Findings Of Fact Respondent, Miami Fitness, Inc. (Miami Fitness), advised Petitioner, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department), by letter dated October 30, 1993, that Miami had purchased the assets of Body Mystique, a health studio, and would honor all of its memberships. Miami Fitness was to begin operations as of November 1, 1994. Miami Fitness registered with the Department as a health studio and posted an irrevocable standby letter of credit for $50,000. The letter of credit was amended on July 26, 1994, to extend the expiration date to October 29, 1995. The purpose of the letter of credit is to protect the members of the health studio. Money would be available to compensate members if Miami Fitness went out of business or the members' contracts were not assigned to a facility of equal quality within a five mile radius of Miami Fitness. Refunds would be made on a pro rata basis. Body Mystique had been a women's only health studio as was it predecessor My Fair Lady. At one time Body Mystique had requested permission from the Department to turn the all women's facility into a coed health studio, but the Department denied the request. When Miami Fitness purchased Body Mystique, it continued to operate the facility as an all women health studio. The facilities occupied by Miami Fitness had been an all women's health studio for 23 years. Miami Fitness advertised and promoted the health studio as the "total fitness studio for women." It also advertised that its weight room was for women by stating: "Our weight training area is unique in that it is specifically designed for women." Miami also promoted its wet area. One advertisement stated: "We have all the amenities that a woman needs: sauna, steamroom, eucalyptus room, showers, dressing area; and great aerobic classes on a suspended wood floor, with a fully equipped weight room and cardiovascular area specifically designed for women." The contracts between Miami Fitness and its members included a provision that the member may cancel and receive a refund if Miami Fitness closes and does not provide the member with "similar facilities of equal quality" within a five mile radius of the closed facility. On February 10, 1995, Joe Alexionok, a consumer services consultant with the Department, was notified that Miami Fitness had closed its doors. By letter dated February 26, 1995, Mr. Alexionok requested Miami Fitness to advise the Department whether Miami Fitness was going to provide services or make pro- rata refunds. By letter dated March 10, 1995, Patty Kinast, President of Miami Fitness, notified the Department that Miami Fitness had made an agreement with U.S. 1 Fitness to assume Miami Fitness memberships. Having determined that U.S. 1 Fitness was not a facility of equal quality, the Department sent certified letters to the bank holding the letter of credit and to Patty Kinast that the Department would make a demand upon the letter of credit to refund members who filed a complaint against Miami Fitness because U.S. 1 Fitness was not of equal quality. A notice was also published in the Miami Post advising that anyone having a claim against Miami Fitness must file the claim with the Department by September 30, 1995. U.S. 1 Fitness is a coed health studio which is located within a five mile radius of Miami Fitness. U.S. 1 Fitness does not have a sauna, steamroom or eucalyptus room. U.S. 1 Fitness has approximately 2,500 members with approximately 900 active members. Miami Fitness had a membership of about 1,000 with approximately 400 members who were active. U.S. 1 Fitness' facility has approximately 11,000 square feet. Miami Fitness' facility had approximately 4,600 square feet. Miami Fitness was open during the following hours: Monday and Tuesday, 7:00 a.m. - 9:30 p.m.; Wednesday-Friday, 7:00 a.m - 9:00 p.m.; Saturday, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 a.m.; and Sunday 10:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. U.S. 1 Fitness is open during the following hours: Monday-Friday, 5:00 a.m. - 11:00 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday, 7:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m. U.S. 1 Fitness offers 38 exercise-type classes each week, including a yoga class on Tuesday and Thursday mornings. Miami Fitness offered 32 exercise- type classes each week with a yoga class on Tuesday and Thursday mornings and on Wednesday evening. The yoga classes at U.S. 1 Fitness are taught by the same instructor who taught morning yoga classes at Miami Fitness. U.S. 1 Fitness has exercise classes which are equal in quality to those provided by Miami Fitness. As part of the agreement with U.S. 1 Fitness, Miami Fitness transferred some of its equipment to U.S. 1 Fitness. U.S. 1 has equipment which is newer than the Miami Fitness' equipment. U.S. 1 Fitness has as good or better equipment than Miami Fitness did. U.S. 1 Fitness has babysitting services as did Miami Fitness. U.S. 1 Fitness' babysitting services are as good as or better than the babysitting services at Miami Fitness. U.S. 1 Fitness is located in well-lighted shopping center area and has as good or better security as Miami Fitness. After Miami Fitness closed, the Department received 12 written complaints from Miami Fitness members. The majority of the complaints were based on a lack of wet facilities at U.S. 1 Fitness and U.S. 1 Fitness not being an all women's facility. Most of the complainants had joined Miami Fitness because it was a women's only facility. They felt uncomfortable and self conscious exercising in a coed facility. They liked the facility because it was small, not crowded, and had a friendly, intimate atmosphere. At least two of the complainants had visited U.S. 1 Fitness before signing up with Miami Fitness and preferred Miami Fitness over U.S. 1 Fitness. While Miami Fitness was operating, between 25 and 50 members regularly used the wet facilities each week. U.S. Fitness 1 is not a facility of equal quality to Miami Fitness as it relates to the wet area and the membership being exclusively women.