to advise SCSD of his resignation from MCSD, his letter of reprimand, and that he was under investigation was tantamount to falsification of his application to work for SCSD. Respondent was represented by competent counsel, during MCSD’s investigation and his ultimate resignation from MCSD.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty on Counts 1, 2, and 5 through 8, and permanently revoking his Educator Certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 24th day of October, 2019.
The Issue Whether the Respondents The School Board Of Marion County, Florida (Board) discriminated against Petitioner, Dorothy Quibell because of her race while employed with the Board.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The Petitioner is a white female who was employed by Respondent as a substitute custodian on January 27, 1987. Petitioner was hired as a four-hour custodian at Howard Academy Community Center (Howard) on February 10, 1987. During Petitioner's employment the Board offered her, on more than one occasion, an eight-hour night-time custodial position but Petitioner declined any night-time position because she needed to be at home at night. During Petitioner's employment with the Board she continued to request assignment to an eight-hour day-time custodial position. At no time during Petitioner's employment with the Board did any supervisor complain of the quality of her work. On May 9, 1988, Juanita P. Cunningham, Program Manager for Howard Academy Community Center, who is black, wrote a letter to Petitioner criticizing her punctuality and reliability. There was insufficient evidence to show that Ms. Cunningham's criticism of Petitioner was unjustified. On May 13, 1988, Glen Cook, Area Coordinator of Custodial Services, issued a written reprimand to Petitioner with regard to her absence from work and failure to contact Ms. Cunningham of Petitioner's absence. There was insufficient evidence to show that the reprimand was unjustified. During the same time period that Petitioner was employed and received her reprimands, disciplinary actions were taken against eleven custodial employees within the school system, two of whom are white and nine of whom are black. Jack D. Copeland, Jr., Supervisor of Custodial Services, who is white, offered, and Petitioner agreed to, a re-location to Shady Hill Elementary School (Shady Hill) on a trial basis as an eight-hour day custodian with the understanding that the job included learning to drive a tractor and mowing twenty acres. Petitioner was re-located to Shady Hill on or about June 27, 1988. It is customary practice in the school system for eight-hour day custodians to be located in schools on a trial basis subject to final approval by the principal. This trial period does not mean that an employee who has reached permanent status is placed back on probationary status but, only that the assignment is on a trial basis so that a principal can determine if the custodian is compatible with the administrative staff, teachers and students of that school. The eight-hour day custodian who was located at Shady Hill on a trial basis prior to Petitioner was black and was transferred out for disciplinary reasons. Petitioner was returned to Howard from Shady Hill on or about August 28, 1988 at the request of Charles McAulay, principal of Shady Hill, who is white, after an unsuccessful trial period due to her constant questioning of whether the requested task was within her description and general attitude about performing her job. After Petitioner was returned to Howard from Shady Hill, she was given the opportunity to interview for a custodial position at Fort McCoy School, but was not selected for that position. The custodian selected for the position at Fort McCoy School was white. Petitioner was neither requested nor required to perform duties at Howard or Shady Hill other than those duties included in the job description for a custodial position. While it is clear from the record that Petitioner continually questioned her immediate supervisors in regards to whether a particular duty assignment was within her job description, sometimes even going to a higher level of supervisor, it is also clear from the record that the responses given by the supervisor did not always clarify the situation for the Petitioner. Therefore, because of this continuous questioning by Petitioner the supervisors concluded that she did not have a "good attitude" about her work. Regardless of the supervisor's opinion concerning Petitioner's attitude toward her work, Petitioner continued to perform her duties as a custodian up to and sometimes exceeding standards and, was treated no differently than other custodial employees of Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Conclusions of Law, the evidence off record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Florida Commission On Human Relations enter a final order denying relief to the Petitioner, Dorothy Quibell, and dismissing her Amended Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 20th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-5252 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Petitioner has presented her Proposed Findings of Fact by categories and they will be addressed in the same fashion. Category 1: Exhibits 3, 4 Cunningham & Cook's Reprimands. 1, 2, and 3 (numbered 2). Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Category 2: Tape Recording FCHR. a. - d. Rejected as not being part of the record. Category 3: Notarized Statement. 1, 2(a-b), 3(d-e)(there was no a-b), 4, and 5. This mostly a restatement of testimony or questions asked in the transcript but if considered as findings of fact where possible they would not be material or relevant or would be unnecessary. But see Findings of Fact 14, 15 and 16. Category 4: Important Facts Concerning the Transfers. 1.-14. Same as for Category 3 above. But see Findings of Fact 11.-16. Category 5: Job Schedule. 1.-5. Same as for category 3 above. But see Findings of Fact 15 and 16. Category 6: Job Description. 1.-4. Not supported by any substantial competent evidence in the record. Category 7: Contradictions in Testimony. 1.-11. Same as for Category 3 above but additionally they are not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1.-15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 4, 9, 10, 11, 13, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17, respectively. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Dana Baird, Esquire, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Margaret Jones, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Dorothy Quibell, Pro Se 5914 Northwest 56th Place Ocala, Florida 32675 Janet W. Behnke, Esquire 121 Northwest Third Street Ocala, Florida 32670
Findings Of Fact Background Respondent is a teacher certified in English, which he has taught while employed by Petitioner. He was first employed by Petitioner during the 1984-85 school year. In 1987, he was awarded a professional service contract. He has six years' teaching experience outside Highlands County. Principals or assistant principals routinely conduct annual teacher evaluations. The evaluation form contains two sections. Section 1 contains 14 categories that are marked based on one or more classroom observations. Section 2 contains 15 categories that are marked based on classroom observations and experience with the teacher. The back of the evaluation form explains the marks as follows: Mark Description Commendable (C) Indicates exceptional performance of the identified behavior(s). Satisfactory (S) Indicates satisfactory performance of the identified behavior(s) Needs Improvement (NI) Indicates a need for the employee to strengthen/improve performance of the identified behavior(s). Must Improve (MI) Indicates a need for the employee to remediate deficient behavior(s). If the deficiency is not corrected, the employee's contract status could be affected. The back of the evaluation form explains the "NEAT Procedure/Due Process": When an employee is evaluated as Must Improve, remediation procedures must be implemented as follows: Notice--The employee has the right to receive full written notification of the identified deficient behaviors. Explanation--The employee has the right to receive a full explanation for the reason behaviors are considered