The Issue Whether respondent should be terminated from her employment as a continuing contract school teacher, pursuant to Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes (1981), for alleged gross insubordination within the meaning of Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes (1981), and Rule 6B-4.09(4), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Elva Jean Newland has been a school teacher for 36 years. She has a Bachelor's Degree in Education from Radford College, a Master's Degree in Learning Disabilities from the University of Virginia, and has completed numerous post-graduate courses. (Testimony of Respondent) She has spent her career teaching young children, ages five through eleven. For the past 16 years, she has been employed as a teacher by the School Board of Charlotte County. Until her suspension in May, 1982 (for alleged gross insubordination) , she was employed, under continuing contract, as a kindergarten teacher at Neil Armstrong Elementary School in Port Charlotte, Florida. (Testimony of respondent) She has developed a personal philosophy on discipline in the classroom. Essentially, she maintains that "You cannot teach a child unless you have that child's attention. You cannot get his attention if there is a disruptive influence. (Tr.-175) For many years, she handled disruptive influences in the classroom by using a small paddle which she referred to as "Mister Bolo." When students became disruptive (such as talking too loud or running about the room) she would invite "Mr. Bolo" to "talk" to them. This was accomplished by the child spanking his or her own hands or feet (after removing the shoes) with the bolo paddle. If the child did not administer the spanking, respondent would. (Testimony of respondent, Hrstka) At her principal's request, respondent eventually discarded the "Mr. Bolo" paddle. The School Board maintains that she used other methods of disciplining disruptive children, that she repeatedly administered corporal punishment in direct disobedience of orders of her superiors and rules of the School Board, and that such misconduct constitutes gross insubordination. Respondent denies having administered corporal punishment in violation of orders or rules, and denies the charge of gross insubordination. II. Rules for Administering Corporal Punishment During the 1980-81 and 1981-82 school years, respondent was aware of the rules of the School Board and the Neal Armstrong Elementary School governing corporal punishment. (Prehearing Stipulation, p. 4) These rules defined "corporal punishment" as: the moderate use of physical force or physical contact by a teacher or principal as may be necessary to maintain discipline or to enforce school rules. However, the term corporal punishment does not include the use of such reasonable force by a teacher or principal as may be necessary to protect themselves or other students from disruptive students. (P-2) Essentially,a teacher may administer corporal punishment to enforce discipline (where other methods of seeking cooperation have failed) in accordance with specific criteria. Corporal punishment must be administered in the principal's office; prior approval of the principal is necessary; an adult witness must be present; the witness and the child must be told of the reasons for the corporal punishment; excessive force cannot be used; and, a written report of the incident must be filed with the principal and sent to the child's parents. (P- 2, P-5) Respondent concedes the propriety of these rules and that corporal punishment may not be administered without first complying with them. (Prehearing Stipulation, pp. 6-7) III. During the 1980-1981 School Years, Respondent Administered Corporal Punishment in Violation of the Rules of the School Board and in Defiance of the Orders of Her Principal In early 1981, Lawrence H. Nickler, then principal of Neal Armstrong Elementary School, received complaints from parents that respondent physically punished her students. Mr. Mickler reacted by issuing her a written order. The order, dated February 13, 1981, instructed her to put aside all references to corporal measures; any gesture which might be misconstrued as of a corporal nature; or the use of any devices in such a manner which might be considered as dealing corporal punishment. This includes or could include a ruler, paddle, bolo paddle, etc. (P-7) He specifically warned her that the continuing concern of parents could threaten her career, that her reputation and professional future were in jeopardy. (Testimony of Mickler, P-7) Nonetheless, on or about May 5, 1981, respondent administered corporal punishment to Michelle White, a student, by striking her on the head--a blow which broke the blue plastic headband she was wearing and bruised the child's scalp. Respondent administered this blow to Michelle in the classroom in the presence of other and without first taking her to the principal for corporal punishment, without first securing the presence of an adult witness, and without advising the witness of the reason for the punishment. She also failed to complete the report which must be filed with the principal and sent to the child's parents. (Testimony of respondent, White, P-8) Faced with this violation of his orders, principal Mickler called respondent to his office on May 6, 1981, and discussed the incident with her, informed her that her action violated his previous order, and specifically warned that any further violations would result in disciplinary action. (Testimony of Mickler, P-9) IV. During the 1981-1982 School Year, Respondent Administered Corporal Punishment in Violation of Rules of the School Board and Orders of Her Principal During the 1981-1982 school year, Robert Hrstka became principal of Neal Armstrong Elementary School. On the first day of school, he met with his teachers (including respondent) and reviewed the school handbook, including procedures for handling disciplinary problems. He specifically informed them that they could use corporal punishment only if they followed the rules; that any teacher who intended to use corporal punishment should report to him for a demonstration of the proper technique for administering it. Respondent, however, did not report to him for the demonstration. (Testimony of Hrstka, Prehearing Stipulation, p. 5) Respondent did, however, come to Mr. Hrstka's office the next day and explain to him how she used her "Bolo" paddle. He responded that her use of the paddle constituted corporal punishment, instructed her that she was to discontinue using it, and reminded her that if she wanted to administer corporal punishment she would have to follow the rules. (Testimony of Hrstka, Prehearing Stipulation, pp. 6-7) Nonetheless, during the ensuing school year, respondent administered corporal punishment to five students, on six separate occasions, in violation of the School Board's rules and her principal's orders. Emily Robarge. In October, 1981, respondent administered corporal punishment to Emily Robarge, a kindergarten student, by slapping her on the hands, causing her to cry. This was done in the classroom in the presence of other students, without securing an adult witness, without first taking the student to the principal's office, without first advising an adult witness of the reason for the corporal punishment, and without completing and filing the corporal punishment report form required by the School Board. (Testimony of Hrstka, Respondent's Response to Requests for Admissions, para. 15) Rebecca Hoop. During February, 1982, Rebecca Hoop, a fourth grade student, was making noise by clicking the handle on the front door of the school. Respondent opened the door, pushed her back, and pinched her on the arm, breaking the skin and causing a black-and-blue bruise. This constituted corporal punishment and was administered without taking the student to the principal's office, without first securing an adult witness, without advising an adult witness of the reason for the corporal punishment, and without completing and filing the corporal punishment report form required by the School Board. (Testimony of Jones, respondent, Hrstka) Brian Chelarducci. During March or April, 1982, respondent took Brian Ghelarducci, a student, into the restroom within her classroom and administered corporal punishment by striking him on the hands three or four times, using a ruler or other wooden object. 3/ This occurred in the presence of the other students and without respondent first securing an adult witness, without advising the witness of the reason for the corporal punishment, without taking the student to the principal's office, and without completing and filing the corporal punishment report form required by the School Board. (Testimony of Smoak, Hrstka) Emily Robarge. During the spring of 1982, Respondent again administered corporal punishment to Emily Robarge, a kindergarten student. Emily was late returning from recess and respondent met her outside the classroom door in the hallway. The door was closed. Respondent held the girl by one arm and spanked her fairly hard on the buttocks four or five times, causing the student to cry. (This was more than a series of taps or a nudging to encourage Emily to move more quickly.) This constituted corporal punishment and was administered without respondent first taking Emily to the principal's office, without securing the presence of an adult witness, without advising an adult witness of the reason for the corporal punishment, and without completing and filing the corporal punishment report form required by the School Board. (Testimony of Hrstka, Collard) Jeff Elliot. In January, 1982, respondent administered corporal punishment to Jeff Elliot, a kindergarten student, by striking him on the hands. In the presence of other students, respondent took him behind a classroom bookcase, told him to hold out his hands, and asked if he was going to slap them or would she have to do it. Several slapping sounds ensued, followed by the boy's cries. 