The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), 1012.795(1)(e), 1012.795(1)(f), and 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2007),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Dipanfilo held Florida Educator’s Certificate No. 451902, covering the area of art, which is valid through June 30, 2013. Mr. Dipanfilo has taught art for almost 27 years. In April and July 2007, Mr. Dipanfilo was employed by the Pinellas County School District at Seminole High School, where he has taught for more than half his career. On April 28, 2007, Mr. Dipanfilo was arrested for driving under the influence. He ran his automobile into the rear of a police vehicle, damaging the police vehicle. Mr. Dipanfilo was also arrested for possession of drugs without a prescription. The drugs were two Viagra tablets, which his physician had given to him as samples. He pled guilty to driving under the influence and nolo contendere to the charge of possession of drugs without a prescription. On July 11, 2007, Mr. Dipanfilo went to a gay bar called the Grand Central located in St. Petersburg, Florida. Mr. Dipanfilo had had too much alcohol to drink and had asked the bartender to call a taxi for him. While Mr. Dipanfilo was waiting for the taxi, he met J.G. At that time, J.G., a 17- year-old male, was enrolled as a student in the Pinellas County School District. At the final hearing, Mr. Dipanfilo testified as follows. When the taxi came to pick Mr. Dipanfilo up, J.G. forced his way into the taxi. The taxi let Mr. Dipanfilo off at a Publix that was located near Mr. Dipanfilo’s condominium. Mr. Dipanfilo did not recall why he got out at Publix. Mr. Dipanfilo walked home alone and stopped at his garage to retrieve some cigarettes from his car. When Mr. Dipanfilo got his cigarettes, J.G. appeared in the garage, asking for a drink of water. Mr. Dipanfilo took J.G. up to Mr. Dipanfilo’s condominium and gave him a bottle of water. J.G. started to take his shirt off, and Mr. Dipanfilo said “Whoa.” J.G. asked to use Mr. Dipanfilo’s cell phone and Mr. Dipanfilo gave it to him. J.G. went into the hall way to use the phone and never returned. Mr. Dipanfilo realized that his car keys were missing and discovered that his car had been stolen by J.G. Mr. Dipanfilo immediately called the police to report the car as stolen. The report to the police was made at 2:58 a.m. Mr. Dipanfilo adamantly denied at the final hearing that any sexual activity had occurred with J.G. At the final hearing, Mr. Dipanfilo did not explain where J.G. left the taxi, why Mr. Dipanfilo would have gotten out of the taxi at Publix, or how J.G. knew where Mr. Dipanfilo lived. On July 11, 2007, Mr. Dipanfilo told the police officer, who responded to Mr. Dipanfilo’s reporting his car stolen, that he and J.G.3 had participated in some “recreational activity” in his apartment. At this time, Mr. Dipanfilo had no reason to believe that he would become a suspect of any crime because the focus was on the stolen vehicle. On July 16, 2007, a police officer called Mr. Dipanfilo to follow up on the investigation of the stolen car. Mr. Dipanfilo told the police officer that he had had too much to drink and that he and J.G. had gone up to Mr. Dipanfilo’s apartment where they “messed around.” On July 16, 2007, Mr. Dipanfilo came to the St. Petersburg Police Department and gave a sworn, written statement to a police officer. Mr. Dipanfilo stated that J.G. had asked if he could hitch a ride in the taxi, and Mr. Dipanfilo agreed to give J.G. a lift. Mr. Dipanfilo further stated that they were dropped off at Mr. Dipanfilo’s apartment and went up to the apartment. Once inside the apartment, Mr. Dipanfilo stated that J.G. “messed around” with him. On July 20, 2007, Mr. Dipanfilo was interviewed by Police Officer David Wawrzynski. Mr. Dipanfilo told Officer Wawrzynski that he and J.G. had left Grand Central in a taxi together and were kissing one another en route to Mr. Dipanfilo’s apartment. Mr. Dipanfilo further stated that once they were in his apartment that he and J.G. disrobed and began rubbing each other and touching each other’s penis. Mr. Dipanfilo stated that he may have given J.G. some money, but that he really could not recall. At a second interview on July 20, 2007, at Mr. Dipanfilo’s apartment, Mr. Dipanfilo told Officer Wawrzynski that there had been some “touchy feely” going on with J.G. on July 11, 2007. At the final hearing, Mr. Dipanfilo stated that he did recall making such statements to the police and does not know why he would make such statements. J.G. testified at the final hearing as follows. He went to Grand Central, which he knew was a bar frequented by gay persons. He met Mr. Dipanfilo at the bar, and Mr. Dipanfilo offered him a ride. They went to Mr. Dipanfilo’s apartment, and Mr. Dipanfilo asked if he could get any drugs. J.G. told him that he could get some drugs from his cousin. J.G. and Mr. Dipanfilo went to the ATM machine at Publix near Mr. Dipanfilo’s apartment and withdrew some money. They went back to the apartment where Mr. Dipanfilo began to touch him in his private areas and other parts of his body. J.G. had his clothes on, but Mr. Dipanfilo had his pants down. The touching went on for five-to-seven minutes. Mr. Dipanfilo asked J.G. to call his cousin to see if he could get some drugs. J.G. pretended to call his cousin. Mr. Dipanfilo gave him some money and the car keys, and J.G. left with the phone and the car keys, never to return. At the final hearing, J.G. stated that he told Mr. Dipanfilo that he was 17 years old at some point during their encounter. The reason he gave for telling Mr. Dipanfilo his age was “because I wasn’t feeling what was going on at the time.” Mr. Dipanfilo denies that he knew that J.G. was a minor. According to Mr. Dipanfilo, he thought that J.G. was in his 30’s. Mr. Dipanfilo’s testimony is not credible. Mr. Dipanfilo taught high school students and should have been able to tell that a teen-ager was not in his 30’s or, at least, should have made inquiries concerning the age of the person with whom he was “messing around.” However, there is no evidence to establish that Mr. Dipanfilo knew or should have known that J.G. was a student. For such a young person, J.G. has a long criminal history. In 2005, J.G. did some jail time for stealing an automobile. From April 2006 to June 2007, J.G. was in a juvenile detention facility for his robberies. In September 2007, J.G. was again incarcerated for battery, possession of marijuana, and violation of probation, and he was still serving that sentence at the time of the final hearing. J.G. readily admitted that he intended to hustle Mr. Dipanfilo for money when he went to Mr. Dipanfilo’s apartment. Mr. Dipanfilo’s testimony at final hearing concerning the events at his apartment with J.G. is not credible. He gave inconsistent written and oral statements to the police on five different occasions. Additionally, what Mr. Dipanfilo told the police is more in line with J.G.’s testimony at the final hearing. It is clear that some sexual activity occurred between J.G. and Mr. Dipanfilo at Mr. Dipanfilo’s apartment. Mr. Dipanfilo’s arrest in connection with his sexual activities with J.G. received publicity in a local newspaper. Students at Seminole High School became aware of the newspaper article and posted copies of the article on the school campus. Administrators of the school were contacted by parents who had concerns over the allegations against Mr. Dipanfilo. The school principal and a school district administrator felt that Mr. Dipanfilo’s effectiveness as a teacher had been impaired as a result of the events on July 11, 2007. Because a teacher is held to a higher ethical and moral standard, it would be difficult for Mr. Dipanfilo to function in a classroom with students who were aware of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Dipanfilo’s arrest for his inappropriate activity with J.G.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mr. Dipanfilo violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), 1012.795(e), and 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and revoking his educator’s certificate for eight years. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Robert L. Collins has been employed by the School Board of Dade County, Florida as a teacher for the last twenty-four years and is on continuing contract. For approximately the last seven of those years, Respondent has been teaching Industrial Arts at Miami Killian Senior High School. Between late September 1983, and November 23, 1983, Jonathan Wright was a student in Respondent's Plastics class. On November 23, 1983, Wright came into Respondent's Plastics class wearing a hat, which is against school rules. Respondent directed Wright to remove his hat which he did. Later in that same class Respondent saw Wright sitting by the engraver again wearing that hat. Respondent removed the hat from Wright's head and advised Wright that if he put the hat on another time Respondent would send him to the principal's office. At approximately 5 minutes before the end of the class period, Respondent instructed the students that it was time to clean up the shop area. Wright and some of the other students began gathering at the door. Respondent motioned to those students to come back into the classroom and away from the door, which some of them did. Wright, however, did not. Respondent then specifically directed Wright to get away from the door. Instead of obeying, Wright put up a hand and a foot in a karate type posture but clearly in a playful manner. As a normal reaction in the context of the situation, Respondent did likewise. Respondent then turned back toward the class at which time Wright grabbed him by the legs and pulled him down to the floor. Respondent and Wright were rolling around on the floor in a small alcove area, and Respondent was unable to get loose from Wright's grip. Respondent was afraid that he, Wright, or the other students might be severely injured in the small alcove by the door or on some of the machinery located in the Plastics shop classroom. Unable to free himself, Respondent bit Wright on the back. Wright released Respondent and got up off the floor. After the bell rang, Wright left the classroom. Wright was transferred to the Plastics class of teacher Gerald Krotenberg where he remained for the rest of the school year. On several occasions Krotenberg was required to admonish Wright because Wright often resorted to "horse play" with other students. On occasion Wright would come into the classroom and would "bear hug" the girls, "jostle" the boys, and be disruptive so that Krotenberg could not take attendance or conduct the class. Although Krotenberg followed his normal technique of chastising the student in public, and then chastising the student in private, those techniques did not work and Krotenberg was required to exclude Wright from class on probably two occasions, for two days each, due to Wright's inappropriate behavior with other students. During the two months that Wright was in Respondent's class, Wright had come up behind Respondent on one or two occasions and lightly put his arms around Respondent in the nature of a bear hug. Respondent counseled Wright that that was not appropriate behavior. The only touching of Wright that was initiated by Respondent himself occurred in the form of Respondent placing his hand on Wright's shoulder while discussing a project being worked on at the moment or perhaps a light slap on the back in the nature of encouragement or praise for a job well done. Not all teachers, however, agree that it is appropriate to occasionally give a student an encouraging pat on the back. Although Wright had on one or two occasions given Respondent a playful hug and although Respondent had on several occasions given Wright an encouraging pat on the back or touch on his shoulder, no physical combat ever occurred between them. Although Wright often engaged in "horse play" with other students, no "horse play" occurred between Wright and Respondent. None of Respondent's annual evaluations during the years he has been teaching in the Dade County public School, including the annual evaluation for the the 1983-1984 school year, indicates that Respondent has had any problems with either maintaining good discipline in his classes or that Respondent is anything other than acceptable in the area of classroom management.