The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, William Doran, committed the acts alleged in the Statement of Charges and Petition for Ten-Day Suspension Without Pay, and, if so, the discipline to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty of operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within St. Lucie County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b), Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as a teacher at SMS, a public school in St. Lucie County, Florida, pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent has been employed by the School Board for approximately eight years. Respondent most recently provided individualized instruction and assistance to students with individualized education plans. At all times material to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board’s policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the St. Lucie Classroom Teachers’ Association. Lydia Martin, principal of SMS, was authorized to issue directives to her employees, including Respondent. The 2010-2011 School Year On November 8, 2010, Respondent was counseled by Principal Martin for discourteous and disparaging remarks to students causing them to feel unnecessary embarrassment. Students and parents reported that Respondent made comments in the classroom including “the Bible is crap and we should not believe it,” told students they could not work in groups because they “would just bullshit,” called a student “stupid,” and referred to a group of African-American students as the “black coffee group.” Parents also expressed concern that Respondent discussed prostitution and told students that, in some countries the younger the girls are, the better it is considered because they have not lost their virginity. Respondent denied saying that the Bible is “crap” but admitted telling students that he did not believe in it. Respondent denied calling a student stupid but admitted that he told a student certain choices may be what a “not so smart” person would do. Respondent admitted to referring to a group of black students as a “coffee klatch,” but denied any reference to race or ethnicity. Respondent admitted discussing prostitution in the context of human rights and his personal observations of sex trafficking while serving in the military in East Germany. Principal Martin provided Respondent with a written Summary of Conference that stated, “In the future, do not make comments to students that may cause them embarrassment or that are unprofessional. My expectation is that you will treat students with respect and follow the district guidelines under 6.302 Employee Standards of Conduct and Code of Ethics for Educators.” On May 2, 2011, Principal Martin gave Respondent a Letter of Concern for making comments to a student that caused embarrassment to the student when Respondent stated that, “somebody cried about not getting their stupid PTO FCAT Goodie bag” and that “they were filled with cheap candy.” The daughter of the PTO president was in the class. The 2011-2012 School Year During the fall of 2011, Respondent was accused of inappropriately touching students.1/ As a result, on December 5, 2011, Respondent was removed from the classroom at SMS and placed on Temporary Duty Assignment at the School Board district office pending an investigation into the allegations. In a letter from Maurice Bonner, director of personnel, dated December 14, 2011, Respondent was directed not to engage witnesses, their parents, or potential witnesses during the open investigation. While he was working at the district office, two co- workers of Respondent overheard Respondent contact the parents of one of the student witnesses involved in the investigation by telephone to discuss the investigation. Also, during the investigation, it was discovered that Respondent had taken pictures of students when they were misbehaving in his class as a means of disciplining those students. On February 13, 2012, Principal Martin provided Respondent a Letter of Reprimand for the violation of the administrative directive (not to contact witnesses and parents during a pending investigation) and inappropriately disciplining students. This Letter of Reprimand reminded Respondent of his previous counseling and Letter of Concern and notified Respondent that his failure to follow the prior directives or violation of any other School Board policy would result in more severe disciplinary action being taken against him. In May 2012, Respondent received a three-day suspension without pay for embarrassing students. Respondent is alleged to have announced a student’s name in class and stated that he (Respondent) was “just wasting red ink” by grading the student’s paper. Respondent does not deny the statement, but claims he muttered it under his breath, and it was overheard by several students. Respondent embarrassed another student by sharing personal information about her family with the class. A student’s mother had privately discussed with Respondent the fact that her daughter might act out in class due to the distress she was experiencing as a result of her parents’ divorce. During a classroom discussion about families, this student made a comment that she had a “normal” family. Respondent said to the student, in front of the class, “If you’re so normal, where is your father?” Respondent admits this was inappropriate behavior on his part. The 2012-2013 School Year On May 3, 2013, Respondent was in the classroom of another teacher for the purpose of providing additional teaching assistance for several students. On this date, the usual classroom teacher was absent, and a substitute teacher was present. While walking around the classroom, Respondent observed two students, M.M. and A.L., engaged in a game of “slaps,” in which both students tried to hit each other’s hands. Respondent directed M.M. to stop and asked why he was doing the game during class time. M.M. responded that he was trying to cheer up A.L., it felt good, and they liked playing the game. At this time, Respondent was approximately eight to ten feet away from M.M. who was sitting at a desk. Respondent told M.M. that he didn’t care if it felt good for M.M. to “jump off a bridge,” it was not to go on in the classroom and to get back to work. M.M. asked Respondent what he meant and the two began to argue. Respondent approached M.M. and bent over him while M.M. remained seated at his desk. Respondent testified that he closed the gap between him and M.M. when he felt M.M. told him to shut up by saying “get out of my face.” Respondent stated, “At that point I decided I wasn’t going to let him push me around and I decided to engage him.” The credible testimony from several of the student witnesses was that Respondent approached M.M. and stood over him and that M.M. repeatedly asked Respondent to “please, get out of my face” and to leave him alone. M.M. also cursed and used a racial slur directed at Respondent.2/ Respondent told M.M. to get up and get out of the classroom. When Respondent did not move away from looming over M.M., M.M. said something to the effect of “I don’t want to do any of this.” M.M. stood up, and he and Respondent were face to face, only a few inches apart. M.M. told Respondent that he was a grown man and that he was “acting like a bitch.” Respondent repeatedly mocked M.M., yelling in his face, “Come on big man-- What are you going to do about it, hit me?” and told M.M. to hit him because it would “make my day.” Respondent called M.M. a coward several times when M.M. refused to hit Respondent and backed away. While this was going on, the other students in the classroom believed that Respondent and M.M. were going to have a physical fight, and they stood up, pushed the desks and chairs back, and got out their cell phones to take photos and video. Several of the students began screaming and yelling.3/ M.M. left the classroom and continued to curse at Respondent as Respondent followed him to the Dean’s office. During this altercation, the substitute teacher did not intervene or attempt to help or contact the SMS office. Respondent admits that, once M.M. told Respondent to “get out of his face,” Respondent did nothing to de-escalate the situation. To the contrary, Respondent intentionally escalated the altercation. According to Respondent, “He [M.M.] needed to be shown you can’t tell an adult to shut up.” Respondent testified that he believed that he was teaching M.M. a “life lesson”-–that “you can’t engage an adult and expect to get away with it.” SMS has a protocol for handling belligerent students in the classroom. Teachers receive training at the beginning of each school year regarding the difference between classroom managed behaviors and office managed behaviors. Teachers are trained not to engage a belligerent student but rather to use the buzzer which is tied to the intercom or telephone, available in every classroom, to notify the main office of the situation. In response, someone from the trained management team will come to the classroom to retrieve the student and bring them back to the Dean’s office. As explained by Principal Martin, the purpose of sending an adult from out of the classroom to retrieve a disruptive student is to minimize the possibility of harm to either the student, teacher, or other students, and to allow a “cooling off period” while the misbehaving student is escorted to the Dean’s office. During the altercation with M.M., Respondent made no effort to use the buzzer or the telephone or ask anyone else to notify the office of the escalating situation. Respondent was aware of the protocol but chose to ignore it. According to Respondent, “[M.M.] wanted to intimidate me and he failed and I let him know about it.” Respondent was purposely confrontational and testified that he wanted to show M.M. that Respondent “was not going to back down.” Respondent disregarded the protocol because he believed it would be ineffective and he wanted to teach M.M. a “humility lesson.” Respondent’s explanation, that he thought using the buzzer or telephone would be ineffective