deficient. Assistance--The employee has the right to receive assistance in remediating the deficient behavior. Time--The employee has the right to a reasonable amount of time to achieve remediation. Various documents exist to normalize the evaluations of teachers. However, a degree of subjectivity necessarily remains in the evaluation process. Petitioner has prepared a booklet entitled, "Performance Appraisal System for Instructional Personnel" (Appraisal Booklet). The Appraisal Booklet introduced into evidence is dated October 5, 1992, but, judging from the cover letter from the superintendent, was in effect for the entire 1992-93 school year. The Appraisal Booklet contains, at page 12, a section describing the assessment process. The booklet states in part: When a competency or behavior is marked "NI-Needs Improvement," the appraiser shall provide counseling and/or resources whereby improvement may occur. For each competency or behavior which is marked "MI--Must Improve," a remediation procedure must be designed and implemented. The procedures will be described in a Professional Development Plan, as called for in the NEAT procedures. Each deficient item shall be addressed in a separate [Professional Development Plan]. The plan shall include the following: Area to be improved: specify the identified problem. Specific desired improvement: write as a measurable goal or objective. Action to be taken: describe action the involved parties will complete to achieve desired improvement. Assistance plan: List and describe who will provide assistance, showing role of each participant. Time line: specify dates for each activity to be completed and evaluated. Evaluation: describe how and when evaluation of progress or success will occur. Consequences: specify consequences if improvement is not achieved satisfactorily. The Appraisal Booklet contains, at page 15, a section entitled, "Use of Assessment Data for Personnel Decisions." This section requires written comments for every C, NI, or MI. Under a subsection entitled, "Unsatisfactory Ratings," the Appraisal Booklet states in its entirety: For every MI assigned, the assessor will conduct a follow-up of the Professional Development Plan to determine if the appraisee accomplished the required improvement and/or when that competency will be reassessed. Failure to improve within the expected time may be grounds for returning to annual contract for an employee holding a Professional Service Contract or a Continuing Contract. If the deficiency is not corrected during the second year, it may be grounds for non-renewal. (See NEAT) If the appraisee receives two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations, the superintendent shall notify the Department of Education as required by statute. On [the evaluation form] three or more ratings of MI . . . will constitute an "unsatisfactory annual evaluation" for purposes of reporting to the DOE. The Appraisal Booklet discusses C's. Nothing in this section of the booklet explicitly addresses NI's except, as noted above, that comments must accompany each NI. The contract between Petitioner and the teachers discusses evaluations, but not in such detail as to address the meaning of NI's and MI's. Concerning remediation, the contract states: Where deficiencies are brought to the teacher's attention by his/her supervisor, the teacher shall be responsible for taking the necessary steps for improving his/her skills to an acceptable level as determined by the principal. Assistance shall be offered the employee and such assistance for improvement shall be noted in writing and a signed copy be retained by the appropriate supervisor and the employee. Following remediation, reassessment shall be accorded the employee in compliance with the procedures of Article XI. If the final assessment report fails to note specific deficiency, it shall be interpreted to mean adequate improvement has taken place. The professional judgment of the evaluator shall not be subject to the grievance procedure. The contract acknowledges that it shall not be interpreted to abridge or in any way usurp the authority or power of [Petitioner] as established by constitutional provisions or state Board of Education regulations or statutes existing at the time of the [contract]. And further, [Petitioner] shall be relieved of compliance with any term or condition of this [contract] if such compliance is contrary to any constitutional provision or state Board of Education regulation or statute in effect or enacted subsequent to the signing of this [contract]. Petitioner has no clear written or unwritten policy regarding whether a performance deficiency evidenced by an MI is corrected by an NI, rather than a C or an S. The determination whether a teacher has corrected performance deficiencies depends on the circumstances. The Lake Placid Teacher Handbook for the 1992-93 school year, a copy of which was given to Respondent at the beginning of the year, notes that teachers are to administer their assertive discipline plan and enforce all school rules. Regarding student control, "teachers must not argue with students, use profanity or sarcasm, and must keep hands off students." Petitioner's Code of Student Conduct for the 1992-93 school year describes the teacher's role in the maintenance of discipline as starting with the preparation of a classroom assertive discipline plan, which outlines a series of increasing consequences for disciplinary problems. Under the first step, the teacher will follow his or her plan, which may contain consequences such as withholding a privilege, isolation, counseling, detention, extra work, task assignment, or a parent conference. Under the second step, if the misconduct is repeated, the teacher shall try to contact the parent and record the result. Under the third step, the teacher will refer the matter to the social worker, school nurse, Guidance Committee, or School Attendance Review Committee for positive intervention. Under the fourth step, if the problem persists or the misconduct becomes a major disruption, the teacher will complete a student disciplinary referral form and a school administrator will determine the appropriate punishment. Evaluations Prior to 1991-92 School Year Respondent's evaluation dated November 13, 1985, contains all S's with the exception of an NI for circulating and assisting students. The evaluation was prepared by Donn Goodwin, an assistant principal at Sebring High School where Respondent was then teaching. Respondent's evaluation dated March 5, 1986, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating friendly, positive attitude toward all students; maintaining academic focus; using effective questioning techniques; providing for practice; dependability; and punctuality/attendance. The evaluation contains one NI for parent/community relations. The comment accompanying the NI is obscured, but suggests that Respondent did not schedule enough parent conferences, although he did a good job with those that he conducted. The evaluation was prepared by James Bible, the principal of Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated September 4, 1986, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, presenting subject matter effectively, maintaining academic focus, arranging physical features of the classroom for a safe learning environment, dependability, work attitude, and commitment. A note at the bottom of the evaluation states that Respondent maintained an "excellent class." The evaluation was prepared by Michael Agner, an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated February 25, 1987, contains all S's except for C's in maintaining academic focus and maintaining effective classroom control and an NI in using specific academic praise. The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated April 6, 1988, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, having materials ready, maintaining academic focus, using effective questioning techniques, punctuality/attendance, quantity/quality of work, commitment, and professional behavior/ethics. The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated February 28, 1989, contains all S's. A comment under parent/community relations notes: "Need to continue working in this area. Parental support helps your teaching." A comment under