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered reversing Respondent's suspension, reinstating him if necessary, and reimbursing him for back pay-if he was suspended without pay. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of July, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas H. Robertson, Esquire 111 SW Third Street Third Floor Miami, Florida 33130 Michael D. Ray, Esquire 7630 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 202 Miami, Florida 33138 Phyllis 0. Douglas Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue in this cause is whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 418505 in the area of Music. The certificate was valid through June 30, 2002. There was no evidence that Respondent had renewed his certificate. During the 1997-1998 school year, Respondent was employed with the Sumter County School District as the band director at Central High School. Elizabeth Pooley was born on August 9, 1983. She attended West Hernando Middle School in the 1996-1997 school year. She attended Central High School as a ninth-grade student in the 1997-1998 school year. She was a member of the Central High School band directed by Respondent. Respondent met Ms. Pooley during her eighth-grade year at West Hernando Middle School. During her ninth-grade year (1997-1998) at Central High School, Respondent became aware that Ms. Pooley had a crush on him. Ms. Pooley was 14 years old. At the time he met Ms. Pooley in the 1996-1997 school year Respondent was 45 years old, married and had two minor children, one girl and one boy. Both children were around Ms. Pooley's age. In April 1998, at Central High School, Respondent wrote a note containing inappropriate sexual innuendo about Respondent having a sexual encounter with Ms. Pooley on a boating excursion with her family. The note, while somewhat hard to follow, described Ms. Pooley as a virgin, acts of masturbation by Ms. Pooley, and referenced something about a burp. Respondent gave the note to a minor female student, H.P., and told her to give the note to her sister, C.P., another minor female student in the band at Respondent's school. When the girls' mother overheard her daughters talking about the note, she took it from them and read it. Realizing how inappropriate the content of the note was for a male teacher to be writing about a minor female student, she kept the note. The next day, she turned the note over to the principal of Central High School. When the principal, Dennis McGeehan, questioned Respondent about the note, Respondent admitted writing it. However, he did not remember writing the note and could not fathom why he had written the note. At hearing Respondent claimed that he believed he had been slipped a drug in a cupcake by some students. However, he offered no credible evidence of such. Based upon this admitted misconduct, Mr. McGeehan recommended that Respondent be suspended with pay. On April 23, 1998, Respondent was advised that he would not be recommended for renewal of his employment contract with the district. Respondent resigned his position of employment on April 25, 1998, after he received the notice of his non-renewal. A copy of the note written by Respondent and an article about it were published in the St. Petersburg Times newspaper on April 30, 1998. Other news articles about the matter were also published. Ms. Pooley and her father were both interviewed about the incident and quoted in one of the newspaper articles. Both denied the incident described in the note ever occurred. After this incident, Ms. Pooley was teased at school. She was unhappy because of the teasing. Respondent continued to meet with Ms. Pooley and talk with her. At some point, the relationship evolved from mentoring to one of romance. However, other than kissing and caressing, no sexual intercourse occurred. Ms. Pooley's parents were very concerned about Respondent's involvement with their daughter. They requested he have no further contact with her. Their request was not honored by Respondent or Ms. Pooley. Eventually they moved with her approximately 2 1/2 to 3 hours away to New Port Richey, Pasco County, in order to avoid further contact between their child and Respondent and to remove her from teasing at school about the incident. Respondent, however, did not leave Ms. Pooley alone. Respondent made numerous trips from his residence in Cross City, Florida, to New Port Richey, Florida, to see her during the summer of 1998. Again her parents requested that Respondent not see their daughter. Respondent again did not comply. As a result of Respondent's contacts with Ms. Pooley in June and July 1998, her parents filed a criminal complaint with the Pasco County Sheriff's Office against Respondent. Respondent's involvement with Ms. Pooley in New Port Richey involved love notes and letters to Ms. Pooley, furtively meeting with Ms. Pooley on a number of occasions without her parents' knowledge or consent, and engaging in kissing, hand- holding, hugging, and fondling of Ms. Pooley's breasts. No sexual intercourse occurred. Several of their secret meetings took place in the parking lot of a bar called the Pasco Pussycat. In February 1999, at age 15, Ms. Pooley's parents placed her in a short-term residential run-away crisis center called the RAP House in New Port Richey. They did so because their relationship with Ms. Pooley had deteriorated due to her ongoing relationship with Respondent. While enrolled there, staff of the RAP House initiated a lewd and lascivious report to the Pasco County Sheriff's Office concerning Respondent's involvement with Ms. Pooley. In her statement to the Pasco County Sheriff's investigators, Ms. Pooley told them that beginning in June 1998, Respondent picked her up in his truck on several occasions and drove her into some woods where they kissed and held hands. After Ms. Pooley moved to Pasco County, Respondent stayed in touch with her by telephone and letters. Respondent would meet her at convenience stores and a mall. They would park and engage in kissing and petting. On one occasion, Respondent rubbed her breasts and inner thighs. Respondent would tell Ms. Pooley that he could not wait to put a ring on her finger and that they could make love. Ms. Pooley testified that she told the police officer this story because the officer had told her Respondent had been romantically involved with other students and the thought angered her. Ms. Pooley's recanting of her earlier statements is not credible. In a further effort to keep Respondent away from their daughter, Ms. Pooley's parents decided to send her to live with relatives in Kentucky. Respondent found out where she was and visited her there. Ms. Pooley eventually returned to Florida in March 2000. The day after her return to Florida she and Respondent were married. The marriage took place on March 17, 2000. Ms. Pooley was 16 years old and Respondent was 47 years old at the time of their marriage. Ms. Pooley's parents gave their legal consent to the marriage because they had finally given up on keeping Respondent away from their daughter. They did not want to lose her forever over the relationship between Respondent and her. Ms. Pooley, who could easily have graduated from high school, did not finish high school. She has since obtained her GED. To date, Ms. Pooley and Respondent remain married. She is employed at the post office. Other than her failure to graduate from high school, her poor relationship with her parents, and inability to develop free of a romantic involvement with an adult, the evidence did not demonstrate any physical or mental harm to Ms. Pooley by Respondent's actions since most of the harm, if any, is of the type that will only manifest itself in the future. The evidence was clear and convincing that by his involvement with Ms. Pooley, Respondent inappropriately gained from his status as a teacher in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(h), Florida Administrative Code. The evidence also demonstrated that Ms. Pooley was unnecessarily exposed to embarrassment and disparagement in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Indeed, her parents moved to remove her from such embarrassment. Finally and most seriously, through his actions Respondent harmed Ms. Pooley in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Pooley did not finish high school and did not enjoy a normal or harmonious family relationship due to Respondent's actions. She was deprived of a normal high school experience and subjected to advances from a 45-year-old man who was infatuated with her. Such behavior is anathema to the professional requirements and primary duty of a teacher. After his resignation from Central High School, Respondent was employed as a band director at Dixie County High School in 1999-2000 school year. After marrying Ms. Pooley, he began bringing her to school with him to assure her and demonstrate that he was not romantically involved with other students. At times, Respondent allowed Ms. Pooley, who was a talented music and band student and who had helped choreograph the band's routine, to supervise and discipline his band students. Some of these students were the same age or older than Ms. Pooley. Ms. Pooley's participation in the class caused resentment in some of the students. The school's principal received complaints from both parents and students about Respondent permitting his 16-year-old wife to assume teaching responsibilities and discipline of his band students. Some students quit the band. The evidence did not show that the students who quit did so because of Respondent's actions. The principal instructed Respondent not to allow his wife to participate in his class and that his wife should not be present at the school. He received a reprimand for permitting his wife to help with his class. Respondent complied with these instructions. The evidence was not clear that Respondent lost effectiveness by permitting his wife to help with his class. However, it was incredibly poor professional judgment on Respondent's part. Respondent also allowed Ms. Pooley to use the school computer located in his office at Dixie County High School. Ms. Pooley used Respondent's school computer on May 9, 2000, to send an inappropriate email to Respondent's ex-wife at the school where she was employed. However, the evidence was unclear whether Respondent knew that his wife had used the school's computer to send his ex-wife an email. Nor was it clear that such use was against school policy, since occasional personal use was permitted by the school. Respondent again complied with the principal's instructions not to permit his wife to use the school computer. Therefore, no violation has been established with regard to the use of the school's computer, if such activity can ever amount to a violation of the licensure statutes and rules which would subject a licensee to discipline. Respondent was not recommended for renewal of his employment in Dixie County for the 2001-2002 school year. Respondent takes the position that he has not done anything wrong regarding his romance with Ms. Pooley. It does not appear that Respondent will engage in similar conduct in the future.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Florida Educator's Certificate No. 418505 be revoked for a minimum of three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 10th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Averill 420 Northwest 257th Street Newberry, Florida 32669 J. David Holder, Esquire 24357 U.S. Highway 331, South Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Ms. Claudine Etienne, violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2011),1/ and implementing administrative rules, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator's certificates. Ms. Etienne holds Florida Educator's Certificate 845026, covering the areas of English and mathematics, which is valid through June 30, 2018. At all times relevant to the complaint, Ms. Etienne was employed as an English teacher at Miami Springs High School in the Miami-Dade County School District. On or about January 20, 2012, an unknown student ignited a smoke bomb or large firecracker in a locker in Ms. Etienne's classroom. Ms. Etienne was unsure what the device was or how it was ignited. Smoke was generated from the device, and it filtered into the classroom. One or more students requested to leave the room because of the smoke. In her deposition, Ms. Etienne indicated that at the time of the incident, she was aware that one of the students assigned to her class, C.E., had asthma because she had a conversation with C.E.'s mother in December about it. Ms. Etienne testified that she did not recall C.E. asking her to leave the room on the day of the incident, however, and in fact did not remember if C.E. was even in class that day. Ms. Etienne did not believe the smoke was sufficiently serious to require her to allow the students to leave the room. She was uncertain how to proceed until administrators who had been called arrived in the classroom. Ms. Etienne instructed the students to stay in the room until an administrator arrived. One student subsequently required medical attention as a result of the smoke inhalation. In her written statement, C.E. stated that paramedics came to the school to assist her because she could not breathe after her exposure to the smoke in the classroom.2/ Ms. Etienne later received a verbal reprimand from the school district.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Ms. Claudine Etienne in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, through her violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), issuing her a letter of reprimand, and assessing a fine against her in the amount of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 7th day of February, 2017.