4/ This occurred without respondent first taking Jeff to the principal'S office, without securing an adult witness, without advising the witness of the reason for the corporal punishment, and without filing the report form required by the School Board. (Testimony of Barker) Robert Myers. During 1982, respondent administered corporal punishment to Robert Myers, a kindergarten student, by striking him on the buttocks with a yardstick while he leaned across a desk. She struck him three or four times, the blows were hard enough to hurt, and the boy cried. (She admits that she "swatted him on the backside." Tr.-186) Respondent took this action in the presence of other students, without first taking Robert to the principal's office, without first securing the presence of an adult witness, without first advising the witness of the reason for the punishment, and without completing and filing the report form required by the School Board. (Testimony of Barker) V. Respondent's Violation of Rules and Orders Governing Administration of Corporal punishment Was Intentional Respondent's repeated violations of rules and orders governing corporal punishment support an inference that the violations constituted willful and intentional disobedience of lawful authority. When Mr. Hrstka became principal, Endress Barker--a teacher's aide and friend who worked closely with respondent--asked her not to do anything to jeopardize her (respondent's) job--not to spank children without following the procedures and filing the necessary reports. Respondent replied, "Well, we'll see." (Tr.-154) When this statement is considered together with her admission that she was aware of the corporal punishment procedures--procedures which were clear and definite, and which she repeatedly violated--the willful, even defiant, nature of her violations is convincingly established. The evidence supports a conclusion that she made a conscious decision to continue disciplining children in her own way, notwithstanding the contrary rules of the School Board and the orders of her principal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board sustain charges that respondent engaged in gross insubordination, violative of Section 231.36(6), but allow reinstatement on a probationary basis, conditioned upon her acknowledging her duty to comply with the lawful orders of her principal and the rules of the Board. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 15th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 16th day of March, 1983.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated Section 231.3605(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2001), by engaging in alleged harassment, inappropriate interactions with colleagues, or misconduct. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (2001) unless otherwise stated).
Findings Of Fact On March 13, 2000, the School Board employed Respondent as a Plant Operator at Seminole High School. The School Board transferred Respondent to Tarpon Springs High School on May 22, 2000. On August 2, 2000, Respondent earned a satisfactory evaluation from his supervisor. The evaluation stated that he is a "hard worker," a "good team worker," and "he works well with others." On February 15, 2001, Respondent earned a Better Than Satisfactory evaluation from his supervisor. The evaluation stated that Respondent is a "good team worker" and is "always willing to help others." On September 17, 2001, the School Board promoted Respondent to Night Foreman at Cypress Woods Elementary School (Cypress Woods). The two individuals who had previously served as Night Foremen were Barbara Moore (Moore) and Kevin Miller (Miller). At Cypress Woods, Sharon Sisco (Sisco) was the Principal, Marilyn Cromwell (Cromwell) was the Assistant Principal, and Candace Faull (Faull) was the Head Plant Operator. As Head Plant Operator, Faull supervised Respondent as well as Moore and Miller. Each Night Foreman had "poor communication problems" with Faull. Between the fall of 2000 and the spring of 2002, Respondent, Moore, and Miller each supervised individual Plant Operators at Cypress Woods, including Alice Mertz (Mertz). Mertz had problems with taking instructions from each Night Foreman and with taking complaints "over their head[s]" directly to Faull. Faull attempted to "set up" both Miller and Moore for disciplinary action by the School Board. During the fall of 2000, the School Board received numerous complaints from Miller and Moore about the abuse they suffered at Cypress Woods. On October 10, 2000, Sisco issued specific directives to Faull, instructing her "not to make or engage in negative conversation [with] . . . the crew (or other staff) regarding the Night Foreman." On March 14, 2001, Sisco reprimanded Faull and again counseled her "not to make or engage in negative conversation made by the night crew (or other staff) about the night foreman." On March 20, 2001, Cromwell instituted a Success Plan. The Plan instructed the Plant Operations crew to "refrain from gossip and negative comments about each other." The Plan required the Plant Operations crew to maintain a Communications Log. During the spring of 2001, Cromwell monitored the behavior of the Plant Operations staff through regular meetings. The Plant Operations crew continued its historical behavior after the School Board promoted Respondent to Night Foreman at Cypress Woods in the fall of 2001. On February 1, 2002, Respondent earned a Better Than Satisfactory evaluation from Sisco. The evaluation stated that Respondent is a "great team worker" who "gets along with staff." On February 28, 2002, Respondent touched Mertz on her buttocks in the break room at Cypress Woods in the presence of at least two other people in the room. The physical contact occurred when Mertz walked past Respondent on her way out of the break room. Respondent admits that his hand made contact with the buttocks of Mertz. However, Respondent claims that the contact was incidental, not intentional, not inappropriate, and did not satisfy the definition of sexual harassment. Mertz did not confront Respondent but left the room. However, Mertz later filed a sexual harassment complaint with her employer. Campus police investigated the matter on March 1, 2002. The investigation included statements from Mertz, Respondent, and Mr. Todd Hayes (Hayes), one of the individuals who was present in the break room at the time of the incident. All three testified at the administrative hearing and provided written statements during the investigation. Mertz and Respondent also provided deposition testimony during pre- hearing discovery. Respondent also provided an additional statement on March 5, 2002, during an interview with Michael Bissette (Bissette), Administrator of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards (OPS). On March 18, 2002, Bissette determined that Respondent had committed harassment, inappropriate interaction, and misconduct in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(m), (p), and (v), respectively. School Board Policy 8.25(1)(m), (p), and (v) authorizes disciplinary action for each offense that ranges from a caution to dismissal. Bissette recommended to the Superintendent of the School Board that the School Board dismiss Respondent from his employment. By letter dated March 18, 2002, the Superintendent notified Respondent that Respondent was suspended with pay from March 13, 2002, until the next meeting of the School Board on April 16, 2002. If the School Board were to adopt the recommendation of dismissal, the effective date of dismissal would be April 17, 2002. Respondent requested an administrative hearing, and the School Board suspended Respondent without pay on April 17, 2002, pending the outcome of the administrative hearing. Some inconsistencies exist in the accounts provided by Mertz. For example, Mertz claims in her testimony that the incident occurred "around 2:30 p.m." The investigation report by the campus police shows that Mertz claimed the incident occurred around 3:00 or 3:30 p.m. Other inconsistencies exist between the accounts by Mertz and Hayes. For example, Mertz testified that five people were in the break room at the time of the incident and that she did not confront Respondent or say anything to Respondent. Hayes recalls that only four people were in the room and that Mertz did turn and say something to Respondent such as, "Oh stop it." Inconsistencies regarding the time of the incident, the number of people in the break room, and whether Mertz said anything to Respondent at the time are not dispositive of the material issues in this case. The material issues are whether the physical contact by Respondent was intentional, sexual, and offensive, whether it was inappropriate, and whether it constituted misconduct within the meaning of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(m), (p), and (v), respectively. Respondent claims that he touched Mertz accidentally while he was putting his keys into a pocket at the particular time that Mertz walked in front of Respondent. Mertz walked between Respondent and Hayes in a manner that prevented Hayes from observing the actual contact by Respondent. However, Hayes did observe Respondent's movements up to the time of the actual contact. When Respondent was approximately a foot away from Mertz, Respondent moved his left hand from his side in an upward direction with his palm up and fingers extended to a point within an inch or so of the right buttock of Mertz. Respondent's arm was always extended and did not move in a sideways direction that would have occurred if Respondent had been putting keys into his pocket or reaching for keys in his pocket or on his belt. Respondent had a smirk on his face and laughed. The testimony of Hayes at the administrative hearing concerning Respondent's hand and arm movements was consistent with the accounts by Hayes in two written statements provided during the investigation. Mertz felt Respondent grab her right buttock. She felt Respondent's hand tighten on her buttocks. Mertz did not feel Respondent inadvertently touch her. The physical contact Mertz felt on her buttocks was consistent