student/staff relations adds: "Need to be mindful of backing students in corners with no alternatives." The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated October 17, 1989, was obscured in the copying process. It appears to contain all S's with some C's in Section 1. The evaluation was prepared by Thomas Knowles, an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated October 3, 1990, contains all S's. The evaluation was prepared by Ruth Hatfield, then an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated February 20, 1991, contains all S's except for C's in having materials ready and circulating and assisting students and NI's in punctuality/attendance, student/staff relations, personal appearance, and receptiveness. Among the comments under Section 1 is that the observer did not see Respondent's assertive discipline rules posted. Section 2 comments are that Respondent was often late and "very defensive--refuses criticism." Under student/staff relations, the comment is: "Alienates students. Backs up kids in corners. Need to be aware of this." Another comment suggests a need to dress more professionally. The final comment states: "Need to work on areas that deal with students and parents." The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. A letter dated May 13, 1991, memorializes a conference that took place on May 9, 1991, between Respondent and Rebecca Clark, another assistant principal at Sebring High School. The letter states that Ms. Clark had noticed Respondent leaving his class while two guest speakers were making a presentation. Upon questioning, Respondent said that he had to run a quick errand and would be right back. Ms. Clark remained in the classroom until the end of the period, at which time Respondent returned. The letter warns Respondent that he must remain with his class and may not leave campus without prior authorization from an administrator. Evaluations During 1991-92 School Year A new principal, Calvin Smith, replaced Mr. Bible at Sebring High School for the 1991-92 school year. Mr. Smith conducted Respondent's next evaluation, which was dated December 2, 1991. Based on an observation taking place during a 50- minute period on November 26, 1991, Respondent received all S's in Section 1 except for a C in presenting the subject matter effectively and an NI in using specific academic praise. In Section 2, Respondent received S's in only five categories: keeping accurate records, punctuality and attendance, initiative, student evaluation, and professional growth. Receiving no C's in Section 2, Respondent received three NI's in personal appearance, receptiveness, and commitment and seven MI's in dependability, work attitude, parent/community relations, student/staff relations, quantity/quality of work, planning, and professional behavior/ethics. The comments for the NI's are brief and in handwriting. Under receptiveness, the comment is: "seem[s] to be afraid of dealing with a problem. I am only trying to make you a better teacher." The comment under commitment states: "dedicate yourself to your job. You have too much talent to waste." Each MI is treated in a separate Professional Development Plan. The Professional Development Plans, which are attached to the December 2 evaluation, consist of several parts: "area to be improved," "desired improvement," "action to be taken," "who will provide assistance," "time line for achieving objectives/goal/improvement," "evaluation process to determine improvement," and "consequences if improvement is not satisfactorily achieved." Under parent/community relations, the desired improvement is: "When dealing with parents you must exhibit an air of professionalism but be understanding." The action to be taken is: "Schedule parent conferences as needed to resolve situations with students. Apologize for your actions if need be and start over with the situation." Under dependability, the desired improvement is: "Should show he is able to be counted on without constant badgering." The action to be taken is: "Submit lesson plans on time. Supply I[n] S[chool] S[uspension] students with work when requested. Meet with parents without being directed to do so. Learn to deal with students as an adult rather than getting into shouting matches, etc." Under student/staff relations, the desired improvement is: "Show you understand students by working with them in correcting deficiencies." The action to be taken is: "Don't get in students['] faces and yell at them. Don't allow things to go on and then establish a rule of the next one goes to the office. Learn to deal with student problems rather than expecting the office to handle the problem." Under work attitude, the desired improvement is: "Show that you like what you do. Turn students on to your subject. Work on faculty relations." The action to be taken is: "Be cooperative in dealing with parents, students, and faculty members. Present an atmosphere of enthusiasm that is contagious and infectious to those around you." Each Professional Development Plan states that assistance or training would be provided if requested by Respondent. For student/staff relations, the plan states: "Inservice will be provided by administrators as requested and a workshop may be recommended." Similar language is contained in the plan for work attitude. Under time line for achieving objectives/goal, improvement, each Professional Development Plan states: "Should show some immediate improvement but enough improvement must be shown prior to evaluation in 92/93 school year to remove the MI." Each Professional Development Plan describes the evaluation process to determine improvement as: "List kept of ineffective behaviors. [Respondent] will be given a copy of each item placed in folder." Each Professional Development Plan warns that, "if improvement is not satisfactorily achieved," there will be a "recommendation to place [Respondent] back on annual contract." By letter dated December 16, 1991, Mr. Smith refers to the evaluation and the evaluation conference that took place on December 5, 1991. The letter notes that one of the Professional Development Plans required Respondent to supply in-school suspension students with work when requested. The letter acknowledges that Respondent had said at the conference that he would take care of all of the MI's. The December 16 letter notes that Respondent had already failed to provide make-up work for five named students who had been sent to in-school suspension. Students punished by in-school suspension are prohibited from attending their classes, but are sent to another part of the school. It is important for their teachers to provide their assignments, so the students can study the same materials that the teacher is presenting to their classes. The December 16 letter concludes: "Repeated cases of this problem will lead to my recommendation to the superintendent that you be suspended without pay for five (5) days for gross insubordination." Respondent received a second evaluation from Mr. Smith during the 1991-92 school year. Dated March 3, 1992, the second evaluation is slightly worse than the first. Section 1 contains the same C for the presentation of the subject matter and NI for using specific academic praise. A new NI appears in Section 1 for demonstrating friendly attitude toward all students, and a new MI appears for maintaining effective classroom control. The new MI rating appears to be based in part on Respondent's allowing several students to have food and drink in the classroom after telling one student to dispose of his food or drink. In Section 2, Respondent received five S's, as he did in the first evaluation, as planning went from MI to S and punctuality/attendance went from S to NI. Work attitude improved from MI to NI, but personal appearance and receptiveness went from NI to MI. A written comment states that dependability improved some, but not enough to remove the MI. The MI's on the March 3 evaluation are again the subject of attached Professional Development Plans. Under dependability, the desired improvement is: "Show you are able to be counted on without constant badgering." The action to be taken is: "Learn to deal with students without being sarcastic or getting into shouting matches. Student and parent complaints are numerous." Under parent/community relations, the desired