The Issue This case concerns a Petition for the Revocation of Teacher's Certificate brought by the State of Florida, Department of Education, through Lynnl Guettler, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Professional Practices Council, against Stephan P. Lee, Respondent, who holds a Florida teaching certificate number 339018, Special Post Graduate, Rank IA, valid through June 30, 1987, covering the areas of social studies and junior college. The allegations of the Administrative Complaint accuse the Respondent with writing one or more notes to Alice Ann Lee during the fall of the school year 1978-79 at a time when Alice Ann Lee was a thirteen-year old student at Ft. Caroline Junior High School, Duval County, Florida. The allegations further assert that Ms. Lee is not a family relation of the Respondent. It is contended through the complaint that in one of the notes the Respondent indicated his apartment address and invited Alice Ann Lee to visit him at that apartment. It is alleged that on one evening during the first nine weeks of the 1978-79 school year, Alice Ann Lee and one Laura Edenfield went to the Respondent's apartment, where he served alcoholic beverages to the two named individuals, at a time, when these individuals were students and had not reached their majority. In connection with events of that evening, the Petitioner asserts that the Respondent smoked a "joint", viz. marijuana, which the students had brought to his apartment. Finally, it is alleged that the Respondent, through one of the notes written to Alice Ann Lee, invited her to go to St. Augustine, Florida, with him for a "day on the beach and in the shops" and to go "to a nice restaurant for dinner and drinks". For these acts, the Respondent purportedly has violated Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, in that the conduct alluded to constitutes gross immorality and personal conduct which reduces the effectiveness of the Respondent as an educator. The Respondent is also charged with the violation of Subsection 231.09(2), Florida Statutes, for not setting a proper example for students. The Respondent is further charged with a violation of Rule 6H-1.02(c), Florida Administrative Code, for failing to protect students from conditions harmful to learning, health and safety and with a violation of Rule 6B-1.02(d), Florida Administrative Cede, for conducting professional business in a way that exposed students to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement.
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based upon the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Education, Professional Practices Council's petition for the revocation of teaching certificate of Stephen P. Lee, Respondent. The exact details of that petition are related in the issues statement of this Recommended Order and that account in the issues statement is made a part of the Findings of Fact herein. The Respondent has answered the petition and requested a formal hearing under the provisions of subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The facts reveal that the Respondent was employed as a school teacher during the year 1978-79 in a position at Ft. Caroline Junior High School, Duval County, Florida. Two of the students who were being taught by the Respondent were Alice Ann Lee and Laura Edenfield. These individuals were students of the Respondent in separate classes. In the fall of 1978, Alice Ann Lee was thirteen years of age and Laura Edenfield was sixteen years of age. Both of the students were attending the ninth grade. The students in question in the academic year 1978-79 had made a poor academic showing and their attendance record was not satisfactory. In the first nine weeks of the school year, Alice Ann Lee wrote a note to the Respondent indicating that she felt that the Respondent was a nice teacher and she would like to be his friend. The Respondent replied to that note by a letter, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit #1 admitted in evidence. Beyond that point of the first reply there ensued a series of notes from the student Lee, two or three in number, and three additional notes or letters from the Respondent. Copies of the additional notes or letters written by the Respondent may be found as the Petitioner's Exhibits #2 through #4, admitted into evidence. In the Respondent's correspondence, Petitioner's Exhibit #2, he mentions his home address and tells Alice Ann Lee that she may call him by telephone when she feels so compelled. That correspondence also tells Alice Ann Lee that she is "welcome to drop by. . ." the Respondent's apartment if she would so desire. The student, Laura Edenfield, was a friend of Alice Ann Lee, and Edenfield had also been extended an invitation to visit the Respondent at his apartment. To assist the students in finding his home, the Respondent had drawn a diagram map directing them to his apartment and a copy of that diagram may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit #5 admitted into evidence. The students acted on Respondent Lee's invitation and called him one Friday night during the fall term of 1978-79. The call was made while the Respondent was at home in his apartment and the Respondent indicated that it would be acceptable if Alice Ann Lee and Laura Edenfield came to visit him on that evening. The students arrived at the Respondent's apartment between eight and nine p.m. on the night referred to above. The visit lasted until approximately midnight. While the students were in the apartment, the Respondent asked them if they would like to have a drink and among the choices offered were alcoholic beverages, to include beer and bourbon. Respondent recognized that the students were minors and not entitled to consume alcoholic, notwithstanding the fact that both students had previous experiences with alcoholic beverages before this occasion. The conversation between the Respondent and the students was social in nature as opposed to tutoring for school work or counseling. At one point during the visit, the Respondent put his arm around the shoulders of Alice Ann Lee. Alice Ann Lee consumed a number of glasses of bourbon which glass the Respondent continued to fill when the contents would be consumed. Laura Edenfield drank five or six containers of Coors beer. When the students left the apartment, Alice Ann Lee was inebriated and Laura Edenfield, who was driving, had less control of her faculties than when she entered the apartment. The Respondent walked the girls to their car and kissed Alice Ann Lee on her lips. The students returned to the Respondent's apartment on the next day, arriving between eight and nine p.m. and staying until approximately midnight. While at the apartment, the students consumed more alcoholic beverages, namely, beer. In addition, the students had brought marijuana with them to the apartment and offered the Respondent the opportunity to smoke the marijuana with them. The Respondent agreed and the students smoked the marijuana. Again, the nature of the conversation was as stated in discussing the first visit made by the students to the Respondent's apartment. Subsequent to these visits, Alice Ann Lee's mother discovered some of the letters which the Respondent had written her daughter, and in the course of attempting to have her daughter readmitted from a suspension situation, revealed the existence of these letters to the principal of Ft. Caroline Junior High School. This information was imparted in November, 1978. Alice Ann Lee's mother also went on a local television station news program at six p.m. and made comments about her daughter's relationship with the Respondent concerning the letters, etc. A knowledge of the circumstances of the relationship also was gained by students in the school and by faculty members and Alice Ann Lee felt embarrassed by the situation and missed classes as a result of the circumstances; however, Ms. Lee does not feel that the situation affected her overall classroom performance. The Respondent also asked Alice Ann Lee to go to St. Augustine, Florida, with him and the details of this proposed trip are set out in the Petitioner's Exhibit #4, one of the aforementioned notes from the Respondent to Alice Ann Lee. They did not make such a trip. After being confronted with the accusation concerning the letters and the visits by the students to his apartment, the Respondent tendered his resignation to the Duval County School Board without the necessity for further investigation by that body. The Respondent's explanation of this matter, which was offered in the course of the administrative hearing, was to the effect that be had no immoral or inappropriate intentions in his relationship with the students, particularly Alice Ann Lee. He stated that he was attempting to counsel troubled youngsters who had not been reached by other methods of counseling. He also stated that after conferring with members of his family and the faculty, he determined to write the letters in the fashion that he did, hoping to discourage Alice Ann Lee's infatuation by scaring her through proposals which made it appear that he was interested in her romantically. In retrospect, the Respondent indicated that he felt that his approach was wrong and that he did not have the necessary qualifications to undertake counseling directed to these young people.
Recommendation It is recommended that the teaching certificate of the Respondent, Stephen P. Lee, be suspended for a period of two (2) years. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: L. Haldane Taylor, Esquire 2516 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Harry B. Mahon, Esquire Mahon, Mahon and Farley 350 East Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Dr. Juhan Mixon Professional Practices Council Room 3, 319 West Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF FLORIDA IN RE: STEPHEN P. LEE CASE NO. 79-1069 /
