The Issue The issue in this case is whether the School Board of Lee County (School Board) should terminate the Respondent, Christel Freeman, for fighting with another school bus employee on School Board property.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Christel Freeman, has been a school bus driver employed by the School Board since 2002. There was no evidence that she was anything other than an exemplary employee until an incident that occurred at the School Board’s Leonard Street bus compound at the end of the work day. She and her boyfriend, Mike Ortes, were driving their personal vehicle from the back of the compound to the front, where the employees clock out and usually visit for a while before going home, when she spotted another employee, Ashley Thomas, who had just recently been transferred to Leonard Street. The Respondent approached Thomas, who was visiting with co-workers at a picnic table, because she suspected that Thomas was having sexual relations with her boyfriend and wanted to tell Thomas to stay away from her boyfriend, stop interfering with the Respondent’s family unit, and stop “talking trash about her.” When she got within earshot, the Respondent asked Thomas if they could talk in private. Thomas said, yes, and the two walked away from the co-workers at the picnic table. The Respondent began to tell Thomas what she wanted to talk about, and the conversation soon became heated. After they left the view of the co-workers at the picnic table, they passed another co-worker who was sitting in a vehicle and who said something to Thomas. As Thomas turned to respond to the speaker, the Respondent struck Thomas with her hand or fist on the side of the face, near the eye. Thomas was carrying her car keys, cell phone, and purse and was surprised by the blow. When the Respondent followed up with another blow, Thomas began to defend herself by hitting back. The nearby co-workers very quickly ran to the combatants to separate them. In the process, the combatants fell down, with the Respondent landing on top. The scuffling continued for a brief time until the combatants were separated. By this time, Thomas’s shirt had been torn open at the front buttons, her face was bruised and swelling, and her eye was hurt. The Respondent also had an eye injury from being hit with Thomas’s car keys. The police were called, but the Respondent left the scene with her boyfriend by the time the police arrived. After some leading questions by the Respondent, Ortes supported her testimony that they went to the hospital for emergency treatment for her eye and, once there, called the police, who responded to the hospital. After discussing the incident with the police, neither woman pressed charges. The Respondent’s primary defense is that after she called Thomas a “nasty bitch,” Thomas struck her first with the car keys, and the Respondent defended herself. However, the other witnesses to the incident saw it the other way around, with the Respondent hitting first without provocation. The Respondent attempted to undermine that testimony by saying those witnesses were family and friends of Thomas. To the contrary, the evidence was that the family and friends of Thomas were not the eyewitnesses who testified; rather, Thomas’s family and friends either did not testify or testified that they were not eyewitnesses to the incident. While the Respondent attempted to downplay the state of her emotions at the time of the incident, it is clear from the evidence that she was angry at Thomas and initiated the conversation in that state of mind. It is possible that what triggered the Respondent’s violence was Thomas saying the Respondent should ask her boyfriend for the answers to her questions, which the Respondent took as flaunting an admission that they were having sexual relations. According to the Respondent’s testimony, her job with the School Board is very important to her and her family. Notwithstanding that she has not admitted instigating the fight with Thomas and throwing the first blow, she understands that the consequences of engaging in similar conduct again would certainly be the permanent loss of her job. For that reason, it is unlikely that she would put herself in that position in the future. There is a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (SPALC) that governs the Respondent’s employment. The procedure followed in the Respondent’s case is set out in sections 7.10 and 7.103 of the SPALC agreement. Section 7.10 of the SPALC agreement provides: The parties agree that dismissal is the extreme disciplinary penalty, since the employee’s job seniority, other contractual benefits, and reputation are at stake. In recognition of this principle, it is agreed that disciplinary actions(s) taken against SPALC bargaining unit members shall be consistent with the concept and practice of the collective bargaining agreement and that in all instances the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee’s record. Any discipline during the contract year, that constitutes a verbal warning, letter of warning, letter of reprimand, suspension, demotion or termination shall be for just cause. Section 7.10 also states that employee misconduct is a ground for suspension without pay or termination of employment. The SPALC agreement does not define misconduct. The School Board has policies that govern employee conduct. Policy 4.09 adopts a “zero tolerance” policy for threats of violence. It prohibits “any verbal, written or electronically communicated threat, suggestion or prediction of violence against any person.” Id. “Any serious threat of violence shall result in immediate disciplinary action and referral to the appropriate law enforcement agency.” Id. School Board Policy 5.29(1) states: “All employees are expected to exemplify conduct that is lawful and professional ” School Board Policy 2.02(2) describes and prohibits “unacceptable/disruptive behavior.” This includes “[u]sing unreasonable loud and/or offensive language, swearing, cursing, using profane language, or display of temper.” Id. at ¶ (b). It also includes “[t]hreatening to do bodily or physical harm to a . . . school employee . . . regardless of whether or not the behavior constitutes a criminal violation.” Id. at ¶ (c). It also includes “[a]ny other behavior which disrupts the orderly operation of a school, school classroom, or any other School District facility.” Id. at ¶ (e). Section 7.103 of the SPALC agreement allows an employee being terminated to either file a grievance under Article 5 or request a hearing before the School Board, but not both. Section 7.13 of the SPALC agreement provides that employees “shall not engage in speech, conduct, behavior (verbal or nonverbal), or commit any act of any type which is reasonably interpreted as abusive, profane, intolerant, menacing, intimidating, threatening, or harassing against any person in the workplace.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of employee misconduct and either terminating her employment, or suspending her without pay and reinstating her upon entry of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Pam Stewart, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Nancy J. Graham Superintendent of Lee County Schools 2855 Colonial Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33966-1012 Robert Dodig, Jr., Esquire School District of Lee County 2855 Colonial Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33966-1012 Christel Freeman 2119 French Street Fort Myers, Florida 33916-4434
The Issue The nature of the instant controversy is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent under section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2015),1/ and whether Respondent's acts and/or omissions disqualify him from being employed in the Indian River County School District ("School District").
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at the final hearing, the undersigned makes the following findings of relevant and material facts: Respondent was employed by the School Board as a classroom teacher. As a teacher, Respondent was required to abide by all Florida Statutes which pertain to teachers, the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, and all School Board policies. Testimony of William Fritz William Fritz, assistant superintendent for Human Resources and Risk Management, testified for the School Board. One of his primary duties is to conduct employee disciplinary investigations for the School Board. He is considered the "point person" for such matters. Fritz was informed by the fingerprint specialist in his office that Respondent had been arrested for felony DWLS. Subsequently, the same person informed him that Respondent had been convicted of the felony DWLS on October 6, 2015. The felony designation for Respondent's DWLS was based on this being his third or subsequent DWLS offense. The Judgment of Conviction dated October 6, 2015, designated the crime as "Driving While License Revoked-Permanently Revoked." Pet.'s Ex. F. After learning of Respondent's felony conviction, Fritz conducted an internal investigation. He had an informal discussion with Respondent to discuss the matter. This occurred in November 2015. When they met, Respondent told Fritz that he felt he did not need to self-report the conviction because the School District was automatically notified by the court.2/ Respondent explained to Fritz that there were some extenuating circumstances for the car trip that day involving a visit to a very ill friend. As a follow-up to the meeting, Fritz reviewed the School Board policies pertaining to discipline. He concluded that the situation likely warranted termination. He requested to meet with Respondent again, but his invitation was declined by Respondent. During the course of his investigation and review of Respondent's personnel file, Fritz concluded that Respondent had been put on employment probation by EPC in 2012 and that the probation was still active when the 2014 arrest and subsequent conviction in 2015 occurred. The EPC order proscribed certain conduct by Respondent during probation. The EPC order provided that Respondent "violate no law and shall fully comply with all District School Board policies, school rules, and State Board of Education rules." Fritz concluded that the DWLS conviction violated that provision of the EPC order, as well as certain School Board employee rules and policies. Notably, Fritz concluded that Respondent's 2015 felony DWLS conviction was a Category 3 violation of School Board Policy 3121.01. Convictions for Category 3 offenses, by definition, expressly prevented the hiring or retention of an employee "under any circumstances." Pet.'s Ex. K.3/ After reviewing all of the relevant documents and concluding his investigation, Fritz met with the School Board superintendent and recommended that Respondent be terminated. In arriving at that recommendation, Fritz took into account the mitigating factors explained by Respondent during their first meeting, namely needing to visit a sick friend. Fritz noted during his investigation that another final order of EPC had also been entered in 2007, disciplining Respondent for a conviction for driving under the influence ("DUI"). Fritz testified that there had been a termination of another teacher in the School District for a felony offense. The termination occurred in 2013 and was referred to DOAH, which recommended that termination was appropriate. There was no suggestion or testimony during the course of Fritz's testimony that the recommendation to terminate Respondent was related in any manner to problems with Respondent's job performance or other conduct on the job. Rather, the felony conviction violated School Board policy requiring termination and also constituted violations of the EPC order and resulting EPC probation. On cross-examination, Fritz acknowledged that the most recent felony conviction in October 2015 had not yet been addressed or ruled on by EPC insofar as Respondent's teaching certificate was concerned. Fritz further testified that a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") exists which governs the discipline of teachers, including Respondent. Article 5.1, section (A) of the CBA, states as follows: Discipline of an MBU shall be progressive. Progression shall be as follows: documented verbal warning presented in a conference with the MBU, a letter of reprimand, suspension, termination. Serious first offenses may result in an immediate, strong consequence up to and including termination. Resp.'s Ex. 18. Fritz testified that Respondent's felony conviction for DWLS was a "serious first offense," which gave the School District the discretion to move directly to termination under Article 5.1, section (A) of the CBA.4/ When questioned by Respondent as to whether or not a felony conviction for a worthless check offense, for instance, could also result in a termination, Fritz pointed out Petitioner's Exhibit K, which specifically designated worthless check convictions as a different and separate "Category 5" offense. Category 5 offenses, by express definition and unlike Category 3 offenses, afforded the School District considerable leeway on discipline, on a case-by-case basis. Conversely, Fritz testified that a felony conviction for DWLS fell under a different category, "Category 3," and was considered significant and serious enough to warrant termination of the employee. Testimony of Brian Krystoforski Respondent started teaching in 1984 and is in his 24th year of teaching in the state of Florida. Respondent testified, and emphasized throughout the proceeding, that the School District was aware of a prior criminal traffic conviction and EPC sanctions in 2012 but, nonetheless, permitted Respondent to continue to teach in the School District.5/ Respondent testified that the 2012 EPC final order related, as well, to a prior DWLS felony conviction. Respondent testified that, on the date he was arrested for the 2015 DWLS conviction, he was driving to visit a good friend who had serious medical issues and was very depressed. However, he acknowledges his trip was a "bad decision." He characterized his plea of no contest on October 6, 2015, as more of a plea of convenience believing that his explanation for driving that day would mitigate the effect of the criminal plea and conviction before the circuit court judge. The undersigned has considered the collection of exhibits offered by the parties and admitted into evidence. The undersigned has also reviewed the plea colloquy from October 2015 before the circuit court judge who took Respondent's felony plea to DWLS.6/ Respondent emphasized that his felony conviction for DWLS should be evaluated using several mitigating factors found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B–11.007, Disciplinary Guidelines.7/ Insofar as the severity of this conviction is concerned, Respondent felt that he was just guilty of using "bad judgment." Furthermore, Respondent argues that he is not a danger to the public under one of the mitigating factors outlined in the Florida Administrative Code. Another mitigating factor Respondent felt should be considered is that he has been an educator for a long period of time. He felt that his commitment and participation as the football defensive coordinator at Vero Beach High School should also be considered a mitigating factor. Respondent felt that there had been no actual damage, physical or otherwise, caused by his driving while license suspended. Furthermore, in 24 years of teaching, he has never been considered for termination for any other conduct or offenses. Finally, he argues that the effect of termination on his livelihood and ability to earn a living warrants consideration. On cross-examination, the evidence revealed that Respondent had a conviction for DUI in 1988, a conviction for DUI in 1990, and a conviction for a DUI in 2002. In 2004, adjudication was withheld for driving while intoxicated on a revoked license. Respondent also conceded that EPC warned him that a permanent revocation of his educator certificate could occur under certain circumstances, particularly if the educator's certificate had been sanctioned by EPC on two or more previous occasions. Respondent testified that he had, indeed, been sanctioned by EPC on two previous occasions prior to this 2015 conviction for DWLS. There is also evidence to show that Respondent has been characterized as a "highly effective" teacher during recent evaluations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Indian River County School Board implement its preliminary decision to terminate the employment of Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 2nd day of May, 2016.