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Miami Fitness, Inc. did not provide its members with a facility of equal quality and that the twelve written claims made by the members of Miami Fitness, Inc., because it was not a facility of equal quality be certified as valid claims against the irrevocable standby letter of credit given to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services by Miami Fitness, Inc., and that any written claims filed on or before September 30, 1995 by members on the basis their contracts were not assigned to a facility of equal quality be certified as valid claims against the irrevocable standby letter of credit. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of September, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 September, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2964 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-14: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 15: Rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraphs 16-21: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 22: The first, fifth, sixth, seventh, ninth, and eleventh sentences are accepted in substance. The remaining is rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraph 23: The first, fourth, and sixth sentences are accepted in substance. The remaining is rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraph 24: The first, fourth, fifth and sixth sentences are accepted in substance. The remaining is rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraph 25: The first, second, third, sixth, and eleventh sentences are accepted in substance. The remaining is rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraph 26: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 27: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 28: The first, third, sixth, and seventh sentences are accepted in substance. The eighth sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The remaining is rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraph 29: The first, third, fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, and fourteenth sentences are accepted in substance. The remaining is rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraph 30: The first and third sentences are accepted in substance. The second sentence is rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraph 31: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 32: The first and third sentences are accepted in substance. The remaining is rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraph 33: The last sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The remainder is accepted in substance. Paragraph 34: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 35: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 36: The fourth sentence is accepted in substance. The remaining is rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraphs 37-40: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 41: The third, fourth, eighth, ninth and tenth sentences are accepted in substance. The fifth sentence is accepted in substance as it relates to equipment and number of classes but not as to atmosphere. The remainder is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 42-43: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 44: The fifth sentence is accepted in substance. The remainder is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 45: The first, fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth, eleventh, and twelfth sentences are accepted in substance. The ninth sentence is rejected as it relates to those women who filed complaints because U.S. 1 Fitness was coed. The remainder is rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraph 46: Rejected that the facilities were comparable. Paragraph 47: Accepted in substance except U.S. 1 Fitness had 38 classes. 26. Paragraph 48: Accepted in substance. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-14: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 15: The first sentence is accepted. The second sentence is rejected to the extent that it implies that the wet facility at Miami Fitness was not a reason for choosing Miami Fitness and was not used or enjoyed by it members. Paragraphs 16-17: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 18: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence J. Davis, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services The Capital, Mayo Building, Room 515 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Lloyd B. Silverman, Esquire 2800 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 201 Oakland Park, Florida 33311 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment based on determinations by two licensed psychologists that Respondent was not fit to perform her duties as a classroom teacher.