improvement is: "Exhibit an air of professionalism in meetings with parents." The action to be taken is: "Schedule parent conferences as needed to resolve situations with students. Apologize for your actions if need be and start over. Show parents you care about their child." Under student/staff relations, the desired improvement is: "Work with students in correcting deficiencies." The action to be taken is: "Learn to deal with student problems. Be more friendly. Be consistent in your discipline but be fair." Under receptiveness, the desired improvement is: "Be able to listen to constructive criticism and follow suggestions made by administration." the action to be taken is: "Follow rules and regulations established for personnel and students at Sebring High School rather than defying directions given by an administrator." Each of the Professional Development Plans states that the administration will provide assistance or training if requested to do so by Respondent. The time line for achieving objectives/goal/improvement is now "immediate" for the cited areas. There is no longer any mention of the removal of MI's, except that the Professional Development Plan for student/staff relations requires: "Immediate improvement--MI must be removed prior to October 92 visitation." The consequence of Respondent's failure to remove the MI's remains returning him to annual contract. The March 3 evaluation is followed by a letter dated March 9, 1992, from Mr. Smith to the superintendent. Mr. Smith writes that Respondent has not improved since the December 2 evaluation and recommends that Respondent be placed on annual contract for the following school year. The Grievance Process On March 13, 1992, Respondent filed a grievance seeking a list of specific remedies for each MI in the March 3 evaluation, adherence to the NEAT procedure, a reconfirmation of the deadline stated in the December 2 evaluation of 1992-93 "for remediation," withdrawal of the recommendation that Respondent be returned to annual contract, and transfer of Respondent to another position where he could be evaluated by someone not part of the current Sebring High School administration. Mr. Smith responded to the grievance with two documents, both dated April 7, 1992. In a three-page memorandum, Mr. Smith recounted the December 2 evaluation, noting that Respondent's "statement to all of this (as he signed the assessment and the PDP's) was, 'You mean all I have to do is correct these and I will get satisfactories?'" The April 7 memorandum notes that the March 3 evaluation was worse than the December 2 evaluation. Despite the fact that, with one exception, the March 3 evaluation did not equate correction with the removal of MI's, the April 7 memorandum states: "[Respondent] still has until the 1992-93 assessment to remove the MI's from his assessment. However, if he does not, he will be notified of non-renewal of a contract for 1993-94." Attached to the April 7 memorandum are "Specific Remedies for Must Improve." These remedies track the areas receiving MI's in the evaluations and discussion in the Professional Development Plans. Under maintaining effective classroom control, the April 7 attachment informs Respondent that he is to ensure that his students follow the rules. Under dependability, the April 7 attachment gives 12 examples of assignments that Respondent must perform. These include timely providing grades for meetings of the School Attendance Review Committee, remaining current with printed attendance sheets, submitting in-school suspension assignments when requested, arriving and leaving on time, not leaving the classroom unattended, and not allowing the students to break the rules. Under parent/community relations, the April 7 attachment states that Respondent should meet with parents at his initiative rather than waiting until irate parents demand a conference after hearing their child's complaints. Also, the attachment advises Respondent to be "gentle" with parents and not be negative. The attachment suggests that Respondent return parents' telephone calls. Under student/staff relations, the April 7 attachment warns Respondent not to back students into a corner. The attachment notes that many reports indicate that Respondent uses sarcasm with students and then disciplines them when they reciprocate with sarcasm. The attachment recommends, "Work on your personality to be more accepting and understanding of students." Under quantity/quality of work, the April 7 attachment suggests that Respondent spend more time on grammar rather than literature alone. The attachment suggests that Respondent should become involved with students' activities so that they know that he cares about them, as well as about what they learn. Under receptiveness, the April 7 attachment notes a lack of desire by Respondent to change his attitude about the providing in-school suspension assignments. Under professional behavior/ethics, the April 7 attachment recommends that Respondent not retaliate against students. It is unclear exactly what Mr. Smith means by "retaliate"; it may mean confront the students in class or respond to the students' sarcasm with sarcasm. By letter dated May 13, 1992, Deputy Superintendent John Martin decided the grievance by determining that Petitioner would grant Respondent a subsequent year of employment, under a subsequent year or annual contract, to correct the indicated deficiencies, and, if Respondent "corrects the indicated deficiencies," he would be given a new professional service contract. The May 13 letter also states that Respondent would be transferred, as he had requested. Respondent chose not to pursue additional grievance procedures available to him, so the grievance was resolved at this point. On May 15, 1992, Petitioner informed Respondent that he had been appointed for a "subsequent year of employment . . . on annual contract pursuant to Florida Statute 231.26(3)(e)." On June 23, 1992, Petitioner and Respondent executed a contract for a "'subsequent year of employment,' as that term is used in 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes . . .," for the 1992-93 school year. The 1991-92 School Year During the 1991-92 school year at Sebring High School, Respondent experienced problems in his relationship with the students and parents and in his inability to fulfill certain important responsibilities imposed on each teacher. With students, Respondent was often sarcastic. When the students returned in like kind, Respondent took offense and disciplined them, often with a disciplinary referral to the office. Mr. Smith witnessed a half dozen confrontations between Respondent and students in the main office where Respondent made derogatory remarks to the students. With parents, Respondent often failed to behave professionally in parent/teacher conferences. He walked out on one conference involving a parent who was also a teacher at Sebring High School. He often responded negatively to parents and sometimes failed to follow through on conferences or even return parents' telephone calls. Respondent was often late in fulfilling his duties. He was frequently late in getting his grades or attendance sheets to the Student Attendance Review Committee, which consisted of a guidance counsellor, an administrator, student's teachers, and student's parents who met periodically to discuss a student's attendance problems. Respondent consistently failed to submit assignments for students who had been assigned to in-school suspension. Each of the deficiencies described in the preceding paragraph interfered materially with Respondent's performance as a teacher. With respect to each of these deficiencies, Respondent was materially worse than his fellow teachers at Sebring High School. The resulting evaluations were the worst ever given by Mr. Smith, who describes himself as a hard evaluator. Evaluations During the 1992-93 School Year As Respondent demanded in the grievance, Petitioner transferred Respondent to Lake Placid High School for the 1992- 93 school year. He was assigned to teach English to all of the ninth grade students except those in honors and dropout prevention. On November 3, 1992, Respondent received his first evaluation at Lake Placid High School. He received all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, and student evaluations