The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to terminate Respondent’s employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Broward County, Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a physical education teacher at Riverglades Elementary School (“Riverglades”), pursuant to a Professional Services Contract, issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2014). At all times material to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law and the School Board’s policies. 2007-2008 School Year On February 13, 2008, the executive director of the School Board’s Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit issued to Respondent a written reprimand based upon allegations of assault and battery. On February 13, 2008, the principal of Village Elementary School, Respondent’s employer at the time, held a meeting with Respondent at which time Respondent was directed to: 1) “follow the school wide discipline plan”; 2) “take a class in Behavior Management and/or Classroom Management, such as ‘Champs’”; 3) “discipline with respect”; and 4) “not to yell at children” 2012-2013 School Year On March 7, 2013, Barton Christopher Duhart, interim principal at Riverglades, met with Respondent and directed that his: [l]anguage with all students be kept professional at all times. Please refrain from using language that is abusive or may be easily misconstrued as being abusive toward any students regardless of their behavior. 2013-2014 School Year On January 15, 2014, JoAnne Seltzer, interim principal at Riverglades, held an informal conference with Respondent regarding an alleged incident involving S.W., a fifth-grade student in Respondent’s physical education class. At that time, it was alleged that Respondent had grabbed S.W.’s arm, yelled at her in her ear, told her “to shut up,” and made inappropriate remarks about the way she talks. In the conference summary report issued on January 21, 2014, Principal Seltzer directed Respondent to refrain from touching, embarrassing, screaming at, or demeaning students in the future. The School Board proposed to suspend Respondent based on the alleged incident involving S.W. Respondent requested an administrative hearing to challenge the School Board’s proposed action. On August 24, 2015, following a one-day hearing, Administrative Law Judge F. Scott Boyd issued his Recommended Order in the case of Broward County School Board v. Robert Konnovitch, DOAH Case No. 14-2696TTS. Based on the evidence presented at the May 22, 2015, final hearing, Judge Boyd found, in pertinent part: On January 10, 2014, Respondent was attempting to move his students inside after their time on the playground. One student, S.W., was talking loudly and frustrating Respondent’s efforts. In response to this, Respondent pulled down on S.W.’s arm or wrist and screamed “Be quiet!” in her ear. S.W. was not physically harmed by this incident and did not cry. However, when asked about how the incident made her feel, she testified “not good.” As a result of Respondent’s conduct involving S.W. and evidence presented at that hearing, Judge Boyd concluded that Respondent was guilty of misconduct in office, incompetency, and insubordination, and recommended that Respondent’s employment be suspended for ten days without pay. Subsequently, the School Board entered a final order adopting Judge Boyd’s Recommended Order. The incident giving rise to the School Board’s proposed termination of Respondent in the instant case occurred on April 1, 2014. On April 1, 2014, M.Z. was a fifth-grade student in Respondent’s physical education class. Shortly before class ended, M.Z. was misbehaving and got out of line. In response to M.Z.’s misbehavior, Respondent became angry and threatened to punch M.Z. in the face. Respondent, who was standing very close to M.Z., turned around and yelled at M.Z.: “If you don’t get in line, then I will punch you in the face.” M.Z. was not physically harmed by this incident and did not cry. However, he was scared by Respondent’s threatening comment and got back in line. Respondent made the threatening comment in front of the entire physical education class. Respondent’s conduct was inappropriate and verbally abusive. Respondent could certainly have projected authority and corrected M.Z.’s behavior without the need to resort to a physical threat of violence.2/ The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056. By verbally threatening M.Z. with physical violence, Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (e) by failing to make reasonable effort to protect his students from conditions harmful to learning and intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Respondent also violated rules 6A-5.056(2)(d) and (e) by engaging in conduct which disrupted the students’ learning environment and reduced Respondent’s ability to effectively perform duties. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent is guilty of incompetence in violation of rule 6A-5.056(3). By verbally threatening M.Z. with physical violence, Respondent failed to discharge his required duties as a teacher as a result of inefficiency. Respondent was inefficient by failing to perform duties prescribed by law and by failing to communicate appropriately with and relate to students. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination in violation of rule 6A-5.056(4) by intentionally refusing to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority. By failing to comply with the specific directives detailed above, Respondent intentionally refused a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent is guilty of immorality in violation of rule 6A-5.056(1). The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent is guilty of violating School Board Policy 4008(B). No such policy was offered into evidence at the final hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order upholding the termination of Respondent’s employment.3/ DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 2016.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether Escambia County School Board (“School Board”) Rule 2.04 (2017- 2018)1/ is an invalid exercise of delegated authority, as defined in section 120.52(8)(b), (c), (d), and (e).
Findings Of Fact At hearing, the parties stipulated to adopting the findings of fact from DOAH Case No. 17-4220, which are incorporated herein as follows: Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the system of public schools in Escambia County, Florida. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. The School Board has the statutory responsibility to prescribe qualifications for positions of employment and for the suspension and dismissal of employees subject to the requirements of chapter 1012. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent is a noninstructional support employee, who has been employed as a Custodial Worker I by the School Board since October 13, 2014. Mr. Warren worked 40 hours a week at Pine Forest High School. Mr. Warren’s position with the School Board is annual, rather than based on the academic school year calendar. During the regular school year, students are required to be on campus from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. After the school day, there are students who remain at the school for various activities with clubs and organizations. While students are present, custodial workers complete their duties and work assignments throughout the school. On a regular school day students may be present at the school for clubs and organizations until as late as 9:00 p.m. Respondent works the 2:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. shift and would be present when students are present. The background regarding Respondent’s arrest arises from a dispute where it was alleged that he forged a quitclaim deed, transferring property from his uncle to himself. On May 9, 2017, Respondent was arrested. Thereafter, an information was filed against Respondent by the State Attorney’s Office alleging that he knowingly obtained or endeavored to obtain certain property of another valued at $20,000.00 or more, but less than $100,000.00, in violation of section 812.014(1)(a) and (1)(b), and (2)(b)1., a second degree felony. At the time of the final hearing, Respondent’s criminal case was pending final disposition. On May 18, 2017, Superintendent of the School Board, Malcolm Thomas, provided written notice to Respondent that he was suspended “with pay effective immediately . . . pending the outcome of an arrest for §812.014.2b1 [sic], F.S., a disqualifying offense.” The Superintendent’s letter did not provide authority for the Superintendent’s action. The Superintendent also cited no authority for his position that the alleged offense was a “disqualifying offense.” Also, on May 18, 2017, the Superintendent notified Respondent of his intent to recommend to the School Board that Mr. Warren be placed on suspension without pay beginning June 21, 2017. In his request to the School Board, the Superintendent stated that his recommendation was “based on conduct as more specifically identified in the notice letter to the employee.” Similar to the notice regarding the intended recommendation, the Superintendent cited no authority for his recommendation, nor his position that the alleged offense was a “disqualifying offense.” By letter dated June 21, 2017, Dr. Scott advised Respondent that the School Board voted to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation placing him on suspension without pay, effective June 21, 2017. As cause for Mr. Warren’s suspension without pay, Dr. Scott’s letter stated that it is “based on conduct as more specifically identified in the [Superintendent’s] notice letter to the employee.” Dr. Scott’s letter did not use the term “disqualifying offense,” nor did it cite any authority for the School Board’s action. Respondent had no history of disciplinary action during his employment