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent, an educational support employee, has committed conduct which shows him to be not of good moral character, as envisioned in Section 231.02, Florida Statutes, and whether good cause exists to terminate him from his employment with the Petitioner as a result of this conduct.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the School Board of Marion County, Florida. The Respondent, Carlton L. Wilkerson, at times pertinent hereto, was an employee of the Petitioner. He was employed as an academic skills coach and as such, was an “educational support employee”. The Respondent was hired by the Petitioner on August 15, 1994. He was suspended from employment, with pay, on March 20, 1996 and subsequently was suspended, without pay, by the Petitioner on April 10, 1996. “Susan” is the name used for purposes of this proceeding to identify a white, female high-school student at Forest High School in Ocala, Florida. At times pertinent to this proceeding, she was 15 years of age and in the ninth grade. At the time of the hearing, she was 16 years of age and in the tenth grade. The name “Susan” has been assigned to her by agreement of the parties as a fictitious name to protect her confidentiality. Her actual name and those of the other female students involved in the purported conduct at issue appears in Petitioner’s Exhibit 1, which is an exhibit placed under seal in this record. On Susan’s first day of school in the ninth grade school year (1995-1996), she was assigned to a practical arts class. She was then 15 years of age. Upon her entry into the practical arts class, she first encountered the Respondent. He was a teacher’s aide in that class. This was the first time the Respondent had ever encountered Susan. On the day in question, while Susan was seated in the back of the room, she was approached by the Respondent. He engaged in a conversation with her and asked Susan if she had ever had sex and also asked her if she had ever had oral sex. She was taken aback and embarrassed greatly by this and responded in the negative. He also asked her if she would have “sex with a ‘black guy’ and oral sex with a ‘black guy’”. The Respondent is black and Susan is white. She answered “no” to these questions and left the classroom when the bell rang. About three to four months into that school year in a different class, where the Respondent was also present, he asked Susan why she would not have sex with him. She replied that she did not want to and walked away. On another occasion, outside the school disciplinary office, the Respondent approached Susan and asked, in effect, that since she was having sex with a certain male student, why would she not have sex with him also. She denied that this was occurring and rejected his overture. He also asked her to check with another female student, whom he named, about what had happened between that student and himself. Susan stated that the female student confirmed that she had been having sex with the Respondent in the boy’s locker room of the gymnasium for some time. 0n another occasion, in Mr. Mackey’s class (one of Susan’s teachers), the Respondent was standing by Mr. Mackey’s desk at the front of the room conversing with him. Susan went to ask Mr. Mackey a question about a paper at the desk, whereupon the Respondent, standing next to her as she leaned over, and with his back toward Mackey, rubbed her genital area with his hand, without her permission. Mackey saw this and told him “. . . don’t be doing that in my classroom . . . you’re going to get yourself in trouble.” Susan picked up her paper and retreated. In March of 1995-1996 school year, the Respondent telephoned Susan at her home asking when he could have sex with her and asking for her to meet him at a carnival, which she was attending that evening. In that conversation, he told her not to identify who she was talking to anyone at her home. In none of the incidents referenced did Susan accept the Respondent’s solicitations or encourage further interaction with him concerning sexual matters. In fact, his actions caused her great embarrassment and engendered great distrust of him. The incidents also caused fear in Susan, such that she did not report the incidents to school authorities or discuss them with other than a close friend because she knew that the Respondent was popular with a large block of students at the school, and she feared that the students “would be against her” and might retaliate. On the occasion of each of the incidents described herein, Susan was only 15 years old. “Sarah” is the name used in this proceeding to identify a female, African-American, Forest High School student. Sarah was 17 years of age at the time of the hearing and in the twelfth grade. During the 1995-1996 school year, Sarah was in the eleventh grade and was assigned to a practical arts class, in which the Respondent was a teacher’s aide. On a day in February in the practical arts class, the Respondent approached Sarah and asked her if she would like to have sex with him and if so, that she should return to that classroom at about 12:35 p.m., during the lunch hour. In response, Sarah simply left her seat and walked away from him. Sarah had only had incidental contact with the Respondent prior to that incident and had no contact with him afterwards. She reported the incident to her mother, her boyfriend, and to school officials. The school officials took no action because there were no corroborating witnesses, and they apparently chose to believe that nothing could be done if they were faced with a situation of only Sarah’s word against that of the Respondent. Put another way, apparently no effort was made to judge the credibility of either of the protagonists. The Respondent was not responsible for assigning grades to Sarah. There had been no occasions before that incident in which she and the Respondent had become angry with each other or had been involved in any sort of argument or altercation. Sarah was shown to have no motive to fabricate the story. The same situation is true of Susan, who was shown to have no motive, such as revenge or otherwise, for fabricating a false story concerning the Respondent. “Tracy” is the name used in this proceeding to identify a white, female, Forest High School student. Tracy, at the time of the hearing, was 17 years of age and in the twelfth grade. At the time of the incidents in question, she apparently was 16 years of age and was in the eleventh grade. She became acquainted with the Respondent when passing him and his friend, Mr. Mackey, a teacher, on her way to and from certain of her classes each day. She saw him occasionally in a weight-lifting class or activity she was involved in at the school, as well, when he would come to the weight room. Near the end of November or early December in that school year, she happened to be passing the Respondent between classes and he asked her if she would meet him to have sex with him during the lunch period, which she declined. Similar solicitations took place in the same manner at the same place on or 15 different occasions. On three or four occasions during the 1995-1996 school year, the Respondent telephoned Tracy at home asking her to have sex with him. The content of the solicitation conversations, whether in person or over the telephone, with this student, as with Susan, were questions concerning whether she had ever had sex with a “black guy” or whether she would ever have sex or oral sex with black persons. When she answered all such questions in the negative, he informed her that she was “missing out”. Tracy declined the solicitations in every instance. She did not initially report the conversation to her parents because she did not intend to respond to them and she was embarrassed and afraid to discuss such graphic, repulsive language and conduct in front of her parents. The Respondent was not in a position to influence Tracy’s grades nor had she or the Respondent had any angry words or other altercation between them before or after the solicitation incidents. She was shown to have had no motive, such as revenge or other motive, to impel her to fabricate her account of these events. The content and language employed by the Respondent in these solicitation conversations with all the students involved in this action was graphic in the extreme. The Respondent solicited sexual favors from these students in the most grossly, vulgar, obscene and repulsive street language imaginable. The language he used is depicted in the transcript of the victims’ testimony. The students were disparaged by such conduct, such intent, and such language, were greatly embarrassed by it and rendered fearful, to some extent, of the consequences to them of their reporting it. “Mary” is the name used for purposes of this proceeding to identify a female, African-American, Forest High School student. At the time of the hearing, Mary was 15 years of age and in the tenth grade. She was 14 years of age at the beginning of her ninth grade year, the 1995-1996 school year, and turned 15 on January 9, 1996. This is the school year when the incidents described below happened. Mary first encountered the Respondent during the 1995- 1996 school year outside of his friend, Mr. Mackey’s room. At the time, she was bending over and tying her shoes. She had not been acquainted with him before that time but knew that he was a school employee. During their first encounter, the Respondent asked Mary if she were wearing shorts under her skirt and asked her what color and kind her panties were and whether he could “get into them.” She simply laughed and walked away. Sometime later in the school year, Mary encountered the Respondent at another location at the school. He asked her where she lived, if she was a virgin, and if she had been with an older man. He asked her whether she would like to be with an older man. Sometime later, she encountered the Respondent after school by the football field and he asked her if she wanted to “do something” with him. He asked her to meet him behind the auto mechanics building and told her to take an opposite route to the building from a route he would take, so that they would not be seen together. She met him at the auto mechanics building and on that occasion she and the Respondent had vaginal sexual intercourse. No one else was present. From sometime before Thanksgiving of 1995 through March of 1996, starting when she was 14 years of age and in the ninth grade, the Respondent and Mary had vaginal sexual intercourse on occasions at the following locations: behind the auto mechanics building; in Mr. Mackey’s classroom during a lunch break; in a classroom during “Saturday school”; in an aerobics workout room at the school; and in a van in the auto mechanics garage at the school. On one additional occasion, the Respondent met Mary at a school basketball game. He took her to his apartment during the game and had oral sex with her and returned her to the school before the game was completed. The last sexual encounter between the Respondent and Mary occurred on March 18, 1996. Shortly after that, Mary sought medical treatment for what she believed was a urinary tract infection. In fact, it was chlamydia and genital warts, both sexually-transmitted diseases. At the request of the medical personnel she had contact with, she identified the Respondent as the person with whom she had been having sex. Other than a brief conversation immediately following her first visit to the doctor, Mary had no further contact with the Respondent after the time she identified him to medical authorities. It was apparently by this means of identification that proceedings were instituted against the Respondent by the School Board authorities and by the State’s Attorney. No evidence whatever was offered by the Respondent and certainly none to contradict the testimony of the four students. There was no evidence presented that any of these students knew each other, were aware of the Respondent’s actions with respect to each other, or had any reason or motive to falsely accuse him for purposes of revenge or other reasons.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Carlton L. Wilkerson, be terminated from his position with the Petitioner, Marion County School Board.DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 John Smith, Superintendent Marion County School Board Post Office Box 670 Ocala, Florida 34478-0670 William C. Haldin, Jr., Esquire RICHARD, BLINN & HALDIN, P.A. 808 Southeast Fort King Street Ocala, Florida 34471 Jack Maro, Esquire Post Office Box 3868 Ocala, Florida 34478