because sometimes the buzzer does not work or he was blocked from reaching the buzzer by M.M., was not supported by credible evidence. Further it was directly contradicted by Respondent’s explanation that he didn’t contact the office because M.M.’s behavior problems likely started in elementary school and that at this point, M.M. was not responsive to “conventional means of disciplining students.” While the undersigned is sensitive to the difficulty faced by teachers when dealing with confrontational and unruly students, no rational justification was provided for Respondent’s extreme and outrageous act of attempting to engage M.M. in a fight and labeling him a coward in front of his peers. Respondent’s actions were an unwarranted attempt to bully and belittle a middle school student. In May 2013, Respondent received a letter from then Superintendent Michael Lannon advising Respondent that he was recommending him to the School Board for a ten-day suspension without pay. During the School Board’s investigation and at the final hearing of this matter, Respondent expressed no remorse regarding his actions towards M.M. and testified that, despite knowing his actions constitute a violation of School Board policies, he would do the same thing again. Respondent received all the necessary steps of progressive discipline required by the collective bargaining agreement between the parties prior to receipt of the recommendation for the ten-day suspension without pay. As discussed in greater detail below, the School Board proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent engaged in misconduct in office in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Lucie County School Board enter a final order finding William Doran guilty of misconduct in office, suspending his employment without pay for a period of ten school days, and placing him on probation for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 19th day of August, 2014.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed as a science teacher at Thomas Jefferson Middle School (“Thomas Jefferson”), a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent was initially hired by the School Board as a teacher in 1994. At all times material to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board’s policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade (“UTD”). Maria Fernandez, the principal of Thomas Jefferson, was authorized to issue directives to her employees, including Respondent. The 2010-2011 School Year Principal Fernandez issued Respondent a letter of reprimand on February 8, 2011, concerning an alleged incident that occurred on January 4, 2011. The reprimand directed Respondent to: (1) strictly adhere to all School Board rules and regulations, specifically, School Board rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4A-1.213; (2) cease and desist from engaging in any unprofessional conduct while serving as an employee of the School Board; (3) perform duties and responsibilities given to her by Principal Fernandez; and (4) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board. Principal Fernandez informed Respondent that failure to comply with the directives would result in further disciplinary action. On February 8, 2011, Principal Fernandez held a Conference for the Record (“CFR”) with Respondent regarding this alleged incident. The 2011-2012 School Year On November 11, 2011, Principal Fernandez called Respondent into her office to speak with her about the School Board’s policy regarding the appropriate use of e-mail. Respondent allegedly stormed out of the meeting and, in the process of doing so, called Principal Fernandez a “racist pig.” As she was leaving the office, two other administrators were in the vicinity, and Respondent allegedly stated: “I’m tired of dealing with you three pigs.” During a teacher-of-the-year faculty meeting in November 2011, Respondent allegedly called the assistant principal a “bully” and allegedly refused to leave the meeting after being directed to do so by the assistant principal. Principal Fernandez held another CFR with Respondent on November 29, 2011. Furthermore, Principal Fernandez issued Respondent another letter of reprimand on November 29, 2011, concerning these incidents, which again directed Respondent to: (1) strictly adhere to all School Board rules and regulations, specifically, School Board rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4A- 1.213; (2) cease and desist from engaging in any unprofessional conduct while serving as an employee of the School Board; perform duties and responsibilities given to her by Principal Fernandez; and (4) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board. Principal Fernandez informed Respondent that failure to comply with the directives would result in further disciplinary action. On May 24, 2012, Principal Fernandez observed Respondent in another teacher’s homeroom class. Principal Fernandez allegedly told Respondent she should not be in the other teacher’s class because she was interrupting that teacher’s supervisory duties of her students. In response, Respondent allegedly yelled, in a very loud voice, and in front of the students and teacher: “That’s what the grievance is all about. Get some dopamine.” Respondent then allegedly pulled her cellphone out of her pocket and said, “Here, let me record this.” As a result of this incident, Principal Fernandez held another CFR with Respondent on June 4, 2012. During the conference, Respondent chose to leave the meeting and walked out of the principal’s office. An employee is expected to remain in a CFR for the duration of the meeting. Principal Fernandez issued Respondent another letter of reprimand on June 4, 2012, concerning this incident and for gross insubordination, which directed Respondent to: (1) strictly adhere to all School Board rules and regulations, specifically, School Board Policy 3210 and 3210.01; (2) cease and desist from engaging in any unprofessional conduct while serving as an employee of the School Board; (3) perform duties and responsibilities given to her by Principal Fernandez; and (4) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board. Principal Fernandez informed Respondent that failure to comply with the directives would result in further disciplinary action. Because Respondent prematurely left the CFR, her UTD representatives signed the reprimand on her behalf. The 2012-2013 School Year On August 31, 2012, an Educational Excellence School Advisory Committee (“EESAC”) meeting was held in the media center at Thomas Jefferson. EESAC is an advisory committee comprised of parents, teachers, students, staff members, and business partners. The committee typically meets once a month at the school to review the school improvement plan and make decisions on how to improve the school. Respondent attended the meeting in her capacity as a representative of the UTD. During the meeting, Respondent told the chairperson that there was no quorum. Respondent then left the meeting. As she exited the meeting, Respondent stated: “This is why we’re an ETO school,” and she referred to the group as “fools.” A few minutes later, Respondent returned to the meeting, took the sign-out sheet with her without permission, and then left the meeting.1/ On September 20, 2012, Principal Fernandez met with the science department coach, Respondent, and two other science teachers to discuss ideas on how to improve the school. Principal Fernandez asked Respondent to share a document with the other teachers that Respondent said she had. Respondent became irate, refused Principal Fernandez’s request, and stated: “No, I’m not giving it to them. They can go to their own CRISS training like I did.” Respondent proceeded to stand up and threaten Principal Fernandez, stating: “Don’t worry, you’ll get yours.” Respondent then stormed out of the meeting. On September 20, 2012, Respondent sent an e-mail to MeShonika Green, another science teacher at Thomas Jefferson, regarding “Addressing your concerns.” In this e-mail, Respondent wrote: Ms. Green, Some of the members of the faculty have come to me to report that you were carrying on in the hall, claiming that you were in fear for your life because you thought I was going to come out and shoot up the school. I just wanted to put your fears to rest. Just because I speak my mind and am willing to stand up for what is right does not mean I will turn to physical violence. That is not me . . . I don’t believe in physical violence and have worked to promote that ideal. But from a psychological perspective it is the person that holds everything in that one day snaps and loses it. You know like tearing up a legal summons, throwing it in the face of a process server and becoming irate that they are arrested. I suppose that person could take it one step further and in what you said if the authorities did not intervene. But I only know what I’ve read in textbooks, I’ve never experienced it. But anyway I would appreciate if instead of you spreading this around the staff and faculty where students could hear you that you come and speak to me about any concerns you have with me, or at least talk to a therapist. Because your unsubstantiated remarks could be considered slander and as I am highly offended by your actions and they affect me professionally. If this were to happen again I would find it necessary to follow up through appropriate channels. Thank you in advance for understanding and acting accordingly [.] On September 24, 2012, Principal Fernandez met with Respondent to discuss the School Board’s e-mail policy, and Respondent’s inappropriate use of e-mails. At that time, Principal Fernandez provided Respondent with a memorandum regarding the appropriate use of e-mails. On September 27, 2012, Ms. Green sent Respondent an e-mail regarding “Addressing your concerns,” which states: “We are mature adults. You should not be listening to RUMORS or hear-say, especially when you see me almost everyday. This could be considered CYBER BULLYING. Thanks for your attention.” Shortly thereafter on September 27, 