by the School Board. In addition, Ms. Touchstone testified that Respondent “has been a good employee for us.” As a noninstructional employee, Mr. Warren is covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) between the School Board and the ESP. In addition, the School Board, in part, relied upon rule 2.04 (2017), when it approved the recommendation to suspend Mr. Warren without pay for a criminal arrest. If Mr. Warren had been convicted of the alleged crime, he would have been disqualified from employment with the School Board. While the issue of whether the School Board had authority to suspend Mr. Warren’s license was addressed in DOAH Case No. 17-4220, that matter did not address the issue of the method of reinstatement and back pay for existing employees. As will be further discussed in the Conclusions of Law below, Mr. Warren has standing to challenge the rules in an individual capacity. A Recommended Order upholding Mr. Warren’s suspension without pay was issued on December 22, 2017. The School Board issued a Final Order adopting the Recommended Order in toto, issued on February 23, 2018. Since the Final Order was filed in DOAH Case No. 17-4220, Mr. Warren pled no contest to Filing a False Document, a non-disqualifying offense, pursuant to section 435.04, Florida Statutes, and the court withheld adjudication.3/ Other charges, including the alleged disqualifying offense, were nolle prossed. On December 22, 2017, as a result of the plea agreement, the School Board voted to reinstate Mr. Warren to work, effective November 17, 2017. Mr. Warren’s suspension without pay was formally rescinded, and he was reinstated to his position as a custodial worker. However, in reliance on School Board Policy 2.04, the School Board has refused to pay him back pay and benefits for the roughly five-month period of suspension without pay. Mr. Warren timely appealed the School Board’s decision to deny him back pay and benefits. The case is currently pending at the Division (DOAH Case No. 18-2270). Petitioner, ESP, is the union that solely and exclusively serves as the bargaining agent for collective bargaining on behalf of employees employed by the School Board. ESP has associational standing to represent members of the bargaining unit and to challenge rules that may affect employees covered by the CBA. School Board rule 2.04 is entitled “Recruitment and Selection of Personnel” and provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Guidelines which may disqualify from employment: A. Conviction (as defined in Sections 435.04, F.S., and/or 1012.315, F.S.) of a crime of moral turpitude (Section 1012.33, F.S.). Moral turpitude as defined by the District includes, but is not limited to, crimes listed in Sections 435.04, F.S., and/or 1012.315, F.S. * * * D. Any other felony crime not listed in Sections 435.04, F.S., or 1012.315, F.S., with a final disposition of guilt or plea of nolo contendere (no contest), regardless of adjudication of guilt. * * * J. Noncompliance with the District hiring requirements under Sections 435.04, F.S., 1012.465, F.S., 1012.315, F.S., and 1012.56, F.S. A record clear of disqualifying offenses as defined in Section A above is required for employment and continued employment with the District. Individuals who have pending criminal charges for an offense which would disqualify from employment or who are currently on probation or participating in a program for first-time offenders as a result of the offense will be automatically disqualified from employment or continued employment until resolution of the charge(s). * * * All applicants and vendors have the right to appeal before the Human Resources Appeals Committee. The Assistant Superintendent of Human Resource Services or designated representative will select the members of this committee to ensure diversity. The Committee is responsible for following and abiding by all local, state, and federal employment procedures and laws. A second applicant or vendor appeal will be granted only when new facts or additional information has been presented that was not considered in the first appeal hearing. The Superintendent shall review decisions made by the Human Resources Appeals Committee and has the authority to overturn decisions made by the Committee, excluding appeals from offenses listed in Sections 435.04, F.S., and/or 1012.315, F.S., and/or 1012.467, F.S. Rule 2.04 lists as its statutory authority sections 1001.41, 1001.42, and 1001.43, Florida Statutes, and lists sections 112.3173, 435.04, 440.102, 800.04, 943.051, 1001.01, 1001.10, 1001.42, 1001.43, 1003.02, 1003.32, 1003.451, 1012.22, 1012.27, 1012.32, 1012.335, and 1012.39, Florida Statutes, as the law it implements. The rule does not cite section 435.04 as statutory rulemaking authority. The rule does not list any reference to 1012.315 or 1012.465 as rulemaking authority or as law implemented. Rule 2.04 provides that an individual may be disqualified from employment or continued employment if