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Broward County, Florida. A superintendent of schools has the statutory responsibility and obligation to recommend the placement of school personnel and to require compliance and observance by all personnel of all laws, policies, and directives of the school board, the State of Florida, and the federal government. In this proceeding, the Superintendent of Schools for the Broward County School District has recommended to the School Board that Respondent's employment be terminated because she is not fit to perform her duties as a classroom teacher. Respondent is a classroom teacher with approximately ten years of teaching experience. For the 2008-09 school year, Respondent taught at Seminole Middle School. Respondent received a satisfactory evaluation for that school year. Respondent was assigned to teach a second grade class at Everglades for the 2009-10 school year pursuant to a professional service contract. The School Board has adopted Policy 4004, which provides for mandatory physical and/or psychological examinations for employees, as follows: AT ANY TIME DURING THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT WHEN IT SHALL BE DEEMED ADVISABLE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT/DESIGNEE, AN EMPLOYEE MAY BE REQUIRED TO TAKE A PHYSICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION. RULES The Board authorizes the Superintendent to establish procedures to carry out the intent of this policy. The affected employee shall select the name of a medical doctor, psychologist or psychiatrist from a list maintained by the Division of Personnel, Policies, Government and Community Relations. Where the employee is found to be unable to function satisfactorily, the Division of Personnel, Policies, Government and Community Relations shall take appropriate action. On October 14, 2009, Eliot Tillinger, principal of Everglades, sent the following memo to Craig Kowalski, who was serving as the Acting Executive Director of SIU: As per the above the above referenced policy [Policy 4004], a "fit for duty" evaluation is being requested for Donna Lichi. Attached please find her job description as well as supporting documentation. Multiple concerns regarding the safety and welfare of the students have arisen from staff and parents in the school community. As reflected in the memo, Mr. Tillinger attached documentation supporting his request. This documentation was prepared by Mr. Tillinger (or by his staff at his direction), and documented his personal observations plus complaints he had received from parents and school staff. Mr. Tillinger did not formally observe Respondent, nor did he conduct a formal evaluation of her performance. His observations were from his customary "walk-throughs," which entailed unscheduled visits to classrooms and observations of approximately five minutes a visit. Of particular concern to Mr. Tillinger were reports that on at least two occasions, Respondent left children who were supposed to be under her supervision without supervision. One child was observed urinating on a bush while on the playground. Instead of supervising her class, Respondent talked on her cell phone. On another occasion, Respondent permitted two children to walk unsupervised through an area that parents were driving through to pick up their children after school. The children were returning from a park adjacent to the school. The children had gone to the park to retrieve an object one of them had left during recess. Respondent exposed those two children to danger by allowing them to go to the park unsupervised. No formal disciplinary action was taken against Respondent following either incident. Mr. Tillinger received a report from parents of children in Respondent's class that Respondent's interaction with them was unusual. One parent told Mr. Tillinger that Respondent was self-absorbed at the "meet your teacher" conducted just before school started and at the "open house" conducted shortly after school started. On these occasions, Respondent bragged about what good a teacher she was and boasted of her personal achievements and accolades. That parent opined to Mr. Tillinger (and testified at the formal hearing) that he did not think Respondent was aware of what was happening in her classroom because at a parent-teacher conference she did not know that his daughter could not log onto the classroom computer for several days. That parent also complained to Mr. Tillinger that Respondent required her students to wear shirts of a certain color on different days of the week, a practice that was not sanctioned by the school administration. The parent also reported that Respondent refused to complete a questionnaire a psychologist had asked Respondent (as the child's teacher) to complete as part of an evaluation of the student. Another parent reported to Mr. Tillinger that Respondent's behavior during a parent-teacher conference was bizarre. This parent reported that Respondent had "almost a catatonic stare" during the conference. The parent also reported that in a subsequent telephone conference, Respondent abruptly hung up on the parent during the middle of the conversation. Mr. Tillinger characterized the number of complaints and the nature of the complaints as being "unusual." Martha Machado was the grade chair for the second grade at Everglades. Ms. Machado met with the other second grade teachers on a weekly basis to discuss any concerns or issues. Although she attended these meetings, Respondent was never engaged in these meetings by asking questions or contributing comments. Ms. Machado met with Respondent prior to the beginning of school