with the observations by Hayes. The testimony of Mertz at the administrative hearing concerning the physical contact is consistent with accounts by Mertz in three written statements provided during the investigation and in her pre-hearing deposition. Respondent's testimony concerning his hand movements in the break room does not possess the consistency present in the accounts by Mertz and Hayes. When asked on direct examination what happened, Respondent testified: I was walking towards the cabinet to get the flags after we'd had a meeting, to leave; she walked by me -- I -- walked behind her. I had my keys clipped to my right side of my belt and they were flopping against my leg. I wasn't going to need my keys so I started to reach over with my left hand to open my pocket because I had my keys in my right hand to put them in, because my pants were tight and there was a top pocket to put them in and as my hand came up and around that's when I hit her, I brushed against her. Transcript (TR) at 284. On cross-examination, counsel for Petitioner asked questions that provided Respondent with an opportunity to reconcile his testimony with ostensibly divergent accounts during the investigation. Q. The day after the incident you wrote a statement for the police officer, didn't you? A. Yes, I did. Q. And in the statement you said Ms. Mertz asked you to grab her can, didn't you? * * * A. Yes, this is what I wrote but I misquoted it. She said that she was going to grab her can. Q. But you wrote in the statement that Alice said, grab my can? Is that what you wrote? A. That's what I wrote but that "my" is her, not me. * * * Q. Let me ask you . . . Did you write in your statement, "and with my left hand I whacked at her to say, hey"? A. Yes. But I was using that as a description on the type of motion it was. It was like a, you know, a hey, type of motion that I came across. TR at 285-286. In Respondent's initial written statement to campus police, Respondent wrote that he whacked at Mertz with his "open" left hand as if to say hey but did not know where contact was made. In a second written statement to campus police, Respondent wrote that he whacked at Mertz with the "back" of his left hand. In an interview with Sisco, Respondent claimed that he and Mertz were just joking. During direct examination, Respondent did not testify that he whacked at Mertz as if to say "hey." Rather, Respondent testified that his left hand inadvertently came in contact with Mertz as a result of Respondent reaching for his keys. The account provided by Respondent during direct examination at the hearing is consistent only with Respondent's testimony in his pre-hearing deposition. The statements given during the investigation are closer in time to the actual event. The actions of Hayes and Mertz immediately following the incident are consistent with their testimony that Respondent intentionally grabbed the buttocks of Mertz in a sexual manner. Hayes asked another individual in the break room if she had observed the incident. He later reported the incident to Faull before speaking to Mertz. Mertz was initially shocked and left the break room; she later reported the incident to her employer. The physical contact by Respondent created an offensive environment for Mertz. Mertz was initially completely in shock. She then became angry and eventually became so angry she "wanted to strangle" Respondent. Mertz cried and was very upset when she completed a written statement for Sisco. She did not tell her husband immediately because she did not want to upset him. Respondent's physical contact with Mertz constituted sexual harassment within the meaning of School Board Policies 8.24 and 8.241. The physical contact was "unwanted sexual attention," "unwanted physical contact of a sexual nature," and "physical contact" that had the purpose of creating an "offensive environment" within the meaning of School Board Policies 8.24(2)(a), (2)(b)4, and 8.241(2)(a)1, respectively. Respondent's physical contact with Mertz violated the prohibitions in School Board Policy 8.25(1)(m), (p), and (v). The physical contact was harassment that created an offensive environment in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(m). It was an inappropriate interaction that violated Policy 8.25(1)(p). It was misconduct that violated Policy 8.25(1)(v). Respondent has no prior disciplinary history. The physical contact engaged in by Respondent is his first offense and is a single isolated violation of applicable School Board policy. Respondent has never asked Mertz on a date, never seen her outside work, never made any sexual comments either to her or about her, and has never touched her when they were working alone together on the night shift.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the three charged offenses, suspending Respondent without pay from April 17 through September 17, 2002, and reinstating Respondent to his former position on September 18, 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DANIEL MANRY 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 6th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Jacqueline Spoto Bircher, Esquire Pinellas County School Board 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942 Ted E. Karatinos, Esquire Seeley & Karatinos, P.A. 3924 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33711 Dr. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent Pinellas County School Board 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-3536 Honorable Charlie Crist, Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Jean Berrouet, committed the violations alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Jean Berrouet (Berrouet) has worked at Lakeview as a teacher from 1992 through October 2006 in Miami-Dade County Florida. He taught Haitian Creole to the ESOL students from Haitian background as well as basic science, social studies, and mathematics to the ESOL Level 1 and 2 Haitian Creole students. On or about June 1, 1998, Berrouet was officially reprimanded for using corporal punishment in disciplining students. He was specifically directed by memorandum "immediately to refrain from using physical means to affect student behavior" by Lakeview Principal, Edith Norniella. Berrouet's licensure was also previously subjected to disciplinary action in Florida. He was reprimanded by the Education Practices Commission for inappropriately disciplining a student in class by hitting a student with a pointer. On or about April 23, 1999, the Education Practices Commission placed Berrouet on two years of probation with the following terms: acceptance of a written reprimand, yearly probation fees of $150.00, completion of a three credit course on classroom management, participation in the recovery network program and prohibition from violating any laws as well as fully complying with all district school board regulations, school rules and State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006. Prior to starting the 2006-2007 school year, Berrouet attended an in-service meeting at Lakeview where school policies were reviewed including student behavior, the code of conduct, and corporal punishment. Berrouet was also provided a Lakeview Elementary School Staff Handbook that included specific guidelines and procedures for student behavior including discipline. As a School Board employee, Respondent was expected to conduct himself in accordance with School Board rules. Respondent holds professional teaching certificate 677708 issued by the Florida Department of Education (DOE). His certificate is valid through June 30, 2009. Berrouet only teaches Haitain Creole students. Since 1992, he has used a technique to help the Haitian Creole students try to transition into the American culture and focus them on their lesson. The technique included Berrouet touching the students' ears to get their attention and saying "You have two ears, not one. You have one mouth, not two . . . So you should do more listening than talking." No parent ever complained about the technique to Berrouet or the Administration. Additionally, no administrator ever addressed that there was a problem with the technique Berrouet performed. The technique is not a punishment. Berrouet even used the technique at least once in the classroom on a student while being observed by the principal. Berrouet's testimony is more credible than the children because he has been using the focusing technique for 14 years, been observed by an administrator using the technique and it was never brought to his attention that it was inappropriate. On October 9, 2006, during the last period of the day, Berrouet had approximately 30 students in his mathematics tutorial after-school class from 5:00-6:00 p.m. His actual classroom size assignment was 15. However, a teacher had left early for the day and the other teacher's students were in Mr. Berrouet's classroom for him to oversee, even though the additional 15 students were permanently assigned to the teacher's classroom who had left early. An altercation occurred in Berrouet's classroom at approximately 5:45 p.m. between two students from the other class, A.B. and M.L. A.B ran behind Berrouet, who was standing at the door and asked Berrouet to help protect her from M.L. M.L. was running after A.B. Berrouet put his hand up and directed M.L. to go back to her seat. However, M.L. kept chasing after A.B. running toward Berrouet into his outreached arm and hand with her upper body (to the chest, neck or shoulder). A.B. left the room. Berrouet stood between A.B. and M.L. at the doorway to prevent M.L from going after A.B. M.L. continued to try to push through Berrouet trying to get to A.B. The incident took a few seconds. Berrouet did not make any effort to activate the button to call the office about the incident. If he had left the doorway to go across the classroom to push the office button, M.L. would have had access to attack A.B. Berrouet standing in the doorway was the only barrier preventing M.L. from reaching A.B. After Berrouet told M.L. to sit down and she was unable to