he or she has pending criminal charges. The rule requires compliance with sections 435.04, 1012.465, and 1012.315. Section 1012.465 provides that noninstructional employees who have direct contact with children must meet the level 2 requirements described in 1012.32, which references section 1012.315 as the list of disqualifying offenses. Moreover, rule 2.04 allows for an employee to be disqualified, i.e., suspended from employment until resolution of the alleged charges, without providing a method for reinstatement or back pay should the allegations be resolved favorably for the employee. The School Board asserts that it has a duty and statutory authority to adopt and implement rules to facilitate the level 2 background screening required by 1012.465. However, there is no such authority in section 1012.465, 1012.315, or 1012.32, by reference or otherwise. Rule 2.04 also does not indicate the criteria that would be used for determining whether an employee should be reinstated with back pay. Dr. Scott testified that, “generally, the decision to award back pay is made on a case-by-case basis. It has been a general ‘practice’ to not award back pay for private conduct which resulted in criminal charges.” Ms. Waters agreed with Dr. Scott that back pay may be awarded based on the circumstances. Ms. Waters testified that the superintendent determines whether a reinstated employee should be awarded back pay, completely, partially, or not at all. Nothing in rule 2.04 provides Mr. Warren, or any other existing employee in his circumstances, with notice that suspension without pay for pending criminal charges for a disqualifying offense may result in the employee being awarded back pay upon reinstatement. The School Board’s determination that back pay would not be awarded following resolution of pending criminal charges was based solely on the superintendent’s discretion. If an employee is suspended without pay based on criminal charges related to the employee’s position and the charges are subsequently resolved, the employee may be awarded back pay.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Miami-Dade County, Florida (including, among others, Ludlam Elementary School (Ludlam)), and for otherwise providing public instruction to school-aged children in the county. Respondent has approximately 30 years of teaching experience, and has been a classroom teacher for the School Board since December 1999. As a School Board employee, she has not been the subject of any disciplinary action aside from the 30-workday suspension that is being contested in the instant case. Respondent is currently co-teaching a kindergarten class at Ludlam, the only school at which she has taught during her employment with the School Board. For the eleven years she has been at Ludlam, Respondent has been a kindergarten teacher exclusively, except for the 2009-2010 school year, when she taught second grade. Among the second graders in her class that school year were A. H., A. P., and J. M.3 Dr. Georgette Menocal is now, and was during the 2009- 2010 school year, the principal of Ludlam. At a Ludlam faculty meeting, attended by Respondent, that was held at the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year, Dr. Menocal gave a PowerPoint presentation in which she reviewed, for those in attendance, key provisions of Ludlam's 2009-2010 Faculty/Staff Handbook (Handbook), including the following excerpt relating to "Classroom Management Procedures": CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES Teachers should make every effort to handle routine classroom discipline problems by conferring with the student, contacting parents, and referring the student to the counselor. If a serious violation of school rules has occurred, a "Student Case Management Referral Form" should be completed and forwarded to the administration. A response will be forthcoming. * * * It is the teacher's responsibility to manage his/her class and to follow the procedures outlined in the Code of Student Conduct. All level 1 behaviors are to be addressed by the teacher. Most level 2 behaviors can be addressed by the teacher and/or counselor. Level 3 (and above) behaviors require a referral to an administrator. Each student referral must be made on a Student Case Management (SCM) referral form. The disciplinary policies of the school should be administered on a consistent basis throughout the school. The CODE OF STUDENT CONDUCT should be reviewed with students at the beginning of each school year. NEVER - Use corporal punishment of any kind (hitting, tapping or tying students, having students stand for long periods of time, etc.)