The Issue The issue is whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent from his teaching position without pay for 15 days and to terminate his employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, is charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise free public schools within the School District of Palm Beach County ("District"), pursuant to article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution and section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher with Petitioner since 2008. During the timeframe relevant to this proceeding,5/ Respondent was employed as a teacher at Forest Hill High School ("Forest Hill"). He taught the Theatre I, II, III, and Theatre I IB classes (collectively, the "drama classes") and the Speech and Debate classes, and was the faculty sponsor for the school's drama club. Respondent has not previously been subject to discipline by Petitioner, and the evidence shows that he consistently received high performance evaluations and was a popular teacher with the students at Forest Hill. Administrative Charges On or about April 6, 2016, Petitioner took action to suspend Respondent for 15 days without pay and to terminate his employment as a teacher. Respondent timely challenged Petitioner's action by requesting an administrative hearing pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1). The factual bases for the administrative charges against Respondent are set forth in paragraph 10 of the Petition, which constitutes the administrative charging document in this proceeding. Paragraph 10 alleges: "[o]n or about May 14, 2015, it was reported that Respondent interacted inappropriately and made inappropriate comments to students in his drama class." The Petition does not identify the time frame in which the conduct referenced in paragraph 10 is alleged to have occurred, nor does it specifically describe the conduct in which Respondent is alleged to have engaged that would violate the rules and policies cited in the Petition. Based on the facts alleged in paragraph 10 of the Petition, Petitioner has charged Respondent with violating the following: Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-5.056(2), 6A- 10.080(2), and 6A-10.081(3); School Board Policy 0.01(2), (3), and (6); School Board Policy 1.013(1); School Board Policy 3.02(4)(a), (b), (d), (e) and (5)(a); School Board Policy 3.27; and School Board Policy 5.81(10)(c).6/ If proved, the alleged violations of these rules and policies would constitute just cause under section 1012.33 to suspend Petitioner and terminate his employment as a teacher. Events Giving Rise to This Proceeding In March 2015, R.H., a student at Forest Hill, reported to Shawn McCall, a teacher at Forest Hill, that Respondent had engaged in what McCall characterized as "inappropriate" behavior with respect to another student, S.G. R.H. also relayed to McCall that S.G. had told her that Respondent was having a sexual relationship with another student, C.W. According to McCall, R.H. was emotionally distraught as she relayed this information to McCall. However, the evidence shows that R.H. did not have any personal knowledge regarding any of the matters she reported to McCall; rather, she relayed to him what she had been told by S.G. R.H. did not testify at the final hearing. McCall did not have personal knowledge of any of the matters that R.H. relayed to him. McCall reported the information he had received from R.H. to Dr. Mary Stratos, the principal of Forest Hill. Thereafter, Stratos spoke with R.H., who relayed to her that Respondent "may have been inappropriately touching" S.G. Pursuant to protocol, Stratos contacted the Palm Beach County School Police Department ("School Police"), which conducted an investigation of the matters relayed by R.H. The School Police interviewed students and teachers who witnessed, or may have witnessed, matters germane to the investigation. Stratos did not have personal knowledge of any of the matters about which R.H. told her.7/ As a result of the School Police investigation, Petitioner took action to suspend Respondent without pay for 15 days and to terminate his employment as a teacher. Evidence Regarding Factual Allegations in Petition As discussed above, the Petition does not provide any detail or specificity regarding the type or nature of the "inappropriate" interactions in which Respondent allegedly engaged, or the "inappropriate comments" Respondent allegedly made, with respect to the students in his drama class. From the evidence presented at the final hearing, the undersigned gleans8/ that Petitioner has charged Respondent with making sexually-suggestive comments and jokes to, and making verbal sexual advances toward, students in his classes and in drama club; making physical sexual advances toward three students9/; and having a sexual relationship with one10/ of those students.11/ Student S.G. S.G., a former student in Respondent's drama classes, testified at the final hearing. S.G. was a student in Respondent's drama classes in the 2013-14 school year, when he was a junior, and the 2014-15 school year, when he was a senior. S.G. also was a member of the drama club for all of his junior year and part of his senior year. S.G. testified that Respondent engaged in verbal and physical sexual advances toward him during both years in which he was a student in Respondent's classes and was a member of the drama club. Specifically, S.G. testified that during both years, Respondent would constantly ask him how large his penis was in front of the entire class, loudly enough for others to hear. He also testified that Respondent would comment on his appearance openly in class, telling him that he looked "cute," and that Respondent would frequently look at him in a sexually-suggestive manner while biting his lower lip and sticking out his tongue. S.G. also testified that during both years, during drama class and in drama club rehearsals, Respondent often would get very close to his face, sniff his neck, and try to kiss him. On cross-examination, S.G. characterized the frequency of Respondent's attempts to kiss him and sniff his neck as occurring "daily" or "every other day, at least." Also on cross- examination, S.G. asserted that Respondent's behavior was open and obvious "to everyone," including to persons passing in the hallway when Respondent engaged in such conduct while standing in the doorway of his classroom. S.G. also testified that during his junior year, Respondent sniffed his neck and bit his nipple as he and another student were moving a platform from center stage following a drama club rehearsal. According to S.G., the other student moving the platform was the only witness (other than Respondent) to the incident. That student did not testify at the final hearing. Additionally, S.G. testified that during his senior year, Respondent "cupped" his genitals on one occasion12/ as he held the auditorium door for female drama club students, and that after this incident, he quit participating in the drama club. S.G. testified that he heard Respondent frequently make sexual comments to students R.C. and C.W. in drama class and during drama club rehearsals, and he often saw Respondent try to kiss students R.C. and C.W. S.G. testified that Respondent engaged in this conduct frequently, in front of everyone in drama class and during drama club rehearsals. S.G. also testified that he heard Respondent and C.W. exchange sexual jokes, engage in sexually explicit discussions, and call each other "pet" names "all the time." Additionally, S.G. testified that one day, he saw Respondent and C.W. come to a pep rally "together" and sit together, and also that they were "just together constantly." On these bases, he surmised that Respondent and C.W. were engaged in a sexual relationship. S.G. testified that he did not report Respondent's conduct to anyone because he was embarrassed and thought that no one would believe him because Respondent was a popular teacher. He also testified that he was concerned that if he reported Respondent's conduct, school authorities would find out that he was attending Forest Hill instead of the school (Wellington) for which his actual place of residence was zoned. When asked why he chose to take a second year of Respondent's drama class after Respondent purportedly had engaged in the conduct that he claimed, S.G. testified that he took the drama course in his senior year because it was an easy class in which you could get an A just for attending, that Respondent was a very lax teacher who let students play on their phones, and that some of his friends were in the class. On or about March 5, 2015, S.G. told R.H. that Respondent had made verbal and physical sexual advances toward him and that Respondent was engaged in a sexual relationship with C.W. As discussed above, R.H. relayed this information to McCall, who relayed it to Stratos. Shortly thereafter, the investigation leading to this proceeding was initiated. Student R.C. As previously discussed, student R.C.'s deposition was admitted into evidence when R.C. did not appear to testify at the final hearing despite having been subpoenaed by Petitioner.13/ R.C. was a student in Respondent's drama class in his freshman and sophomore years and was a member of the drama club. R.C. initially testified that he had heard Respondent make "homosexual jokes," but then clarified that Respondent would, on occasion, compliment students, saying things like "you look nice today." R.C. testified that he had heard Respondent and C.W. engaged in "homosexual jabber," but was unable to recall anything specific that he had heard Respondent and C.W. say to each other that constituted "homosexual jabber." R.C. testified that S.G. had told him, in passing, that Respondent engaged in "homosexual jokes" with him and that S.G. was upset about it; however, R.C. testified that S.G. was mostly upset because Respondent gave preference to C.W. in assigning roles in the drama club plays. R.C. testified that S.G. felt that Respondent treated him unfairly by not giving him a more prominent role in a play being produced by the drama club, and that S.G. would become upset if Respondent corrected him on stage during rehearsals. R.C. also testified that S.G. told him that Respondent had tried to kiss him (S.G.), but that again, it was in passing, and that S.G. mainly vented about how he was upset about learning lines in drama class. R.C. testified that once during class, he had gone to Respondent with a personal issue, and that after Respondent listened and talked with him, Respondent tried to kiss him. However, R.C. subsequently clarified that Respondent had actually blown a kiss in a theatrical manner in R.C.'s direction as he went back to his seat. R.C. stated that he had never had a problem with Respondent and that he liked him as a teacher. Student C. W. C.W. was a student in Respondent's drama class in his junior and senior years of high school, and also served as Respondent's teacher's aide in his senior year. He also was a member of the drama club in his junior and senior years. In high school, C.W. aspired to be an actor. He is majoring in theater in college. While in high school, Respondent functioned as C.W.'s mentor and would coach him on acting techniques after school, either in his classroom or in the auditorium. C.W. credibly testified that Respondent did not charge him for the tutoring, and that he never paid Respondent for tutoring. C.W. credibly testified that his relationship with Respondent was strictly professional and related to acting. C.W. credibly testified that he and Respondent did not have a personal relationship; that neither had visited each other's house; that they did not date; that Respondent had not made any sexual advances toward him or tried to kiss him; and that Respondent had never done anything to make him feel uncomfortable. C.W. also credibly testified that he and Respondent did not engage in sexual discussions and did not call each other pet names. C.W. confirmed that he had talked to Respondent at a school pep rally. Specifically, C.W. arrived at the pep rally separately and sought Respondent out, because, as C.W. put it, "I'd rather spend my time talking to him, if I could, about acting or something whenever I could instead of just watching a pep rally." C.W. testified that he stood, not sat, next to Respondent during the pep rally. C.W. credibly testified that during his time as a student and teacher's aide in Respondent's classes and during drama club rehearsals, he never heard Respondent make inappropriate comments toward, engage in sexual discussions with, make verbal sexual advances toward, or