and NI's in maintaining academic focus and maintaining effective classroom control. The evaluation was prepared by David Robinson, who was an assistant principal. On February 25, 1993, Respondent received a second evaluation for the 1992-93 school year. This evaluation, which was prepared by the principal, Roger Goddard, was worse than the first. There were no C's, and there were NI's in demonstrating friendly attitude toward all students, maintaining academic focus, parent/community relations, student/staff relations, receptiveness, and professional behavior/ethics. Under the comments in Section 1 of the February 25 evaluation, a note reads: "Needs skills in [knowing] when to use in-class discipline or office referral." The handwritten comments under Section 2 note that Respondent "had difficulty dealing with parents in conferences an/or returning phone calls" and "lack[s] rapport with students, staff, and administration." The handwritten comments state that Respondent is "many times defensive during conferences with administrators" and "needs a better procedure with make-up work utilizing school policy." By letter dated March 19, 1993, Dr. Goddard informed Respondent that he would be unable to reappoint Respondent for employment at Lake Placid High School for the following school year. Respondent asked Dr. Goddard to perform another evaluation, and Dr. Goddard did so on April 23, 1993. There were fewer NI's than in the February 25 evaluation, but the evaluation was not much better. Under Section 1, Respondent received all S's except for an NI in demonstrating a friendly attitude toward all students. An anecdotal comment adds: "There have been over 70 referrals for discipline during the year. This is as many as 20 other teachers combined." Under Section 2, Respondent received all S's except for three NI's in parent/community relations, student/staff relations, and receptiveness. Accompanying handwritten notes state that Respondent "still shows difficulty in dealing with parent conferences," "still lacks understanding of role of assistant principal [and] staff," and "many times still defensive regarding suggestions from administration." By letter dated April 26, 1993, Dr. Goddard advised Respondent that he could not change his original recommendation given on March 19. The letter states that the recommendation is based on the need for a change in the ability to handle discipline effectively within the classroom, handle parent conferences without conflict, and be receptive to administrative suggestions without a defensive attitude. By letter dated April 30, 1993, to Dr. Goddard, Respondent states, in part: . . . Some administrators are possessed by a sort of spectral indifference, and look at their fellow beings as ghosts. For them, teachers and other staff members are often merely vague shadowy forms, hardly distinct from the nebulous background of such a life, and easily blended with the invisible. But you, Dr. Goddard, are an honorable man and I believe, from our conversations, that you really care about the parents, staff, and students of our school. . . . Respondent's letter to Dr. Goddard discusses the preceding evaluation and asks for an opportunity to continue teaching. By letter dated May 25, 1993, Superintendent Richard Farmer states that Dr. Goddard had informed Mr. Farmer that Respondent had not successfully removed all deficiencies from his evaluation. The letter advises Respondent that his annual contract was expiring, Dr. Goddard had decided not to issue Respondent another annual contract, and, according to Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes, Petitioner would not issue him a new professional service contract. By notice to the Florida Department of Education dated June 2, 1993, Dr. Goddard advised that, after two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations, Respondent's employment with Petitioner was being terminated or not renewed. The 1992-93 School Year Despite the absence of MI's on the 1992-93 evaluations, the problems Respondent had experienced with students, parents, and administrators in 1991-92 worsened in 1992-93. With respect to relations with students, the basic problem is that Respondent reverted to sarcasm at Lake Placid High School, and his students reciprocated, just as his students at Sebring High School had done the prior year. Sarcasm bred sarcasm, which bred disciplinary referrals--125 of them in fact. Respondent outdistanced his nearest competitor in disciplinary referrals by 2.5 times. On two separate days, Respondent submitted more than 10 disciplinary referrals--more than most teachers submitted all year. As Dr. Goddard's comment notes, Respondent issued more disciplinary referrals than a score of his colleagues. The huge number of disciplinary referrals did not mean that Respondent was maintaining firm control of his classes. To the contrary, he was not able to maintain firm control of his classes, partly due to the atmosphere of mutual disrespect that his sarcasm engendered. The number of disciplinary referrals indicated that Respondent had lost control of the situation and tried to shift to the administrators the job of regaining control of his classroom. A major part of the problem, in addition to Respondent's sarcasm, was his inability to adhere to his own assertive discipline plan. Respondent's assertive discipline plan, which was duly posted in his classroom, contains the following consequences in increasing order of severity: warning, contact parents, detention, and office referral. Sometime during the school year, Respondent switched the second and third consequences, so that he would place a student on detention before he would contact the parents. This change was duly posted in the classroom. Respondent's assertive discipline plan is satisfactory, but he never adhered to it. Sometimes he gave detentions, but then failed to appear at the location where the students were to serve the detentions. Sometimes Respondent simply placed the offending students in the hall where they remained, unsupervised, in violation of school rules. Sometimes Respondent gave warnings, and often he gave disciplinary referrals. But he displayed an aversion to parent/teacher conferences by almost invariably omitting the step that required him to contact a parent. Nearly all disciplinary referrals were made prior to this step taking place, and many were made prior to giving the student a detention. Respondent clung doggedly to his sarcasm despite all efforts to free him from this habitual behavior. Dr. Goddard intervened at one point during a parent/teacher conference and prevailed upon Respondent to stop using sarcasm against the student who was the subject of the conference. Respondent's response was to post a sign in his room indicating a "moratorium" in the use of sarcasm--intentionally implying that the cessation in sarcasm would be temporary. At times, Respondent lashed out at students with hurtful remarks lacking even the thin veneer of humor. He told one student that he would be a serial killer. He told another student that he would never be rich and successful. He repeatedly referred publicly to one student as a witch and asked if she had taken her Midol. In front of another student's mother, as well as other teachers and Mr. Robinson during a parent/teacher conference, Respondent referred to a girl as "bitchy." Respondent refused to accommodate valid student needs, such as the unusual demands placed on one child by a disabled brother. The regressive effect on students of Respondent's embittered and embittering classroom presence was unwittingly reflected in another student's class journal. His early entries demonstrated an emotional vulnerability as he depicted his simple, rural lifestyle; his later entries were defiantly copied out of textbooks, magazines, or encyclopedias. As a result of Respondent's poor relations with students, more than one student quit Respondent's class, even if it meant taking English in summer school or another school or dropping out of high school altogether. One parent checked her son out of school just long enough that he would not have to attend Respondent's class. By the end of the 1992-93 school year, morale among Respondent's students and their parents was a very serious problem. Respondent's relationship with parents was, if