[4] The School Board's Code of Student Conduct-Elementary (Code) (which Ludlam teachers were directed by the Handbook to "follow") provided, among other things, that "Level 3 . . . behaviors" included "Fighting (serious)" and that "Fighting (serious)": Occurs when two or more students engage in physical force or violence against each other and they become so enraged that they do not stop when given a verbal command to do so, OR physical restraint is required, AND/OR someone is injured to an extent that requires immediate first aid or medical attention. Any serious fighting incident that causes injury or requires medical attention would result in a suspension. If the principal or designee determines that one student or a group of students attacked someone who did not fight back, the aggressors should receive punishment for battery, aggravated battery, and/or bullying, depending on the facts, and will likely be arrested. Otherwise, administrators will report all other incidents involving mutual participation as Fighting (Serious) without regard to who was the original aggressor. On February 25, 2010, during a mathematics lesson Respondent was teaching, two female students in her class, A. H. and A. P., were involved in an altercation in the back of the classroom, during which A. H. hit A. P. with a book. Respondent intervened and separated the two girls by physically restraining A. H., who struggled to escape Respondent's grasp. As she was holding A. H., Respondent instructed A. P. to hit A. H. back. A. P. did as she was told, striking A. H.5 with a book.6 The incident (Incident), which lasted approximately a minute, was witnessed by J. M., who was in her seat and had turned around to observe the fracas.7 Notwithstanding that she had physically restrained A. H., Respondent did not report the Incident to the school administration (via submission of a completed Student Case Management referral form, as required by the Handbook, or through any other means).8 Following the Incident, the students in Respondent's class left her classroom and went to their Spanish class. Ludlam's assistant principal was subsequently called to the Spanish class. She removed A. H. and A. P. from the class and brought them to Dr. Menocal's office, where Dr. Menocal spoke to them separately. Both A. H. and A. P. told Dr. Menocal about their scuffle earlier that day in Respondent's classroom and how, during this tussle, Respondent had directed A. P. to hit A. H. while A. H. was being held by Respondent. A. H. and A. P. gave Dr. Menocal, at Dr. Menocal's request, the names of three other students who may have witnessed the Incident. The three students9 were brought, separately, to Dr. Menocal's office and questioned by her. Each of the three students confirmed what A. H. and A. P. had told Dr. Menocal. Dr. Menocal asked A. H., A. P., and two of the three other students to whom she had spoken to each write a statement in their own words describing what had happened in Respondent's classroom earlier that day.10 They wrote their statements, separately, in Dr. Menocal's presence. In her written statement, A. H. stated, in pertinent part, "Ms. Grey hold me and then Ms. Grey told her [A. P.] to hit me and then she hit me on my back . . . ." A. P. and the two other children each wrote that Respondent had "let" A. P. "hit" A. H., but they did not specifically state in their written statements that Respondent had told A. P. to strike A. H. After receiving these written statements from the students, Dr. Menocal contacted the School Board police and the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to report what the students had related to her about the Incident. That same day, February 25, 2010, a School Board police officer, Officer San Antonio, was dispatched to Ludlam. Officer San Antonio first spoke with Dr. Menocal and then with various students and Respondent. The following morning, at around 9:00 a.m., Respondent's second grade class put on a performance in the school cafeteria as part of a black history month event attended by parents (Performance). Following the Performance, Respondent invited the parents of her students to follow her and the class back to her classroom so that she could have a brief meeting with them (Post-Performance Meeting). Respondent began the meeting by praising the students' Performance. This praise, however, was short-lived, as Respondent started to complain to the parents about the students' "misbehaving" and "acting up" in class. As an example, she cited the altercation the day before between A. H. and A. P. (without identifying them by name). Respondent told the parents that "two little girls" had "got[en] into a fight" and that she was being accused of and investigated by the police for having "held one of them and [having] told the other girl to hit [the girl being held]." Respondent then said, "And I wouldn't do that" (knowing full well that, in fact, she had done "that"), after which she asked her students (including A. H. and A. P.) who were present in the room with the parents, "Did Mrs. Grey do that?" The students responded, in unison, "No, no."11 Respondent informed the parents that, because she "gets in trouble" when she "gets involved," she no longer would hesitate, when a student misbehaved, to prepare and submit to the principal's