2012, Respondent responded to Ms. Green by e-mail as follows: Ms. Green, You are right chronologically we are two mature adults. This is in no way cyber bullying. This is me asking you to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior that slanders me, and me promising to take legal action if you don’t. So as a mature adult I am asking you to please stop and warning you of the consequences if you do not. Also there is no reason to yell (all caps), and it is not a rumor when three credible adults (as well as a number of less credible people) come to me at different times and state that they witnessed you doing this. Here say is when someone reports hearing that someone did something but did not see it. And yes I see you every day, and any attempt to communicate is met with negativity and usually ends in your saying “well you do what you want because I’m going to . . .” I hope this clears things up for you. Enjoy the rest of your day. On October 2, 2012, Respondent sent an e-mail to Mr. Yvetot Antoine, the science coach at Thomas Jefferson. As the science coach, Mr. Antoine assists all of the science teachers in implementing the science curriculum in their classrooms. The e-mail states: Mr. Antoine, Please stop sending me all these e-mails with attachments. I do not need my mailbox to go over its limit. I know you are just trying to do your job but as I already told you I already have my plan in place along with methods of assessment and analysis. I do not need to be bombarded with elementary solutions to a problem that you are only exasperating. The problem at TJ is that no one works together in the decision making process, decision are made that further divide the faculty and then they bring in people with little experience to cram their agenda down our throats. Most of us do what we need to and we do not need fixing. The fixing needs to start at the top and that is beyond both of our pay grades. If you need to send this stuff for your service log please use attachment manager. Mr. Antoine was offended and disheartened by this e-mail, because he did not believe that he was implementing elementary solutions or exacerbating a problem. Mr. Antoine forwarded the e-mail to Principal Fernandez. On October 11, 2012, Principal Fernandez met with Respondent to discuss the School Board’s e-mail policy, and Respondent’s inappropriate use of e-mails. At that time, Principal Fernandez provided Respondent with another memorandum regarding the appropriate use of e-mails. On October 18, 2012, Mr. Antoine entered Respondent’s classroom to conduct an informal observation. As the students entered the classroom, Mr. Antoine proceeded to the back of the room. Respondent appeared very serious and disturbed by Mr. Antoine’s presence in the classroom. As the students settled into their seats, Respondent asked the students to raise their hands if they felt that Mr. Antoine’s presence in the classroom was disturbing. In response, some of the students raised their hands. Shortly thereafter, Respondent asked the students again to raise their hands if they felt Mr. Antoine’s presence in the classroom was disturbing. In response, most of the students raised their hands. At this point, Respondent announced to the class that “she would not share her classroom in an oppressive environment where she feels like her civil rights were being violated.” By this time, Mr. Antoine was sitting at a table in the back of the classroom, and he had not said anything to Respondent. Respondent paced up and down the classroom and instructed the students to write definitions for six vocabulary words that were posted on the board. As she paced up and down the classroom, Respondent pulled out her cellphone and tried unsuccessfully to call someone. Respondent then returned to her seat and announced to the students that she has over 20 years of experience and that “I was teaching when this guy [Mr. Antoine] was still in high school.” At this point, the only instruction Respondent had given her students was to tell them to define six vocabulary words. As the class period progressed, Respondent did not give any further educational instruction to her students. Instead, Respondent proceeded to the back of the classroom where Mr. Antoine was sitting, pulled up a chair, and sat directly across from him. Respondent looked directly at Mr. Antoine and stated in front of the students: “I’m going to stare at those eyes that are observing me.” After a while, Respondent got up, went back to her desk, and was at her computer. Toward the end of the class period, Respondent handed a stack of papers to one of her students. The student walked to the back of the classroom and gave the stack of papers to Mr. Antoine. The papers were titled, ”Responsibilities of the Coach-Instructional Coach.”2/ As a result of these incidents from August through October 2012, Principal Fernandez held another CFR with Respondent at some point in October 2012. On November 7, 2012, Respondent encountered Eulalee Sleight, another teacher at Thomas Jefferson. On that date, Ms. Sleight was meeting with a student when Respondent commented, in front of the student, “Do you know I’m not going to be your teacher anymore?” “Because I’m making sure they follow rules. They don’t like to follow rules at this school.” At the end of this same school day, Respondent walked up to Ms. Sleight and took a picture of her and a student who was Ms. Sleight’s assistant. In the presence of the other student, Respondent stated: “This is to show the illegal things that’s happening at the school.”3/ On November 8, 2012, Respondent encountered Thomas Jefferson School Counselor Luis Chiles at Mr. Chiles’s office. On this occasion, Mr. Chiles was in a meeting with an ESOL (English speakers of other languages) teacher, conducting a review of students. Respondent had no business being in the meeting. Nevertheless, Respondent opened the door to Mr. Chiles’s office and stepped inside Mr. Chiles’s office. Respondent was agitated, very upset, and told Mr. Chiles that she hoped he was happy that she was going to lose her job. Mr. Chiles was dumbfounded and did not respond to Respondent’s comment. Respondent then exited the office. As a result of all the foregoing incidents, Principal Fernandez recommended to the School Board that Respondent’s employment be terminated. Thereafter, the School Board recommended that Respondent’s employment be suspended pending dismissal. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent’s conduct on June 4, 2012, constitutes misconduct in office, gross insubordination, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. The School Board merely showed that Respondent chose to leave the CFR with Principal Fernandez, and that she was expected to stay for the duration of the meeting. Respondent’s conduct may have been inappropriate, but the School Board failed to show that the conduct violated School Board policies, and was “so serious as to impair the [Respondent’s] effectiveness in the school system,” so as to constitute misconduct in office. Furthermore, the School Board failed to show that Respondent’s conduct involved “a constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority,” so as to rise to the level of gross insubordination. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent’s conduct at the EESAC meeting on August 31, 2012, constitutes misconduct in office, gross insubordination, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. Respondent attended the meeting in her capacity as a representative of UTD. Although Respondent may have been rude during the meeting, given the context in which this incident occurred (this was an EESAC meeting--not a classroom situation involving students), the School Board failed to establish that Respondent engaged in conduct which rose to the level of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, or a violation of School Board policies. The evidence at hearing showed that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2), and that she violated School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01. Respondent engaged in conduct which is unseemly in the workplace and reduces a teacher’s or her colleagues’ ability to effectively perform duties when she met with Principal Fernandez, the science department coach, and two other science teachers on September 20, 2012, to discuss ideas on how to improve the school. When asked by Principal Fernandez to share a document with the other teachers, Respondent became irate and refused to do so. Respondent also violated this rule and School Board Policies 3210, 3210.01, and 3380, when she stood up during the meeting and threatened Principal Fernandez, stating: “Don’t worry, you’ll get yours,” and stormed out of the meeting. Such conduct created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment, and involved threatening behavior consisting of words that intimidated Principal Fernandez. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent’s conduct on September 20, 2012, constitutes gross insubordination in violation of rule 6A-5.056(4) by intentionally refusing to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent’s e-mails to Ms. Green on September 20 and 27, 2012, and Respondent’s e-mail to Mr. Antoine on October 2, 2012, constitute misconduct in office, gross insubordination, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. The School Board failed to present its e-mail policy at the hearing. Given the context and nature of the emails (between adults and not involving students), and the fact that the School Board failed to present its e-mail policy at the hearing, the School Board failed to meet its burden to establish that the e-mails rose to the level of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, or constitute a violation of applicable School Board policies. The evidence at hearing showed that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2), and that she violated rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), (f), (5)(d), and School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01, by engaging in conduct which is unseemly in the workplace and disruptive to the students’ learning environment; failed to make reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning; violated the students’ legal right to an education; engaged in behavior that reduces her ability or her colleagues’ ability to effectively perform duties or the orderly processes of education; and created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive work environment. Respondent violated these rules and policies when she: 1) asked students in the classroom on October 18, 2012, if they felt that Mr. Antoine’s presence in the classroom was disturbing, they should raise their hands; 2) announced to the students in the classroom that “she would not share her classroom in an oppressive environment where she feels like her civil rights were being violated”; 3) paced up and down the classroom and placed a personal telephone call during class while only instructing the students to write definitions for six vocabulary words that were posted on the board; 4) announced to her students that she has over 20 years of experience, and that “I was teaching when this guy [Mr. Antoine] was still in high school”; 5) proceeded to the back of the classroom, sat across from Mr. Antoine, and announced to the class: “I’m going to stare at those eyes that are observing me”; and 6) handed a stack of papers to one of her students titled, “Responsibilities of the Coach–Instructional Coach,” and had the student hand the stack of documents to Mr. Antoine. Respondent’s conduct on October 18, 2012, sought to advance her personal agenda, was not conducive to her students’ learning, and was harmful to the students’ learning. Respondent effectively used the students in her classroom as pawns in her personal battle against the administration and her colleagues. Rather than focusing on Mr. Antoine’s presence and her personal battle, Respondent should have focused on the students and teaching the students. Respondent’s conduct on October 18, 2012, has no place in a middle school science classroom. The evidence failed to show that Respondent’s conduct on October 18, 2012, rose to the level of gross insubordination in violation of rule 6A-5.056(4), in that the conduct did not involve the intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority. The evidence at hearing showed that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2), and that she violated rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), (f), and (5)(d), and School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01, by engaging in conduct which is unseemly in the workplace and disruptive to the students’ learning environment; failed to make reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning; violated the students’ legal right to an education; engaged in behavior that reduces her ability or her colleagues’ ability to effectively perform duties or the orderly processes of education; and created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive work environment. Respondent violated these rules and policies when she: 1) interrupted a meeting between Ms. Sleight and another student on November 7, 2012; 2) told the student “Do you know I’m not going to be your teacher anymore?” “Because I’m making sure they follow rules. They don’t like to follow rules at this school”; and 3) took a picture of a student who was Ms. Sleight’s assistant and stated: “This is to show the illegal things that’s happening at the school.” Through her conduct on November 7, 2012, Respondent again sought to advance her personal agenda, failed to engage in conduct conducive to the student’s learning, and engaged in conduct harmful to the students’ learning. Respondent effectively used the students as her pawns in her personal battle against the administration and her colleagues. Raising a legitimate complaint through the proper channels is one thing. However, a middle school teacher cannot use students as her pawns and air her personal battles to students in an effort to advance her personal agenda.4/ The evidence failed to show that Respondent’s conduct on November 7, 2012, rose to the level of gross insubordination in violation of rule 6A-5.056(4), in that the conduct did not involve the intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent’s encounter with Mr. Chiles on November 8, 2012, constitutes misconduct in office, gross insubordination, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. The evidence presented at hearing did not establish that Respondent knew Mr. Chiles was in a meeting when she opened the door. It would have been polite for Respondent to knock first. Nevertheless, merely opening a door that is not locked, and telling a colleague that she “hoped he was happy that she was going to lose her job,” and then turning around and leaving, does not rise to the level of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, or a violation of School Board policies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order upholding the suspension and terminating Respondent’s employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 29th day of July, 2014.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed October 28, 2011, and, if so, the discipline, if any, that should be imposed against Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been on a contract that is subject to a collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and the United Teachers of Dade, applicable Florida Statutes, applicable rules adopted by the Florida State Board of Education as set forth in the Florida Administrative Code, and Petitioner's adopted policies and procedures. Article XXI, Section 1.B(1)(a) of the UTD Contract provides that "Any member of the instructional staff may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the school year, provided that the charges against him/her are based upon Florida Statutes." Near the end of the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent was placed on a 25-day suspension without pay for having inappropriate communications with students. Prior to serving her suspension, Respondent was issued directives that she was not to make personal comments to students and she was not to communicate with students via text and personal letters at any time. For the 2010-2011 school year, Ms. Yassin was assigned to South Miami Community Middle School (SMCMS), where she taught language arts to five classes. Ms. Alvarez was the principal of SMCMS for the 2010-2011 school year. Ms. Yassin's suspension ended in October 2010, at which time she reported for duty at SMCMS. Shortly after Ms. Yassin reported for duty at SMCMS, Ms. Alvarez received a complaint from a parent that Respondent had requested that students bring school supplies into class in exchange for receiving extra academic credit. Ms. Alvarez held a conference with Respondent. Ms. Alvarez instructed Ms. Yassin that School Board rules prohibit a teacher from giving extra academic credit in exchange for a student providing school supplies. Ms. Alvarez specifically told Ms. Yassin to cease and desist that practice. Ms. Yassin admitted that she had given extra academic credit to students who had brought in school supplies and told Ms. Alvarez that it would not happen again. In January 2011, Ms. Alvarez received a complaint from a student in one of Ms. Yassin's classes that Ms. Yassin had offered the students in the class assistance on a test in exchange for students bringing items of food to Ms. Yassin. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Ms. Yassin offered her students assistance on tests if they brought candy and other food items such as pastries to her. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that during the 2010-2011 school year, Ms. Yassin made such an offer to students in one or more of her classes on one or more occasions. Ms. Alvarez verbally informed Ms. Yassin of the allegations and told her that an investigation would be initiated. There was also a conflict as to whether Ms. Yassin quizzed her students as to the investigation and as to whether she made inappropriate comments to students about the investigation. The conflict is resolved by finding that Ms. Yassin made inappropriate comments to one or more students to lie about Ms. Yassin's conduct and told other students "to watch her back." Ms. Yassin also quizzed one or more students as to the discussion the student(s) had had with the investigator. On January 12, 2011, Respondent was removed from MSCMS and placed on alternative assignment. Respondent was specifically informed that she "must not contact, visit or exchange in any type of communications with faculty/staff/students/family of students from the work location to which you were assigned at the time of the incident leading to this administrative placement." Ms. Yassin violated that clear and unequivocal directive by communicating with parents and students by text and email between January 12 and February 3, 2011.1/ Respondent's misconduct, as described herein, has impaired her effectiveness in the school system. Petitioner followed all relevant procedures in prosecuting this disciplinary proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order sustain the suspension of Respondent's employment without pay and terminate that employment based on misconduct in office and gross insubordination. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 2012.
The Issue The main issues in this case are whether, as the district school board alleges, a teacher has given the district just cause to terminate his employment contract for incompetency, and, alternatively, whether the teacher failed to correct performance deficiencies during a 90-day probationary period, which would constitute separate grounds for dismissal if proven true.