get pass Berreout to A.B., she went to her seat and cried. M.L. cried because she was upset and couldn't get to A.B. Berrouet kept A.B outside and allowed another student to get her book bag and take it to her so she could leave for the day. Berrouet kept M.L. in the classroom a few minutes after A.B left to ensure that A.B. was gone and no further interaction would occur between the girls. Berrouet was not aware of the earlier kicking incident between M.L. and A.B. He first became aware of a problem between the girls when A.B. ran behind him for help. Berrouet did not write up a Student Case Management Referral Form since he had no knowledge of the kicking incident and because he thought he had diffused the potential altercation by him standing between the students. Berrouet's testimony and that of M.L. is deemed more persuasive then that of the other children witnesses. As the parties were directly involved in the incident, Berrouet and M.L. provided the most competent, credible testimony about the disputed matters. On October 10, 2006, the next morning after the incident, M.L.'s mother showed up with M.L. at Lakeview to meet with Mr. Jeffrey Hernandez, the principal. M.L.'s mother reported that Berrouet had grabbed M.L. by the neck on the previous day. Hernandez completed a Miami-Dade County Public Schools School Operations Incident Report regarding the matter. Berrouet was provided a memorandum dated October 10, 2007, entitled Notification of Allegation. Subsequently, the School Board of Miami-Dade County at a meeting on March 14, 2007, suspended Berrouet without pay and initiated dismissal proceedings. On May 3, 2007, the School Board filed its Notice of Specific Charges charging Respondent with misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and violation of School Board policies regarding corporal punishment and responsibilities and duties.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing all charges against Respondent and Miami-Dade County School Board reinstate Respondent with full back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY 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 9th day of October, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 Janeen L. Richard, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Rudolph F. Crew, Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Jeanine Blomberg, Interim Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to have disciplinary action taken against Respondent on the basis of alleged misconduct which is set forth in a three count Administrative Complaint. The misconduct alleged consists primarily of assertions that the Respondent used various forms of corporal punishment on her students and that she also engaged in verbal abuse of her students.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent currently holds Florida teaching certificate number 151121, covering the area of elementary education. The certificate is valid through June 30, 1995. During the 1990-1991 school year and during the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent was employed as a teacher at Charles R. Drew Elementary School in the Dade County School District. In January of 1992, the Respondent threw a wooden ruler at A. S., who was a minor male student in her class. The ruler hit A. S. in the face and left a scratch on his face. This incident took place in class in the presence of other students in the class. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent pinched A. S., a minor male student, on the ear in front of the other students in the class. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent struck L. W., a minor female student, with a ruler on her hands and on her legs. The ruler left marks on L. W.'s hands. Student L. W. cried as a result of being struck with the ruler and she felt sad. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent on several occasions used offensive and indecent language in the classroom, sometimes directing such language towards her students. The offensive and indecent language included such words as "fuck," "damn," "bitch," and "ass." During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent used tape to restrain M. S., a minor male student. Specifically, the Respondent taped student M. S.'s mouth closed, taped his arms to the arm rests of his chair, and taped his feet to the legs of his chair. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent used tape on minor male student, P. B., to keep his mouth closed. Student P. B. was taped up in front of the class, which caused him to feel sad. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent used tape on minor male student, A. S., to keep his mouth closed. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent used tape on minor male student, T. L., to keep his mouth closed and to prevent him from talking. The Respondent also used tape to restrain T. L. Specifically, the Respondent taped T. L. to his chair. On several occasions during the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent threw a wooden ruler, and other similar objects, at students in her class. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent struck minor male student, M. S., with a wooden ruler. This incident was observed by the other students in the class and made M. S. feel sad and embarrassed. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent struck minor male student, P. B., on the buttocks with a wooden ruler. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent struck minor female student, D. H., on the buttocks with a counter in class. This incident embarrassed the student. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent stuck minor male student, T. L., on his left arm with a counter in class. This incident embarrassed the student. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent pinched the ear of minor male student, T. L. in class. On numerous occasions prior to the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent, and all other teachers at Charles R. Drew Elementary School, had been made aware of the policies of the Dade County School District prohibiting corporal punishment. The Respondent had also been made aware of what was encompassed by the term "corporal punishment." In a memorandum dated February 12, 1991, concerning the use of corporal punishment, the Respondent was specifically instructed not to throw rulers at students.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case revoking the Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of three years and providing that any recertification of the Respondent shall be pursuant to Section 231.28(4)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of September 1993. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 28th day of September 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6896 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 5: Accepted. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance, although the language used is more accurately described as indecent or offensive than as profanity. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13: Accepted in substance, with some repetitious information omitted. Paragraph 14: Admitted Paragraph 15: Rejected because not charged in the Administrative Complaint. Paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 25: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details, many of which are also irrelevant. Findings submitted by Respondent: Paragraphs 1 and 2: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5: These paragraphs are accurate summaries of a portion of the allegations and of a portion of the evidence, but there was other evidence which supports a finding that Audric Sands was struck on the chin by a ruler thrown at him by the Respondent. Paragraph 6: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20: These paragraphs are all essentially correct summaries of the testimony described in each paragraph. Although there are differences in the details reported by the several child-witnesses, such differences are not unusual when several young children describe an event. There was a great deal of consistency on several relevant matters. Paragraphs 21 and 22: These paragraphs are essentially accurate summaries of the testimony of the witness referred to. Although the witness Mr. Jim Smith testified he never heard or saw any misconduct by the Respondent, I still find the testimony of the child-witnesses to be persuasive. The child-witnesses were with the Respondent on many occasions when Mr. Smith was not present. Also, Mr. Smith worked as an aide to the Respondent only from some time in November or December until sometime in late January. Paragraphs 23, 24 and 25: These paragraphs are essentially accurate summaries of the Respondent's testimony. To the extent the testimony summarized here conflicts with the testimony of the child-witnesses, I have generally accepted as more persuasive the testimony of the child-witnesses. Paragraphs 26 and 27: I have resolved the conflicts in the evidence other than as suggested here. I have found most of the child-witnesses' testimony to be credible. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory A. Chaires, Esquire Department of Education 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 William du Fresne, Esquire Du Fresne and Bradley, P.A. 2929 South West Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was a noninstructional employee of the School Board of Date County, Florida at all times material hereto, and was assigned to Thomas Jefferson Junior High School as a teacher's aide. The Respondent has six years' experience as a teacher's aide with the Dade County School System. He has a high school education and thirteen months of college, as well as twelve months of technical training, including studies in psychology. The Respondent has never, in all the time he has been employed in the Dade County School System, had any complaints lodged against him for aggressive or violent conduct and has never been previously involved in an incident in which he struck a student, although on one occasion he had to defend himself when a student attacked him. On September 22, 1980, the Respondent escorted some students to a physical education class on the school athletic field. While he was attempting to get the complaining student, Jose Velez, to return to the classroom, that student threatened him with violence and ultimately physically attacked the Respondent. Mr. Turnquist had to restrain the student and escort him to the school office for imposition of disciplinary measures regarding his behavior. The Petitioner's first witness, Gloria Randolph, is the Assistant Principal for Curriculum and Teacher Morale. She supervises the Exceptional Student Department, as well as the teachers' aides, and is acquainted with the protagonists in the subject incident. She observed the Respondent enter the school office with the student, Jose Velez, conversing in loud voices, both the Respondent and Velez appearing quite agitated. The Respondent told her that he "brought this boy up here and want something done about it." The Respondent and the subject student, at that time, were standing about five feet apart. She stepped between them, but the student kept advancing and she had to shove him back repeatedly. The student, Velez, acting in an aggressive, mocking manner, urged the Respondent to hit him, and threatened him with bodily harm. The tension between the two kept increasing, with the ultimate result that the Respondent struck the student with a light blow to the cheek. According to both Petitioner's witnesses, the student seemed relieved at that point and immediately calmed down. Witness Randolph acknowledged that the Respondent exercised good judgment, up until the point of striking the student, because he followed appropriate procedures in bringing the student to the office for disciplinary measures to be taken, and did not indulge in an argument with the student, although she did feel it was poor judgment for him to strike the student. The student, Jose Velez, is at least six feet in height and is considerably taller than the Respondent. Petitioner's witness, Marilyn Mattran, a teacher at Jefferson Junior High School, who was in the office and observed the subject altercation, established that Velez repeatedly threatened the Respondent with physical harm and that the student engaged in most of the yelling and in the aggressive behavior she observed. She corroborated the fact that when the Respondent actually struck Velez, that he immediately calmed down. She also corroborated the testimony of witness Randolph, as well as the Respondent's witness, Leah Alopari, that Jose Velez is an emotionally disturbed student who has an extensive history of aggressive, violent behavior and has made a practice of threatening students and teachers with physical violence and harm, even to the extent of threatening the use of a deadly weapon. He has, on occasion, done physical violence to other children. These three witnesses all acknowledged that the Respondent has never in the past, in their experience, demonstrated poor judgment in his conduct toward and transactions with students or teachers. Leah Aloari is the Respondent's supervising teacher. Jose Velez was one of her students, and she corroborated the fact, demonstrated by the other witnesses, that this particular student was aggressive, difficult to control and prone to engage in violent behavior. The Respondent assisted her in helping discipline her students, with the academic program and in escorting children to and from lunch, classes and the athletic field. She has never observed the Respondent engage in violent behavior in his relations with teachers or students, nor commit an act which exhibited poor judgment or misconduct in the course of his duties. As indicated above, the Respondent has had an exemplary record in his six years with the Dade County School System. Jose Velez, on the other hand, has been a constant disciplinary problem as acknowledged by the Petitioner's and Respondent's witnesses. The Respondent has a chronic neck injury involving a pinched nerve in the neck, and genuinely believed himself to be in danger of physical assault and harm by Velez when the incident occurred in the office. He believed it unwise to retreat in the fact of Velez's threats and aggressive advance upon him because he felt Velez was about to physically attack him. The Respondent did not feel that the other teacher and the Assistant Principal, who were the only other persons in the office at the time, could have restrained or adequately controlled Velez alone if he had retreated. There is no question, especially in view of the fact that the Respondent had already been assaulted by the student on the athletic field, that he genuinely believed that the situation called for him taking steps to defend himself. His act of self-defense in striking the student was itself marked by some restraint in the sense that he withheld striking the student with as much force as he was capable of. There is no evidence that he caused any permanent harm to the student. Indeed, even the Petitioner's witnesses established that it had the beneficial effect of calming the student down and preventing any further violent conduct on his part or possible injury to the students, the Respondent, others present, or possible damage to the Petitioner's property in the immediate vicinity. The undersigned considers it significant also that the student, although initially complaining of the Respondent's action, did not appear and testify at the hearing in furtherance of his complaint against the Respondent and that there was no significant physical injury inflicted upon Velez.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds teaching certificate number 230805 issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education. Respondent's teaching certificate is valid through June 30, 1996. Respondent is certified in administration, supervision, and physical education. Respondent has been employed by the Orange County School District for approximately 20 years (the "District"). Respondent was employed as a physical education teacher at Hungerford Elementary School for approximately 13 years ("Hungerford") until 1991 when he was transferred to Orlando Vocational Technical Center. Respondent is currently the Dean of Students at Orlando Vocational Technical Center. While he taught at Hungerford, Respondent was respected by his peers and by his students. Students generally enjoyed Respondent's physical education classes. Respondent holds a black belt in karate and is a weight lifter. He routinely allowed several students at a time to jump on him during physical education class and wrestle with him. Respondent was a strict teacher at Hungerford. He believed strongly in discipline. Students in his classes were generally well-behaved. Physical Force Against Students At Hungerford, Respondent frequently used physical contact to gain the attention of misbehaving male students. He typically tapped boys on top of their heads, in the sternum with an open hand or fist, or in the rear end with a track baton. Respondent never intended to embarrass or disparage any of his male students. The vast majority of students recognized that Respondent was merely attempting to gain their attention or playing around. Respondent's discipline in karate gave him more than adequate control to prevent harm to any misbehaving student when Respondent used physical contact to gain their attention. Respondent never lost that control in his classes. No student was physically injured as a result of physical contact from Respondent. Respondent's physical contact was not calculated to cause misbehaving students any pain or discomfort. Respondent was criticized by some who thought he was too severe a disciplinarian. In 1987, some students lodged complaints against Respondent for alleged physical abuse. Two legal proceedings were brought by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services over allegations of physical abuse. Respondent successfully defended both proceedings. Sometime in 1988 or 1989, Respondent tapped Andre Hunter in the chest with an open hand. At the time, Andre was a third grade student at Hungerford. Respondent did not hurt Andre. Andre ". . . didn't feel nothing. It didn't hurt. It just felt like he tapped me." Transcript at 24. On separate occasions in 1988 or 1989, Respondent tapped Billy Washington on the head with his fist and hit him on the behind with a track baton. Billy was in Respondent's physical education class during the second, third, and fourth grades. When Respondent tapped Billy on the head, "It was funny. It didn't hurt." Transcript at 34. When Respondent hit Billy on the behind with a track baton, "It stung a little bit, but it didn't bother me." Id. Emotionally, Billy ". . . felt all right." He ". . . didn't think about it. It didn't bother me." Transcript at 35. On separate occasions in 1988 or 1989, Respondent tapped Bobby King in the chest with Respondent's fist. At the time, Bobby was in the first or second grade. It hurt Bobby and made him mad. Bobby did not understand why Respondent struck him. On September 22, 1989, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from the District. The District reprimanded Respondent for using unnecessary physical force against a student on March 20, 1989. The letter directed Respondent to refrain from the use of threatening behavior and physical force against students. Attendance And Inadequate Supervision During the 1988-1989 and 1989-1990 school years, Respondent sometimes failed to properly supervise students in his class. Respondent was late to class a few times. A few times, he left the school campus prior to the end of the school day without permission. Respondent failed to let other school employees know that he would not be at school. However, his attendance record neither adversely affected his teaching effectiveness nor impaired his relationship with his colleagues or students. On February 14, 1990, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from