office a written referral that would follow the misbehaving student "all the way through high school." Later that morning (on February 26, 2010), at approximately 11:15 a.m., a DCFS child protective investigator, Donald Machacon, arrived at Ludlam to investigate the Incident (which Dr. Menocal had reported to DCFS the day before). After first speaking with Dr. Menocal, Mr. Machacon spoke with A. H., A. P., and three other students in Respondent's class.12 The last person Mr. Machacon interviewed at the school that day was Respondent. During her interview with Mr. Machacon on February 26, 2010, A. P. stated that, although at the time of the Incident she had thought she had heard Respondent instruct her to hit A. H., she must not have heard correctly because Respondent, earlier on February 26th, had spoken to her about the matter and denied ever having had given her such an instruction.13 A. P. attributed her having had misunderstood Respondent to Respondent's having had had a "hoarse voice" the day of the Incident. None of the other children Mr. Machacon interviewed at the school on February 26, 2010, including A. H., claimed to have any recollection of Respondent's ever having had told A. P. to hit A. H. (although each of them did tell Mr. Machacon that A. P. had hit A. H. while A. H. was being held by Respondent). Respondent, in her interview, indicated that she had held A. H. in order to "break up a fight," but she denied having had told A. P. to hit A. H. during the altercation. She also denied having had spoken about the Incident earlier that day (February 26, 2010) with A. H. and A. P. She did acknowledge, however, that she had referenced the Incident in a talk she had had with a group of parents shortly after the Performance that morning. She further acknowledged that, the day before (February 25, 2010), she had been questioned about the Incident by Officer San Antonio, who was at the school investigating the matter. By letter dated February 26, 2010, and received by Respondent on March 1, 2010, Dr. Menocal formally informed Respondent, in writing, that "[a]n investigation [was] being conducted" of a complaint made by an unnamed "juvenile" complainant alleging that Respondent had "held" her "so that another student could hit her." Among the parents who had attended the Post- Performance Meeting on February 26, 2010, was M. M., J. M.'s mother. M. M. left the meeting concerned about the safety of her daughter in Respondent's classroom given what Respondent had told the parents, particularly about the fight between the "two little girls" that the police had been called to the school to investigate.14 Moreover, M. M. thought that it was inappropriate for Respondent to have discussed the matter at the meeting. The following week, M. M. made arrangements to meet with Dr. Menocal so that she could air her grievances about Respondent. (These grievances were not only about what had occurred at the Post- Performance Meeting. They also concerned "classroom management issues.") Sometime before this meeting between M. M. and Dr. Menocal took place, M. M. learned more about the Incident from J. M. during a discussion the two had following a physical altercation between J. M. and J. M.'s sister. M. M. had initiated the discussion by asking whether J. M. believed that J. M.'s sister had deserved to be hit by J. M., a question to which J. M. responded in the affirmative. When M. M. inquired as to why J. M. felt this way, J. M. answered, "Well, it's like in Mrs. Grey's class, when you get hit, you hit back." In response to her mother's request that she elaborate, J. M. told M. M. about the Incident and how, after A. H. had hit A. P., Respondent had grabbed ahold of A. H., told A. P. to hit A. H. back,15 and then announced to the class, "This is what happens in Mrs. Grey's class, when you hit; you get hit back." M. M. had her meeting with Dr. Menocal approximately a week after the Incident. During her audience with Dr. Menocal, M. M. raised a number of complaints that she had about Respondent. She talked about, among other things, the comments and remarks Respondent had made to the parents and students in attendance at the Post-Performance Meeting, including those relating to the Incident and its aftermath. On March 8, 2010, Respondent was temporarily reassigned, "until further notice," from Ludlam to the School Board's Region III Office, where she engaged in "professional development" activities. By letter dated May 18, 2010, which she received on May 19, 2010, Respondent was advised that the School Board police had completed its investigation of the Incident and found probable cause to believe that she had violated School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21. The letter further advised Respondent of her right "to file a written exception" with the School Board's Office of Professional Standards (OPS).16 Respondent submitted to OPS her "written exception," by letter dated May 25, 2010. She subsequently sent