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Jean Berrouet, committed the violations alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Jean Berrouet (Berrouet) has worked at Lakeview as a teacher from 1992 through October 2006 in Miami-Dade County Florida. He taught Haitian Creole to the ESOL students from Haitian background as well as basic science, social studies, and mathematics to the ESOL Level 1 and 2 Haitian Creole students. On or about June 1, 1998, Berrouet was officially reprimanded for using corporal punishment in disciplining students. He was specifically directed by memorandum "immediately to refrain from using physical means to affect student behavior" by Lakeview Principal, Edith Norniella. Berrouet's licensure was also previously subjected to disciplinary action in Florida. He was reprimanded by the Education Practices Commission for inappropriately disciplining a student in class by hitting a student with a pointer. On or about April 23, 1999, the Education Practices Commission placed Berrouet on two years of probation with the following terms: acceptance of a written reprimand, yearly probation fees of $150.00, completion of a three credit course on classroom management, participation in the recovery network program and prohibition from violating any laws as well as fully complying with all district school board regulations, school rules and State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006. Prior to starting the 2006-2007 school year, Berrouet attended an in-service meeting at Lakeview where school policies were reviewed including student behavior, the code of conduct, and corporal punishment. Berrouet was also provided a Lakeview Elementary School Staff Handbook that included specific guidelines and procedures for student behavior including discipline. As a School Board employee, Respondent was expected to conduct himself in accordance with School Board rules. Respondent holds professional teaching certificate 677708 issued by the Florida Department of Education (DOE). His certificate is valid through June 30, 2009. Berrouet only teaches Haitain Creole students. Since 1992, he has used a technique to help the Haitian Creole students try to transition into the American culture and focus them on their lesson. The technique included Berrouet touching the students' ears to get their attention and saying "You have two ears, not one. You have one mouth, not two . . . So you should do more listening than talking." No parent ever complained about the technique to Berrouet or the Administration. Additionally, no administrator ever addressed that there was a problem with the technique Berrouet performed. The technique is not a punishment. Berrouet even used the technique at least once in the classroom on a student while being observed by the principal. Berrouet's testimony is more credible than the children because he has been using the focusing technique for 14 years, been observed by an administrator using the technique and it was never brought to his attention that it was inappropriate. On October 9, 2006, during the last period of the day, Berrouet had approximately 30 students in his mathematics tutorial after-school class from 5:00-6:00 p.m. His actual classroom size assignment was 15. However, a teacher had left early for the day and the other teacher's students were in Mr. Berrouet's classroom for him to oversee, even though the additional 15 students were permanently assigned to the teacher's classroom who had left early. An altercation occurred in Berrouet's classroom at approximately 5:45 p.m. between two students from the other class, A.B. and M.L. A.B ran behind Berrouet, who was standing at the door and asked Berrouet to help protect her from M.L. M.L. was running after A.B. Berrouet put his hand up and directed M.L. to go back to her seat. However, M.L. kept chasing after A.B. running toward Berrouet into his outreached arm and hand with her upper body (to the chest, neck or shoulder). A.B. left the room. Berrouet stood between A.B. and M.L. at the doorway to prevent M.L from going after A.B. M.L. continued to try to push through Berrouet trying to get to A.B. The incident took a few seconds. Berrouet did not make any effort to activate the button to call the office about the incident. If he had left the doorway to go across the classroom to push the office button, M.L. would have had access to attack A.B. Berrouet standing in the doorway was the only barrier preventing M.L. from reaching A.B. After Berrouet told M.L. to sit down and she was unable to get pass Berreout to A.B., she went to her seat and cried. M.L. cried because she was upset and couldn't get to A.B. Berrouet kept A.B outside and allowed another student to get her book bag and take it to her so she could leave for the day. Berrouet kept M.L. in the classroom a few minutes after A.B left to ensure that A.B. was gone and no further interaction would occur between the girls. Berrouet was not aware of the earlier kicking incident between M.L. and A.B. He first became aware of a problem between the girls when A.B. ran behind him for help. Berrouet did not write up a Student Case Management Referral Form since he had no knowledge of the kicking incident and because he thought he had diffused the potential altercation by him standing between the students. Berrouet's testimony and that of M.L. is deemed more persuasive then that of the other children witnesses. As the parties were directly involved in the incident, Berrouet and M.L. provided the most competent, credible testimony about the disputed matters. On October 10, 2006, the next morning after the incident, M.L.'s mother showed up with M.L. at Lakeview to meet with Mr. Jeffrey Hernandez, the principal. M.L.'s mother reported that Berrouet had grabbed M.L. by the neck on the previous day. Hernandez completed a Miami-Dade County Public Schools School Operations Incident Report regarding the matter. Berrouet was provided a memorandum dated October 10, 2007, entitled Notification of Allegation. Subsequently, the School Board of Miami-Dade County at a meeting on March 14, 2007, suspended Berrouet without pay and initiated dismissal proceedings. On May 3, 2007, the School Board filed its Notice of Specific Charges charging Respondent with misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and violation of School Board policies regarding corporal punishment and responsibilities and duties.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing all charges against Respondent and Miami-Dade County School Board reinstate Respondent with full back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 Janeen L. Richard, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Rudolph F. Crew, Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Jeanine Blomberg, Interim Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner, St. Lucie County School Board, has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the undersigned credits and makes the following findings of material and relevant facts: Lockridge has been employed by the School Board and last worked as an ESE behavior technician at Northport K-8 School. Pet. Exh. 1. Lockridge is a continuing status employee covered under the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") between the School Board and the Classroom Teachers' Association Classified Unit ("CTA/CU"). Resp. Exh. 6. The CTA/CU consists of behavior technicians, paraprofessionals, bus paraprofessionals, and clerical staff. Tr. II, p. 180, lines 10-14. During the 2014-2015 school year, Lockridge was assigned to Teacher Amber McDonald's self-contained classroom for intellectually disabled students at Floresta Elementary. The intellectually disabled classroom is for students with emotional disorders and students with an intelligence quotient ("IQ") under 69. Tr. I, p. 51, line 25-p. 52, line 2. For the 2014-2015 school year, there were five adults working in Ms. McDoanld's classroom: Randolph Lockridge, behavior technician; Sharon Koen, paraprofessional; Stephanie Ludwig, paraprofessional; Ms. McDonald, classroom teacher; and Deborah Ramsingh, student teacher. Tr. I, p. 52, line 24-p. 53, line 7. There were approximately 12 students in the classroom. Tr. I, p. 53, lines 8-10. Student D.S. was an eight-year-old ESE student whose primary disability is intellectual. D.S. is non-verbal and has Down's syndrome. Pet. Exh. 7. Because of his disability, D.S. is limited to two-word utterances "here and there." He has an IQ below 60 and intellectually he is on about a one and one-half- year-old level. Tr. I, p. 54, lines 10-17. September 8 and 9, 2014, Incidents with D.S. On September 8, 2014, Ms. Ramsingh was engaged in a lesson with the students on using crayons, teaching them how to hold the crayons and how to draw on the paper. D.S. kept taking his crayons and throwing them on the floor. She observed Lockridge take the student's hand and press his fingernail into the palm of D.S.'s hand. The student screamed "ow" and pulled his hand back. Tr. I, p. 34, lines 9-18. Lockridge looked at him and asked, "Why are you crying, what's wrong?" Tr. I, p. 35, lines 14-15. Ms. Ramsingh reported what she saw the following day to Ms. McDonald, the supervising teacher in the classroom. Tr. I, p. 35, line 25-p. 36, line 12. On September 9, 2014, when Lockridge and D.S. returned to the classroom from physical education ("PE"), Ms. Ramsingh observed another interaction between them. D.S. had his crayons, and he threw them on the floor again. Lockridge took his hand and pushed his fingernail into the palm of the student's hand again. He said "ow" again, but continued to throw his crayons on the floor. Lockridge pressed his finger into the student's hand a second time. The student said "ow" again. When Lockridge realized Ms. Ramsingh was looking at him, he commented, "I shouldn't do that, they don't like when I do that, some people think it is abuse." Tr. I, p. 36 line 22-p. 37 line 9. Ms. Ramsingh went to Ms. McDonald and told her that Lockridge put his fingernail in the student's hand two more times, and she told Ms. McDonald the statement that Lockridge made. Tr. I, p. 38, lines 12-18. Ms. McDonald left the classroom to report it. Tr. I, p. 38, lines 17- 20. Ms. Ludwig took D.S. into the restroom and yelled for Ms. Koen to come into the restroom. Tr. I, p. 39, lines 14-18. Ms. Koen told Lockridge to get Ms. McDonald. Tr. I, p. 40, lines 9-14. The staff had ice packs on D.S. Tr. I, p. 40, lines 21-23. Ms. Ramsingh observed the fingernail marks in D.S.'s hand and the ice that the staff was putting on D.S.'s wrist. Tr. I, p. 47, lines 5-9. Ms. Ramsingh gave a statement to law enforcement the following day. Tr. I, p. 41, lines 3-7; Pet. Exh. 4. She also provided a statement for the School Board's investigation. Pet. Exh. 7. Ms. McDonald testified about what she observed on D.S.'s body (after the student had returned from P.E.). She described it as a fresh bruise about three to four inches on both of D.S.'s wrists; it looked like he had a hand mark on both his wrists, and it was purplish already. Tr. I, p. 55, lines 5-11. D.S. did not have any bruises on his body before he went to PE. Ms. McDonald asked Lockridge what happened. Lockridge said he did not know, "maybe he fell." Tr. I, p. 56, lines 1-2. Lockridge said he had to help D.S. walk. Tr. I, p. 56, lines 5-6. D.S. did not have any bruising on his body when he left the classroom for PE. But, he returned with bruises on his wrist, and Lockridge was responsible for supervising D.S. while he was at PE. Tr. I, p. 73, lines 17-25. Ms. McDonald testified that her observation of Lockridge was that there were a lot of times he was loud and instead of de-escalating a situation, he would often escalate it. Tr. I, p. 59, lines 1-3. There were parents of children that Lockridge had worked with who had concerns about Lockridge. As a result, Ms. McDonald restricted him from working with specific students in the classroom. Tr. I, p. 58, lines 4-5 and lines 15-18. As a behavior technician, Lockridge was trained in Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI). Pet. Exh. 20 and Exh. 23. The purpose of CPI is to de-escalate a situation before it ever comes to the point of having to restrain a child. Tr. I, p. 59, lines 4-8, and p. 59, lines 12-14. Ms. McDonald testified that de-escalation means to approach the student and get them to calm down, to breathe. Tr. I, p. 60, lines 1-6. Ms. McDonald also testified that it is not appropriate to restrain a child by the wrist where bruising would be caused. Tr. I, p. 62, lines 21-24. If the child begins to resist, "the teacher should not move, but should stand there until the child is ready to move." Tr. I, p. 64, lines 2-4. Lockridge provided a statement to the principal regarding the September 9, 2014, incident with D.S. Pet. Exh. 9. Law enforcement was contacted. Tr. I, p. 56, lines 14- 15; Pet. Exh. 4. On September 10, 2014, the school security officer, Frank Sisto, notified Maurice Bonner, executive director of Human Resources, of Ms. Ramsingh's report. Pet. Exh. 11. On September 10, 2014, Mr. Bonner hand-delivered a Formal Notice of Investigation and Temporary Duty Assignment to Lockridge and also verbally notified Lockridge of the allegations. Pet. Exh. 6; Tr. II, p. 171, lines 23–p. 172, line 11. Lockridge was temporarily assigned to the ESE office pending an investigation. On March 19, 2015, the School Board's internal investigation concluded. Pet. Exh. 7. On May 1, 2015, Mr. Lockridge received a Letter of Reprimand from Mr. Bonner and was reassigned to Northport K-8 School as a behavior technician. Pet. Exh. 15. Involvement by Mr. Maurice Bonner Mr. Bonner testified that he discussed Lockridge's conduct and his expectations concerning future conduct with Lockridge. Specifically, Mr. Bonner explained to Lockridge that inappropriate discipline of students was not acceptable behavior and that he was to cease and desist from any type of such discipline in the future. Tr. II, p. 174, line 15-21. As executive director of Human Resources for St. Lucie County Public Schools, Mr. Bonner is in charge of the hiring process for applicants, in charge of records for the school district employees, supports administrators in the discipline process, works with employees on leave, interprets School Board policy, and provides support to the superintendent and the School Board members. Tr. II, p. 168, lines 12-17. Mr. Bonner is responsible for applying and enforcing School Board Policy Chapter 6.00, Human Resources. Tr. II, p. 169, line 24–p. 170, line 4. When an allegation of inappropriate conduct or violation of School Board policy is made for an individual who interacts with students, and if it rises to the level of institutional abuse, the school district's protocol is for the School Board administrators to contact the Department of Children and Families, law enforcement, the human resources administrator, and then the parent. Tr. II, p. 171, lines 5-15. After Lockridge was assigned to Northport K-8 School on May 1, 2015, there was another incident involving Lockridge and a disabled student, V.S.I. Tr. II, p. 175, lines 14-18. On January 20, 2015, when Lockridge said he did not want to give any further statement, he and Victoria Rodriguez, his union representative, asked for a copy of the incident report from the law enforcement officer. Tr. II, p. 179, lines 21– p. 180, line 3. The School Board provided the incident report to Lockridge and Ms. Rodriguez, and Lockridge wrote a statement. Pet. Exh. 10. Lockridge said he was too nervous (about the meeting) and he did not want to sit down and answer questions. But, he eventually wrote his statement after reviewing law enforcement's incident report while his union representative was present. Pet. Exh. 10; Tr. II, p. 182, line 6. By letter dated June 29, 2015, Superintendent Genelle Yost informed Lockridge that she intended to recommend to the School Board that he be terminated. Pet. Exh. 22. Mr. Bonner, in his conversation with Lockridge regarding the first incident (with Student D.S.), warned and instructed Lockridge to not use inappropriate discipline on students. Despite this warning, a few weeks later at Northport K-8 School, Lockridge used inappropriate discipline on a student again. Mr. Bonner, as an administrator, had given Lockridge a previous directive that was not followed. In Mr. Bonner's professional opinion, that constituted insubordination. Tr. II, p. 185, lines 17–p. 186, line 1; Pet. Exh. 24. Mr. Bonner testified that sitting on a student's hands is not appropriate discipline. It is not an appropriate method of restraint of a student. Tr. II, p. 186, lines 5-9. In addition, it constitutes a violation of the code of ethics of the standards for employees in the education profession, putting students in danger of harm. Mr. Bonner stated that "We're in charge of their health, welfare and safety and that's not meeting that standard." Pet. Exh. 24; Tr. II, p. 186, lines 10-14. Commenting on the incident involved, Mr. Bonner felt that "sticking a thumb down in a student's palm" was indecent conduct and can be considered abusive to a student. Tr. II, p. 186, lines 21–p. 187, line 1; Pet. Exh. 24. In his opinion, Lockridge's conduct constituted unsatisfactory work performance since he had harmed a student. He also felt it constituted neglect of duty and violation of any rule, policy, or regulation. Tr. II, p. 187, lines 5-18; Pet. Exh. 24. Mr. Bonner explained how progressive discipline works: We have several steps that we can use as far as disciplining employees based on their conduct and based on the severity . . . if we believe that the incident or the behavior is severe enough, we can skip steps . . . we can start immediately with termination if it's severe enough. If we don't believe it is severe enough to go that way, then we go down that continuum--a letter of concern, letter of reprimand, suspension or termination. Tr. II, p. 191, lines 7-23. When you look at progressive discipline, you have to look at what the previous action is. If you're going to look at multiple offenses of the same nature, you can't discredit that. T. II, p. 193, line 23–p. 194, line 2. In Mr. Bonner's opinion, Lockridge's second incident of sitting on a child's hand is "also abusive and discourteous conduct, it's immoral and indecent, it's negligent because he was told not to use inappropriate discipline, it's unsatisfactory work performance, and it's a neglect of his duty because it's not proper protocol or training for restraint of a student. His conduct is also a violation of the rules, policies, and regulations." Tr. II, p. 194, lines 3-10; Pet. Exh. 24. Lockridge had a duty and responsibility, and he failed to discharge that duty knowingly, and that was negligence, in Mr. Bonner's opinion. Tr. II, p. 194, lines 23-25; Pet. Exh. 24. Lockridge knew that sitting on a child's hands was not a proper restraint technique under the CPI training that he has received as a behavior technician for the St. Lucie County Public School System. He was told, based on a previous instruction, that sticking his thumb down in the student's hand was not appropriate discipline or restraint of a student. He knew that what he was doing was not appropriate and that it did not meet the standards of the St. Lucie County Public School System nor the training he received. Tr. II, p. 195, lines 11-23. Mr. Bonner told Lockridge when he gave him the Letter of Reprimand that if Lockridge violated any of the School Board policies again, more severe disciplinary action could be taken. Tr. II, p. 197, lines 13-22. The standard for skipping steps in progressive discipline is based on the employee's behavior. Tr. II, p. 198, lines 12-15. "It is on a case by case basis . . . if you did something very egregious, we don't have to start at the beginning of that continuum. Based on the behavior of the employee then [sic] dictates where we go on to that continuum." Tr. II, p. 198, lines 17-23. May 19, 2015, Incident with V.S.I. Jennifer Staab was a behavior technician at Northport K-8 School. Tr. I, p. 80, lines 1-6. Ms. Staab was certified in CPI. Tr. I, p. 81, lines 5-9. She worked with students in an emotionally behaviorally disturbed ("EBD") classroom on May 19, 2015. It is a self- contained classroom. Tr. I, p. 82, lines 1-7. On May 19, 2015, there were eight or nine students in the EDB self-contained classroom. Tr. I, p. 82, lines 11-14. There was only one way into the