the District. The District reprimanded Respondent for leaving the school campus without permission from the principal, not adequately supervising his students on one occasion, and for acting in a threatening or intimidating manner toward the principal when confronted about Respondent's supervision of his students. Transfer To Vo-Tech On August 21, 1990, Respondent was removed from his classroom duties at Hungerford and placed on relief of duty status with full pay and benefits. The District took the action as a result of allegations of inappropriate discipline, leaving students unsupervised, and insubordination. Respondent was subsequently transferred to Orlando Vocational and Technical School. Respondent continues to enjoy wide respect as a teacher from parents, other teachers, and community leaders. As Dean of Students, Respondent currently holds a responsible position of employment with the District. Respondent functions effectively in that position. Deferred Prosecution Agreement On October 8, 1991, Respondent and Petitioner entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement. On or before October 8, 1992, Respondent agreed to successfully complete college courses in Assertive Discipline, Classroom Management, and Methods of Teaching Elementary Physical Education. Respondent further agreed to provide written verification that Respondent completed the required courses. Respondent failed to complete the required courses in a timely manner. Although Respondent ultimately completed the required courses, he had not supplied Petitioner with written verification as of the date of the formal hearing. If Respondent had timely complied with the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, this proceeding would not have been instituted. Respondent believed in good faith that his transfer out of the classroom to his position as Dean of Students made the courses on classroom techniques unnecessary. Respondent was notified in 1993 that he was in violation of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement. Respondent promptly enrolled in the required classes and completed them. Respondent has now complied with all of the conditions of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Educational Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the charge that he failed to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their learning and not guilty of the remaining charges in the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the Commission issue a letter of reprimand to Respondent and, pursuant to Section 231.262(6)(c), impose an administrative fine not to exceed $750. RECOMMENDED this 22d day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 22d day of November, 1994.
The Issue Whether Respondent Troutman should have been suspended as an employee of the Dade County School Board.
Findings Of Fact The evidence and testimony presented and the proposed recommended order and memorandums of law have been considered in the writing of this order. Respondent Wayne Troutman is a five year-tenured teacher employed by the Petitioner School Board of Dade County Florida, at Brownville Jr. High School. On November 4th, 1977, Respondent was in the school washroom washing football uniforms. Students were walking down the halls enroute to class. A thirteen (13) year old eighth grade student, Prince Sharpe, called out the word "hook", a term he said he uses when speaking to at least two of his friends. Respondent did not see Sharpe at the time the comment was made but testified that he recognized Sharpe's voice and that the student was speaking to him and called him "hook nigger" three times. Sharpe denied he used the term in reference to Respondent. Shortly thereafter, Respondent entered the classroom in which Ms. Edwinda Dennis, a teacher, was convening her third period class. Be asked permission to speak to her student, Prince Sharpe, and having secured permission went to Sharpe's seat. When Sharpe leaned back in the desk smiling and laughing, Respondent grabbed the boy's shirt in the collar area holding him so that he could only move his feet and aims. Respondent pushed the student against the wall and the window so that the plastic window pine popped out and the student was pushed partially out the window. Ms. Dennis became alarmed, shouted at Respondent to try to stop the struggle and ran to the back of the room and jumped on Respondent's back endeavoring to separate the two. The student was screaming "Let me go!" and when he was released he ran from the classroom. The principal told relatives of the incident and they came to the school and talked with the Respondent. The Respondent admitted that he was "tense" at the time of the struggle. He also testified that he had used such force on other students from time to time. The Petitioner placed Respondent on indefinite suspension charging the violation of School Hoard Policy 6GX13-50-1.07; violation of Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes, and Section 784.07, Florida Statutes. Petitioner contends: That she term "hook" or "hook nigger" may or may not have had a negative connotation; that there was evidence the child who weighed approximately ninety (90) pounds was pushed against a wall and partially through a window; that Respondent grabbed him around the neck and collar area with undue force and that the attack was unprovoked and an assault on the child; that the conduct of Respondent was inappropriate and misconduct; that Respondent should have been suspended and should be dismissed. Respondent contends: That Respondent did not administer "corporal punishment" as defined in the Board Rules; that the acts of Respondent were not a physical assault and battery; that as a teacher, Respondent stood in "loco parentis" and that touching was acceptable; that the child provoked the teacher with a comment, lend talk and laughter; that the acts of Respondent were mere discipline in a school where discipline is a major problem; that the student was not afraid of Respondent; that Respondent should be reinstated with back pay.
Recommendation Affirm the suspension without pay until the end of the school year in which the incident took place and reinstate for the next year. DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of July, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Esquire 3000 Executive Building 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 300E Miami, Florida 33137 Elizabeth J. du Fresne, Esquire 1782 One Biscayne Tower Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the School Board of Lee County (School Board) should terminate the Respondent, Christel Freeman, for fighting with another school bus employee on School Board property.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Christel Freeman, has been a school bus driver employed by the School Board since 2002. There was no evidence that she was anything other than an exemplary employee until an incident that occurred at the School Board’s Leonard Street bus compound at the end of the work day. She and her boyfriend, Mike Ortes, were driving their personal vehicle from the back of the compound to the front, where the employees clock out and usually visit for a while before going home, when she spotted another employee, Ashley Thomas, who had just recently been transferred to Leonard Street. The Respondent approached Thomas, who was visiting with co-workers at a picnic table, because she suspected that Thomas was having sexual relations with her boyfriend and wanted to tell Thomas to stay away from her boyfriend, stop interfering with the Respondent’s family unit, and stop “talking trash about her.” When she got within earshot, the Respondent asked Thomas if they could talk in private. Thomas said, yes, and the two walked away from the co-workers at the picnic table. The Respondent began to tell Thomas what she wanted to talk about, and the conversation soon became heated. After they left the view of the co-workers at the picnic table, they passed another co-worker who was sitting in a vehicle and who said something to Thomas. As Thomas turned to respond to the speaker, the Respondent struck Thomas with her hand or fist on the side of the face, near the eye. Thomas was carrying her car keys, cell phone, and purse and was surprised by the blow. When the Respondent followed up with another blow, Thomas began to defend herself by hitting back. The nearby co-workers very quickly ran to the combatants to separate them. In the process, the combatants fell down, with the Respondent landing on top. The scuffling continued for a brief time until the combatants were separated. By this time, Thomas’s shirt had been torn open at the front buttons, her face was bruised and swelling, and her eye was hurt. The Respondent also had an eye injury from being hit with Thomas’s car keys. The police were called, but the Respondent left the scene with her boyfriend by the time the police arrived. After some leading questions by the Respondent, Ortes supported her testimony that they went to the hospital for emergency treatment for her eye and, once there, called the police, who responded to the hospital. After discussing the incident with the police, neither woman pressed charges. The Respondent’s primary defense is that after she called Thomas a “nasty bitch,” Thomas struck her first with the car keys, and the Respondent defended herself. However, the other witnesses to the incident saw it the other way around, with the Respondent hitting first without provocation. The Respondent attempted to undermine that testimony by saying those witnesses were family and friends of Thomas. To the contrary, the evidence was that the family and friends of Thomas were not the eyewitnesses who testified; rather, Thomas’s family and friends either did not testify or testified that they were not eyewitnesses to the incident. While the Respondent attempted to downplay the state of her emotions at the time of the incident, it is clear from the evidence that she was angry at Thomas and initiated the conversation in that state of