possible, even worse than his relationship with students, although his contact with parents was less frequent. During one meeting with a father in the main office, the parent and Respondent had a heated exchange. Mr. Robinson intervened and diplomatically tried to end the conference. After the parent had started to walk away, Respondent restarted the argument and approached the parent until their noses were touching. Mr. Robinson again broke up what had transformed from a conference into a confrontation, and again Respondent reinitiated the engagement. Again, Mr. Robinson had to break up the argument. Mr. Robinson attended another parent/teacher conference in which the mother, according to Respondent, looked at him with "eyes . . . like daggers." (Tr 541) The mother observed that her daughter had no problems in any other classes but Respondent's class. The parent charged that Respondent's class was out of control. Respondent saw that Mr. Robinson was not "going to fulfil his role as mediator," so Respondent got up, announced that "I'm not going to take this damn stuff anymore," and walked out of the conference. (Tr 542) At first glance, Respondent's relationship with the administrators seems better than his relationships with the students and parents, but this is due to the professionalism of Dr. Goddard, inexperience of Mr. Robertson, and uninvolvement of Ms. Hatfield. For different reasons, each administrator at the school responded differently to Respondent's increasingly bizarre behavior and in no case did any administrator at the school ever lose his or her composure in dealing with Respondent. Respondent believes that he has been unfairly treated by every administrator at Lake Placid High School, and at least two at Sebring High School. Interestingly, Ms. Hatfield had given Respondent his last evaluation-- in October, 1990--without an NI or MI. However, without any evident provocation, Respondent demanded that the other assistant principal, Mr. Robinson, handle Respondent's evaluations and disciplinary referrals. Respondent was apprehensive that Ms. Hatfield might be biased due to her past service at Sebring High School. In November, 1992, Ms. Hatfield had a conference with Respondent and cautioned him that she was receiving a number of student complaints about his use of sarcasm. Respondent's reaction was to request that he be evaluated by Mr. Robinson, who was in his first year of service as an assistant principal. In retrospect, Respondent's demand proved unwise. As evidenced by his treatment of another teacher, Mr. Robinson displayed a heightened sensitivity toward humor directed at students, even if the humor did not seem sarcastic at all. Thus, Mr. Robinson's concern about Respondent's sarcasm was not due to bias against Respondent, but was due to Mr. Robinson's concern that students be treated with dignity and respect. But, as noted above, even without Mr. Robinson's heightened concern about humor, Respondent's sarcasm exceeded the wildest imaginable limits. Dr. Goddard intervened after the first evaluation. Respondent's concern about bias defies reason and logic when applied to Dr. Goddard, who counselled Respondent and gave him an opportunity to discover for himself the shortcomings of his defensive style of dealing with students, parents, and administrators. To imply that Dr. Goddard's evaluations were orchestrated by individuals at Sebring High School or the district office is to ignore reality. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the very lack of coordination presents legal problems that could have easily been avoided with the smallest amount of coordination. Respondent had trouble with nearly every administrator. And Respondent consistently found himself the blameless target of unwarranted persecution. His paranoia interfered with his ability to do his job. This fact is best illustrated by the time that Dr. Goddard instructed the teachers to clean up their rooms in preparation for a visit that night by the school board. Respondent wrote the following on his chalkboard to be read by the school board members: "The fact that you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to get you." In addition to problems with students, parents, and administrators, Respondent continued to display an inability to fulfill his important responsibilities. He failed to appear at ninth grade orientation at the beginning of the school year, despite the fact that he was a new teacher at the school and taught most of the ninth graders. Respondent routinely failed to supply grades to students for whom guidance counsellors were trying to prepare weekly progress reports in order to monitor the students' progress more closely than is possible with report cards. Respondent was routinely resistant to assigning make- up work. Students would have to pursue him for days to get assignments, until finally Respondent decided to write these up on the chalkboard. On more than one occasion, Respondent's solution--when pushed by parents or administrators--was to avoid the extra work imposed upon him by grading additional materials; rather than assign make-up work or tests, Respondent would simply not penalize the student for the missed assignment, such as by doubling the weight of the next grade. There is no evidence that the administration at Lake Placid High School learned of Respondent's 1991-92 evaluations at Sebring High School until Respondent mentioned them when he received his first evaluation at Lake Placid High School. There is no evidence that the actions taken by the administration at Lake Placid High School were influenced by anything except the Respondent's performance during the 1992-93 school year. Respondent was warned about his problems in evaluations going as far back as the 1980's when Respondent was evaluated by Mr. Bible. The March, 1986 evaluation identifies Respondent's reluctance to deal with parents. The February, 1989 evaluation suggests that Respondent lacked the support of parents and was placing students on the defensive. In the February, 1991 evaluation, Mr. Bible warned Respondent that he needed to improve in several areas, including student/staff relations and receptiveness to criticism from administrators. Again, Mr. Bible pointed out that Respondent was alienating students. Respondent's problems, which culminated in the exceptionally bad evaluations during the 1991-92 school year, largely represented a continuation of problems that had been identified in one manner or another for the preceding five years. But instead of correcting the problems, Respondent had allowed them to get worse. These problems were described in greater detail in the 1991-92 and 1992-93 evaluations due to the deterioration of Respondent's behavior. Petitioner provided Respondent with reasonable assistance in remediating his performance deficiencies. Dr. Goddard made numerous additional visits to Respondent's classroom, and he and other administrators routinely talked to Respondent. After the first evaluation in November, 1992, Mr. Robinson twice recommended to Respondent that he rely on his assertive discipline plan because he was referring too many students to the office. After discovering how poorly Respondent handled parent conferences, administrators ensured that appropriate persons participated in Respondent's conferences to model suitable behavior. In early February, 1993, Mr. Robinson gave Respondent a set of assertive discipline tapes to view to assist in imposing proper discipline in his class. This intervention preceded the February 25 evaluation by almost three weeks. About one week prior to the February 25 evaluation, Mr. Robinson suggested that Respondent attend a workshop on parent/teacher conferences. Respondent attended the workshop. Evidently arranged prior to the February 25 evaluation, Respondent went to a high school in another district to observe a ninth-grade English teacher. The practical effect of this assistance is attenuated by the fact that the February 25 evaluation preceded the visit, although the visit preceded the March 19 non-appointment letter, April 23 follow-up evaluation, and April 26 follow-up letter. The extent of the assistance effectively offered Respondent must be evaluated in the context of Respondent's problems. He was not an ineffective teacher due to an inadequate grasp of