to help her settle into her classroom. During that first meeting, Respondent removed from her classroom all chairs that were not colored blue and replaced them with blue chairs taken from other second grade classrooms. Respondent thereafter decorated the walls of her room completely in blue. Ms. Machado considered this behavior to be unusual. Ms. Machado gave Respondent detailed lesson plans at the beginning of school and provided Respondent with copies of lesson plans Ms. Machado used for her own class. Ms. Machado offered to assist Respondent and was available to answer any questions. Until October, Respondent did not ask any questions as to the lesson plans. The lesson plans were provided to assist Respondent. Ms. Machado told Respondent to use them, modify them, or do whatever else she wanted with them. In October, Respondent admitted to Ms. Machado that she did not understand her lesson plans. Respondent also stated that she had not received copies of the lesson plans.1 Respondent had no explanation for why she did not tell Ms. Machado sooner that she did not understand the lesson plans. When a student was transferred from one classroom to another classroom, the student was to take his or her books and workbook to the new classroom. After a student was transferred from Respondent's classroom to another second grade classroom, the new teacher sent the student to Respondent's classroom to get the student's books and workbook. After the student retrieved the books and the workbook, the student returned to the new classroom. Soon thereafter, Respondent entered the new classroom, took the workbook from the student, and returned to her classroom. When informed of the incident, Ms. Machado told Respondent to return the workbook to the student. Ms. Machado observed that Respondent was overly complimentary to her, copied her hairstyle, and purchased a purse identical to Ms. Machado's purse. Ms. Machado found this behavior to be strange. Ms. Machado discussed her concerns about Respondent with Mr. Tillinger. Mr. Tillinger also received reports that on more than one occasion, Respondent dismissed her class 15 minutes prior to the end of the school day and had her class wait in the stairwell, singing songs and playing games until the final bell rang. In response to his observations, the reports he heard as to Respondent's behavior, and his concerns as to student safety, Mr. Tillinger assigned Melissa Renedo, an intern teacher, to Respondent's classroom. Ms. Renedo was instructed to assist Respondent, and to let Ms. Machado know if anything in Respondent's class made her uncomfortable with respect to the students' safety, welfare, or academics. Respondent's classroom was disorganized. She had no reading groups, she had no lesson plans (other than those given to her by Ms. Machado), and she would interrupt lessons to permit students to go to the "treasure box" to get a trinket as a reward for wearing a certain colored shirt. Ms. Renedo witnessed Respondent pick up a student in the middle of a lesson, comment on how he smelled, and asked him about his cologne. During a reading lesson, Respondent called the parent of the student with the cologne to see if she could go to the parent's house for dinner. Ms. Renedo observed that Respondent frequently stopped during a lesson to wipe down door handles, computers, and desks with Lysol. One morning two students who said they were fifth grade students came to Respondent's classroom at her request to assist her with setting up a bulletin board. When it was time for lunch, Respondent took her class to lunch, leaving the two fifth grade students unsupervised in the classroom. When Ms. Renedo questioned Respondent about leaving the students unsupervised, Respondent replied that it would be okay and that they were there to help out. Ms. Renedo's observations and concerns were conveyed to both Ms. Machado and Mr. Tillinger. Mr. Tillinger had sufficient justification for requesting the fit for duty evaluation on Respondent dated October 14, 2009.2 The documentation submitted with the request was sufficient justification for SIU to deem it "advisable" to require Respondent to submit to a psychological evaluation. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Superintendent of Schools had in effect the following Policy 4004 procedures relating to fitness for duty determinations: Fit for Duty Determination Procedures The Executive Director of Professional Standards & Special Investigative Unit (SIU) receives request from a Principal/Administrator (includes District Administrators) or Superintendent/Designee. SIU notifies employee via certified mail that he/she must undergo a physical and/or psychological examination. A reassignment letter is prepared directing employee to remain at home or at an alternate site with pay, depending on circumstances (i.e. active case file/investigation). The affected employee shall select the name of a medical doctor psychologist or psychiatrist from a list maintained by the Executive Director of Professional Standards & Special Investigative Unit, within 24 hours. SIU Administrator schedules within ten working days a medical appointment and follows-up in writing to the doctor's office and to the employee of appointment confirmation. Letter is sent to the doctor explaining billing instructions, and 'Fit for Duty Evaluation' report of findings. The doctor as delineated in the policy will conduct Pre [sic] evaluation at District expense. Note: a 2nd Opinion will be at the employee's expense if