Findings Of Fact The Broward County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Broward County Public School System. At all relevant times, Respondent Christopher Marshall ("Marshall") was employed as a math teacher in the Broward County school district, a position which he had held for some 15 years before this proceeding began. During that period, Marshall taught at a few different schools, the latest being McArthur High, where he worked for several years up to and including the 2013-14 school year. Marshall's teaching career, sad to say, has been mediocre. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that, at least as early as 2002, Marshall was identified by administrators and colleagues as a teacher of marginal ability. More than once over the years Marshall was placed on performance probation due to concerns about his unsatisfactory performance. Rather than terminate Marshall's employment, however, the district transferred Marshall from school to school, and somehow he managed to muddle through, doing enough to be rated "satisfactory" and avoid getting the sack. One of Marshall's defining characteristics has been the remarkably high percentages of Fs and Ds that his students consistently have earned, year in and year out. Frequently more than half of his students took home final grades lower than a C——and sometimes quite a bit more than 50 percent fell into this category. This was true across grade levels (Marshall taught grades nine through 12) and without regard to degrees of subject-matter difficulty (Marshall taught advanced as well as basic classes; he was not assigned only struggling students). It was not uncommon for Marshall to fail between one-quarter and one-third of his students. In the 2013-14 school year, for example, 31 percent of Marshall's Liberal Arts Math 2 students received a failing grade; 25 percent of his Math College Readiness students failed; and ten percent of his Algebra 2 students got Fs. This was consistent with a decade-long pattern. Needless to say, a teacher whose students in large numbers routinely get Ds or worse in his classes attracts attention from students, colleagues, parents, and administrators. In Marshall's case, students complained to other teachers——and to their parents. Parents, of course, complained to administrators and demanded that their children be placed in other classes. Often, to placate angry parents, Marshall's students were transferred, with the result that Marshall's classes were small, and other math teachers had to squeeze in additional students. Teachers complained about this. It must be acknowledged that poor grades are not necessarily a reflection of the teacher's ability or lack thereof. Certainly, as a general rule, each student bears substantial responsibility for his or her own grade, and no one should expect a teacher simply to hand out high marks that are unmerited and unearned. Sometimes, to be sure, an F or a D is as richly deserved as an A or a B. That said, the sheer persistence of Marshall's grade distribution under different conditions and through changing student populations implies that something other than resistance or indifference to learning, poor study habits, or lack of intellectual ability must be at work. The undersigned has combed the record for an explanation of his students' poor grades that might exonerate Marshall but can find none. There is no persuasive evidence, for example, that Marshall is a demanding teacher who sets the bar high for his students, administering tough but fair tests that are difficult for the unmotivated or unprepared to pass. To the contrary, Marshall had his students spend time on rote exercises, such as copying definitions and formulas from the textbook, which have little educational value. Nor did Marshall's students tend to excel in their next math classes. Rather, after being taught by Marshall, his students often had difficulty in their subsequent courses because they had not learned the prerequisite material. For years, administrators have tried to cajole or compel Marshall to reduce the number of students receiving Fs and Ds in his classes, not by the expedient of grade inflation, but by implementing different pedagogical techniques and strategies. Marshall, however, has ignored these importunings and directives, and nothing has changed. Marshall's apparent imperviousness to criticism has been an ongoing source of frustration to his colleagues and administrators. Marshall considers himself to be an "awesome" teacher, and therefore he concludes that anyone who has a different opinion——which unfortunately seems to be nearly everyone with whom he has worked——is either mistaken, lying, or treating him unfairly. This has led Marshall to file numerous grievances and complaints against his supervisors, none of which has been successful. He is not, however, confrontational, discourteous, or abusive in his workplace relationships. Rather, Marshall engages in passive-aggressive behavior. Faced with a demand or a directive, Marshall does not argue (although he might politely disagree); he simply does not comply. The greater weight of the evidence persuades the undersigned to find that the bad grades Marshall's students consistently have received are a symptom of Marshall's inability to teach. Although he knows his subject, Marshall lacks the skills necessary to impart his knowledge to his students, who consequently do not learn math in his classes. It is not that Marshall is deliberately trying not to succeed. He is not being insubordinate in this regard. He is simply not suited to the job of teaching high school math. In 2011, following a legislative directive then recently enacted, the school district adopted a teacher evaluation system known as the Broward Instructional Development and Growth Evaluation System ("BrIDGES"), which is based on Dr. Robert J. Marzano's strategies for educational effectiveness. When rating a teacher's classroom performance using BrIDGES, an evaluator inputs his or her observations into a database by filling out an electronic "iObservation" form. The iObservation tool contains 60 "elements," each of which represents a discrete strategy, action, or skill that a teacher might employ as appropriate: e.g., "Using Academic Games," "Identifying Critical Information," and "Displaying Objectivity and Control." The elements are organized under four separate "domains" as follows: Domain 1: Classroom Strategies and Behaviors (Elements 1-41) Domain 2: Planning and Preparing (Elements 42-49) Domain 3: Reflecting on Teaching (Elements 50-54) Domain 4: Collegiality and Professionalism (Elements 55-60). The 41 elements of Domain 1 are further subdivided into nine Design Questions, DQ1 through DQ9. On October 8, 2013, the school district and the Broward Teachers Union entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") setting forth their agreements regarding the use of BrIDGES to evaluate teachers for 2013-14. Pursuant to the MOU, each classroom teacher was to receive at least three observations, including one formal (30 or more minutes), one informal (15-25 minutes), and one snapshot or walkthrough (3-10 minutes) observation. During an observation, the subject teacher receives a "datamark" (prescribed number of points) for each element that the evaluator chooses to rate. For 2013-14, the datamarks were as follows: Innovating (Highly Effective), 4 points; Applying (Effective), 3 points; Developing (Effective), 2.5 points; Beginning (Needs Improvement), 2 points; and Not Using (Unsatisfactory), 1 point. Each teacher was to receive at least 45 datamarks, comprising at least 25 datamarks in Domain 1 and 10 within Domains 2, 3, and/or 4. A weighted average of the datamarks assigned to a teacher's performance as recorded on the iObservation forms became the teacher's Instructional Practice Score ("IPS"). The IPS was equal to 0.68X plus 0.32Y, where X was the average of the teacher's Domain 1 datamarks and Y was the average of the teacher's datamarks for Domains 2, 3, and 4 combined. The IPS was reported as a number having three decimal digits, to the thousandths place. This created a false precision, for the calculated result could not possibly have been more precise than the number having the least number of significant figures in the equation, which would always be a one-digit integer (unless the teacher happened to receive strait 2.5s——possible, but unlikely, and not the case here). In other words, the numbers to the right of the decimal point in the teacher's IPS were mathematically insignificant, spurious digits, because the original data could not support a measurement beyond the precision of one significant figure. The IPS should have been (but was not) rounded to a single-digit integer to avoid reporting insignificant digits. For 2013-14, the BrIDGES Overall Evaluation Score equaled the sum of the teacher's IPS (weighted as 49%), Deliberate Practice score (weighted as 1.0%), and Student Growth score (weighted as 50%). Teachers at McArthur High (including Marshall) for whom no individual student data were available automatically received a Student Growth score of 3.0 for that school year, and all teachers (including Marshall) who completed a self-assessment received a Deliberate Practice score of 3.0. The Overall Evaluation Scale for 2013-14 was Highly Effective (3.450-4.000), Effective (2.500-3.449), Needs Improvement (2.000-2.499), and Unsatisfactory (1.000-1.999). As of February 4, 2014, Marshall had received eight observations: three formals, three informals, and two walkthroughs. He had received 56 datamarks in Domain 1 and five datamarks in Domains 2, 3, and 4. His weighted IPS, to that date, was 2.145 (but this computed score was precise to no more than one significant figure and therefore should be understood as a 2 after rounding off the spurious digits), or Needs Improvement. Pursuant to the MOU, once a teacher receives an average IPS of Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory among other conditions that Marshall had met as of February 4, 2014, a Performance Development Plan ("PDP") may be written for that teacher. Accordingly, in early February 2014, a PDP was written for Marshall. As well, on February 12, 2014, the principal of McArthur High placed Marshall on performance probation for 90 calendar days, delivering to Marshall a notice of "less than effective