the course material or inability to present material imaginatively. To the contrary, Respondent is a highly intelligent, literate individual who is intellectual capable of being an outstanding teacher. If his problems were in his understanding of the material or an inability to find the methods to convey the material to his students, a program of assistance and inservice workshops probably could be designed to provide meaningful help. Instead, Respondent needed to stop disparaging students. He needed to stop confronting parents. He needed to stop ignoring administrators who were trying to stop Respondent from disparaging students and confronting parents. But Respondent simply refused to change his ways, and no amount of videotapes, inservice workshops, school visits, evaluation follow-ups, and informal discussions were going to help. Respondent was given a second chance when he was transferred to Lake Placid High School. But instead of addressing the source of the problem-- himself--he attacked students, parents, and administrators. He avoided performing rigorously all of his teaching duties, such as enforcing his assertive disciplinary plan and its graduated response to misbehavior, promptly providing make-up work, and sending interim grades when needed. Instead, he inexplicably continued to bicker with the students, provoke the parents, and defy the legitimate demands of the administrators.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Highlands County enter a final order not issuing Respondent a new professional service contract. ENTERED on January 13, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on January 13, 1993. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-6: adopted or adopted in substance. 7-8: rejected as irrelevant. 9-18: adopted or adopted in substance. 19: rejected as irrelevant. 20-35: adopted or adopted in substance. 36: rejected as irrelevant. 37-39: adopted or adopted in substance. 40: rejected as irrelevant. Nothing requires that Petitioner make "every effort" to help Respondent through the means cited. 41: adopted or adopted in substance. 42: rejected as subordinate. 43-44: adopted or adopted in substance. 45: rejected as irrelevant. 46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47-48 (first three sentences): rejected as irrelevant. 48 (last sentence)-53: adopted or adopted in substance. 54-56: rejected as irrelevant. 57-59: adopted or adopted in substance. 60-61: rejected as irrelevant. 62: adopted or adopted in substance. 63: rejected as irrelevant. 64-65: adopted or adopted in substance. 66: rejected as subordinate. 67-69: adopted or adopted in substance. 70: rejected as subordinate. 71-74: adopted or adopted in substance. 75-76: rejected as subordinate. 77-78: adopted or adopted in substance. 79: rejected as hearsay. 80-85: adopted or adopted in substance. 86: rejected as irrelevant. 87-92: adopted or adopted in substance. 93: rejected as subordinate. 94: rejected as irrelevant. 95-100: adopted or adopted in substance. 101: rejected as irrelevant. In fact, to permit either student to leave the classroom would violate Paragraph 11 of the Classroom Management section of the Teacher Handbook. 102: rejected as irrelevant. Mr. Smith wore sunglasses indoors during part of the hearing. 103-04: rejected as irrelevant. 105: rejected as subordinate. 106-17 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 117 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 118: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 119: rejected as hearsay. 120-34: adopted or adopted in substance. 135-37: rejected as irrelevant. 138: adopted or adopted in substance. 139: rejected as irrelevant. 140: adopted or adopted in substance. 141: rejected as irrelevant. 142-43: adopted or adopted in substance. 144: rejected as subordinate. 145-46: adopted or adopted in substance. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8-10: rejected as irrelevant. 11-14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15-17 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 18-19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21-22: rejected as subordinate. 23-24: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 25-26: rejected as subordinate. 27-28 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 28 (second sentence)-29: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 30: adopted or adopted in substance. 31: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32: rejected as subordinate. 33: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 34: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. This provision governs only when Petitioner must refer matters to the Department of Education. 35: rejected as subordinate. 36: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 37-39: adopted or adopted in substance except as to meaningful follow-up conferences. 40-41: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 42: rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Superintendent Richard Farmer Highlands County School District 426 School St. Sebring, FL 33870-4048 Commissioner Doug Jamerson Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 James F. McCollum James F. McCollum, P.A. 129 S. Commerce Ave. Sebring, FL 33870-3698 Anthony D. Demma Meyer and Brooks, P.A. P.O. Box 1547 Tallahassee, FL 32302
Findings Of Fact Mr. Johnny Collins is the Superintendent of the Holmes County School District and has been at all times pertinent hereto. In April of 1981 Superintendent Collins first nominated the Petitioner, Myron Hudson, to be placed in the principalship at Ponce de Leon High School. The School Board rejected the nomination on July 20, 1981. One of the reasons for rejection of the initial nomination for the 1981-82 school year was the Petitioner's lack of a Rank II certificate, as well as an obligation felt by the Board to give the position to another person. The Petitioner took no legal action then, but the Superintendent, Mr. Collins, requested a hearing regarding rejection of his recommendation by the School Board, the School Board denied the request and the cause went to the First District Court of Appeal. The Board's denial of the Superintendent's request for hearing was affirmed per curiam in Collins v. The Holmes County District School Board, Case No. AH-169 (July 1, 1982). A temporary restraining order was issued by the Circuit Court in and for Holmes County restraining Superintendent Collins from interfering with Mr. Gerald Commander's exercise of his duties as Principal of Ponce de Leon High School, Mr. Commander being the School Board's choice for the position after it rejected the initial 1981 recommendation of Mr. Hudson for the job. Along with the rejection of Mr. Hudson's initial recommendation for the principalship for the 1981-82 school year, two other School Board employees, Ms. Saunders and Ms. Carroll, were also rejected. Those matters ultimately came before the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal hearing and those petitioners obtained a favorable recommendation by the Hearing Officers presiding. The School Board adopted the Hearing Officers' recommendations that those two persons be hired in the positions for which Superintendent Collins had recommended them, this in spite of the presence of the restraining order related to all three cases. In any event, the Petitioner, Mr. Hudson, during the interim after his initial rejection, obtained a master's degree and a Rank III teaching certificate, which he possessed before the second recommendation which is the sole subject of thee instant proceeding. In April 1982 Superintendent Collins again recommended Mr. Hudson for the position of principalship of Ponce de Leon High School. By letter the Board rejected the recommendation on April 21, 1982, advising the Petitioner as the reason for that action that: "A. The Superintendent is under restraining order which prohibits him from interfering with Gerald Commander as Principal of Ponce de Leon High School. There is still pending litigation concerning the Superintendent's nomination of you and the Board's rejection of same for the 1981-82 school term. The board has a continuing contract with Gerald Commander as a principal, and as such the board is obligated to place Mr. Commander in a principal's position within the Holmes County School