desk; the desk was pushed up against the computers. Tr. I, p. 83, lines 11-15. Ms. Staab heard a slap and that drew her attention to that direction. Tr. I, p. 84, lines 5-8. Lockridge was sitting on the desk; his back was towards V.S.I. Tr. I, p. 84, lines 11-12. V.S.I. was sitting in the desk. Tr. I, p. 84, lines 14-18. When Lockridge got off of the desk, Ms. Staab noticed deep indentations, at least two or three of them, on the student's one arm. Tr. I, p. 85, lines 22–p. 86, line 5. Ms. Staab concluded that Lockridge had to have been sitting on V.S.I.'s hands. Tr. I, p. 86, lines 16-18. From the way behavior technicians are trained, Ms. Staab considered Lockridge being seated on the desk and trying to prevent the student from getting out of the desk, to be an inappropriate restraint. Tr. I, p. 87, lines 14-22. If the student is not a threat to themselves or others, then physical restraint is not appropriate. Tr. I, p. 89, lines 15-18. While doing a single-hold restraint, the adult is behind the child. Tr. I, p. 93, lines 1-4. Ms. Staab never observed Lockridge behind the child. Tr. I, p. 93, lines 5-7. Ms. Staab noticed two indentations on V.S.I.'s arm, about three inches long. Tr. I, p. 93, lines 8-19. Testimony of Randolph Lockridge Ms. Staab did not witness V.S.I. trying to elope or run from the classroom. Tr. I, p. 98, lines 22-24. Lockridge admitted that he took hold of V.S.I.'s wrists, causing bruising to her wrists. Pet. Exh. 16; Tr. II, p. 213, lines 6-9. From Lockridge's perspective, "it was crisis because she was not being safe . . . she was 'not complying' with his verbal direction." (emphasis added). Tr. II, p. 213, lines 19-23. Lockridge argued that V.S.I. exhibited behavior, i.e. her elopement, that might harm other students. Tr. II, p. 213, line 24–p. 214, line 5.1/ Lockridge testified, without specific detail, that V.S.I. "could have hit, kicked, maybe spit on somebody or something." Tr. II, p. 214, lines 7-10. Lockridge testified that he was holding V.S.I.'s wrists when he was sitting on them. Tr. II, p. 215, lines 4-6. Despite his training, Lockridge testified that he did not understand that it was an inappropriate method of discipline for him to be sitting on V.S.I.'s hands. Tr. II, p. 215, lines 11-13. Lockridge testified that he did not intentionally violate any School Board policies or intend to violate any directives that he was given. Tr. II, p. 220, line 24–p. 221, line 3. This appeared, in part, to be the crux of his defense to the charges brought. Lockridge testified that when the incident was happening at Northport K-8 School with V.S.I., he reverted to and used his "military restraint training," instead of his School Board restraint training. Tr. II, p. 222, lines 15-17. Lockridge testified that he did not bring up this issue of his military training "kicking in," as he put it, concerning the incident involving V.S.I. However, he discussed it before with a behavior analyst concerning another student. Tr. II, p. 230, lines 19-21, and p. 231, lines 18-20. Lockridge related an incident that had occurred in May 2015. Apparently, a student tried to assault him while he was walking back to the ESE office. His old military restraint training came into play, and he ended up having to put the student on the ground. He physically put the student on the ground. Tr. II, p. 232, lines 12-16, and p. 233, lines 4-11. In a candid admission, Lockridge testified that he does not believe that "at this moment" he could work with disabled students at the school district as a behavior technician. Pet. Exh. 12; Tr. II, p. 236, lines 21-24. Describing his military restraint training (that he sometimes reverts to), Lockridge testified that because he was going to be working with prison detainees, "They taught us various techniques to keep yourself safe and try not to do harm to the prisoners either." Tr. II, p. 237, lines 17-22. Lockridge testified that, unlike CPI training, military restraint training is not non-violent training. It could be violent. Because, as he put it, you are working with prison detainees. So, Lockridge could not say it was non-violent. Tr. II, p. 237, line 23–p. 238, line 3. When asked if it is foreseeable that he could become violent with a student, Lockridge answered, "I don't know. . . . I understand what I did was wrong. I don't know how I could have done some things differently. I don't know." Tr. II, p. 238, lines 4-8. When asked if he can say with any degree of certainty that he may not pose a danger to students, Lockridge testified that, "if I'm put in a stressful situation with a very aggressive student or that I perceive to be aggressive, I do what I think is best for my safety at the time. Or the student's safety too." Tr. II, p. 238, lines 14-24. Lockridge testified, frankly, that for him, it is sometimes more of an automatic response and that he cannot really control this military restraint training that kicks in. Tr. II, p. 238. line 25–p. 239, line 3. Testimony of Virginia Snyder Virginia Snyder works for the Department of Children and Families as a child protective investigator. Tr. I, p. 153, lines 6-8. She prepared a report of institutional abuse, an investigative summary. Pet. Exh. 2.; Tr. I, p. 153, lines 13-25. Her investigation and report involved Lockridge sitting on V.S.I.'s hands to restrain her in the classroom at Northport K-8 School. Tr. I, p. 154, lines 21-25. She went to the school, talked with administration, talked to witnesses, and talked to children involved on the report. Tr. I, p. 154, lines 3-9. Ms. Snyder made verified findings for "threatened harm of physical injury." Tr. I, p. 154, lines 11-16. Ms. Snyder concluded that Lockridge had in fact sat on the child's hand. Tr. I, p. 155, lines 2-4. She also made a finding that the school district's policies and practices were appropriate. Tr. I, p. 155, lines 15-17. "Threatened harm" means the possibility that the person's actions can cause an injury to the child. Tr. I, p. 155, line 23–p. 156, line 1. Ms. Snyder testified that the Department of Children and Families felt that a pattern was appearing due to a prior investigation that was closed without a substantiated finding. When the Department of Children and Families conducted an institutional staffing, the Department of Children and Families was concerned that there was a pattern starting. Tr. I, p. 157, lines 4-8. Specifically, Ms. Snyder "looked at how Lockridge restrained the child, was it appropriate or was it inappropriate . . . . And that is where we established that there was a type of behavior, a pattern starting." Tr. I, p. 157, line 20–p. 158, line 2. "We (DCF) don't make the recommendation. We make the report so that those involved can have a copy of an official report from the Department of Children and Families. We put the findings in there so that whoever administrative-wise is taking a look at it can make a decision, like the School Board, as to what penalty that staff member may face." Tr. I, p. 159, lines 17-24. Based on Department of Children and Families legislation, she felt that the two incidents are "a pattern" and are not reflective of just isolated events. Tr. I, p. 162, lines 1-5, 16-17. Testimony of William Tomlinson Bill Tomlinson is the executive director for Student Services and Exceptional Student Education. Tr. I, p.112, lines 4-5. He has worked for the School Board a total of 29 years. Tr. I, p. 112, lines 13-14. Tomlinson testified regarding whether behavior technicians are trained in any sort of restraint or CPI. He testified that the school district has two separate models that are used in the district. The first is non-violent crisis prevention intervention, better known as CPI. The second model the district uses, for more severe children that may be in a special day school, is professional crisis management. Non- violent CPI is a nationally recognized model that deals primarily with strategies to verbally de-escalate behavior. It employs different levels of strategies with students before getting into physical management of any type of behavior. The physical management piece is a part or a component of the training, but it is really the last resort. In his opinion, "that (i.e., physical management) should be last." Tr. I, p. 114, lines 4-21. It is meant to be a process in which the teacher tries to curtail the behavior of the student by working with them to help them self-regulate so that the student can take ownership of his/her behavior and get themselves under control without the teacher having to do any type of physical management. Tr. I, p. 115, lines 8-16. "Many teachers, many principals have all been trained in this method so that they understand how to de-escalate behavior verbally, how to work with students to offer choices that you can do, versus doing this." Tr. I, p. 115, line 24. Tomlinson noted that "restraint" is a term used "whenever we physically manage a person . . . the way we define it is if you have to immobilize someone's limbs and they're not free, they no longer have freedom of movement, that would be considered a restraint." Tr. I, p. 116, lines 5-10. In his opinion, restraint of anyone is the last resort. Tr. I, p. 117, line 7. He added that "if you see that the behavior is something that you can verbally begin to de-escalate, have conversation with the child, the child is able to understand rationally what it is that you're asking of them, then you're going to employ all of these strategies before you ever get to that last resort." Tr. I, p. 118, lines 4-9. Any time an employee in the district has involvement with a child and there is a report of suspected institutional abuse, Tomlinson is notified. Mr. Bonner (Human Resources) is notified, and he, law enforcement, and the Department of Children and Families all work through the process together. Tr. I, p. 122, lines 16-23. Lockridge was removed and placed in the ESE department, working in the reception area where there was no access to children while the investigation was ongoing. Tr. I, p. 123, lines 6-11. Freedom of movement is good (the child likes the freedom of running off and playing on a playground or during PE) as long as they are safe. Tr. I, p. 126, lines 19-23. "If we end up bruising the child in anything that means to us that we have applied the wrong process or the wrong procedure." Tr. I, p. 127, lines 4-8.2/ "If the child starts fighting back in the process where there is restraint used, they're trying to get out of that, you need to let them go. You may have to resume the restraint once it is safe to do so." Tr. I, p. 127, lines 9-11. "If the child isn't hurting anybody . . . from crawling under (the desk) or crawling out of their desk . . . then it would be appropriate to not bring attention or get attention from someone. Instead, praise another child for acting appropriately or remaining in their chair. This is an effective approach to use." Tr. I, p. 128, lines 3-25. It is "absolutely not appropriate," in terms of restraint, to sit on a child's hand. Tr. I, p. 129, lines 1-3. It is not appropriate to take a disabled child by the wrist to try to get them to go where you want them to. The first appropriate response is "take my hand and let's walk." Tr. I, p. 131, lines 17–p. 132, line 3. Tomlinson testified, "I may take a person simply by the elbow and follow me. . . . That . . . is after you have exhausted the verbal demand for this. Because it's unnatural to have to do that, to lead people or to pull them where you want them to go." Tr. I, p. 132, lines 14-24. The January 13, 2012, mid-year review for Lockridge shows improvement needed in job knowledge and skills and quality of work. Resp. Exh. 5; Tr. I, p. 143 line 25–p. 144, line 2. Listed on Lockridge's mid-year evaluation at the time was that he needed improvement in job knowledge and skills and the quality of work. The narrative indicated that he was required to work with the behavior analyst at Sam Gaines School to review the appropriate protocols to follow to gain compliance from the students with whom he is working. Lockridge was required to attend training offered behavior technicians on early release and professional development days. Tr. I, p. 149, lines 6-14; Pet. Exh. 19. Lockridge was directed to increase his knowledge of behavioral tools to verbally de-escalate a situation, as well as to remain objective instead of entering into a verbal disagreement with students. It means not getting into a verbal power struggle with the child. "Be calm, relaxed in the tone and tenor of your voice and, whenever you work with the individual, don't let that person bring you into the type of behavior that they're exhibiting." Tr. I, p. 149, line 4–p. 150, line 4; Pet. Exh. 19. Finally, Tomlinson testified that it would not be appropriate for a behavior technician to drive their fingernail into the palm of any child. Tr. I, p. 150 lines 5-9.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the St. Lucie County School Board terminating Respondent from his position as an ESE behavior technician. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 4th day of April, 2016.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent's employment by the School Board should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Robert F. Ward was employed by the School Board as a teacher and was assigned to Richmond Heights Middle School, pursuant to a professional service contract. Willie Harris was the principal of Richmond Heights from 1988 to 1995. During those years, Harris gave Respondent verbal directives to follow School Board rules concerning the discipline of students. As punishment, Respondent inappropriately used excessive writing and standing and inappropriately placed students outside the classroom. Each time Respondent was warned that he was violating School Board rules in his methods of disciplining students, he would stop using those methods for a while but would then return to those methods and be warned again. Harris found it necessary to counsel Respondent every year. Principal Harris learned that Respondent responded better to male authority figures than to female authority figures. He, therefore, gave Respondent directives himself or through male administrators. Mona Bethel Jackson became the principal of Richmond Heights in July 1997. On October 2, 1998, Denise Franze, a parent, submitted a written complaint to Principal Jackson concerning Respondent's behavior at the school's Open House because Respondent appeared to be a very angry person. He spent the entire time that he met with her and other parents complaining about the school. She requested that her child be transferred out of Respondent's class. Respondent wrote her a very insulting, unprofessional response letter. His letter did not reflect credit upon himself or the school system. On November 17, 1998, Respondent left his class unsupervised, and two students became involved in a fight. Respondent was directed to properly supervise his class and was directed not to place any students outside his class unsupervised. At a faculty meeting on January 13, 1999, Principal Jackson reviewed School Board policies prohibiting inappropriate language/teacher conduct. At a faculty meeting on February 16, 1999, Jackson reviewed School Board procedures regarding the supervision of students. On March 26, 1999, student D. L. was being disruptive. Respondent told her to go outside the classroom. Because it was raining, D. L. refused to leave. Respondent again ordered her to go outside and called her "dumb." He then left his class unsupervised to deliver a memorandum regarding D. L.'s behavior to the school administrators. An assistant principal directed Respondent not to leave his class unsupervised. On March 30, 1999, Respondent was inside his newly- assigned portable classroom, by himself, writing on the board. An assistant principal asked Respondent where his students were, and Respondent answered that he did not know. Some of Respondent's students were found outside the portable classroom unsupervised, and others were found in the auditorium also unsupervised. Also on March 30, Respondent used the words "hell" and "damn" while aggressively reprimanding D. L., shouting at her, and shaking his fingers in her face. Respondent was reminded that School Board rules prohibit unseemly conduct and the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students. On April 1, 1999, a conference-for-the-record was conducted with Respondent to address his failure to supervise his class, his inappropriate reprimand of a student, his lack of emergency lesson plans, and related matters. As a result of the conference, Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in professional responsibilities and was provided with a prescription to address his deficiencies. The prescription was to be completed by June 16, 1999. If done properly, the prescription should have taken no more than three weeks to complete. At the conference, Respondent was also directed to follow school procedures for the removal of disruptive students from class, to not leave students unsupervised at any time, to not expose students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, to prepare lesson plans each day, to replenish emergency lesson plans, and to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity. He was warned that failure to comply with these directives would be considered insubordination and could lead to further disciplinary action. Respondent was given a copy of the School Board's employee conduct rule and the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida. On April 22, 1999, Respondent failed to report to the media center at the conclusion of a teacher workshop as directed in writing prior to the workshop and, again, at the beginning of the workshop. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1998/99 school year was unsatisfactory due to Respondent's deficiencies in the area of professional responsibility. On June 16, 1999, Respondent's prescriptive activities were deemed unacceptable because they were careless, sarcastic, and unprofessional. Respondent admits that the prescriptive work he turned in to Principal Jackson was inappropriate. Respondent did not take his prescriptive activities seriously and did not attempt to benefit from them. On June 18, Principal Jackson directed Respondent to re-do his prescriptive activities and turn them in by October 1, 1999. Because Respondent ended the school year in an unacceptable status, his salary was frozen and he was precluded from summer school employment. Respondent assigned two students to detentions to be served before school on September 15 and 16, 1999. The students arrived at approximately 7:15 a.m. both days. At 8:00 a.m., Respondent had not yet arrived to supervise them on either day. When the bell rang at 9:00 a.m. to begin the school day, Respondent was still not there. One child's grandmother, who was concerned about the children not being supervised, complained to the school administrators. September 20, 1999, was a teacher planning day. Respondent was not present during his assigned work hours, 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. An "all call" for him was made over the public address system at 9:28 a.m., which went throughout the school. Respondent did not respond. An assistant principal checked his classroom, but Respondent was not there. She was unable to locate his car in the parking lot, and he had not signed the attendance roster. When Respondent arrived at approximately 10:00 a.m., he told Principal Jackson that he was not in the building because he had stopped at Publix. At the final hearing, Respondent testified that he was probably in the wood shop working on a personal project during his work hours when the "all call" announcement was made for him. Respondent failed to complete his prescription by the October 1, 1999, deadline. A conference-for-the-record was held on that date to address parental complaints about Respondent. The complaints involved the unsupervised detentions, Respondent's requiring students to stand for almost two hours as punishment, and Respondent's requiring students to write essays as punishment. Parents also complained that Respondent punished the entire class when only one student misbehaved. Respondent admitted that he administered those punishments. Respondent was directed to refrain from having students write essays for punishment, to refrain from having students stand for punishment, to refrain from assigning detentions when students would not be supervised by Respondent, to not expose students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, and to follow all directives previously given to him. Since Respondent was already on prescription and had failed to complete the prescriptive activities by the October 1 deadline, Principal Jackson directed Respondent to complete his prescription by January 26, 2000. Respondent was warned that failure to comply with the directives would be considered insubordination and could lead to further disciplinary action. He was again provided with a copy of the School Board's employee conduct rule. On October 13, 1999, a conference was held with Respondent to discuss complaints from three parents. The complaints were that Respondent did not give clear directions to the students, that he had humiliated a student, that he required students to write essays as punishment, and that he was assigning math as punishment to his social studies students. The parents complained that Respondent was using academics as punishment. Principal Jackson directed him to stop humiliating students, to stop intimidating students, and to provide in-class assistance. She also directed Respondent to stop assigning math and requiring students to write repetitive "lines" as punishment. She directed Respondent to correct his grading practices and to not retaliate against any students. Respondent was given copies of the letters from the parents. The math that was assigned by Respondent was not an appropriate assignment for a sixth-grade geography class. The interim progress reports Respondent gave to his students corroborate that Respondent was using essays as punishment. After the conference, Respondent informed secretarial staff that he would be absent the next day, which was the day of the school's open house. Teachers have a contractual requirement to attend the school's open house. Respondent was not absent as a result of an illness or an emergency; rather, he simply decided to take a personal holiday on that day. On October 19, 1999, Respondent responded to a parental complaint with a letter that was unprofessional, demeaning, and insulting. His letter did not reflect credit upon himself or the school system. On October 29, 1999, Respondent was directed to report for a conference-for-the-record in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards on November 4, 1999. On November 2, 1999, Respondent attended a round-table discussion with a counselor, the parents of a student, the student, and all of that student's teachers. Respondent was abrasive to the student, loud, and intimidating. The student, who was communicative and comfortable before Respondent arrived at the meeting, was uncomfortable and would not speak while Respondent was present. After Respondent arrived, the student "clammed up," and his eyes "teared up." The next day, the student's father brought a letter to school reciting what had happened at the meeting and requesting that the student be transferred out of Respondent's class. The father and Respondent encountered each other in the school office, and Respondent invited the father to his classroom. While there, Respondent asked the father which grade the father wanted him to change. The father was surprised at Respondent's offer and explained to Respondent that he only wanted his son to get the grades his son deserved. On November 4, 1999, Respondent requested to leave school for a dental emergency. Since his conference-for-the- record was scheduled for that day, an assistant principal directed Respondent to submit documentation from his dentist to her or to the principal's secretary. Respondent failed to follow this directive in a timely fashion. Respondent was subsequently directed to comply with all directives given by his immediate supervisors. At Respondent's request, the conference-for-the-record was re-scheduled for November 9, and Respondent was directed to attend. Respondent did not attend the November 9 conference, which was scheduled to discuss his non-compliance with site directives, his performance assessment, parental complaints, and student complaints. As a result of the conference-for-the- record, which consisted of a review of Respondent's file, Respondent was directed to comply with the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, to provide an educational environment free from harassment and intimidation for all students, to not intimidate staff and faculty members, to use sound professional judgment at all times, and to use specific grading practices. He was warned that non-compliance with these directives could lead to further disciplinary measures. Respondent was provided with another copy of the School Board's employee conduct rule, the Code of Ethics, and the School Board's violence in the workplace rule. On December 15, 1999, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to review his performance assessments and future employment status. Respondent was reminded that he was in his second year of unacceptable performance status, which if not remedied, could lead to termination of his employment. He was also directed to comply with the directives previously given to him by the Office of Professional Standards. He was warned that non-compliance with the directives could result in disciplinary measures. Respondent failed to comply with his prescriptive activities by January 26, 2000. On February 7, 2000, at 3:39 p.m., Principal Jackson directed Respondent to submit his prescriptive activities directly to her within 24 hours. This directive was reasonable since the Principal had repeatedly directed Respondent to complete his prescriptive activities since April 1999. Respondent refused to sign that he had received a copy of the memorandum memorializing this directive even after being directed to sign it. On February 8 Respondent did not come to work. Another teacher gave Respondent's prescriptive activities to the principal's secretary after 5:00 p.m. The principal did not accept the activities because neither of her directives had been followed: the prescriptive activities were not given directly to her, and they were turned in late. On February 17, 2000, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address his non-compliance with prescriptive deadlines and to review his record and his future employment status. Respondent was reminded that if his deficiencies were not remedied, he could lose his job. Respondent was told that his failure to comply with the directives concerning his prescription was considered gross insubordination. Respondent was directed to place his prescriptive activities in the principal's hand by 12:30 p.m. the next day, February 18. He was warned that non-compliance would result in further disciplinary action. Respondent was absent from work on February 18, 2000, and did not attempt to give the documents to his principal until February 24 at 3:30 p.m. His principal refused to accept the package because it was so overdue. On February 28, 2000, Respondent was directed to report to a conference-for-the-record at the Office of Professional Standards at 9:00 a.m. on March 14, 2000. On March 13, 2000, Respondent was accused of battery and administering physically-demanding punishments to students. The investigation revealed that Respondent was still using inappropriate punishment and profanity with his students. The incidents described in paragraphs numbered 40-48 below were discovered. On March 2, 2000, Respondent called A. W. a "dummy," told him to "shut up," and ordered him to pull a heavy cylinder across the physical education field. The cylinder is a piece of equipment that is pulled by a tractor and used to flatten pavement. A. W. tried but could not comply. He was crying when he went to the school office, complaining that his hands hurt. Respondent ordered other students to pull or push the cylinder as punishment. Respondent also ordered students to push volleyball poles, or standards, which have tires filled with cement at the bottom. At the final hearing, Respondent admitted to administering this punishment one time. Respondent also ordered students to walk or run on the physical education field. At the final hearing, Respondent admitted to ordering students to walk to the far fence. Respondent ordered students to do "push-ups." At the final hearing, Respondent admitted he used "push-ups" as punishment at the election of the student in lieu of other discipline. Respondent ordered his students to move rocks located around his portable classroom. Respondent called the students derogatory names, such as "stupid," "dumb, dumber, and dumbest," and "imbecile." He told them to "shut up." In speaking with a security monitor, Respondent referred to one of his students as "a piece of shit." Respondent required his students to write essays and repetitive "lines" as punishment, which he admitted at the final hearing. He made his students stand for lengthy periods of time as punishment. At the final hearing, Respondent asserted that he only made them stand for 30-45 minutes. Respondent claims he was sending his students to "time-out" on the physical education field. Even if true, sending the students to the physical education field is not an appropriate time-out. It is humiliating and demeaning to the students, the students were not properly supervised, the students were not being educated, and the students were at risk of injury. The procedure for disciplining students at Richmond Heights was to counsel the student after the first violation, make contact with the parents after the second violation, and write a referral to the administrators after the third time. The School Board does not permit the physical punishment of students. On March 14, 2000, Respondent was two hours late for the scheduled conference-for-the-record. By the time he arrived, the other participants had left. He was directed to report for a re-scheduled conference at the Office of Professional Standards on March 27, 2000. On March 27, 2000, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address his non-compliance with site directives regarding prescription deadlines, student discipline, violation of the Code of Ethics and of professional responsibilities, violation of School Board rules, and his future employment status. Respondent was directed to comply with all previously-issued directives, to refrain from retaliating against students and staff, to use sound professional judgment at all times, and to comply with all School Board rules, the Code of Ethics, and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida. On May 15, 2000, Principal Jackson observed Respondent outside of his classroom, with his back to his class, talking on the telephone. The class was noisy. No one was supervising his students. He was again directed not to leave his classes unsupervised. On May 22, 2000, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address the pending action by the School Board to take dismissal action at its meeting of June 21, 2000. On June 21, the School Board suspended Respondent without pay and initiated this dismissal proceeding against him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges, affirming Respondent's suspension without pay, and dismissing Respondent from his employment with the School Board effective June 21, 2000. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 18th day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Stewart Lee Karlin, Esquire 400 Southeast Eighth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges? If so, whether such conduct provides the School Board of Dade County, Florida, with just or proper cause to take disciplinary action against him? If so, what specific disciplinary action should be taken?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence received at the formal hearing, the factual stipulations of the parties, 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 Dade County, Florida. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was an annual contract employee of the School Board occupying a paraprofessional position. He currently is under suspension as a result of the incident described in the Notice of Specific Charges. Respondent's employment with the School Board began on October 2, 1987, when he was hired as a part-time custodian and assigned to Hialeah Middle School (HMS). He remained a part-time custodian at HMS until 1989, when he became a teacher aide at the school. He was a teacher aide at HMS from 1989 to 1992. In 1992, he filled a teacher assistant position at the school. He stayed in that position until he was administratively reassigned in April of 1994, following the incident which led to the initiation of the instant disciplinary proceeding. As a teacher assistant at HMS during the 1993-94 school year, Respondent was a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and UTD, effective July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1994 (UTD Contract). 2/ Article IV of the UTD Contract addressed the subject of "employer rights." Section 1 of Article IV provided, in part, that the School Board had the exclusive right to suspend, dismiss or terminate employees "for just cause." Article XIX of the UTD Contract addressed the subject of "employee rights and due process." Section 2 of Article XIX provided, in part, that "[d]ismissals and suspensions shall be effected in accordance with applicable Florida statutes, including the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)." Article VII of the UTD Contract addressed the subject of a "safe learning environment." Section 1, paragraph A, of Article VII provided as follows: A safe and orderly learning environment is a major priority of the parties. Such an environment requires that disruptive b havior be dealt with safely, fairly, consis- tently and in a manner which incorporates progressive disciplinary measures specified in the Code of Student Conduct. Section 1, paragraph B, of Article VII provided, as follows: Rules governing discipline are set forth in the Code of Student Conduct, School Board Rules, and Procedures for Promoting and Main- taining a Safe Learning Environment and, by reference, are made a part of this Contract. Guideline No. 4 of the School Board's Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment (School Board's Procedures), which were incorporated by reference in Section 1, paragraph B, of Article VII of the UTD Contract, addresses the subject of "child abuse" and provides, in part, as follows: CURRENT LAW AND/OR PRACTICE Section 415.504, Florida Statutes, requires mandatory reporting of all cases of child abuse. This statute applies to suspected or confirmed reports against any person, regard- less of occupation, who is alleged to be involved or any person who is alleged to have committed any act of child abuse. School personnel are not exempted from mandatory reporting of child abuse even when a fellow employee is suspected or confirmed as the abuser. WHEN IN DOUBT, REPORT ... CHILD ABUSE Child abuse is defined to include harm or threatened harm to a child's health or wel- fare and/or willful or negligent acts which result in: neglect; malnutrition; sexual abuse; physical injury; mental injury; or failure to provide sustenance, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. Any person, including, but not limited to, physician, nurse, teacher, social worker, or employee of a public or private facility serving children, who has reason to believe that a child has been a subject of child abuse, shall report this information as indicated in the procedures outlined in this guideline. Knowing and willful failure to report sus- pected or confirmed abuse, and knowing and willful prevention of another from making such a report, is a crime punishable by up to two months in jail and up to a $500 fine, Sections 775.082 and 775.083, Florida Statutes, and may be subject to disciplinary action of Dade County Public Schools. It is suggested that once a report is made, the principal or appropriate school administrator be notified. PROCEDURES . . . SCHOOL RELATED CHILD ABUSE REPORTING . . . Anyone aware of suspected or confirmed child abuse committed by School Board employees acting in their official capacity, shall immediately make a report to the principal or designee who shall immediately make a report to the Dade County Public Schools Police and the Region Office. Reasonable Force and Child Abuse. In some instances, a need may exist to differentiate between reasonable force and child abuse. Florida Statute 232.27 provides that: Subject to law and to the rules of the district school board, each teacher or other member of the staff of any school shall