performance" ostensibly pursuant to section 1012.34(4), Florida Statutes. The statute, however, authorizes 90-day performance probation only for a teacher whose performance is unsatisfactory, and Marshall's performance was not unsatisfactory; it was Needs Improvement. Needs Improvement is, to be sure, less than Effective performance, but it is better than Unsatisfactory. Indeed, none of the levels of performance besides Unsatisfactory denotes unsatisfactory performance and thus, logically, all teachers rated Highly Effective, Effective, or Needs Improvement fall within the range of satisfactory performance. In any event, between February 28 and May 7, 2014, Marshall received 12 more observations, which added 75 datamarks to his total in Domain 1 (making 131 in all) and six additional datamarks in Domains 2, 3, and 4 (for a grand total of 11). The iObservation forms for Marshall's last six observations, incidentally, are not in evidence. As of May 7, 2014, Marshall's IPS was 1.963. This number, by itself, would be Unsatisfactory on the Overall Evaluation Scale. Given, however, that the initial numerical data was captured (mostly) in single-digit integers, together with a handful of 2.5s, the decimal places are spurious in this result; there is no meaningful distinction between "1.963" (which is a textbook example of false precision) and "2" (which is what 1.963 should be rounded up to, to avoid the fallacy of overprecision). Thus, if the insignificant figures are ignored, Marshall's IPS, by itself, is actually Needs Improvement. But more important, Marshall's IPS was not his Overall Evaluation Score, and therefore it is improper and unfair to deem his performance Unsatisfactory on the Overall Performance Scale based on an IPS of 1.963 as the School Board wants to do. Marshall's Overall Evaluation Score, as calculated by the School Board, was 2.492 — Needs Improvement.1/ Again, Needs Improvement is less than Effective and clearly not ideal, but it is not Unsatisfactory. To the contrary, Needs Improvement is one of the levels of satisfactory performance. Going a step farther, if Marshall's IPS were rounded to 2, as it should be to eliminate the false precision, and his Overall Evaluation Score recalculated absent the spurious decimals, then his final score would be 2.51, which in turn should be rounded to 3 to avoid overprecision, but which equals Effective performance regardless. The point is, based on a final score of 2.492, Marshall's overall performance can as correctly be deemed Effective as Needs Improvement, for there is no real difference between 2.492 and 3 based on the original data used to make these calculations.2/ (To repeat for emphasis, computations cannot make the original data more precise.3/) Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Marshall is guilty of the offense of misconduct in office, which is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(2).4/ The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Marshall is guilty of incompetency,5/ which is just cause for dismissal from employment. A preponderance of the evidence establishes that Marshall's performance as measured in accordance with the BrIDGES evaluation system was not Unsatisfactory during the 2013-14 school year. Therefore, the evidence does not support the termination of Marshall's employment contract pursuant to section 1012.34(4). The evidence does not support a determination that Marshall independently violated section 1012.53, apart from his incompetency, which affords a sufficient basis (as "just cause") for dismissal. The evidence does not support a determination that Marshall independently violated School Board Rule 4008(B), apart from his incompetency, which affords a sufficient basis (as "just cause") for dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order dismissing Marshall from his employment as a teacher in the Broward County Public Schools for the just cause of incompetency as a result of inefficiency. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 24th day of March, 2016.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend without pay and terminate Respondent's employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a teacher pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent was initially hired by the School Board in July 2006 and assigned to teach at Horace Mann Middle School ("Horace Mann"). At all times material to this case, Respondent's employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board's policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD"). The 2010-2011 School Year During the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent was a teacher at Horace Mann. Dr. Carmen Jones-Carey, the principal at Horace Mann, was authorized to issue directives to her employees, including Respondent. Dr. Jones-Carey issued Respondent a letter of reprimand on May 23, 2011, concerning an alleged incident that occurred on April 27, 2011, involving Respondent "yelling," "throwing things around" in her classroom, and making an inappropriate comment to another employee. The reprimand directed Respondent to refrain from inappropriate emotional outbursts, losing control, and making inappropriate comments to or about staff members that may be interpreted as offensive or threatening. The reprimand further directed Respondent to: (1) strictly adhere to all School Board rules and regulations, specifically, School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4A-1.213; (2) refrain from using inflammatory language in her role as a teacher; and (3) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board. Dr. Jones-Carey informed Respondent that failure to comply with the directives may result in further disciplinary action. On May 25, 2011, Dr. Jones-Carey held a conference for the record with Respondent regarding the April 27, 2011, incident, at which time Respondent was directed to: (1) strictly adhere to all School Board rules and regulations, specifically, School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4A-1.213; (2) refrain from using inflammatory language in her role as a teacher; and (3) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board. Dr. Jones-Carey informed Respondent that failure to comply with the directives will be deemed as insubordination which may result in disciplinary action. The 2011-2012 School Year On April 13, 2012, Dr. Jones-Carey and Paul J. Greenfield, administrative director for North Regional Center, held a conference for the record with Respondent concerning an alleged incident in the cafeteria involving Respondent yelling at and pulling a student by the bottom of her shirt, slinging the student around, and causing the student to fall into a metal counter. During the conference, Respondent was directed to, among other things: (1) adhere to all School Board policies, specifically, School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; (2) refrain from using physical means as a form of discipline; and (3) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board. As a result of the alleged incident, Respondent was suspended without pay for 17 days and informed that failure to comply with the directives may result in further disciplinary action. The 2012-2013 School Year On November 16, 2012, Dr. Jones-Carey held a conference for the record with Respondent concerning an alleged incident in Respondent's sixth-period class involving a verbal altercation between Respondent and a student during which Respondent used inappropriate language when addressing the student and the entire class. During the conference, Respondent was directed to, among other things: (1) adhere to all School Board policies, specifically, School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; (2) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board; (3) refrain from exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and (4) refrain from using abusive and/or profane language or displaying unseemly conduct in the workplace. During the conference, Respondent was also informed of the issuance of a letter of reprimand and that failure to comply with the directives will result in disciplinary action. Dr. Jones-Carey issued Respondent a letter of reprimand on November 28, 2012, concerning the alleged incident that occurred in Respondent's sixth-period class. The reprimand directed Respondent to immediately refrain from getting involved in verbal confrontations with students, berating, taunting, and/or embarrassing students in class and/or in any public area. The reprimand further directed Respondent to: (1) adhere to all School Board policies, specifically, School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; (2) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board; (3) refrain from exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and (4) refrain from using abusive and/or profane language or displaying unseemly conduct in the workplace. Dr. Jones-Carey informed Respondent that any recurrences of the above infraction would constitute gross insubordination and may result in further disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal from further employment with the School Board. On March 21, 2013, Dr. Jones-Carey held a conference for the record with Respondent concerning an alleged incident that occurred in Respondent's fifth-period class on February 8, 2013, in which Respondent yelled at the entire class and forcefully moved desks, which caused another desk to hit a student causing the student to lose her balance and injure her arm. During the conference, Respondent was directed to, among other things: (1) adhere to all School Board policies, specifically, School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; (2) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board; (3) refrain from exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and (4) refrain from using abusive and/or profane language or displaying unseemly conduct in the workplace. During the conference, Respondent was also informed that failure to comply with the directives will