System." The Board, then acting upon its own motion, ordered the subject position filled by Mr. Gerald Commander, the former School Superintendent whom Mr. Collins had defeated in the election. The Petitioner, Myron Hudson, then requested a formal administrative hearing contending that the Board did not have "good cause" to reject Superintendent Collins' nomination. No question was raised concerning Mr. Hudson's qualifications to hold the position for which he was recommended. He is a ten-year classroom veteran who has held a continuing contract of employment as a teacher in the Holmes County School District since 1976. At 30 years of age, he is well above the minimum age required to hold a principalship and his academic qualifications meet or exceed the statutory requirements for a principal's position. Mr. Hudson earned an AA degree from the Chipola Junior College in 1970, a BSA degree from the University of Florida in 1973, and an MA degree from Troy State University in December of 1981. After obtaining his master's degree, the Petitioner applied for and was granted a Rank III teaching certificate by the Florida Board of Education. All these qualifications were earned prior to the principalship recommendation for the 1982-83 school year which has become the subject of this proceeding. There is no dispute that the Petitioner meets the statutory qualifications for the position. There has been no evidence to indicate that he is possessed of other than a favorable moral character, and he enjoys an excellent reputation as a teacher. No reasons other than those quoted above were given in the official communication by the School Board to the Petitioner as reasons for the rejection of his nomination, nor were any other reasons relied upon by the Board at the hearing. Recommendations for employment with the Holmes County District School Board are recommended to be filled, and are filled, on a year-to-year basis. The recommendations are made by the Superintendent in April of each year for the positions which must be filled in the fall of the school year. Unrefuted testimony by witnesses for the Petitioner and Respondent establishes that the restraining order, as well as the "litigation" referred to in the written reasons for the Petitioner's rejection, was related to the issue raised by Superintendent Collins' first nomination of Petitioner Hudson, which occurred in April 1981. The restraining order and court proceedings do not relate to the subject matter of the current dispute which is the sole subject of this proceeding, that is, the April 1982 recommendation of Petitioner Hudson for the principalship for the 1982-83 school year. There is no dispute that other cases involving Petitioners Saunders and Carroll (DOAH Cause Nos. 81-2013 and 81-2190) also were in4olved in and subject to the same restraining order entered by the Circuit Judge. Both of those cases have gone to recommended order by the Hearing Officers presiding, both petitioners received favorable recommendations, and the School Board adopted the recommended orders and hired the two petitioners without apparent concern for the restraining order. Both Petitioners Saunders and Carroll in those cases were named parties to the restraining order which the Board relied upon in part as "cause" in this proceeding. Mr. Gerald Commander was hired by the School Board for the principalship of Ponce de Leon High School. Mr. Commander holds a continuing contract dating back to 1962, which is specifically a continuing contract as a principal. Mr. Commander did not, however, work continuously as a principal under that contract. When he was defeated by Mr. Collins in the 1980 election for the position of School Superintendent, he drafted a memorandum after the election and while he was still filling his unexpired term, recommending himself for an administrative position in the County School Board office. The Board accepted his recommendation and hired Mr. Commander in an administrative position in the county office starting in January 1981 until the end of that school year. During that period of time, several principalships came open, but Mr. Commander did not express an interest in any of them. He did not seek a principalship position until July of 1981 when he sought the position at Ponce de Leon High School for which Petitioner Hudson had been recommended in April 1981. In July 1981 the Board rejected the recommendation for Petitioner Hudson. Although it has been the Board's position in this proceeding that if the recommendation of Superintendent Collins had been accepted, that there would be no position in which to place Mr. Commander, it has been established by the evidence that, indeed, the Board had a vacant principalship in the School District after the Petitioner was rejected for the principalship, which it filled, although it did not place Mr. Commander in that position.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Holmes County accept the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools of that county to place Myron Hudson in the position of Principal of Ponce de Leon High School. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 1982, at Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 13th day of August, 1982.
The Issue Whether the employment screening standards in Chapter 435, Florida Statutes, can, without more, serve as the basis for the Petitioner's terminating the Respondent's employment as a teacher. If so, whether Respondent's actions were sufficient to warrant termination of his employment.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties and on the contents of Exhibits 1 through 4 attached to the Agreed Motion to Request Submission of Briefs in Lieu of Hearing, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to these proceedings, Mr. Ano was employed by the School Board as a teacher, a position that he has held for approximately 21 years. The facts and events stated in the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office Offense Report prepared April 5, 2002,3 led to the arrest of Raymond Ano and his wife, Toby Ano, late on the evening of March 28, 2002, and the early morning hours of March 29, 2002. An Amended Information was filed on September 18, 2002, with the Criminal Division of the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, charging Raymond T. Ano with battery on a police officer, resisting an officer with violence, and defrauding an innkeeper. On October 31, 2002, Mr. Ano pled guilty to the offenses of battery (lesser), resisting an officer with violence, and defrauding an innkeeper. In an Order entered November 5, 2002, the court withheld adjudication of guilt and sentenced Mr. Ano to probation for 18 months for defrauding an innkeeper and for resisting an officer with violence and for 12 months for battery, with the sentences to run concurrently. Mr. Ano did not report his arrest and guilty plea to the School Board; however, this violation of School Board policy is not, of itself, sufficient to justify termination of his employment.4 On July 16, 2004, the School Board voted to suspend Mr. Ano without pay and to terminate his employment, based on Mr. Ano's plea of guilty to the charge of resisting an officer with violence. The School Board followed its procedural rules in investigating this matter and in voting to terminate Mr. Ano's employment. An Amended Petition for Suspension without Pay and Dismissal from Employment was issued July 30, 2003, in which the School Board alleged that there was just cause for Mr. Ano's suspension and termination based on his failure to report his arrest and his plea of guilty to an offense enumerated under Chapter 435, Florida Statutes, specifically, resisting arrest with violence, in violation of Section 843.01, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation 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: Finding that Mr. Ano's plea of guilty to a violation of Section 843.01(2)(gg), Florida Statutes, does not provide a legally-sufficient basis for terminating Mr. Ano's employment with the School Board of Broward County, Florida; Reinstating Mr. Ano's employment with the School Board of Broward County, Florida; and Paying Mr. Ano his back salary from the date of his suspension without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 June, 2004.