to OPS a "[r]evised [v]ersion" of this letter, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: Pursuant to your letter dated May 18, 2010, informing me of the outcome of your investigation (SPAR #R-09002), I wish to exercise my right to provide a written exception to your findings. I take exception to your findings of probable cause to the violation because no such violation occurred. My intervention was simply to stop the aggressing child from hitting the other child and preventing a fight, possibly leading to injuries, between the two children. Below please find specific items with which I take issue . . . . * * * Det. Torrens also states that two students who were interviewed as witnesses told him exactly the same thing which, significantly, was not that I told one child to hit the other as the information from the two combatants indicate. These children also provided him with previously written statements. I would like to see the original documents; to know who took the statements and who was present. I would also like the children to be interviewed on tape as to the veracity of the statements, being cognizant of the fact that these are eight year olds who often repeat what they hear or are told.[17] I did not tell the one child to hit the other, nor did I hold one child so that the other could hit her. I was merely holding back the very aggressive child, who was struggling with me to get loose so that she could attack the other child. It was at this time that the other child, who was free, hit the child I was holding. There were seventeen children in the class at the time I separated the two girls. All seventeen children saw what happened and they all heard what happened. I would like all seventeen children to be separately interviewed on tape. * * * I also wish to clarify the issue of the administrative letter and the suggestion that I discussed the investigation with the parents. This incident occurred on Thursday, February 25th 2010. Officer San Antonio asked me what happened in my classroom on the very same Thursday that it occurred, and I told her that I saw one child crying and I asked her what was the matter. She told me that the other child had hit her, so I separated them. The aggressing child then got angry and wanted to fight, so I held on to her, when the other child came over and tapped her on the back. The Black History function was held on the following Friday (2/26/10). I had no discussions with any parents about the incident. In fact I was not aware that there was an investigation until Mr. Machacon came to the school the afternoon of that same Friday, and told me there were these allegations against me. I certainly could not discuss an investigation that I did not know about.[18] Furthermore, Dr. Menocal did not give me the administrative letter until the following Monday afternoon (3/1/10) and I got assigned to the region the following Monday (3/8/10), eleven days after the incident. I hope this letter helps to provide additional information which will aid in a more comprehensive fact gathering process to enable a fair and just review, with the concomitant overturn of the probable cause findings. These charges I take very seriously as I have dedicated my entire adult life (over thirty years) to the vocation of educating young children without a single incident. I have assiduously guarded the propriety of this noble profession and will resist any attempt to impugn my integrity or besmirch my character. On June 2, 2010, OPS held a conference-for-the-record, at which Respondent had an opportunity to verbally respond to the probable cause finding made by the School Board police. By letter dated July 21, 2010, Assistant Superintendent Rojas advised Respondent that OPS had made a "recommendation that [she] be suspended without pay 30 workdays via an agenda item [that would] be presented to [the School Board] at the meeting scheduled for September 7, 2010." In a subsequent letter, dated August 26, 2010, Assistant Superintendent Rojas informed Respondent that the Superintendent would be recommending to the School Board, at its scheduled September 7, 2010, meeting, that Respondent receive a 30-workday suspension. The School Board followed the Superintendent's recommendation and suspended Respondent without pay from September 8, 2010, through October 19, 2010. Furthermore, it directed Respondent to report to duty at Ludlam on October 20, 2010. Respondent has served her suspension. By letter dated September 8, 2010, Respondent "request[ed] a hearing to be held before an administrative law judge" to contest her suspension. The matter was thereafter referred to DOAH. A. P.'s and A. H.'s depositions were taken in anticipation of the hearing. At her deposition, A. P. declined to answer any questions. A. H. was deposed on December 6, 2010. When asked about the Incident, she stated that she had been hit by A. P. while being held by Respondent. It was her testimony that Respondent was simply "trying [to] keep [her and A. P.] apart," and that Respondent did not tell A. P. to hit her, an assertion that was in direct conflict with what A. H. had related to Dr. Menocal the day of the Incident, when the matter was fresh in A. H.'s mind and she had not yet been exposed to the remarks that Respondent would make at the Post-Performance Meeting.19 A. H. further testified during her deposition that, after the altercation, Respondent "called the office and the office came."20