have such authority for the control and discipline of students as may be assigned by the princi- pal or designee and shall keep good order in the classroom and in other places in which the teacher or other staff member is assigned to be in charge of students... Florida Statute 232.275 provides that: ...Except in the case of excessive force or cruel and unusual punishment, a teacher or other staff member, a principal or designee, or a bus driver shall not be civilly or criminally liable for any action carried out in conformity with the state board and district school board rules regarding the control, discipline, suspension, and expulsion of students... An administrator must report to Dade County Public Schools Police and the Region Office all cases involving Board Employees where: excessive physical force or physical contact that was used was greater than necessary use of unauthorized physical action results in injury to a student corporal punishment is administered to a student Guideline No. 5 of the School Board's Procedures addresses the subject of "illnesses and injuries to students" and provides, in part, as follows: CURRENT LAW AND/OR PRACTICE All employees responsible for supervision of students and student activities are to take precautions to protect the life, health, and safety of every student in an effort to reduce or eliminate accidents, injuries, and illnesses. . . . Guideline No. 9 of the School Board's Procedures addresses the subject of "corporal punishment" and provides as follows: CURRENT LAW AND/OR PRACTICE Corporal punishment is prohibited in the Dade County Public Schools. This prohibition extends to parents or guardians on school grounds. Corporal punishment is physical force or physical contact applied to the body as punishment. Section 228.041(27), Florida Statutes, defines corporal punishment as: ... the moderate use of physical force or physical contact by a teacher or principal as may be necessary to maintain discipline or to enforce school rules. However, the term "corporal punishment" does not include the use of such reasonable force by a teacher or principal as may be necessary to protect himself or other students from disruptive students. The use of physical restraint techniques in accordance with School Board Rule 6Gx13-6A-1.331 (Special Programs and Procedures and . . . . the Contract Between the Dade County Public Schools and United Teachers of Dade is not corporal punishment. Prior to March 10, 1994, Respondent was aware of the School Board's rules prohibiting the use of corporal punishment and requiring employees to report cases of suspected or actual child abuse. Section 1, paragraph D, of Article VII of the UTD Contract provided, in part, as follows: The parties recognize the potential for difficult circumstances and problems related to the use of corporal punishment. Accordingly, the parties agree that such punishment shall be prohibited as a disciplinary option, and further agree to act affirmatively in continuing to identify and implement more effective alter- natives for dealing with student behavior. "Physical restraint" was the subject of Section 3 of Article VII of the UTD Contract, which provided as follows: There are instances where exceptional students exhibit behaviors that are disruptive to the learning environment and pose a threat to the safety of persons or property. Exceptional students enrolled in pro- grams for the emotionally handicapped, severely emotionally disturbed, and autistic, because of the nature of their disability, may on occasion experience impaired impulse control of such severity that use of physical restraint is necessary to prevent such students from inflicting harm to self and/or others, or from causing damage to property. Students enrolled in other exceptional student education programs may also display behaviors that require the use of restraint. The purpose of physical restraint is to prevent injury to persons or destruction of property. It is not to be used to "teach the child a lesson" or as punishment. Subject to available funding, teachers or paraprofess- ionals shall, upon request, be afforded an opportunity to learn physical restraint techniques. Strategies for the prevention of aggressive behavior shall be utilized on an ongoing basis. However, when a explosive event occurs without warning and is of such degree that there is imminent risk to persons or property, the use of physical restraint techniques is authorized for such circumstances. Physical restraint refers to the use of physical intervention techniques designed to restrict the movement of a student in an effort to de-escalate aggressive behavior. In order to promote a safe learning environment, the district has authorized for implementation specific physical restraint procedures to be used in programs for the emotionally handicapped, severely emotionally disturbed, and autistic. These specific procedures may also be used with other exceptional students when it is indicated on the student's Individualized Education Program (IEP). These procedures include, but are not limited to, holding and escape techniques which, when implemented, prevent injury to students and staff or prevent serious damage to property. Specific physical restraint procedures may also be approved for use with other specific student populations upon mutual agreement of the parties and would be reviewed on an annual basis. The Board shall provide for the training of instructional and support staff in physical restraint techniques as well as strategies for prevention of aggressive behavior. Training manuals developed for this purpose are, by reference, incorporated and made a part of this agreement. Physical restraint techniques provided in training programs approved by the Board are authorized and, when utilized in accor- dance with the training provided and these guidelines, shall not constitute grounds for disciplinary action. If a teacher is not trained in the use of approved physical restraint procedures and is faced with an emergency, the teacher is authorized to employ the moderate use of physical force or physical contact as may be necessary to maintain discipline or to enforce School Board Rules 6Gx13-5D-1.07 and 1.08. The appropriate use of these procedures shall not constitute a violation of the corporal punishment policy (Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07). The use of physical restraint techniques shall be discussed as part of the Individualized Educational Program (IEP) review development process. The Local Education Agency (LEA) representative, at the initial IEP meeting and/or annual review, shall provide notifica- tion to parents of physical restraint proced- ures. When parents or surrogates are not present at the meeting, written notification to them regarding the use of physical restraint will be provided. For an exceptional student enrolled in a program other than for the emotionally handicapped, severely emotionally disturbed or autistic, a recommendation for the use of board-approved physical restraint procedures must be made by the multi-disciplinary team (M-Team) and be documented on the student's IEP form before the use of such procedures may be authorized. The use of physical restraint must be documented as a part of the Student Case Management (SCM) System. Instructional or support staff who utilize physical restraint techniques shall complete the SCM Student Services Form to record student case information regarding each incident. Direct- ions shall be provided to instructional and support staff to assist them in completing the appropriate form. In accordance with Section 3 of Article VII of the UTD Contract, the School Board offered (and continues to offer) a Safe Physical Management Crisis Intervention Training Program (SPM Training Program) for its instructional and non-instructional staff assigned to work with emotionally handicapped, severely emotionally disturbed, and autistic students in order to train these employees in the use of School Board-authorized and approved physical restraint techniques and strategies. Participants in the School Board's SPM Training Program are given training manuals to review and study. According to one of these training manuals, Petitioner's Exhibit 3, the philosophy of SPM is as follows: Utilizing Safe Physical Management tech- niques in the classroom requires that non- physical intervention be used whenever possible to manage behavior. It is also expected that an on-going behavior management system is in place in the classroom to rein- force appropriate behaviors and control inappropriate ones. Physical management techniques may be used when the student is endangering himself, others, or property. They are not used to "punish" the child for misbehavior. Additionally, the philosophy of SPM includes the following major concepts. Emphasis on Safety- Techniques utilized in SPM consider the safety of the client and staff first. In a school setting, techniques that ensure physical safety of students and staff are important. Realize that Students can be Aggressive- SPM accepts the fact that some students need to be physically managed. The techniques used are based on the premise that students will at times eventually force physical inter- vention. That is, the student will do some- thing that you cannot ignore or manage using non-physical interventions. Least-Restrictive- SPM techniques move from least restrictive (providing minimal physical control) to more restrictive (providing maximum control). At all times, the least-restrictive technique that can control the student is used. Limitations- SPM techniques have limit- ations. They cannot handle every explosive situation. There are times when the best situation is not to intervene physically. There are times when SPM Techniques are neither appropriate or feasible. Assistance- SPM techniques advocate the use of assistance. Most techniques work best with two or more people and often, the best decision initially is to get help from other staff members. 3/ Professionalism- The focus of SPM techniques is to assist in the maintenance of a safe learning environment. SPM provides the district approved terminology for the documentation of physical intervention by the professional staff. This training manual also contains, among other things, the following information and instructions concerning the management of an "explosive event:" To effectively manage explosive (out-of- control) situations it is important to conceptualize them as: Angry/Aggressive- No matter how the incident begins, it is an expression of anger on the part of the student. Time-Limited/Temporary- Explosive incid- ents are angry, with the most dominant charact- eristics being a loss of physical control by the student. They are time-limited and even though they seem endless, the student will eventually calm down. Behaviorally Sequential- The behaviors exhibited by the student follow a pattern with behaviors typical each period (see Appendix B). Physical management techniques are not designed to end the explosive episode abruptly. Rather they are designed to safely manage the situation from beginning to end. As a result, the student may cont- inue to engage in aggressive acts, but managed appropriately, the risk of injury to persons or equipment is minimized. During the incident, only the amount of force necessary to prevent injury is utilized, and as the child exhibits more control a less restrictive hold may be used. Planning for explosive incidents is an important part of their prevention. Assessing the student, the environment and available staff is critical before physical intervention occurs. During the event, professional staff must be aware of both the verbal and non-verbal messages they give to students. It is important to indicate concern, expectation for change, and your interest in solving the problem. It is not the time to list sanctions, discuss potential punishments, or respond to personally abusive comments. After the incident ends, the staff involved should allow the student to withdraw and provide calm, brief verbal statements. Now is the time to communicate understanding, and to help the student identify ways this sequence of events can be prevented in the future. Another of the training manuals given to participants in the School Board's SPM Training Program, Petitioner's Exhibit 4, states the following regarding the importance of the child's safety in dealing with "explosive behavior:" Youth service workers and teachers are charged with a caretaking responsibility. As such they assume the natural role of adults to protect or safeguard the young. The Safe Physical Management Crisis Intervention Training Program has as its fundamental pur- pose the safe resolution of explosive behavior. This safety premise holds the adult responsible for insuring the safety of the youth. While the charge of guaranteeing youth safety during a crisis may appear in some way to jeopardize the safety of the intervening adult, in reality it keeps the adult from stepping into harm's way. Entering an explosive situation with a cognitive and physical focus of client safety allows for the management of the behavior and avoids the traps that attempting to eliminate the behavior present. When the purpose of the intervening staff is controlled by self preservation, their reaction to the acting out youth can easily become antagonistic. Such reactions promote escalation and a greater potential for harm. By keeping the youth safe, we provide a higher degree of safety for ourselves. . . . Intervention methods must be safe for both youth and adults; client/student safety however, is primary. At a minimum we shall do no harm. Physical intervention must be safe and, ideally, present minimal risk of accidental injury. . . . The intervention design of the safe physical management program is based upon the principle of social policy known as the "least restric- tive alternative." In many areas this principle has been reduced to the regulatory phrase, "passive restraint." In action, passive restraint refers to an intervention that utilizes the least amount of force necessary to safely control the situation. Student/youth safety is paramount. The SPM intervention philosophy requires that inter- vention personnel hold the safety of the student before their own. This premise, while sometimes raising the eyebrows of staff in training, ironically keeps the intervening staff safer than would an approach which holds staff well-being as primary. This training manual also contains, among other things, the following list of the "physical principles" of SPM: Proximity- safety is enhanced if physical space is understood as both a prompt and/or a deterrence to be used in the management of misbehavior. Location/positioning- safety is enhanced if intervention staff understand that the "face to face" position during intervention is considered the "attack/danger" zone. Evasion/deflection- safety is enhanced by evading or deflecting force rather than by opposing it. Balance- Safety is enhanced if intervention staff understand the principle of homeostasis- the nature of organisms to remain in a state of balance. Neutralization- Safety is enhanced if inter- vention staff understand the principle of managing an explosive event, rather than eliminating explosive behavior. In addition, this training manual describes and illustrates various physical positions and techniques used in SPM, including the "pivot and parry," an "evasion/deflection" technique which is described in the manual as follows: This combination of upper and lower body movement allows the staff to effectively evade and deflect any force that is directed at him/her. The pivot (usually 1/4 turn of one foot) is accomplished by leaving the weight on the foot which is on the side on which the blow or punch is delivered and moving the other foot toward the rear. The ending posture or stance should be the leading/trailing foot position previously described. This movement allows the blow or punch to go by the indivi- dual. This is the bull fighter move that allows the charging bull to pass on the side. Here, we are evading force rather than opposing it. The parry is a deflection of the force- i.e., the blow or punch. While both arms are used the primary parry is employed using the arm that is on the same side as the blow or punch. This arm is raised in an "L" configuration with the forearm vertical and upper arm on a horizontal pla[ne]. As the blow or punch is delivered the forearm is moved across to deflect the incoming force. This is not a blocking motion but, rather, a motion which simply redirects the force away from its target. The second arm is also used by making a similar "L" configuration with the hand being placed a approximately chin level. Again, the purpose is deflection. When the pivot and parry is employed correctly it places the staff in a position to move in and control the attacker, or to escape the danger by fleeing the situation. School Board staff receiving SPM training are also taught that, if during an "explosive event" they find themselves lying on the floor on their back being kicked by a student, they may raise a leg or arm to create a barrier to protect other, more sensitive, parts of their body. It is imperative that staff, in applying SPM principles, techniques, and strategies, exercise sound professional judgment. In determining how to deal with an "explosive event," which often begins abruptly, staff must consider the particular circumstances with which they are confronted. If they have had prior dealings with the student involved in the incident, they should draw upon these prior dealings and attempt to anticipate the student's actions. Respondent successfully completed a SPM training course offered by the School Board prior to March 10, 1994. 4/ Through its exceptional student education department, HMS offers special programs of instruction for various types of exceptional students, including those who are autistic. 