requested, with the employee selecting from the School Board approved list as delineated in the policy. A third evaluation will be mandated if previous two (Pre & 2nd Opinion) are contradicting and will be at District expense and will be binding by [sic] all parties. Doctor determines if employee is 'Fit for Duty' or [is] not [fit] for duty. Where the employee is found 'unfit for duty' the Executive Director of Professional Standards & Special Investigative Unit shall take appropriate action per the recommendation of the doctor, subjecting employee to a Post-evaluation by the same doctor making the initial evaluation. The Post-evaluation ought to occur within 90 days of the initial evaluation. If a doctor determines that the employee is 'Unfit for Duty', an administrative reassignment letter is prepared changing the employee's pay status to 'at home without pay (PLV)'. The employee is given information to call the Leave Department to apply for any paid leave accrued, and/or any other leave types per SBBC Policies that they are eligible for. Also, a Formal Referral to EAP is prepared for follow-up. Based on the progress and/or compliance with EAP's recommendations, a Post Evaluation is scheduled within the 90- day reassessment period. If employee is unfit to return to work in the Post Evaluation, then the employee is recommended for termination (School Board Agenda is prepared for the next Board Meeting). Note: 2nd Opinions on the Post evaluation will be at the employee's expense, if requested. Third evaluation, if required will be at District expense and will be binding by [sic] all parties. Employee and school/work site are notified of doctor's fit for duty status via certified mail. (Note: Confidential Doctor's report will only be distributed to the employee). The immediate supervisor is notified as well. However if the doctor has follow-up recommendations, then a Formal Referral to Employee Assistant Program (EAP) is prepared by SIU (i.e. mental health follow-up or other referrals as appropriate. If employee is found Fit for Duty, a certified letter is sent to the employee with instructions to return to work. The immediate supervisor is notified as well. Richard Mijon delivered a letter to Respondent on October 16, 2009, informing her that she would be required to submit to a fit-for-duty evaluation. Respondent chose Dr. Rick Harris to conduct the initial evaluation. Dr. Harris found Respondent not to be fit for duty. Because of that finding, Dr. Harris also performed a re-evaluation. Prior to the evaluations, Mr. Mijon provided Dr. Harris with the documentation attached to Mr. Tillinger's request and the results of other investigations by SIU of Respondent's behavior that occurred before she was transferred to Everglades. As part of the initial evaluation, Dr. Harris examined Respondent on November 2 and December 15, 2009, and on January 6, 2010. His report, dated January 22, 2010, is part of School Board's Exhibit 4. After discussing the results of the tests he administered and his clinical interview, Dr. Harris' report summarized his findings and explained his reasons for those findings. His testimony at the formal hearing was consistent with his report. Dr. Harris found that Respondent was not fit for duty. On June 7, 2010, Dr. Harris conducted his re- evaluation of Respondent. His report, dated August 12, 2010, is also part of School Board's Exhibit 4. After discussing the results of the tests he administered during the re-evaluation, and his clinical interview, Dr. Harris' report summarized his findings and explained his reasons for those findings. His testimony at the formal hearing was consistent with his report. Dr. Harris found that Respondent continued to be unfit for duty. The undersigned finds Dr. Harris' testimony to be clear, professional, and persuasive. Petitioner proved that Respondent was not fit for duty on the initial evaluation and re-evaluation by Dr. Harris. Pursuant to the School Board's Policy 4004, Respondent was entitled to seek a second opinion by being evaluated by a separate School Board approved psychologist of her choosing, but at Respondent's expense. Respondent chose Dr. Grace Sidberry, a licensed psychologist. Dr. Sidberry evaluated Respondent on September 8 and 14, 2010. Her report dated September 14, 2010, is contained in School Board's Exhibit 9. After discussing the results of the tests she administered during the re-evaluation, and her clinical interview, Dr. Sidberry's report summarized her findings and explained her reasons for those findings. Her testimony at the formal hearing was consistent with her report. Dr. Sidberry found that Respondent was unfit for duty. The undersigned finds Dr. Sidberry's testimony to be clear, professional, and persuasive. Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent was not fit for duty as a classroom teacher as of September 14, 2010. Drs. Harris and Sidberry opined that Respondent's fitness for duty may be restored following appropriate treatment for the conditions that render her unfit for duty. Respondent would not benefit from a performance development plan before her fitness for duty is restored. The School Board followed its applicable rules in processing the "fit for duty" request submitted by Mr. Tillinger.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order terminate Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of July, 2011.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should be assessed sales and use tax as set forth in the Notice of Reconsideration dated April 13, 2007.