mind. It is possible that what triggered the Respondent’s violence was Thomas saying the Respondent should ask her boyfriend for the answers to her questions, which the Respondent took as flaunting an admission that they were having sexual relations. According to the Respondent’s testimony, her job with the School Board is very important to her and her family. Notwithstanding that she has not admitted instigating the fight with Thomas and throwing the first blow, she understands that the consequences of engaging in similar conduct again would certainly be the permanent loss of her job. For that reason, it is unlikely that she would put herself in that position in the future. There is a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (SPALC) that governs the Respondent’s employment. The procedure followed in the Respondent’s case is set out in sections 7.10 and 7.103 of the SPALC agreement. Section 7.10 of the SPALC agreement provides: The parties agree that dismissal is the extreme disciplinary penalty, since the employee’s job seniority, other contractual benefits, and reputation are at stake. In recognition of this principle, it is agreed that disciplinary actions(s) taken against SPALC bargaining unit members shall be consistent with the concept and practice of the collective bargaining agreement and that in all instances the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee’s record. Any discipline during the contract year, that constitutes a verbal warning, letter of warning, letter of reprimand, suspension, demotion or termination shall be for just cause. Section 7.10 also states that employee misconduct is a ground for suspension without pay or termination of employment. The SPALC agreement does not define misconduct. The School Board has policies that govern employee conduct. Policy 4.09 adopts a “zero tolerance” policy for threats of violence. It prohibits “any verbal, written or electronically communicated threat, suggestion or prediction of violence against any person.” Id. “Any serious threat of violence shall result in immediate disciplinary action and referral to the appropriate law enforcement agency.” Id. School Board Policy 5.29(1) states: “All employees are expected to exemplify conduct that is lawful and professional ” School Board Policy 2.02(2) describes and prohibits “unacceptable/disruptive behavior.” This includes “[u]sing unreasonable loud and/or offensive language, swearing, cursing, using profane language, or display of temper.” Id. at ¶ (b). It also includes “[t]hreatening to do bodily or physical harm to a . . . school employee . . . regardless of whether or not the behavior constitutes a criminal violation.” Id. at ¶ (c). It also includes “[a]ny other behavior which disrupts the orderly operation of a school, school classroom, or any other School District facility.” Id. at ¶ (e). Section 7.103 of the SPALC agreement allows an employee being terminated to either file a grievance under Article 5 or request a hearing before the School Board, but not both. Section 7.13 of the SPALC agreement provides that employees “shall not engage in speech, conduct, behavior (verbal or nonverbal), or commit any act of any type which is reasonably interpreted as abusive, profane, intolerant, menacing, intimidating, threatening, or harassing against any person in the workplace.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of employee misconduct and either terminating her employment, or suspending her without pay and reinstating her upon entry of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 27th day of June, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Pam Stewart, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Nancy J. Graham Superintendent of Lee County Schools 2855 Colonial Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33966-1012 Robert Dodig, Jr., Esquire School District of Lee County 2855 Colonial Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33966-1012 Christel Freeman 2119 French Street Fort Myers, Florida 33916-4434
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Clarence Davis, holder of teaching certificate number 137897 issued by the State of Florida. Respondent is currently employed by Petitioner as a teacher pursuant to a continuing contract which has been in effect since April 21, 1971. Respondent is presently a teacher at Azalea Middle School. In September of 1988 or early October 1988, a 12 year old female student, J.B., in Respondent's gym class complained to Respondent that another student was hitting her. Respondent refused to take any action. From his view of the class seating arrangement on the gym bleachers, Respondent felt there was no way that the student accused could have hit the complainant. Respondent told J.B. to stop crying like a baby. Respondent had been previously requested to use extra sensitivity in dealing with J.B. because she was a recent victim of a violent sex crime. J.B., through her parents, subsequently requested and received a transfer from Respondent's class by the school principal. At the beginning of the 1988-89 school term, D.W. was a student in Respondent's gym class. D.W. testified that Respondent yelled at him in a rude manner and propelled him into a fence on an out door court yard who he hit a volley ball incorrectly. D.W.'s testimony in this regard is not credited because his version of events was not corroborated by other testimony and is in conflict with testimony of Respondent that the incident did not occur and that D.W.'s class did not participate in any out door volley ball activity. D.W. admitted he "mouthed off" to Respondent on several occasions. When Respondent would give D.W. a directive, D.W.'s response was "no". Such an admission is inconsistent with D.W.'s testimony that he was afraid of Respondent; therefore that portion of D.W.'s testimony also is not credited. The principal of the school transferred D.W. from Respondent's class at the request of D.W.'s parents and because D.W. did not have respect for Respondent. Due to his absence on the day that volley ball teams were chosen, V.C. was not assigned to a team when he returned to Respondent's gym class on or about October 19, 1988. V.C. was not supposed to be seated in the gym bleachers with other students who were excused from "dressing out." Respondent yelled at V.C. and told him to get out of the class. V.C. complied and went to the school administrator's office. V.C. was not given a pass or a referral by Respondent in accordance with school policy requirements. V.C. was frightened by Respondent's action. A subsequent parental request to transfer V.C. from Respondent's class was granted by the school principal. On October 20, 1988, Respondent went to the classroom of a fellow teacher, Ms. Moore, and gestured through the glass portion of the door for her to come out and speak with him. She started her class to work on an assignment and stepped out the door to speak with Respondent. The conversation lasted four to five minutes and dealt primarily with Respondent's concern that he was being harassed by school administrative officials. Petitioner's policy no. 6Gx52-2.08 directs that class interruptions must be made at such times as will not interrupt classroom instruction. Just prior to the conversation with Ms. Moore, Respondent had spoken with the school principal in the principal's office. At the meeting with the principal, the principal deliberately left his door ajar for Respondent, not wanting to have a closed door meeting with Respondent. Respondent came into the principal's office and shut the door. Respondent was told by the principal that D.W. would be transferred to another class. Respondent argued with the principal, shook his finger in the principal's face and said "I won't be treated like a child." When the principal reached for the door handle, Respondent held the door shut and continued speaking in a voice loud enough for administrative personnel seated at desks approximately 15 feet outside the door to become concerned. The principal did not ask Respondent to open the door or to remove his hand from the door. Respondent then left the office, walked a short distance toward the exit to the administrative office section, and came back to the door of the principal's office where he again shouted that he wasn't being treated fairly, or words of similar import. Respondent then left the area. Another 13 year old male student, P.L., was transferred from Respondent's class at the request of his mother after the first grading period of the 1988-89 school year. P.L. received an "F" from Respondent for the first grading period because P.L. refused to dress out for physical education class. P.L. also witnessed Respondent yell and scream at other students. P.L. did not recall specific incidents and his testimony cannot be credited as corroborative of any particular incident alleged against Respondent. On or about October 28, 1988, Respondent grabbed D.B., a 14 year old seventh grade student, who was in the process of fighting with another student. As established by Respondent's testimony, D.B. is a "street smart" kid adept at fighting who poses a danger to other students in such a situation. As a result, Respondent held D.B.'s arm and carried him back to his office from the floor of the gym. D.B. is still in Respondent's class. Testimony of D.B. that Respondent intentionally twisted D.B.'s arm is not credited due to the demeanor of the witness while testifying; the lack of corroborative testimony of Respondent's arm twisting conduct by other witnesses; the testimony of another student, L.H., that he observed the incident and did not see D.B.'s arm twisted; and Respondent's denial of such action. On or about September 5, 1986, the principal of the school where Respondent was then employed, counselled Respondent concerning his aggressive touching of students. Respondent was reprimanded in a memorandum from the principal of Azalea Middle School dated April 18, 1989, for unprofessional conduct. The Superintendent of Schools for Pinellas County reprimanded Respondent by letter dated