constitute gross insubordination and result in disciplinary action. Dr. Jones-Carey issued Respondent a letter of reprimand on April 9, 2013, concerning the alleged incident that occurred in Respondent's fifth-period class on February 8, 2013. The reprimand directed Respondent to immediately refrain from losing her temper in class, getting involved in verbal confrontations with students, berating, taunting, and/or embarrassing students in class and/or in any public area. The reprimand further directed Respondent to: (1) adhere to all School Board policies, specifically, School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; (2) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board; (3) refrain from exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and (4) refrain from using abusive and/or profane language or displaying unseemly conduct in the workplace. Dr. Jones-Carey informed Respondent that any recurrences of the above infraction would constitute gross insubordination and may result in further disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal from further employment with the School Board. On June 19, 2013, at its scheduled meeting, the School Board took action to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment as a teacher. Respondent timely requested a formal administrative hearing, and, on June 26, 2013, the School Board referred the matter to DOAH. The matter was styled Miami- Dade County School Board v. Shavonne Anderson, DOAH Case No. 13-2414TTS, and assigned to Administrative Law Judge Todd P. Resavage. 2013-2014 School Year On January 14, 2014, following an evidentiary hearing, Judge Resavage issued a Recommended Order finding Respondent guilty of gross insubordination. Judge Resavage recommended that the School Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of gross insubordination, suspending her employment without pay for a period of 180 school days, and placing her on probation for a period of two years. On February 12, 2014, the School Board entered a Final Order adopting Judge Resavage's Recommended Order, imposing the suspension without pay for a period of 180 days. Respondent received credit for time served and was reinstated for the 2014-2015 school year. 2018-2019 School Year Respondent was re-assigned to Miami Beach Senior High School for the 2018-2019 school year, where she taught physical science. The proposed discipline is based on conduct occurring on January 31, 2019, during Respondent's fourth-period inclusion physical science class, co-taught by Respondent and another teacher, Joanna Semeniuk. On January 31, 2019, D.A. was a ninth-grade male special education student in the class. During class, D.A. questioned Respondent about the quality of his written work. Displeased with Respondent's answer, a verbal confrontation ensued between D.A. and Respondent. The argument escalated after D.A. stood up, threw his paper on the floor of the classroom, used profane language toward Respondent, and attempted to leave the room. In response to D.A.'s conduct, Respondent became irate, grabbed the paper off the floor, used profane language toward D.A., grabbed D.A. by his shirt, and shoved the piece of paper down his shirt. The incident was witnessed by Ms. Semeniuk and other students in the classroom. Respondent's conduct on January 31, 2019, was inappropriate, disparaging, reflected poorly upon herself and the School Board, and reduced Respondent's ability to effectively perform duties. Respondent could certainly have projected authority and addressed the student's behavior without escalating the situation and resorting to the profane and disparaging verbal attack and initiating inappropriate physical contact with D.A. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056. Through the profane and disparaging verbal tirade and inappropriate physical contact upon the student on January 31, 2019, Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., 5., and 6., by failing to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety, intentionally exposing the student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, and intentionally violating the student's rights. Respondent also violated School Board Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, sections A.3., 7., and 8., and School Board Policy 3210.01, Code of Ethics, Conduct Regarding Students, sections A., E., and F., which mirror rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., 5., and 6. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination in violation of rule 6A-5.056(4) by intentionally refusing to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority. By failing to comply with the specific directives detailed above to refrain from exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; refrain from using abusive and/or profane language or displaying unseemly conduct in the workplace; refrain from inappropriate emotional outbursts, losing control, and using inflammatory language in her role as a teacher; and conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board, Respondent intentionally refused a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority. At hearing, Respondent acknowledged that her language and use of profanity toward her student in the classroom on January 31, 2019, was inappropriate. Specifically, Respondent acknowledged that during the incident she called D.A. a "faggot" and directed the word "shit" toward him. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent is guilty of violating rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)4., or School Board Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, sections A.9. and 22.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order upholding the suspension and terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of November, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 26th day of November, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Shavonne L. Anderson 2868 Northwest 197th Terrace Miami Gardens, Florida 33056 (eServed) Cristina Rivera, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 (eServed) Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1308
The Issue The issue presented is whether or not the Respondent should be dismissed from her employment with the Dade County School Board. Petitioner called Mrs. Rose Ann Collum, Keith William Reilly (a minor), Anthony Rossi (a minor), Mrs. Carol Zappi, Robert Staelen, and Desmond Patrick Gray and had admitted Exhibits 1 and 2. Respondent testified on her own behalf. The Pre-Trial Stipulation was admitted as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1. No transcript was provided and the parties' failure to file proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law within the time stipulated therefor is deemed a waiver of that right.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was an employee of the School Board of Dade County under a continuing contract of employment as an elementary school teacher at Madie Ives Elementary Community School in Miami, Florida. She has taught there successfully since 1966 or 1967. Beginning on or about September 1, 1983 and continuing through and including May of 1984, Respondent engaged in a course of conduct with the students assigned to her which included paddling, and on multiple occasions during this period she administered this paddling, which is in the nature of corporal punishment, to various students (more than 20) in her class. The type of paddling involved was described variously by the two students who testified live at formal hearing as "did not hurt," "just an attention getter," "not bad," "only a little sting," "only when I was bad," and "I was never injured or hurt." Parents were never contacted in advance of the paddlings which seem to have had a spontaneous quality. These paddlings occurred always in the Respondent's 5th Grade classroom in front of the class at the side of Respondent's desk, and a thin narrow wooden paddle was used. The paddle was applied to the child's buttocks through his/her clothing. Paddlings never occurred in the principal's office or in the presence of any other adult. Respondent made no attempt to hide what was going on, but she admitted that some students would excitedly post "look-outs" at the classroom door, so it appears that there was a belief, at least on the children's part, that the paddlings were contrary to the School Board's or principal's stated policies. These paddlings occurred on an almost daily basis. Some children received a stroke once a week or every other day. It seldom occurred to the same child two days in a row. Keith William Reilly, now 12 years old, described the 1983-84 year's punishment for fighting as 4 strokes and for talking as less. Anthony Rossi, also now 12 years old, testified he was paddled 8 or 9 times in the 1983-84 school year and no one else was paddled more often than he. Most students got no more than two strokes on a single occasion. There is no evidence of physical or emotional harm to these students. The majority of parents contacted by School Board Investigator Robert Staelen indicated that if they had been contacted before the paddling incidents they would have or might have given permission to paddle. The two mothers who testified live corroborated this as to their own children. At least one set of parents, Mr. and Mrs. Zappi, objected to not being noti- fied before their daughter was paddled. They experienced diffi- culty getting the child to return to school after she related to them the paddling incident or incidents. There is no evidence of paddling of any child under psychological or medical treatment. During Conferences for the Record, conducted by Dr. Desmond Patrick Gray, Executive Director, Director of Personnel Control, Division of Management for the School Board of Dade County, after the School Board became aware of the paddling incidents, Respondent acknowledged that she was familiar with School Board Rule 6GX13-5D-1.O7. Normally, Dr. Gray would have recommended that Respondent be given a 10 working days' suspen- sion upon the facts of the paddlings as he understood them, but thereafter, believing that Respondent had been paddling for two school years and had been previously reprimanded for similar incidents, he recommended dismissal. Indeed, on January 29, 1982, Respondent had been formally reprimanded (P-2) by her then-principal, Robert D. Conk, for four apparently unrelated "events," the only pertinent one of which is phrased: "(1) You are frequently out of your room and students were left unsupervised. Upon your return, absences were reprimanded by your students who had misbehaved during your spanking them with a ruler or paddle." Respondent acknowledges that she received this reprimand, but states that it slipped her mind in her discussions with Dr. Gray because it was of a minor nature and the emphasis was not directed against paddling or corporal punishment, because Dr. Conk told her to forget the reprimand as an unimportant formality, and because Dr. Conk frequently sent students to her for discipline, including paddling. On or about August 22, 1984, Respondent was suspended from employment with the Dade County School Board upon grounds of incompetency, gross insubordination, and misconduct in office.