5/ It is not uncommon for autistic students to engage in "acting out behavior" (such as screaming, yelling, punching, kicking and throwing objects). To enable its employees who work with autistic students to better understand these students and to deal with them more effectively, the School Board provides these employees with various written materials, including the Autism Orientation Manual, Petitioner's Exhibit 7, which contains the following statement regarding SPM: These procedures should conform to methods approved by the Dade County Public Schools which are described and demonstrated in struc- tured training sessions required for teachers and paraprofessionals working with autistic students. When using physical restraint, it is important to document what is being done. Written permission from parents or guardians is required. Physical restraint should not be used unless positive reinforcement methods have been utilized and the student is presenting potential harm to self and/or others. Evelyn Diaz Loper is now, and was at all times material to the instant case, an assistant principal at HMS responsible for the overall operation of the school's exceptional student education department, including the supervision of those School Board employees assigned to the department. On March 10, 1994, Respondent and Morgan Tharpe were among the employees under Loper's supervision. Tharpe was a teacher (with continuing contract status) who taught a class of autistic students at HMS. There were less than ten students in his class. M.A. was one of these students. M.A. was one month shy of his fourteenth birthday. He was quite strong for his age and had a history of engaging in "acting out behavior" in school. Respondent worked on a "one-to-one" basis with F.T., another student in Tharpe's class. During the second period on March 10, 1994, M.A., F.T. and the other students in Tharpe's class were in shop teacher Gerald Merkerson's classroom. They were supposed to be working on their woodworking projects. In addition to Tharpe's students and Merkerson, Respondent and two other School Board employees occupying paraprofessional positions (Eli Velazquez and Clara Smith), along with L.E., an HMS student in the school's regular education program, were in Merkerson's classroom. M.A. wanted to watch television in the classroom and not work on his project. Merkerson, however, refused to allow M.A. to watch television. M.A. thereupon began to engage in "acting out behavior." Among other things, he threw a metal file and wood in Merkerson's direction. (Merkerson was not hit by any of these thrown objects.) Merkerson and Velazquez took action to restrain M.A. Merkerson grabbed M.A.'s left arm, while Velazquez grabbed M.A.'s right arm. 6/ The two then attempted to lead M.A. away from the area of the classroom where M.A. was positioned. M.A. resisted their efforts. Unlike Respondent, Velazquez had not yet been trained in SPM. Moreover, he was not supposed to be in Merkerson's classroom. Accordingly, Velazquez let go of M.A.'s arm and Respondent attempted to take over for him. M.A., however, bit Respondent on the arm. The bite broke Respondent's skin. Velazquez came to Respondent's assistance and helped Respondent remove himself from the fray. After tending to his wound, Respondent rejoined Velazquez and assisted him in attempting to restrain M.A. Merkerson was no longer holding on to M.A. He had let go after a cut on his hand had reopened and started to bleed. M.A. was on his knees on the floor being restrained by Respondent and Velazquez when Tharpe walked into classroom. Tharpe instructed Respondent and Velazquez to let go of M.A. Respondent and Velazquez followed Tharpe's instructions, notwithstanding that M.A. had not yet calmed down and was still engaging in "acting out behavior." Tharpe walked toward M.A. When Tharpe was approximately two feet away from M.A., M.A. kicked Tharpe in the area of his groin. Tharpe screamed out in pain. M.A.'s actions prompted Velazquez to again attempt to restrain M.A. He grabbed both of M.A.'s arms, but was not able to hold on securely because both he and M.A. were dripping with sweat. M.A. struggled with Velazquez and tried to scratch and bite him. As Velazquez and M.A. were on their knees, face-to-face face, struggling with one another, Tharpe approached M.A. from behind and struck M.A. in the area of the upper back with a relatively thin, rectangular-shaped piece of wood approximately one foot to two meters long and two to three inches wide. 7/ Velazquez released M.A. after Tharpe delivered this blow. M.A. then started crawling towards Tharpe and tried to scratch and bite him. In an effort to ward off M.A.'s attack, Tharpe, who at 235 pounds was substantially larger than M.A., hit M.A. on the back at least two more times with the piece of wood he was holding in his hand. These additional blows were not delivered with full force. The three or more blows that Tharpe delivered produced bruises on M.A.'s back. The marks remained visible for approximately seven to ten days. In delivering these blows, Tharpe used more force than was reasonably necessary to effectively and safely deal with M.A.'s "acting out behavior" and he acted in a manner that was inconsistent with the SPM training he had received. Respondent had witnessed Tharpe's actions and recognized that Tharpe had acted improperly. Nonetheless, contrary to the requirements of Guideline No. 4 of the School Board's Procedures (of which Respondent was aware), Respondent did not report the incident to Loper (who was at school that day) or any other School Board administrator within a reasonable period of time following the incident. Neither did any of the other HMS staff members who had been in the classroom at the time of the incident advise Loper, on March 10, 1994, of what had happened. Although Tharpe's actions were inappropriate, they were effective. After Tharpe delivered his final blow, M.A. stopped crawling toward him. M.A. continued to scream, however, and, after a while, he started to crawl toward Respondent. In an effort to prevent M.A. from coming any closer, Respondent swung his foot in M.A.'s direction and made contact with M.A. 8/ Respondent kicked M.A. approximately five or six times, but M.A. continued coming at him. When Respondent started to become visibly upset with M.A., Velazquez intervened by positioning himself between Respondent and M.A. and pushing Respondent out of the way. Respondent did not kick M.A. as hard as he could have. 9/ Nonetheless, in kicking M.A., he used more force than was reasonably necessary to effectively and safely deal with M.A.'s "acting out behavior" and he acted in a physically aggressive manner that was inconsistent with the SPM training he had received. 10/ M.A. eventually calmed down and returned to Tharpe's classroom. Tharpe telephoned M.A.'s mother, L.A.H., that day (March 10, 1994), but he did not mention to her during their conversation anything about what had happened in Merkerson's classroom during second period. He simply told L.A.H. that she needed to supply him with more medication for M.A. Following the conclusion of the school day, M.A. went home by school bus. L.A.H. met him at the bus stop and greeted him with a hug. She was unaware, at the time, that anything unusual or out of the ordinary had occurred in school that day. M.A. pulled away from his mother when she hugged him and said, "Mom, boo-boo." 11/ L.A.H. then pulled up M.A.'s shirt and saw four bruises about "three fingers wide" on M.A.'s back that had not been there that morning when she had helped M.A. get dressed for school. M.A. also had a scratch on his forehead that L.A.H. had never seen before and a bump on his head. The following morning (March 11, 1994), L.A.H., accompanied by M.A. and M.A.'s father (L.A.H.'s former husband), met with Loper and William Jones, the principal of HMS. L.A.H. showed Loper and Jones the bruises on M.A.'s back and the scratch on his forehead and expressed her belief that M.A. had sustained these injuries at school the previous day. Loper thereupon contacted Merkerson and asked him if anything had occurred in his classroom the day before that may have resulted in injury to M.A. In view of Merkerson's response to her inquiry, Loper asked him to fill out a Student Case Management Referral Form (SCM Form). A SCM Form must be filled out whenever a student has been physically restrained. Loper had not previously received a completed SCM Form indicating that physical force had been used against M.A. in Merkerson's classroom the day before. On the SCM Form that he filled out at Loper's request, Merkerson stated the following: [M.A.] became irate and upset because he was not allowed to watch Barney on television. He became combatant and began to throw stools and wooden objects at the teachers and paraprofessionals. Upon being subdued to reduce the danger that he posed to myself and others he bit Juan Alejo on his right forearm, kicked Mr. Tharpe in the groin area and hit his right arm with his balsa wood project. The student poses a serious safety hazard in the technology education shop class. [M.A.] was also self destructive and scratched himself on the left temple. Although Merkerson did not mention in his written report that, in subduing M.A., Tharpe had hit M.A. with a piece of wood and Respondent had kicked M.A., the School Board ultimately found out about Tharpe's and Respondent's unseemly and inappropriate behavior during the incident. On November 2, 1994, a conference for the record was held concerning Respondent's involvement in the incident. At the conference, Respondent admitted that he had kicked M.A. during the incident. By letter dated November 3, 1994, the principal of HMS recommended to Frank de Varona, the Regional Superintendent (for Region I Operations) "the termination of [Respondent] from all employment in Dade County Public Schools." By letter dated January 13, 1995, the School Board's Superintendent of Schools notified Respondent that he was recommending that the School Board suspend Respondent and initiate a dismissal proceeding against him. The School Board took such recommended action at its January 25, 1995, meeting. Respondent thereafter requested a formal hearing on the matter.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered sustaining Respondent's suspension and dismissing him as an employee of the School Board of Dade County, Florida. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of April, 1996. STUART M. LERNER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April, 1996.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent had just cause to suspend Petitioner for 30 workdays, without pay.
Findings Of Fact No dispute exists that the School Board is a constitutional entity charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise the public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Mr. Boundy was employed full-time with the School Board as a teacher and held a professional service contract. Mr. Boundy had been a teacher with the School Board for 15 years. In his professional career, Mr. Boundy had been a teacher, then had practiced law in the State of Florida for 15 years, and had become a teacher again. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Mr. Boundy was assigned to Nautilus Middle School, hereinafter Nautilus, in the Miami-Dade County’s school district. He was assigned to teach science. On September 30, 2005, Mr. Boundy was teaching his science class at Nautilus. He was having problems with one particular student, D. M., who was approximately 14 years of age.1 D. M. had just returned to class from being on indoor suspension, for cutting class. Earlier that day, after having returned from indoor suspension, D. M. had been involved in a physical altercation, a “minor”2 fight, and Mr. Boundy counseled him. At lunch time, another teacher broke-up a fight between D. M. and another student; Mr. Boundy counseled him again. Mr. Boundy determined that the first fight did “not” warrant a “write-up” and that the second fight perhaps “may” have warranted a write-up but that he decided not to do so.3 After lunch, while in Mr. Boundy’s class, D. M. had another fight with a student, which was D. M.’s third fight that day. Mr. Boundy has a policy in his class that, “after three strikes, you’re out,”4 therefore, instead of counseling D. M. again, Mr. Boundy determined that a “write-up” was warranted and that D. M. had to leave his class. Mr. Boundy told D. M. to leave the class and go to the office. Before leaving the class, D. M. began spraying perfume and then walked out into the hallway but did not go the office. Mr. Boundy observed D. M. still outside in the hallway. When Mr. Boundy walked out of his class into the hallway, he observed D. M spraying perfume in the hallway. Mr. Boundy asked D. M. to give the perfume to him (Mr. Boundy). D. M. raised his hand and brought it down as if to strike Mr. Boundy at which time Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M.’s hand and pulled it behind his (D. M.’s) back and told D. M. that he (D. M.) needed to go to the office. The hallway outside of Mr. Boundy’s classroom is equipped with a surveillance camera, which recorded the interaction between Mr. Boundy and D. M. after the contact described above. The surveillance camera does not record as a regular video camera but records as a series of snapshots or still pictures approximately every second, with gaps in between the snapshots; therefore, the surveillance camera fails to reveal completely what happens within a segment of time.5 As a result of the gaps in between snapshots of the surveillance camera, the testimony of witnesses is crucial in determining what happened. While in the hallway, the surveillance camera shows Mr. Boundy’s back to it and D. M. directly in front of him in such close proximity as if their bodies were touching. Mr. Boundy testified that he took D. M. by the arms and was directing him toward the doors leading to the office. Mr. Boundy’s testimony is found to be credible. Subsequently, while also in the hallway, the surveillance camera, in several snapshots, shows Mr. Boundy and D. M. separated, with D. M. facing Mr. Boundy, who testified that D. M. wrestled away from him. The surveillance camera also shows, in one snapshot, Mr. Boundy’s left hand on D. M.’s right shoulder and, in another snapshot, D. M. moving back toward the classroom. Mr. Boundy testified that D. M. was going back to the classroom without his (Mr. Boundy’s) permission. D. M. admitted that he was returning to the classroom without Mr. Boundy’s permission. Mr. Boundy’s testimony is found credible. Further snapshots by the surveillance camera show Mr. Boundy grabbing D. M. by the arms and shoulder area, when D. M. gets close to the classroom, and pushing D. M. down the hallway; and shows some students observing the conduct in the hallway. Also, the snapshots by the surveillance camera show Mr. Boundy and D. M. exiting the exit doors at the stairwell, with Mr. Boundy continuing to hold D. M.’s arms. After they go through the exit doors, the snapshots by the surveillance camera show Mr. Boundy releasing D. M. and watching D. M. go down the stairs. Mr. Boundy testified that he told D. M. to go to the office. D. M. does not deny that Mr. Boundy told him to go to the office at that point. D. M. went to the main office. The school counselor, Amy Magney, talked with D. M., who was loud and appeared to be agitated. Ms. Magney observed marks on D. M.’s arms and the back of his neck, which she described as “very red.” D. M. informed Ms. Magney that Mr. Boundy’s forceful touching had caused the red marks. Ms. Magney took D. M. to the assistant principal, Ms. Gonsky, who observed marks on D. M.’s arms, which were red, and marks on D. M.’s the neck, shoulder area, which Ms. Gonsky described as a “little red.” Mr. Boundy admits, and at no time did he deny, that he grabbed D. M. by the arms and shoulder area. For example, at the Conference for the Record (CFR) held on November 15, 2005, Mr. Boundy admitted that he held D. M.’s arms by the back directing him towards the stairs. A detective of the School Board’s police department reviewed the snapshots by the surveillance camera. From the detective’s observation, he determined that Mr. Boundy did not take any malicious action against D. M.; that D. M. was resisting Mr. Boundy; that, at one point, D. M. made an aggressive action against Mr. Boundy; and that Mr. Boundy was “directing, escorting” D. M. through the exit doors. D. M. testified that Mr. Boundy also grabbed him around the neck. Mr. Boundy denies that he grabbed or touched D. M.’s neck but admits that he grabbed D. M. at the shoulder area. V. V., a student in Mr. Boundy’s class, testified that Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M. by the neck, pushing D. M. out of the classroom. Also, the Conference for the Record (CFR) held on November 15, 2005, indicates that the same student stated that, while Mr. Boundy and D. M. were in the hallway, D. M. swung at Mr. Boundy and struck him in the chest. Mr. Boundy denies that he was struck by D. M. and D. M. denies that he struck Mr. Boundy. V. V.’s testimony is not found to be credible. The snapshots by the surveillance camera do not show Mr. Boundy grabbing or touching D. M.’s neck. Ms. Magney was the first person in the school's office to observe the marks, and when she saw the marks on the back of D. M.’s “neck,” the marks were “very red”; however, when Ms. Gonsky, the second person in the school's office to observe the marks, the marks around the “neck, shoulder area” were a “little red.” Further, D. M. had been in two physical altercations before the incident with Mr. Boundy and the last altercation had occurred at lunch time. Ms. Gonsky’s account of the location of the red marks is not inconsistent with Mr. Boundy’s testimony, regarding the shoulder area. Additionally, when Ms. Gonsky observed the marks at the neck, shoulder area, they were a little red, not red or very red. The undersigned finds Mr. Boundy’s and Ms. Gonsky’s testimony and account more credible regarding the marks being at the shoulder area, not the neck. Furthermore, the undersigned finds that Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M. at the shoulder area and that the marks at the shoulder area were caused by Mr. Boundy and were a little red. No dispute exists that D. M. was being disruptive. Mr. Boundy had counseled D. M. on two occasions that same day for fighting. D. M. had committed a third strike by fighting again in Mr. Boundy's class, and according to Mr. Boundy's classroom policy of which the students were aware, the third strike meant that the student was leaving the classroom and going to the school's office. Mr. Boundy was going to write-up D. M. for the incident but did not do so. Before he could write-up D. M., Mr. Boundy was summoned to the school's office after the administrators in the office observed the marks and heard D. M.'s version of the incident. At the beginning of each school year, the principal of Nautilus, Caridad Figueredo, has an opening meeting, consisting of two days. At the opening meeting, among other