June 1, 1988, for failure to meet professional standards relating to personal conduct. Respondent was warned that failure to follow administrative directives and treat colleagues and staff in an appropriate and acceptable manner in the future would result in a recommendation to Petitioner that Respondent be disciplined through suspension or termination of employment. The Director of Personnel Services for Petitioner was presented at final hearing as an expert in education practices and administration. Based upon his review of Respondent's previous disciplinary record, he opined that disciplinary action was appropriate. While he had met with Respondent to advise him of the disciplinary matters pending against Respondent, the director admitted that he did not discuss with Respondent the alleged incidents involving students J.B., V.C., D.W., and P.L.; therefore he did not have the benefit of information from Respondent in formulating an opinion regarding the appropriateness of the discipline proposed in this case. The school principal never consulted Respondent with regard to learning Respondent's version of the incidents involving students J.B. or D.W. The principal heard Respondent's version during the October 20, 1988, meeting with Respondent in the principal's office. Notably, the principal did meet with D.W., his parents and another instructor in a different class to resolve behavioral problems in that class. As stipulated by the parties, Petitioner bases Respondent's suspension for three days without pay upon Respondent's alleged actions with regard to students J.B., D.W., and V.C.; his confrontation with the school principal on October 20, 1988; his discussion of the matter with fellow teacher, Ms. Moore, on October 20, 1988; and his alleged failure to comply with previous directives to correct deficiencies in his professional behavior as set forth in previous reprimands. Petitioner's second suspension of Respondent without pay for a period of five days is based upon allegations that Respondent engaged in actions after November 8, 1988, and prior to December 14, 1988, consisting of pushing and shoving students in a punitive manner; that such alleged misconduct by Respondent occurred while the previous suspension action of November 8, 1988, was still pending; and that Respondent had been previously warned in reprimands issued to him in 1986 and 1988 to refrain from such conduct. The basis of the allegation regarding Respondent's pushing and shoving of students, relied upon by Petitioner to support the second suspension, consists of the incident involving student D.B. A second incident involving student M.S., a female in the sixth grade physical education class of Respondent, occurred after the December 14, 1988 date of the charging instrument for the second suspension and is not credited with regard to present charges.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 88-5720 and Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 89- 0344 dismissing the proposed suspensions of Respondent from his employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 21st day of April, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-5720 AND 89-0344 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Finding of Fact, paragraph 1. Accepted. Finding of Fact, paragraph 1. Accepted. Finding of Fact, paragraph 2. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact, paragraph 2. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact, paragraph 2. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact, paragraph 2. Accepted. Finding of Fact, paragraph 3. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact, paragraph 4. Accepted. Finding of Fact, paragraph 3. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact paragraph 5. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. However, as to material findings see paragraphs 5, 6, and 7. Accepted. Finding of Fact, paragraph 5. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact, paragraph 6. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact, paragraph 6. Paragraphs 15, 16, 17, and 18 are accepted to the extent facts are addressed in Finding of Fact paragraph 6. The remaining portions are rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 19 is accepted. Finding of Fact paragraph 6. Paragraph 20 is accepted in material part and addressed in Finding of Fact paragraph 8. Paragraph 21 accepted but unnecessary. By her admission, Respondent used $2000 borrowed from Washington toward her purchase of the car. Paragraph 22 is accepted. Finding of Fact paragraph 12. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Finding of Fact paragraph 2. Accepted in part Finding of Fact paragraph 3. Rejected as to suggestion, Respondent did not know. See subsequent findings of fact paragraph 5. Accepted. Finding of Fact paragraph 5. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact paragraph Rejected as to conclusion Respondent was not aware of the conversations between Butler and Washington which took place in Respondent's presence. Accepted only as addressed in Finding of Fact paragraph 9 otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted but unnecessary since true origin of funds was known to Respondent. Accepted as it states Respondent accepted loan-see findings of fact paragraphs 6 and 7. Rejected otherwise as contrary to weight of credible evidence. Accepted but is unnecessary. See Findings of Fact paragraph 10 as to material findings. Accepted in material part in Findings of Fact paragraphs 11, 12; otherwise rejected as contrary to weight of credible evidence. Accepted in material part in Finding of Fact paragraph 13. Rejected as contrary to weight of credible evidence. Rejected as argumentative. Rejected as argumentative. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 4688 1960 East Druid Road Clearwater, Florida 34618 Lawrence D. Black, Esquire 152 Eighth Avenue Southwest Largo, Florida 34640
Findings Of Fact Jerry Stine was employed by the Pinellas County School Board as a Groundskeeper II when he was transferred to BCHS in September, 1983. On September 30, 1987, Jay Kurth, a groundskeeper at BCHS observed Respondent take two paint brushes and four light bulbs from the office at BCHS, put them in a bag and later put them in the trunk of the car he was driving. This information was passed to Charles Yero, the head plant operator at BCHS and the supervisor of Respondent. Yero passed the information to Don Bryan, Assistant Principal at BCHS, and the school police were notified. Subsequently, the campus police officer, Bryan and Yero approached Respondent and requested he open the trunk of his car. The initial message from Kurth appears to have been garbled because Respondent was told they were looking for paint. Respondent opened the trunk, and the two testifying witnesses who looked in the trunk saw a five gallon gas can and two quart cans of Chevron motor oil. No testimony was presented that paint brushes or light bulbs were found in the trunk. Neither the police officer nor the school officials removed the gas can or motor oil cans from the trunk of the car, nor was Respondent ever charged by the police for the unauthorized taking or attempting to take school property. No evidence was presented that the can in the trunk contained gasoline. The gas can in the trunk of the car contained no marks identifying it as the property of BCHS or the School Board of Pinellas County. Subsequent to September 30, 1987, a photograph of a paint-spattered five gallon safety gas can was taken (Exhibit 2) and identified by one witness (Yero) as the can in the trunk, but by the witness who took the photograph (Lynd) as a five gallon gas can at BCHS. Respondent initially stated that the gas can belonged to the owner of the car, but shortly thereafter claimed that the gas can belonged to him and that he had brought it to BCHS shortly after he started work there and used it to mix gas and motor oil for use in the two cycle weed-eaters. Petitioner contends the gas can was the property of the school board. To support that position, all witnesses agreed that prior to 1982 there were three five gallon safety gas cans at BCHS. Charles Yero testified that around 1982 he bought a fourth gas can. Robert Johnson, a groundskeeper employed at BCHS in August, 1983, testified that when he started at BCHS there were three gas cans and that some three weeks later when Respondent was transferred to BCHS, Respondent brought a fourth gas can which was used to mix oil and gas for the two cycle engine weed-eaters. Respondent testified similarly with respect to the fourth gas can. In June, 1984, a fifth gas can was delivered to BCHS and receipted for on Exhibit 10. Charles Yero identified Exhibit 3, a photograph of a one or two gallon rectangular-shaped gas can, as a photograph of a gas can of which Respondent had claimed ownership. As further support of the testimony that on September 30, 1987, there were five, five gallon gas cans at BCHS, Petitioner presented Exhibits 4, 5, and 6, which are credit card purchases of 25 gallons of gas, each from a Mobil station. All witnesses agreed that gas and oil purchases made by maintenance personnel at BCHS were made at this Mobil station. Since the motor oil found in the trunk of Respondent's car was Chevron oil and no evidence was presented that Chevron oil was ever purchased for use at BCHS, the ownership of the motor oil found in the trunk can hardly be attributed to BCHS. In May, 1987, Respondent was suspended without pay for five days upon his admission of taking home school equipment for personal use and for poor attendance and punctuality (Exhibit 9). In Exhibit 9, Respondent acknowledged that future infractions of policy or continued problems with attendance or punctuality may result in termination of his employment. On September 30, 1987, Respondent was not given authority to remove school equipment from BCHS. No personnel directives or manuals relating to disciplining school board employees were presented, and Respondent was not charged with violating any specific directive.