Findings Of Fact On April 13, 2007, the Department issued a Notice of Reconsideration to Total Health and summarized the relevant facts of the case, which it stated was based on information from the audit file, correspondence from Total Health and other available information. In its Petition for Formal Protest under Administrative Procedures Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, Total Health stated that the facts are not in dispute and agreed to the facts as summarized by the Department in the Notice of Reconsideration. Those facts are set forth in paragraphs 2 and 3 below. Total Health is a private health and fitness club in Tampa, Florida. Total Health charges its members $30 per month for unlimited use of the club. Members of the club are only allowed to meet approved personal trainers at the club. Personal trainers are not allowed on the club’s premises without the club’s express approval. Approved personal trainers contract with Total Health and are provided the following rights. The trainers have the right to use the club’s facility to perform training services. Total Health designates the trainers as approved personal trainers. Total Health controls all aspects of the trainers’ access to members. Trainers have access to the club’s membership list; however, the trainers must be introduced to prospective clients by Total Health. Total Health is required to promote the trainers’ services to the members. The trainers are given an exclusive license (or franchise) to use the club’s tradename, logos and business systems (membership list). Total Health entered into oral contracts with individual personal trainers, who acted as independent contractors. In these contracts, Total Health splits the fees that are billed to club members for the services of the personal trainers. Total Health also entered into a written contract with a corporation, Body Design, which provides the personal trainers. Body Design pays a fixed fee per month to Total Health. The contract with Body Design was referenced in the Notice of Reconsideration, but the contract was not entered into evidence. The personal trainers have access to the workout areas with the exception of the aerobics area and child care areas. Personal trainers may train members at Total Health, but may also train members at the members’ homes. In the case of the individual independent contractors, the trainers are on the “honor system” about splitting fees that they receive from the members trained in the members’ homes. The Department assessed a tax of $20,952.46 for the period of October 10, 2001, through September 30, 2004, plus interest. As of April 13, 2007, the tax and interest amounted to $28,460.90.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered assessing a tax against $30 per month per trainer for the period of the audit and assessing interest based on the recalculated amount. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 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 November, 2007.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Kevin R. Sanders, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint filed by the Commissioner of Education with the Education Practices Commission on June 10, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Frank T. Brogan, as the Commissioner of Education of the State of Florida, is authorized to enter complaints against persons holding teaching certificates in the State of Florida. Respondent, Kevin R. Sanders, has held at all times relevant to this proceeding Florida Teaching Certificate No. 660581. The certificate was issued by the Department of Education and is valid through June 30, 2002. Mr. Sanders is authorized to teach in the areas of physical education and general science. (Stipulated Facts). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Sanders was employed by the Escambia County School District (Stipulated Fact). During the 1995-1996 school year1, Mr. Sanders served as a teacher and coach at Pensacola High School (hereinafter referred to as the “Pensacola High”) (Stipulated Fact). Mr. Sanders was assigned responsibility for the supervision of an in-school suspension class (hereinafter referred to as the “ISS Class”) (Stipulated Fact). Mr. Sanders was assigned to serve as the ISS Class teacher for each class period except for one period, which was his planning period. ISS Class students went to a physical education class taught by Jack Jackson during Mr. Sanders’ planning period. Pensacola High’s ISS Class was a disciplinary program established for students who have exhibited behavior warranting suspension from school. Rather that suspending the student from school, the student is assigned to the ISS Class so that he or she will continue to attend school and receive academic instruction. Deans at Pensacola High responsible for disciplinary actions determine whether a student’s conduct warranted referral to the ISS Class and the length of the referral. Students assigned to the ISS Class would continue to receive academic assignments from their teachers. They were required to work on those assignments while in the ISS Class. While students were in the ISS Class, they were not allowed to talk or to sleep. Mr. Sanders wrote the in-school suspension program for Pensacola High, so he was familiar with the purpose of the program. Class periods at Pensacola High were one and one-half hours in duration. There were seven class periods, numbered 1 through 7. On even days, i.e., October 4, class periods 