otherwise engage in inappropriate conduct directed toward S.G., R.C., or any other students. He also never saw Respondent sniff any student's neck or embrace any student. C.W. also credibly testified that during Respondent's classes, students were required to be engaged in school work related to theater and were not allowed to use their phones. To that point, C.W. noted that Respondent often would confiscate phones if the use of them was "getting out of hand." C.W. also credibly testified that Respondent did not curse or participate in sexual joke-telling or banter, that he would not tolerate students making sexual jokes or cursing in his class, and that he would threaten discipline if they engaged in such conduct. Student I.D. I.D. was a student in Respondent's classes in her sophomore, junior, and senior years of high school, and she also served as Respondent's teacher's aide. She also was a member of the drama club. In her junior year, she was in drama class with S.G., who also was a junior that year. I.D. credibly testified that she had never seen Respondent act inappropriately toward S.G. She never saw Respondent try to kiss S.G. or get close to his face, nor did she ever see Respondent make overtures to any students in his class or in the drama club. She also testified, credibly, that she never saw any conduct by Respondent directed toward C.W. that suggested a personal relationship between Respondent and C.W. Student V.A. V.A. was a student in Respondent's classes. She took four classes from him while attending Forest Hill. During her junior and senior years, she took drama classes from Respondent. During both years, S.G. also was a student in those classes. V.A. credibly testified that she sat close enough to S.G. and Respondent to hear conversations between them, and that she never heard Respondent ask about S.G.'s penis size. She never saw Respondent try to kiss S.G., embrace him or smell his neck, or otherwise engage in any inappropriate conduct toward him, and she never saw Respondent make any sexual advances toward any other students, including R.C. and C.W., in the classroom. Likewise, she never saw Respondent make sexual advances or otherwise engage in inappropriate conduct, or make inappropriate comments, directed toward S.G., R.C., C.W., or any other students in the drama club. V.A. was friends with C.W. She credibly testified that she often was present when C.W. and Respondent were together and that she never heard them call each other pet names. Through her friendship with C.W. and her frequent interactions with Respondent and C.W., she did not believe that Respondent was any closer to C.W. than he was to other students in the class. V.A. also credibly testified that while in Respondent's classes, students always were engaged in classwork, were not allowed to sit around and play on their phones, and, in fact, were not permitted to have their phones out during Respondent's classes. Respondent Respondent credibly testified that he did not have a sexual interest in S.G. or C.W. He also credibly testified that he never tried to kiss S.G., R.C., or C.W. He credibly denied having ever groped S.G., and he also credibly denied having bitten S.G. He denied having ever embraced any students or having smelled their necks. Respondent credibly testified that he did not make sexual comments toward S.G., and he credibly denied having asked or joked about the size of S.G.'s penis or that of any other student. Respondent tutored C.W. in theater after school, and he credibly testified that he was not paid for it. He also credibly testified that he did not call C.W. by pet names, and he credibly denied having anything other than a teacher-student academic mentoring relationship with C.W. Clear and Convincing Evidentiary Standard As discussed in greater detail below, the clear and convincing evidentiary standard applies to this proceeding. This burden requires that: [T]he evidence must be found to be credible; the facts to which the witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered; the testimony must be precise and explicit and the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue. The evidence must be of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. In re Davey, 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994). Findings Regarding Alleged Sexual Comments, Jokes, and Verbal Sexual Advances Toward Students Petitioner has not shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent made sexual comments to, engaged in sexual jokes with, or made verbal sexual advances toward students in his drama classes or in the drama club. S.G.'s testimony that Respondent constantly asked him how large his penis was and also made similar comments to R.C. and S.G.——frequently, loudly, and openly in class, where others could hear——during both years in which he was a student in Respondent's drama class, was not credible. Not only did no other witness corroborate S.G.'s testimony, but the testimony of C.W., I.D., and V.A. flatly contradicted it. Those witnesses——who were students in Respondent's class, and, thus, in a position to hear and see any "constant," loud comments of a sexual nature——credibly and persuasively testified that they never heard Respondent make sexual comments, tell sexual jokes, or make verbal sexual advances to any members of the class, including S.G. Had Respondent made these comments——particularly in the loud, frequent, open, and obvious manner to which S.G. testified——it is highly likely that these students would have heard them; yet all consistently and credibly denied having ever heard them. Although R.C. initially testified that he heard Respondent make "homosexual" comments, he subsequently clarified that Respondent simply occasionally complimented students on their appearance. Additionally, although R.C. claimed to have heard Respondent and C.W. engage in "homosexual jabber," he was unable to specifically articulate anything that either Respondent or C.W. said that was, or could be considered, sexual or "homosexual" in nature. Additionally, Respondent credibly and persuasively denied having made sexual comments to, engaged in sexual jokes with, or engaged in verbal sexual advances toward S.G. or any other student in his class or in the drama club. The undersigned finds the testimony of C.W., I.D., V.A., and Respondent on these allegations credible and persuasive, while finding S.G.'s testimony incredible and unpersuasive. Further, R.C.'s testimony regarding hearing Respondent make "homosexual jokes" and engage in "homosexual jabber" was not precise, explicit, or distinctly remembered; rather, it was equivocal and non-specific. In sum, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent made sexual comments or jokes to, or made verbal sexual advances toward, the students in his drama classes and in the drama club. Findings Regarding Alleged Physical Sexual Advances toward Students The undersigned also finds incredible and unpersuasive S.G.'s testimony that Respondent would get close to his face, sniff his neck, and try to kiss him, and that Respondent engaged in similar conduct toward C.W. and R.C. S.G. testified that Respondent directed this conduct toward him openly and obviously to everyone, on an almost daily basis. However, C.W., I.D., and V.A.——all of whom were in the drama class, drama club, or both, so were in a position to observe any such behavior——all unequivocally testified that they had never observed Respondent engage in any of those actions toward S.G. or any other students. Again, had Respondent engaged in this conduct——particularly in the loud, frequent, open, and obvious manner to which S.G. testified——it is highly likely that these students would have seen that conduct; yet, all persuasively and credibly testified that they never saw Respondent engage in such conduct. S.G. also testified that on one occasion, Respondent bit him on the nipple, and that one other student (who did not testify at the final hearing) witnessed it. Respondent credibly denied having engaged in this behavior. The undersigned does not find S.G.'s testimony on this point credible or persuasive. To the contrary, the undersigned finds it far more likely that, had Respondent engaged in such behavior, S.G. would have told his mother, school authorities, or other students——and, most important——would not have voluntarily taken another drama class from Respondent the following year.14/ Furthermore, the undersigned finds Respondent's testimony that he did not bite S.G.'s nipple credible and persuasive. S.G. also testified at the hearing that on one occasion during his senior year, Respondent had purposely groped his genitals. However, in his sworn statement made during the School Police investigation, S.G. stated that Respondent had "constantly" tried to kiss him and grab him in his "private area," and that Respondent had grabbed his genitals on more than one occasion——the latest occasion as recently as a week before S.G. was interviewed as part of the investigation. S.G.'s hearing testimony is patently inconsistent with his sworn statement on a material detail——i.e., the frequency with which he claims Respondent grabbed or attempted to grab his genitals. This inconsistency bears directly on S.G.'s credibility as a witness. Due to this obvious inconsistency on a key detail——one which cannot credibly be explained to mistake or lapse of memory——S.G.'s testimony that Respondent grabbed his genitals is deemed incredible and unpersuasive. Further, the undersigned finds credible and persuasive Respondent's testimony that he did not ever grab S.G.'s genitals. Although R.C. initially testified that Respondent tried to kiss him, he subsequently clarified that Respondent had, in fact, blown a "theatrical kiss" toward him as he returned to his seat after they had engaged in a discussion. This testimony does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent made a sexual advance toward R.C. In sum, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent made physical sexual advances toward S.G., R.C., C.W., or any other students in his drama class or in the drama club. Findings Regarding Alleged Sexual Relationship with Student The credible, persuasive evidence does not show that Respondent engaged in a sexual relationship with C.W. S.G.'s testimony that he heard Respondent and C.W. engage in sexually explicit discussions, exchange sexual jokes, and call each other pet names "all the time" was directly contradicted by the credible, persuasive testimony of C.W. and Respondent, both of whom denied engaging in such conduct. Furthermore, I.D. and V.A.——both of whom were in Respondent's classes and in the drama club, so were often around both Respondent and C.W.——persuasively and credibly testified that they never heard Respondent and C.W. engage in sexually explicit discussions, exchange sexual jokes, call each other pet names, or otherwise engage in inappropriate verbal or physical conduct toward each other. Additionally, as previously discussed, although R.C. claimed to have heard Respondent and C.W. engage in "homosexual jabber," he was not able to specifically articulate anything that Respondent or C.W. said to each other that was, or could be considered, sexual or "homosexual" in nature. The fact that Respondent and C.W. stood (or even sat) next to each other and talked to each other during a school pep rally——and that, consequently, S.G. and R.C. perceived them as a "couple"——is of no probative value in proving the existence of a sexual relationship between Respondent and C.W.15/ Indeed, the undersigned finds completely credible and persuasive C.W.'s testimony that he had gone to the pep rally separately, and found Respondent and stood by him specifically to talk to him about acting instead of watching the pep rally. Respondent and C.W. both credibly and persuasively denied being involved in a sexual relationship, engaging in sexual jokes with each other, or calling each other pet names. The evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent engaged in a sexual relationship with C.W. Findings of Ultimate Fact It is well-established in Florida law that whether charged conduct constitutes a deviation from a standard of conduct established by rule or statute is a question of fact to be decided by the trier of fact, considering the testimony and evidence in the context of the alleged violation. Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Holmes v. Turlington, 480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). See also McKinney v. Castor, 667 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); MacMillan v. Nassau Cnty. Sch. Bd., 629 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Accordingly, whether alleged conduct violates the laws, rules, and policies set forth in the charging document is a factual, not legal, determination. For the reasons addressed in detail above, the competent substantial evidence in the record does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent engaged in any of the conduct with which he was charged in the Petition. Therefore, the undersigned finds, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent did not violate the following rules and policies, as charged in the Petition: Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-5.056(2), 6A-10.080(2), and 6A- 10.081(3); School Board Policy 0.01(2), (3), (4) and (6); School Board Policy 1.013(1); School Board Policy 3.02(4)(a), (b), (d), (e) and (5)(a); and School Board Policy 5.81(10)(c).16/ Accordingly, the undersigned finds, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Petitioner did not show, by clear and convincing evidence, that there is just cause, as defined in section 1012.33(1)(a), to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate his employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondent, reinstating his employment as a teacher, and awarding him back pay to the date on which he was first suspended without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 2017.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent committed certain alleged acts of improper conduct in the form of inappropriate statements to female students and whether he committed acts of inappropriate touching of a female student and therefore, whether the Petitioner has just cause to terminate him as a contract teacher (Physical Education teacher and basketball coach).
Findings Of Fact Wilfred Brown is a black male who was employed under an annual contract by the Jackson County School Board. He was employed in the position of a physical education teacher and as the boys' basketball head coach at Sneads High School. Sneads High School actually enrolls both middle and high school students. Wilfred Brown was generally called "Coach Brown" at school. When he assumed the head coach position, he was permitted to select an assistant basketball coach to assist him. James Taylor had previously been an assistant basketball coach, but was not selected to be an assistant basketball coach by Coach Brown. Charlsie Maphis was a white female student at Sneads High School. She was a junior during the 2000-2001 school term. She dated a black male basketball player named Jason Brown. Her father did not approve of inter-racial dating and therefore, she was unable to openly date Jason Brown. Because of this Charlsie Maphis would come to the Sneads High School gym in order to spend time with Jason Brown. On a number of occasions Jason Brown and Charlsie Maphis would demonstrate inappropriate displays of affection, in terms of the Student Conduct Code, while they were in the gym. They would, for instance, sit between each others legs, lay their heads in each others' laps and otherwise engage in close physical contact, none of which was considered appropriate student behavior. When Coach Brown observed this behavior he would make them stop. Charlsie Maphis explained to Coach Brown that due to their racial differences she could not date Jason outside of school and also stated that the gym was the only place that they could spend any time together. Coach Brown did not accept this explanation and did not respond in a sympathetic way. Instead, he continued to enforce the Student Conduct Code. He would thus not allow Charlsie Maphis and Jason Brown to "hang-out" in the gym and demonstrate inappropriate conduct. Charlsie Maphis opined that Coach Brown was a racist and treated her and Jason Brown more harshly or unjustly because of their inter-racial dating. She did not feel that Coach Brown treated other students the same way. The evidence demonstrated, however, that Coach Brown enforced the rules of conduct on other student couples as well. Other students, however, did not exhibit the anger or attitude that Charlsie Maphis exhibited against Coach Brown because he so enforced the rules of conduct. Coach Brown, at some point, told Charlsie Maphis that she was a distraction to Jason Brown and because of that and her conduct, Jason Brown was not giving the basketball program his best effort. Coach Brown eventually removed Jason Brown from the basketball team during his senior year because Jason did not cooperate with the Coach and did not "have his heart in the game." Coach Brown also removed two other black male basketball players from the team. They were Lamar Colston and Lynn Colston. Lamar and Lynn Colston were considered talented basketball players but did not get along with Coach Brown. Their step-father was James Taylor who had once served as assistant basketball coach at Sneads High School before Coach Brown became the head coach. Coach Brown selected another person to replace James Taylor as assistant basketball coach. This appeared to cause ill-feeling between James Taylor and Coach Brown as well as his step-sons, Lamar and Lynn Colston. In this regard, Charlsie Maphis claimed that she did not really know James Taylor. However, James Taylor and his step-sons lived in the same neighborhood as Charlsie Maphis and James Taylor was sometimes the umpire for the softball team on which Charlsie Maphis served as catcher and third baseperson. Charlsie Maphis' friend, Sarranda Hall, testified that she saw Charlsie Maphis talking to James Taylor after a ballgame. Kerri Maphis, the younger sister of Charlsie Maphis, also testified that their mother was a long-time friend of James Taylor. Charlsie Maphis also admitted, on cross-examination, that she gave "shoulder-rubs" to Lamar Colston and the evidence demonstrates that she must have been fairly close friends with Lamar Colston and at least to some extent with his step-father James Taylor. In consideration of the above facts and the fact that James Taylor had been the assistant basketball coach at Sneads High School, Charlsie Maphis' statement that she did not really know James Taylor is not deemed credible. Moreover, her failure to readily admit her knowledge of and acquaintanceship with James Taylor casts doubt upon her testimony concerning her motivation to conceal or testify with a lack of candor. In any event, after Coach Brown removed the Colston brothers from the basketball team, James Taylor started a campaign to get Coach Brown fired. Mr. Taylor met with the principal, administrators, the superintendent and the School Board itself in an unsuccessful attempt to have Coach Brown terminated from his position. Charlsie Maphis's father learned that she was dating Jason Brown and ordered her to stop sometime during the 2000- 2001 school year. Therefore, Charlsie Maphis was supposed to have stopped dating Jason Brown and she testified that when Jason Brown graduated in May 2001, they were no longer dating. Jason Brown, however, testified that they did not end their relationship until much later in the year 2001. When school resumed for the 2001-2002 school year, Charlsie Maphis was no longer in Coach Brown's class. Generally she would only see him in passing on the school campus or when she specifically made a trip to the gym. Nonetheless, according to Charlsie Maphis, even after Jason Brown had graduated, when Coach Brown would see her at school he would still "get in her business" by asking her if she and Jason Brown were still together and how was Jason getting along. It became clear during that 2000-2001 school year and the 2001-2002 school year that Charlsie Maphis did not like Coach Brown, based upon her own testimony and that of other students who were aware that she did not like Coach Brown based upon things they heard her say or the way she acted when she was in his presence. Charlsie Maphis' alleges that around the month of December 2001, she went to the gym and asked Coach Brown to let her use the phone in his office to call her mother. She testified that after she came into his office she "slumped down in a chair" resulting in her abdominal area and waist being exposed to his view because her undershirt slid up when she slumped down in the chair, according to her testimony. She contends that after Coach Brown saw her stomach and waistline he made inappropriate comments about her, such as that she had a "sexy waistline" and purportedly touched her inappropriately around her abdominal area and licked her exposed stomach area and placed his hand on the waistline of her pants. Coach Brown denied each allegation by Charlsie Maphis that he made inappropriate statements to her or engaged in inappropriate physical conduct or touching toward her. In this regard Charlsie Maphis made a written statement, dated February 20, 2002, setting forth her allegations against Coach Brown, testifying in a similar manner at hearing concerning her allegations. In her written statement, Charlsie Maphis states that it was nothing out of the ordinary for her to go to Coach Brown's office. However, under the facts and circumstances of their strained relationship, as revealed by the testimony at hearing, it is apparent that she did not like Coach Brown and was not in his class that year and therefore, it is very unlikely that she would regularly go to his office for any reason. Most of her time in school she avoided being around Coach Brown and tried to avoid even speaking to him, according to her own testimony. When he spoke to her, she, by her own admission, forced herself to be cordial or publicly respectful. It thus appears very unusual for her to go to Coach Brown's office, particularly on a regular basis, as she contends. In essence, Charlsie Maphis claims that the incident in the office occurred after part of her body was exposed when her undershirt slid up because she sat slumped in a chair. However, when Charlsie Maphis first reported her allegations to Ms. Dixon, the assistant principal, she claimed that she sat on a table, not in a chair, in Coach Brown's office on the occasion in question. This is established by Ms. Dixon's testimony, which is credited. Although Coach Brown is alleged to have made inappropriate statements and acted inappropriately after Charlsie sat slumped in the chair, Ms. Maphis' bare abdominal area and waistline were not seen and could not be seen beneath her over-shirt when she demonstrated, during the hearing, dressed in the same clothing, sitting with the same posture and holding her hands in the same position as she allegedly was in on the occasion of the incident. Contrary to her allegations that Coach Brown licked her on the stomach, Ms. Maphis told two of her friends that Coach Brown had licked her ear and offered her money to lick her ear, not her stomach or waistline. These parts of the body are so far apart and different that her statements to two different people to the effect that it was her ear and not her stomach involved in the incident cannot be regarded as an inadvertent mis-statement. Under the circumstances, its probative value reflects negatively on the credibility of Charlsie Maphis. Ms. Maphis claimed to be so surprised by Coach Brown's statements and actions that she was unable to move when he allegedly touched and licked her inappropriately and she claimed that she had to find an excuse to leave the room after she told him to "back-up." Her statements are not credible because, based upon her demeanor, she is obviously an assertive person who was not and is not afraid of Coach Brown. Additionally, it is found, based upon her testimony that Coach Brown talked on the phone several times at his desk while she was allegedly sitting in the chair in his office, that she would have had ample opportunity to move or leave the office without the necessity of searching for an excuse to leave. Moreover, at the time of the alleged incident, Coach Brown had a class waiting for