things, Ms. Figueredo notifies the Nautilus' faculty that they must comply with the rules of the School Board and the Code of Ethics, and some of the rules are reviewed with the faculty. Further, at the opening meeting, Nautilus' faculty is provided a copy of the Faculty Handbook. Nautilus' faculty signs an acknowledgement that they understand that they are responsible for becoming knowledgeable about the rules and adhering to them. Mr. Boundy signed an acknowledgement and received a copy of the Faculty Handbook. Regarding physical contact, Ms. Figueredo indicates at the opening meeting that the School Board prohibits using physical contact to maintain discipline or to affect a student’s behavior. As a result, at the opening meeting, she informs Nautilus' faculty, and stresses to them, that they should not use physical force or, generally, to come in physical contact with the students. However, as to coming into physical contact with students, an exception is recognized and allowed in the touching of a student by a teacher if the teacher has a rapport with the student and the student has no objection to or approves of the teacher just tapping him or her. That exception is not applicable in the instant case. Nautilus had a 2005-2006 Faculty and Staff Handbook, hereinafter Handbook. The Handbook contained a Progressive Discipline Plan, hereinafter Plan, for teachers to use when they encounter disruptive students. The Plan contained several steps of action, which provided in pertinent part: Step I: Teacher The teacher may handle discipline in the following ways (list not inclusive): Move close to the student – use verbal and/or non-verbal techniques to correct behavior problems * * * Speak with the student on a one-to-one basis * * * Contact parent (verbal and/or written) Hold parent or student/parent conference PLEASE NOTE: Parent contact is REQUIRED before a referral can be made to the administration. Only disciplinary problems involving infractions of the Code of Student Conduct Group III or higher (fighting . . .) may be directly referred to the administration using a case management form. * * * Step IV: Referring Students For Administrative Action Students should be sent directly to the appropriate administrator only when critical incidents occur such as fighting . . . Please use your emergency button to request for[sic] assistance. If a student becomes disruptive and you request removal the administrator will take the appropriate disciplinary action deemed necessary according to the Code of Student Conduct and provide teachers immediate feedback. (emphasis in original) The Handbook also contained a section entitled “Things To Remember When Dealing With A Student,” which provided in pertinent part: 4. DON’T: Snatch things away from students. Become confrontational. Physically block an exit. Argue or get on the student’s level. Shout or put them down. Disrespect them. * * * 6. Use common sense regarding touching students: Be aware that affectionate gestures may be misconstrued. Avoid physical contact of any kind in situations involving you and student (i.e. where there are no witnesses). Additionally, the Handbook contained a section entitled “How to Avoid Legal Complications as an Educator,” which provided in pertinent part: Respect the space of others. Do not place your hands on students. * * * Know the laws, School Board policies and school rules, and follow them. * * * Corporal punishment is prohibited in Miami- Dade County Public Schools. Treat each student with respect. Establish a policy regarding discipline. Distribute the policy to students and parents at the beginning of the year or when the students begin your class. The School Board has established “Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment,” which provides in pertinent part: Purpose of the Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment This document, Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment, is incorporated by reference and is a part of School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.08, Maintenance of Appropriate Student Behavior. It has been prepared to assist school administrators in promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment in the public schools of Miami-Dade County, Florida. These procedures and directions are set forth to guide and promote orderly and productive participation of students in school life and support the achievement of Florida's education goal for school safety and environment, Section 229.591(3)(e), F.S. Student actions and behaviors that can be defined as disruptive and/or threatening must be dealt with according to Florida Statutes, and Florida Board of Education and Miami-Dade County School Board Rules. This manual contains information necessary to assist school administrators in making the most appropriate decisions and taking warranted action in promoting maintaining a safe learning environment. * * * Administrators, counselors, and appropriate staff are expected to become familiar with this document, to review it periodically, and to utilize it according to its inherent purpose -- promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment in the public schools of Miami-Dade County, Florida. As the administration and staff at each school site address the requirements of current Miami- Dade County Public Schools (M-DCPS) guidelines, they should also review modifications of requirements related to school discipline and school safety as established by the Florida Legislature. * * * GUIDELINE #39: REMOVAL OF STUDENT FROM CLASS AND POSSIBLE EXCLUSION OF THE STUDENT BY THE TEACHER CURRENT LAW AND/OR PRACTICE: Florida Statutes and Miami-Dade County School Board Rules allow for teachers to remove a disruptive student from class if the behavior of the student has an adverse effect on the teacher's ability to communicate effectively with students or the ability of the students to learn. Section 232.271, F.S., provides for the right of the teacher to refuse to accept a student back to class who has been removed for disruptive behavior which adversely affects the teacher's ability to communicate effectively with the students or with the ability of the students to learn. Provisions for Exceptional Students: The Placement Review Committee shall refer to the IEP team all exclusion requests for students from exceptional education classes. Temporary Removal from Class 1. The teacher shall have the authority to remove a seriously disruptive student from the classroom. In such cases, the principal or designee shall be notified immediately and the teacher shall be entitled to receive, prior to the student's return to class, a report describing corrective action(s) taken. Guidelines for implementing this provision shall be developed by each Educational Excellence School Advisory Council (EESAC). Code of Student Conduct Infractions The principal or designee will follow the Code of Student Conduct on all disciplinary matters. Only those disciplinary problems which disrupt a teacher's instruction, when the teacher requests the student's permanent removal from class, shall be referred to the Placement Review Committee, if the request is not resolved by the principal. A CFR was held on November 15, 2005. A Summary of the CFR was prepared and provides in pertinent part: [Mr. Boundy was asked]: 'Did you touch the student?' [Mr. Boundy] replied: 'Yes and it will never happen again.' * * * The following directives are herein delineated which were issued to you [Mr. Boundy] during the conference: Adhere to all M-DCPS [Miami-Dade County Public Schools] rules and regulations at all times, specifically School Board Rules [sic] 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. Adhere to The Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. Cease and desist from utilizing physical means to effect the behavior of students. * * * During the conference, you [Mr. Boundy] were directed to comply with and were provided copies of the following School Board Rules: 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties 6Gx13-4A-1.213, The Code of Ethics You [Mr. Boundy] were advised of the high esteem in which teachers are held and of the District's [School Board's] concern for any behavior, which adversely affects this level of professionalism. You [Mr. Boundy] were reminded of the prime directive to maintain a safe learning environment for all students and that your actions violated this directive. . . . Further, attached to the Summary of the CFR was "Guideline #9: Corporal Punishment, Current Law and/or Practice, from the Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment," which provides in pertinent part: GUIDELINE #9: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT CURRENT LAW AND/OR PRACTICE: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IS PROHIBITED IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS. . . . Corporal punishment is physical force or physical contact applied to the body as punishment. Section 228.041(27), F.S., defines corporal punishment as: . . . the moderate use of physical force or physical contact by a teacher or principal as may be necessary to maintain discipline or to enforce school rule. However, the term 'corporal punishment' does not include the use of such reasonable force by a teacher or principal as may be necessary for self-protection or to protect other students from disruptive students. The use of physical restraint techniques in accordance with the Miami-Dade County School Board Rule 6Gx13-6A-1.331, Procedures for Providing Special Education for Exceptional Students and Article VIII of the Contract Between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade is not corporal punishment. Prior to Mr. Boundy’s going into the hallway, to confront D. M., alternative avenues were available to Mr. Boundy for sending D. M. to the school's office without confronting him in the hallway. Nautilus has a protocol that, whenever a teacher is unable to control a disruptive student by using classroom management techniques, the teacher can press a security button, located in the classroom, and a security monitor or an administrator will immediately come to the classroom. The security monitor or administrator will assess the situation and remove the disruptive student. Mr. Boundy failed to use this established protocol. The undersigned does not find credible the testimony given on alternative methods of dealing with D. M., as a disruptive student, in terms of in-school suspension, student mediation, conflict resolution, parent involvement, alternative education, suspension, and expulsion as being applicable to the instant case. These alternatives are available after the student is removed from the classroom to the school's office; they fail to address the immediate removal of the physical presence of a disruptive student from the classroom. The exception to corporal punishment found at Guideline Nos. 9 and 39, regarding the use of physical restraint techniques for situations involving Exceptional Student Education (ESE), is not applicable to the instant case. Mr. Boundy's class was not an ESE class, and D. M. was not an ESE student. Also, the exception to corporal punishment found at Guideline No. 9, regarding situations to protect other students, is not applicable to the instant case. None of the other students in Mr. Boundy's class were in harm's way or needed protection in the hallway outside Mr. Boundy's classroom. However, the exception to corporal punishment in a situation for self-protection, i.e., the protection of Mr. Boundy from D. M., was applicable in the instant case. When D. M. raised his hand and brought it down as if to strike Mr. Boundy, Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M.'s arms and put his (D. M.'s) arms behind his back; at that instant, Mr. Boundy was in need of self-protection and he (Mr. Boundy) acted appropriately. But, the evidence fails to demonstrate that, after Mr. Boundy prevented D. M. from striking him, Mr. Boundy continued to be in need of self-protection. Self-protection failed to continue to exist and failed to exist during the time that Mr. Boundy was directing/escorting D. M. down the hall to the exit doors. The Administrative Director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, Gretchen Williams, testified that Mr. Boundy's use of physical contact in the handling of D. M. in the hallway and that the presence of red marks on D. M., exemplified excessive force, which rendered Mr. Boundy's action as a violent act. Further, she testified that Mr. Boundy's conduct was corporal punishment; that his violent act constituted unseemly conduct; and that his violent act was contrary to the School Board's prime directive to maintain a safe learning environment, which constituted unseemly conduct and was conduct unbecoming a School Board employee. Ms. Williams' testimony is found to be credible. Also, the School Board's Administrative Director, Region II, DanySu Pritchett testified that Mr. Boundy's physical force constituted violence in the workplace; and that he failed to maintain the respect and confidence of the student and the value of worth and dignity of the student through the use of physical force. Further, she testified that the failure to use an alternative method of removal by using the emergency call button was poor judgment and constituted conduct unbecoming a School Board employee. Ms. Pritchett's testimony is found to be credible. Additionally, Ms. Figueredo, testified that Mr. Boundy subjected D. M. to unnecessary embarrassment by using physical force in the hallway in front of D. M.'s classmates while Mr. Boundy was directing/escorting D. M. down the hall. Further, Ms. Figueredo testified that, during the hallway incident, Mr. Boundy engaged in corporal punishment, conduct unbecoming an employee of the School Board, unseemly conduct, and poor judgment, and was not a good role model to the students and staff. Ms. Figueredo's testimony is found to be credible. Also, Ms. Figueredo testified that Mr. Boundy's use of poor judgment and failure to use established protocol and to exemplify a good role model to the students and the staff caused Mr. Boundy to lose his effectiveness. Ms. Figueredo's testimony is found to be credible. Pending the investigation of the incident by the School Board, Mr. Boundy was removed from the classroom. He was placed on alternative assignment, i.e., at his home. Due to Mr. Boundy's failure to follow established protocol at Nautilus for the removal of D. M. from the classroom, to the physical force used by Mr. Boundy, to the marks that were a little red and were caused by the physical force, and to the seriousness of the incident, by memorandum dated November 21, 2005, Ms. Figueredo recommended a 30-day suspension for violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. Ms. Pritchett agreed with the recommendation. By memorandum dated December 1, 2005, the School Board's Region Center II concurred in the recommendation. On February 28, 2006, a meeting was held with Mr. Boundy to address the forthcoming School Board's consideration of the recommendation for a 30-day suspension without pay. Those in attendance included Mr. Boundy, Ms. Williams, Ms. Pritchett, Ms. Figueredo, and a UTD representative, Mr. Molnar. The determination was that Mr. Boundy would be recommended for a 30-day suspension without pay for just cause, including but not limited to "deficient performance of job responsibilities; conduct unbecoming a School Board employee; and violation of State Board Rule 6B-1.001, Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida; and School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties; and 6Gx13-5D-1.07, Corporal Punishment--Prohibited." By letter dated March 1, 2006, Mr. Boundy was notified by the School Board's Assistant Superintendent, among other things, that the School Board's Superintendent would be recommending, at the School Board's meeting scheduled for March 15, 2006, the 30-day suspension without pay for just cause, indicating the violations aforementioned. By letter dated March 16, 2006, the School Board's Assistant Superintendent notified Mr. Boundy, among other things, that the School Board had approved the recommendation and that he was not to report to work at Nautilus from March 16, 2006 through April 26, 2006.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order finding that just cause existed for the 30-day suspension, without pay, from employment of Robert Boundy. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL 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 30th day of April, 2007.