Recommendation That the School Board of Dade County enter a final order limiting the suspension of Respondent to a total of 90 working days, applying that period to the time she has already been suspended and reinstating her thereafter with any appropriate back pay and benefits. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 22nd day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas H. Robertson, Esquire McCormick Bldg., 3rd Floor 111 S.W. Third St. Miami, Florida 33130 William DuFresne, Esquire One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1782 Two South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33131 Phyllis O. Douglas Esquire Dade County School Board 1410 N. E. Second Ave. Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton, Superintendent Dade County Public Schools 1410 N.E. Second Ave. Miami, Florida 33132 =================================================================
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board (School Board), had just cause to suspend Respondent, Harcourt I. Clark, for ten days without pay.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, and an evaluation of the testimony of witnesses and documentary evidence presented, the following facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a school teacher within the School District of Miami-Dade County (School District). Respondent was a teacher in the School District, since approximately August of 1987 at various schools within the county, and also worked as a coach for 15 years of that tenure. At the time of the incident alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges, Respondent was teaching at Shenandoah Middle School. Respondent has a disciplinary history with the School Board. In 1995 (23 years ago), Respondent was the subject of an administrative review at the individual school level, as a result of a complaint that alleged, in part, that Respondent was allowing students to massage his shoulders in class, and for showing movies unrelated to the curriculum. As a result, Respondent received an informal conference and a letter of written directives. The written directives included an admonition that Respondent refrain from “allowing students to massage your shoulders, neck, etc.,” and “any other physical contact with students.” No further action with respect to this complaint was taken at the district level. On October 2013, Respondent showed up to work under the influence of alcohol. He returned to work only after completing a rehabilitation program under the supervision of the District’s Support Agency. In September 23, 2016, Respondent was given a written reprimand for using profanity in the classroom. On November 21, 2016, later that same year, Respondent received a written Absence from Worksite Directive for having six unauthorized absences in November 2016. The incident giving rise to the discipline in this case took place on February 28, 2017, prior to the administration of an FSA examination to a group of sixth-grade students. The Notice of Specific Charges alleged that Respondent “walked around the classroom and slapped several students in the back of the head, grabbed others by the neck, and physically squeezed at least one student’s hands.” Respondent was to administer the FSA test with another instructor, Teresa Gonzalez. Before the start of the examination, Respondent walked around the classroom between the rows of student desks, gathering book bags, making sure that students had pencils for the test, and encouraging students to do their best. As he walked around the classroom, Ms. Gonzalez observed Respondent touch the back of several students’ necks or shoulders in what she described as correcting their posture. She also observed him “squash” a student’s fingers together in what she described as a prayer position. She could not, however, hear what Mr. Clark was saying to students because she was in the front of the room and Mr. Clark was in the back. Ms. Gonzalez could not identify the students who Mr. Clark touched because they were not her students. She also did not recall any comments by students, but stated at hearing that their facial expressions indicated that they did not like being touched by him.1/ Ms. Gonzalez also confirmed her statement to School District investigators that she did not believe Mr. Clark was angry with the students, and that it looked like his actions were a way of communicating and playing with the students. However, she was disturbed by Mr. Clark’s actions and reported them to her assistant principal. Two students testified regarding the February 28, 2017, incident. One of them, R.M., testified that before the exam, Mr. Clark grabbed his hands and squished them, and grabbed at the back of his neck, and stated that Mr. Clark also slapped another student on the back of the head. He testified that he was not hurt in any way by the action, but the other student said “ow” in response to Mr. Clark’s action. R.M. did not believe that Mr. Clark was trying to motivate the students. Student A.F. recalled Mr. Clark tapping the top of a student’s head and that the student just laughed. A.F. believed that Mr. Clark may have patted some kids on the back of the head before the test, but that he believed it was done to encourage the students, much like a coach would. Mr. Clark testified that he merely tapped students on the back of the head while telling them to do well on their test. He viewed the tap as similar to what a principal or school board attendee might do at a graduation or where a student was receiving a certificate. It was encouragement and not malicious, and not meant to hurt anyone. Mr. Clark acknowledged that he had been warned about harmful touching, and would not engage in that type of conduct, saying, “I wouldn’t want anybody hitting my kid. And for no way [sic] I would lose my pension for 31 years hitting a kid like that. That’s not my character.” Mr. Clark did not recall grabbing R.M.’s hand and testified that he generally stayed away from R.M. because R.M. was rude in his classroom, and they did not get along. Whatever the relationship between R.M. and Mr. Clark, it appeared from R.M.’s demeanor at hearing that he did not care for Mr. Clark, and that may have colored his testimony somewhat. It is found that Mr. Clark tapped several students on the back of the head or neck and squeezed at least one student’s hands together before the administration of the test. The gestures were meant to be an encouragement for the students to do well during the examination, and were not any form of punishment. Mr. Clark’s actions, based on the evidence presented, did not constitute corporal punishment, and did not rise to the level of use of force, much less excessive or unreasonable use of force. The Notice of Specific Charges also alleges that Respondent “used profanity towards at least one student, said other inappropriate things and also used the term ‘these/deez nuts’ prior to the start of the exam.” The only evidence presented regarding profanity during hearing was a statement by Ms. Gonzalez that an unidentified student stated that Mr. Clark was “cursing her.” There was no testimony from that student, and no description that is not hearsay describing what was allegedly said. While Petitioner attempted to characterize the hearsay statement of the student as an excited utterance, there was no evidence presented upon which to predicate that characterization. With respect to the use of the term “deez nuts,” Ms. Gonzalez did not hear Mr. Clark use the term. Both students testified that he did so, in response to a question asked by a student. R.M. testified that the term is slang for “I don’t know,” or “whatever,” and may refer loosely to a young man’s genitalia. A.F. also stated that Mr. Clark used the term “deez nuts” as sort of a joke, and said that use of the term used to be popular as sort of a joke. Both students’ description of the term was somewhat tentative. Mr. Clark testified that he had heard the term before from the students, but would not use it. The more persuasive testimony is that Mr. Clark used the term in response to a student in the classroom, but there was no compelling testimony that the term is anything more than rap- influenced slang. No evidence was presented to indicate whether the students found the term offensive or inappropriate, considered it to be profane, or that any student felt embarrassed or humiliated by its use. Further, the evidence was not persuasive that Mr. Clark intended by his use of the term to refer to genitalia. No evidence was presented regarding any other “inappropriate” comment made by Mr. Clark.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board rescind its order suspending Respondent without pay, and reimburse him for the period for which he was not paid. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 13th day of August, 2018.