him outside of his office door in the gym, and his students, players and assistants were constantly coming in and out of the office. Having observed the candor and demeanor of Charlsie Maphis in testifying to these incidents and occurrences, and also observing the candor and demeanor and apparent credibility of the witnesses opposed to her testimony, it is found that the incident did not occur as alleged by Charlsie Maphis and her testimony is not credited. Ms. Maphis also alleged that Coach Brown discussed meeting her one weekend to exchange massages at his parents' home were he lived when his parents would be away. This allegation is not credible because the evidence shows that, contrary to Ms. Maphis' claim, Coach Brown's parents had a strict rule that no child of theirs, including Coach Brown, could entertain any female in their home while they were not present. Coach Brown lived in their home. They were not away for any weekend which would have allowed such an occurrence to happen during the time period in question, and it is not established that Coach Brown had any such intention. Ms. Maphis' testimony in this regard is not credited. There may have been a financial motive for the allegations by Ms. Maphis. After the allegations became public she told one of her friends that she was going to get some money out of Coach Brown and admitted consulting an attorney about a civil lawsuit against Coach Brown. In fact, Ms. Maphis told the School Resource Police Officer, Brian Stagner, that "she felt she could get some money out of this." Although Ms. Maphis claims that Coach Brown had engaged in inappropriate conduct with other students or former students, each one of these students or former students denied that any such conduct had ever occurred. In fact, each of them testified that Coach Brown was completely professional in his conduct toward them at all times. Ms. Maphis may also have been motivated out of dislike for Coach Brown. She told Office Brian Stagner, that ". . . she was going to do everything she could to fuck him up." She told Officer Stagner that "if she could not go after him criminally that she would go after him civilly" and that she felt she "could get some money out of this." This conversation took place during a school day at Sneads High School where Officer Stagner was the Police Department's School Resource Officer. In any event, after observing Charlsie Maphis and her testimony at the hearing and listening to the testimony of Officer Stagner, other witnesses, and considering all the other evidence, it is concluded that Charlsie Maphis' testimony may be motivated by some malicious intent toward Coach Brown. Due to her general lack of credibility, I also do not credit her allegations that Coach Brown asked her to meet him one weekend; that he called her into his office and offered her $75.00 to let him "lick her again"; or that he asked her to come to his home one weekend to exchange massages. Holly Roberts claims that around the month of December 2001, she went to Coach Brown's office to use the telephone and when she arrived Coach Brown asked her to input some student absentees into his computer. While she was doing this and while he was having a telephone conversation, she observed a vacation brochure on his desk related to Hawaii. Holly Roberts admits asking Coach Brown if she could go with him to Hawaii. She then alleges that he told her that he would buy her a ticket to go with him to Hawaii. It is apparent from the totality of the testimony and circumstances that she asked him if she could go to Hawaii more or less in jest or in a joking manner. Coach Brown denies that he offered to buy her a ticket to Hawaii. Holly Roberts also maintains that Coach Brown asked her to come to his home while his parents were out of town for the weekend to give him a massage. Coach Brown admits that Holly Roberts asked him if she could go to Hawaii, but denies offering to buy the ticket and moreover testified that he jokingly told Holly Roberts that she could go to Hawaii with him if she would pay $9,000.00 or $10,000.00 for tickets and costs for everybody in his party to go. He denies ever talking to her concerning her coming to his parents' home during their absence or giving him massages or shoulder rubs. The preponderant evidence establishes that Holly Roberts is not a credible witness in this regard. The totality of the evidence and circumstances related to her and to witness Montario Garrett establishes that she was dating, or in a close personal relationship with Montario Garrett. She did not tell the truth about the nature of the letter that she wrote to Montario Garrett. She maintained that she wrote it to help him break up with Lauren Faircloth, a fellow student. Montario Garrett testified contrarily, however, that it was a "love letter" and that they were in a dating relationship. The plain language of the letter clearly supports his version of its nature. It appears likely that she misrepresented the nature of their relationship due to her fear of her parents or her father's disapproval of her inter-racial dating relationship with Montario Garrett since Holly Roberts is white and Montario Garrett is black. She falsely accused Montario Garrett and Michael Reed of telling her that Coach Brown had inquired if she would date "black boys." She also falsely testified that she was afraid of Coach Brown because Montario Garrett had told her that Coach Brown had a history of "messing with other young girls." Montario Garrett categorically denied that he ever told her that story. Moreover, Holly Roberts minimizes her acquaintanship with Charlsie Maphis. However, there were numerous opportunities for Holly Roberts and Charlsie Maphis to be together and to communicate during their tenure at Sneads High School. They were both in the same DCT class for two semesters in the 2001-2002 school year. They were on the softball team together in February of 2002 when these allegations were made public. Holly Roberts rode to school everyday with one of the best friends of Charlsie Maphis' younger sister. Before the allegations against the Respondent became public the younger sister Kerri Maphis, Nicole Rabon and their other friend Samantha Wilkerson, had been discussing rumors about alleged inappropriate conduct by Coach Brown including the rumors of his alleged misconduct towards Charlsie Maphis, Kerri's older sister. During the first and second semester of the 2001-2002 school year, Charlsie Maphis and Holly Roberts were in Mr. Stoutamires' Career Development class. Charlsie Maphis and Holly Roberts testified that Mr. Stoutamire did not require students enrolled in this class to attend class everyday. Instead, students were on their own and could go and come to work or even go home, according to their testimony. Both Charlsie Maphis and Holly Roberts had an unexcused absence from two of their classes on February 20, 2002, and apparently left the campus together. During the first and second semester of the 2001-2002 school year, Charlsie Maphis and Holly Roberts played softball together, beginning in February 2002. Charlsie Maphis was the catcher and James Taylor, who also had a history of enmity towards the Respondent, was an umpire at some of those softball games. Moreover, it is significant that the most serious conduct alleged against Coach Brown is alleged to have occurred months before it was ever reported. The initial reports were not even made by the alleged victims. The manner and timing in which the allegations of Charlsie Maphis and Holly Roberts became public appears to have been planned. Kerri Maphis, Charlsie's younger sister, and Nicole Rabon, who rode to school daily with Holly Roberts and their friend Samantha Wilkerson, went to the office of Ms. Dixon, the assistant principal, together to report to Ms. Dixon the rumors concerning Coach Brown. Within a short time after they spoke with Ms. Dixon, both Charlsie Maphis and Holly Roberts voluntarily reported their allegations to the School Resource Officer, Brian Stagner. Moreover, the unrefuted testimony of Coach April Goodwin reveals that Holly Roberts did not have the best reputation in her school community for truth and veracity. Consequently, Holly Roberts' testimony regarding the facts and the nature of the interaction she had with Coach Brown, concerning which she made her complaints, is not credited. It is apparent that whatever occurred in this interaction with Coach Brown in his office concerning a trip to Hawaii was, at most, simply a joking or jesting reference to their going to Hawaii on a vacation trip. It is determined, based upon the testimony of Coach Brown and of his parents, as well as the numerous witnesses who described Coach Brown as being an instructional employee and coach who never exhibited any unprofessional or inappropriate conduct or behavior, that the incident concerning his purported invitation to Holly Roberts to come to his home on the weekend, when his parents were purportedly to be absent, simply did not occur. Wilfred Brown grew up in Jackson County and attended Jackson County public schools. His parents are respected and respectable citizens who retired from employment with the state. Wilfred Brown and his brothers participated in high school sports, and after graduating from high school, Wilfred Brown attended college. Upon graduating from college he returned home to Jackson County and ultimately was hired as the head coach of the Sneads boys basketball team. Respondent Brown primarily resided with his mother and father at times pertinent hereto. His mother and father do not allow him or his brothers to bring female companions to their home when the parents are not at home and do not allow their sons' female friends to stay overnight in their residence. Coach Brown is a Deacon in his church and a Sunday school teacher. He also works with the youth in his church and community. He provides free basketball camps for youth athletes during the summer. He has an outstanding reputation in his community for truth and veracity. He has a reputation among students at school for requiring them to abide by the rules of good conduct and of being professional and an exhibitor of good conduct himself. There is no evidence that Coach Brown has ever been previously accused or found guilty of any inappropriate, unprofessional statements or behavior towards students or young females at any time or location. Upon observing and considering the demeanor of Wilfred Brown and his testimony, carefully weighing and comparing his testimony to that of the complaining witnesses, and in consideration of the numerous witnesses as to Coach Brown's reputation in his community for truth and veracity as well as, more specifically, the testimony concerning his failure to ever exhibit any inappropriate, unprofessional conduct toward female students or others, it is determined that Coach Brown is credible as a witness. His testimony is credited over that of Holly Roberts and Charlsie Maphis. The testimony of the numerous witnesses as to his competent performance as a teacher and coach and his good personal conduct and character, including towards female students, along with and the lack of any testimony, other than that of the discredited complaining witnesses, concerning any unprofessional, inappropriate behavior on his part has been carefully considered. It is determined that preponderant evidence has been adduced which establishes that Coach Brown has not lost his effectiveness as a teacher and a coach in the Jackson County School community nor in Sneads High School in particular.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the School Board of Jackson County finding that the allegations made against the Respondent Wilfred Brown are not established and that he be re-instated to his position as teacher and basketball coach with back pay and with renewal of his annual contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Marva A. Davis, Esquire 121 South Madison Street Post Office Drawer 551 Quincy, Florida 32353-0551 H. Matthew Fuqua, Esquire Bondurant and Fuqua, P.A. Post Office Box 1508 Marianna, Florida 32447 Daniel Sims, Superintendent Jackson County School Board Post Office Box 5958 Marianna, Florida 32447 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