The Issue Whether respondent should be suspended or dismissed on grounds of immorality and misconduct in office.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined: I. The Incident Ms. Block and Ms. Mason Invited to Principal's Office At all times material to this proceeding, Francis DeLaurier was principal and respondent was assistant principal of Devon Aire Elementary School in Dade County, Florida. Sandra Block was the school librarian in charge of the videotape equipment; Emma Mason was the school secretary, and Rosalie Luis, a counselor. (Testimony of Wieber, Block, Luis, Mason.) At approximately 9:00 a.m. on a school day at the end of September, 1980, Respondent telephoned Librarian Block and asked her if she had a copy of "the Marshall tape," a videotape on individual educational plans ("IEPs"). 2/ She replied that she had the tape. (Tr. 37.) He then asked her what time she ate lunch; she said "about noon" (Tr. 38). At his request, she agreed to set up the videotape machine in the principal's office at noontime so that the Marshall tape could be shown; 3/ she also agreed to join him for lunch in the principal's office. (Testimony of Block.) At 11:55 am. that morning, respondent called Ms. Block again to check on when she would be coming to the principal's office. She replied that she couldn't come yet because her library clerk was not back from lunch. Respondent then came to her office to get the film and videotape equipment. Just as he arrived, Ms. Block's clerk returned, so, together, they wheeled the videotape equipment to the principal's office. After setting up the equipment, she went to the teacher's lounge to get her lunch and a coke from the vending machine. She stopped at Emma Mason's desk where she learned that Ms. Mason had also been invited to watch the Marshall tape and have lunch in the principal's office. At the coke machine, Principal DeLaurier asked Ms. Block when she was coming to watch the tape; when she replied that she wasn't going to watch it, he encouraged her to come and watch it, saying it could be an interesting film. 4/ (Testimony of Block.) At that time, it was not the habit of Ms. Block or Ms. Mason to eat lunch in the principal's office. However, in the past, teachers and staff, including Ms. Block and Ms. Mason, had frequently eaten lunch there; for the convenience of his staff, the principal had salt, pepper, catsup, and similar items available in his office. (Testimony of DeLaurier, Wieber, Block, Mason.) The subject matter of the Marshall tape--education for exceptional children--was not directly related to the duties and responsibilities of Ms. Mason or Ms. Block at Devon Aire Elementary School. (Testimony of Mason, Block.) Finding of Videotape Cassette Under a Portable Classroom At approximately 11:00 a.m. that morning--prior to Ms. Block's and Ms. Mason's arrival in the principal's office--the principal sent respondent to investigate a bee problem; they had received complaints about children being stung by bees in the portable classroom area. While poking around under one of the portable buildings, respondent found a bag with a videotape inside. It was a black cassette, unlabeled except for a small white tab with a number on it. He returned to the principal's office and showed him the videotape. Principal DeLaurier asked him what was on it; respondent replied that he didn't know. Principal DeLaurier then said, "Well, put it on the machine and [let's] see what is on it." (Tr. 683.)(Testimony of Wieber, DeLaurier; R-16.) Showing of Sexually Explicit Tape Cassette By this time, Ms. Block and Ms. Mason had entered the principal's office. Ms. Block had her lunch with her; Ms. Mason was busy assembling hers. Respondent, pursuant to Principal DeLaurier request, inserted the black cassette (which had been found under the portable classroom) and turned on the videotape machine. (Testimony of Wieber, Mason, Block, DeLaurier.) What then appeared on the screen was undisputed. The videotape depicted sexual activities between nude men and women. 5/ (Testimony of Block, Mason, Wieber, DeLaurier.) The videotape surprised and offended Ms. Block; she reacted immediately. Within 45 seconds from the film's inception, she asked Ms. Mason, who was absorbed in making a sandwich, "Are you sticking around for this?" (Tr. 42.) Ms. Mason, who had not yet looked up at the screen, answered, "Yes, why not?" (Tr. 42.) Ms. Block then walked out of the the principal's office. Approximately three minutes later, Ms. Mason, also offended by the film, exited the office and the two women went to a nearby office to finish their lunches. (Testimony of Mason, Block; P-1.) When the videotape machine was turned on, DeLaurier --who was at his desk -- could not see the screen. Respondent alerted him to what was being shown, after which DeLaurier came over and joined respondent. The two men then watched the sexually explicit film for approximately ten minutes. No one else was present during this interval. No children were in the principal's office at any time during which the sexually explicit videotape was played. (Testimony of DeLaurier, Wieber.) The sexually explicit videotape was seen by at least one other person on that day -- Rosalie Luis, a school counselor. Principal DeLaurier had asked her to come by his office after she finished lunch to see the Marshall tape. She complied. After watching the Marshall tape in the principal's office -- the sexually explicit videotape was shown. 6/ No warning was given or comments made prior to it being shown. Ms. Luis thought it humorous but left shortly after it began. DeLaurier was present at the time. Although respondent was present when the Marshall tape was shown, it is unclear whether he was present at the time the follow-up sexually explicit tape was shown. (Testimony of Luis.) Thereafter, Principal DeLaurier instructed respondent to take the tape cassette and "Get rid of it fast." (Tr. 689.) Respondent complied, disposing of the cassette in a garbage chute behind the school cafeteria. (Testimony of Wieber.) Respondent's Knowledge and Intent When, at the principal's request, respondent turned on the videotape machine, he did not know that the cassette portrayed explicit sexual acts. When, at the principal's request, he asked Ms. Block to set up the videotape equipment and have lunch in the principal's office, he had not yet found the offending cassette and could not have known that it would be shown at noontime. He had no intent to lure or trick Ms. Block into seeing a sexually explicit film. 7/ (Testimony of Wieber.) When the offending videotape was shown in the principal's office, Respondent was insensitive to Ms. Block's, Ms. Mason's, and Ms. Luis's presence and the possibility that such a film might upset or offend them; he was oblivious to their presence. The film did not offend him; he chose to continue watching the film for approximately ten more minutes. (Testimony of Block, Mason, Wieber.) II. The Aftermath After the September incident involving the offending videotape, Ms. Block, Ms. Mason, and Ms. Luis continued to work at Devon Aire Elementary School. Respondent continued to perform his duties; there is no evidence that the film incident adversely affected his job performance or his relationship with the school staff and teachers. Indeed, between September, 1980, and January, 1981, the teachers offended by the film (Ms. Block and Ms. Mason) did not report or complain about the incident to other school personnel. In January, 1981, Ms. Mason reported the incident to Renee Kachman, a person generally known to be critical of Principal DeLaurier; soon thereafter, the School Board launched an investigation. In May, 1981, the allegations against Principal DeLaurier and Respondent became a matter of public interest because of a series of news articles published in The Miami Herald. (Testimony of Britton, Block, Mason, DeLaurier, Wieber.) Most of the staff members and teachers at Devon Aire Elementary School -- have signed a petition acknowledging the May 2, 1981, Miami Herald news article concerning the incident and requesting that respondent be reinstated as an assistant principal. (R-2.) In June, 1981, an investigative report and Superintendent Leonard Britton's recommendation for disciplinary action were presented to the School Board. Mr. Britton recommended that respondent be reprimanded, financially penalized, demoted, returned to a non-instructional position, and notification be given to the State Education Practices Commission. The School Board rejected the recommendation and voted to institute dismissal proceedings. (Testimony of Britton.) There was a substantial but mixed public reaction to the allegations against Principal DeLaurier and Respondent, and the disciplinary action recommended by the superintendent. Between 50-60 percent of the phone calls to the School Board's Office of Public Information agreed with the School Board's decision to dismiss respondent and DeLaurier 8/. Some parents would be angry if respondent is returned to the school system; others would not. (Testimony off Hanks, Everhart, Gordon, Travis, Britton, Block.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board dismiss its charges against respondent, reinstate him to his former position or a comparable position within the school system, and pay him his back salary and related benefits. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 11th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of February, 1982.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent committed certain acts alleged by the School Board and, if so, whether those acts constitute immorality or misconduct in office and thereby constitute just cause for the suspension and termination of the Respondent's employment as a continuing contract visiting teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, James W. Hamilton, was employed by the School Board of Dade County pursuant to a continuing contract and was assigned to Region One of the school system as a visiting teacher. As a visiting teacher, the Respondent held a valid teaching certificate and he had the option of being a classroom teacher. As a visiting teacher, his duties here primarily related to identifying and helping to resolve home problems that adversely affected the school attendance or school performance of students in the Region One schools. Visiting teachers are held to the same standards of conduct as those expected of classroom teachers. For many years, including the 1989-90 school year, there has been in place throughout the Dade County School System an ongoing, continuous anti-drug program. The program is designed to prevent the use of unlawful drugs by public school students. At about 10:00 p.m. on the night of October 27, 1989, Officers Warren Emerson and Willie Wiggins, together with several other law enforcement officers of the Broward County Sheriff's Office were in the process of conducting a reverse sting operation in the 4600 block of Southwest 20th Street, a neighborhood in West Hollywood, Florida, known as Carver's Ranches. Officer Wiggins was working as an undercover operative, posing as a street level narcotics dealer offering to sell rock cocaine to anyone who was interested in buying it. Other officers waited nearby to arrest all of Officer Wiggins' customers. The Carver's Ranches area is known to be a high-level street narcotics area where many offenses occur, such as burglaries, robberies, thefts, shootings, and an array of crimes related to narcotics activity. At approximately 10:00 p.m. on the night of October 27, 1989, the Respondent approached the location of the reverse sting operation and stopped his vehicle beside where Officer Wiggins was standing. Officer Wiggins walked over to the Respondent's vehicle, whereupon a conversation took place between the Respondent and Officer Wiggins. Officer Wiggins then handed a small plastic baggie containing rock cocaine to the Respondent. Immediately thereafter, Officer Wiggins removed his cap, which was a signal to the other law enforcement officers involved in the reverse sting operation that a narcotics transaction had taken place and that the Respondent was in possession of rock cocaine. Other officers promptly moved in and arrested the Respondent. At the time of his arrest the Respondent was holding in his left hand a small plastic baggie containing rock cocaine. The baggie containing the rock cocaine was seized by the arresting officers and was turned over to a forensic chemist for analysis. Scientific analysis of the contents of the baggie taken from the Respondent confirmed that the baggie contained cocaine. Scientific analysis also confirmed that it was the same cocaine that had been distributed by Officer Wiggins, because all cocaine distributed by Officer Wiggins was specially marked. Shortly after the Respondent was arrested for possession of rock cocaine that information was reported to the School Board of Dade County. The school system initiated investigative proceedings and the facts became known to various school system administrators. The fact of the Respondent's arrest also became known to clerical staff, to other personnel who handle confidential matters, and to agencies that are customarily involved in these types of matters. The Respondent's arrest for possession of cocaine was also reported on two occasions in the Miami Herald, a Dade County newpaper of wide circulation. The Respondent's possession of cocaine constitutes a breach of various duties imposed on instructional personnel, including the following: (a) the duty to strive to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct, (b) the duty to maintain the respect and confidence of colleagues, students, parents, and other members of the community and (c) the duty to make reasonable efforts to protect students from conditions that would be harmful to either learning, health, or safety. The Respondent's possession of cocaine is inconsistent with standards of public conscience and good morals and is sufficiently serious as to impair the Respondent's services in the community and his effectiveness in the school system. Such conduct also constitutes a violation of School Board rules relating to employee misconduct and conduct unbecoming a School Board employee pursuant to Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4C- 1.01.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a final order in this case concluding that the Respondent is guilty of - "immorality" and "misconduct in office" within the meaning of Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes, and terminating the Respondent's employment. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of July 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Jaime C. Bovell, Esquire 1401 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Mr. James W. Hamilton 505 N.W. 177th Street Apartment 120 Miami, Florida 33169 Dr. Patrick Gray Superintendent of Schools Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 The Honorable Betty Castor Commission of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Arthur Williams, committed the violations alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, whether such violations are just cause for his suspension without pay for thirty days.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a duly constituted entity charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the Miami-Dade County Public School District. As such, it has the authority to regulate all personnel matters for the school district. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent, Arthur Williams, was an employee of School Board and was subject to the disciplinary rules and regulations pertinent to employees of the school district. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed pursuant to a professional service contract and was assigned to teach beginning band at Norland Middle School. The sole incident complained of in this case occurred on or about January 24, 2006, in the Respondent’s sixth period band class. The Respondent’s band class was located in a large classroom with three riser sections formed into a semi-circle. Students assigned seats in the higher section would step up the risers using the railed “hallways” leading to the upper sections. On or about January 24, 2006, C. M. was a student in the Respondent’s sixth period class. C. M. had an assigned seat in an upper riser section. For reasons known only to C. M., the student left his seat and walked down the riser hallway to pick up a piece of paper and throw it into a trash can located on or near the floor. Presumably, the trash can was at the lowest section (compared to the student’s seat). When the Respondent observed the student, C. M., out of his seat, he approached the student, put his hands on the student’s shoulders, turned him around (to then face his seat), and told him to return to his seat. In connection with the verbal direction to return to his seat, the Respondent gave the student a slight shove to direct him in the proper direction. The student, C. M., was out of his seat without permission, was unprepared for class, and was not responsible for throwing trash away (presumably an act he felt justified his behavior). The slight shove was so imperceptible that it did not offend any student who observed the action. C. M. did not show any sign of injury at the time of the incident described above. None of the students alleged that the Respondent had acted in anger in redirecting the student to his seat. None of the students perceived the act of redirecting the student as an act of corporal punishment or physical aggression against the student. Some six days after the incident complained of, the mother of the alleged victim took the student to the hospital. The mother claimed the student was diagnosed with a sprained ankle. There is no evidence to support a finding that the Respondent caused the alleged victim’s alleged sprained ankle. None of the other student witnesses verified that C. M. was injured or seen limping on or about the date of the incident. The Respondent continued teaching at the school through the conclusion of the 2005-2006 school year. The Respondent did not endanger the student, C. M., at any time. After the incident complained of herein, the student’s mother decided to move the student from the Respondent’s class. When the Respondent went to a conference with the office of professional standards there was no allegation that the Respondent had failed to comply with the corporal punishment guidelines. The act of redirecting the student to his seat was not an attempt at corporal punishment. The Respondent did not make physical contact with the student, C. M., to maintain discipline. It is undisputed that the Respondent was merely attempting to get the student to return to his seat. The Respondent’s conduct did not disparage the student. The Respondent’s conduct did not embarrass the student. The Respondent did not push C. M. down. On or near the date of the incident, the Respondent called C. M.’s parent to address the student’s poor class performance. The incident complained of herein was not addressed during the call. In fact, prior to the call, C. M. had not complained regarding the incident described above. When faced with an allegation of poor class performance, C. M. told his parent about the incident described above and claimed he had been injured in the process. The alleged injury prompted the removal of the student from the Respondent’s class. Thereafter, the parent contacted the Petitioner’s region office to file a complaint against the Respondent. That complaint resulted in the instant action. Ms. Pritchett maintained that the Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher has been adversely impaired as a result of the parent’s complaint regarding the incident. The record lacks any information regarding the Respondent’s past school performance. No prior disciplinary issues or actions were noted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a Final Order concluding the Respondent’s behavior does not warrant a 30-day suspension. S DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 2nd day of April, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Rudolph F. Crew Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ana I. Segura, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Carol Buxton, Esquire Florida Education Association 140 South University Drive, Suite A Plantation, Florida 33324 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761