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board issue a final order upholding Respondent's 30-workday suspension for the reasons set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 8th day of March, 2011.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed October 28, 2011, and, if so, the discipline, if any, that should be imposed against Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been on a contract that is subject to a collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and the United Teachers of Dade, applicable Florida Statutes, applicable rules adopted by the Florida State Board of Education as set forth in the Florida Administrative Code, and Petitioner's adopted policies and procedures. Article XXI, Section 1.B(1)(a) of the UTD Contract provides that "Any member of the instructional staff may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the school year, provided that the charges against him/her are based upon Florida Statutes." Near the end of the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent was placed on a 25-day suspension without pay for having inappropriate communications with students. Prior to serving her suspension, Respondent was issued directives that she was not to make personal comments to students and she was not to communicate with students via text and personal letters at any time. For the 2010-2011 school year, Ms. Yassin was assigned to South Miami Community Middle School (SMCMS), where she taught language arts to five classes. Ms. Alvarez was the principal of SMCMS for the 2010-2011 school year. Ms. Yassin's suspension ended in October 2010, at which time she reported for duty at SMCMS. Shortly after Ms. Yassin reported for duty at SMCMS, Ms. Alvarez received a complaint from a parent that Respondent had requested that students bring school supplies into class in exchange for receiving extra academic credit. Ms. Alvarez held a conference with Respondent. Ms. Alvarez instructed Ms. Yassin that School Board rules prohibit a teacher from giving extra academic credit in exchange for a student providing school supplies. Ms. Alvarez specifically told Ms. Yassin to cease and desist that practice. Ms. Yassin admitted that she had given extra academic credit to students who had brought in school supplies and told Ms. Alvarez that it would not happen again. In January 2011, Ms. Alvarez received a complaint from a student in one of Ms. Yassin's classes that Ms. Yassin had offered the students in the class assistance on a test in exchange for students bringing items of food to Ms. Yassin. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Ms. Yassin offered her students assistance on tests if they brought candy and other food items such as pastries to her. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that during the 2010-2011 school year, Ms. Yassin made such an offer to students in one or more of her classes on one or more occasions. Ms. Alvarez verbally informed Ms. Yassin of the allegations and told her that an investigation would be initiated. There was also a conflict as to whether Ms. Yassin quizzed her students as to the investigation and as to whether she made inappropriate comments to students about the investigation. The conflict is resolved by finding that Ms. Yassin made inappropriate comments to one or more students to lie about Ms. Yassin's conduct and told other students "to watch her back." Ms. Yassin also quizzed one or more students as to the discussion the student(s) had had with the investigator. On January 12, 2011, Respondent was removed from MSCMS and placed on alternative assignment. Respondent was specifically informed that she "must not contact, visit or exchange in any type of communications with faculty/staff/students/family of students from the work location to which you were assigned at the time of the incident leading to this administrative placement." Ms. Yassin violated that clear and unequivocal directive by communicating with parents and students by text and email between January 12 and February 3, 2011.1/ Respondent's misconduct, as described herein, has impaired her effectiveness in the school system. Petitioner followed all relevant procedures in prosecuting this disciplinary proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order sustain the suspension of Respondent's employment without pay and terminate that employment based on misconduct in office and gross insubordination. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 2012.