2, 4, 6, and 8 were held. On odd days, i.e., October 5, class periods 1, 3, 5, and 7 were held. Class period 7 was the last class period held on odd days and class period 8 was the last class period held on even days. A “varsity sports” class was scheduled for the last school period, period 7 or 8, of the school day. The varsity sports class consisted of two combined physical education classes. The teachers responsible for these classes were Mr. Jackson and Toby Peer. During the fall of 1995, students in the varsity sports class engaged in weightlifting. Mr. Sanders wanted to act as the instructor. Mr. Sanders was not, however, scheduled to participate in the varsity sports class. His responsibility was to supervise the ISS Class. Early during the fall of 1995, Mr. Sanders, Horace Jones, the Principal of Pensacola High, and David Wilson, the head football coach at Pensacola High, met to discuss allowing Mr. Sanders to supervise the weight training program for the varsity sports class. Mr. Sanders and Mr. Wilson explained to Mr. Jones that weightlifting would only be taught every other day, on odd days. They asked Mr. Jones for permission for Mr. Sanders to go the football stadium where the varsity sports class was held to supervise the weightlifting. Mr. Jones agreed to allow Mr. Sanders to go to the football stadium during class period 7 to supervise weightlifting. Mr. Jones did, however, indicate that Mr. Sanders’ ISS Class should be supervised. The testimony in this proceeding concerning the conditions, if any, that Mr. Jones imposed on Mr. Sanders and/or Mr. Wilson, was contradictory. Mr. Jones indicated that he did not give Mr. Sanders permission to take his ISS Class to the stadium or otherwise remove them from their normally assigned classroom. Mr. Sanders testified that Mr. Jones was aware that Mr. Sanders was taking the students to the stadium on the days that he supervised weightlifting. Based upon the weight of the evidence, Mr. Jones either gave express permission for the ISS Class to be taken to the stadium when Mr. Sanders was supervising weightlifting or was aware that the ISS Class was being taken to the stadium. Mr. Sanders’ ISS Class was assigned to room 30-A, which was located on the second floor of the main classroom building of Pensacola High. Room 30-A is located on the west end of the main classroom building. Subsequent to obtaining permission to supervise weightlifting for the varsity sports class, Mr. Sanders took his ISS Class to the football stadium during class period 7. Mr. Sanders left the students in the bleachers of the stadium above the weightlifting room. The weightlifting room was located in a room just below the bleachers where he left the students. While the students were in the bleachers, they were not directly supervised by any teacher or adult. There were assistant football coaches on the football field in the stadium supervising athletes engaged in football drills some of the time that the ISS Class was left in the bleachers, but they were not assigned the responsibility to supervise the ISS Class. Mr. Sanders would usually, but not always, inform Mr. Wilson that he had arrived to supervise the weightlifting training. Mr. Sanders did not, however, insure that the students in his ISS class were actually being directly supervised by another teacher or adult. Nor did Mr. Wilson tell Mr. Sanders that any arrangement had been made to provide supervision for the ISS Class on October 17, 1995, or on any other occasion. On October 17, 1995, Mr. Sanders had eight students assigned to the ISS. For class period 7, Mr. Sanders escorted his class from classroom 30A to the stadium (Stipulated Fact). When the ISS class arrived at the stadium, Mr. Sanders directed the eight students to sit in the bleachers and told them to remain seated there. Mr. Sanders then left the eight students, went around the side of the stadium and went into the weight room located just below where he had left his students. Mr. Sanders could not see or hear the eight students that he left in the bleachers from the weight room. When Mr. Sanders left the eight students, there were no other teachers or adults left to supervise the eight students. Mr. Sanders left them unsupervised despite the fact that the eight students had evidenced disciplinary problems and, therefore, had evidenced a need for close supervision. Some of the students were in the ISS Class due to truancy, but were left unsupervised by Mr. Sanders. Although there were other assistant coaches present to supervise students in the stadium area, the evidence failed to prove that any of those coaches, including Mr. Core, who was on the stadium football field part of the time that the ISS Class was sitting in the bleachers, were in charge of supervising the ISS Class. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Core or any other teacher present that day had been given such an assignment. Because Mr. Core was engaged in supervising passing drills with the football team, even if it had been proved that he was in charge of the ISS Class, he could not be expected to provide reasonable supervision of the ISS Class and supervise passing drills. Despite Mr. Sanders' testimony that supervision of the ISS Class was the responsibility of Mr. Wilson, he also testified that he left the weightlifting room on several occasions to check on the students. The evidence failed to support either explanation. At some time after Mr. Sanders left the ISS Class students in the stadium, a 15 year-old female student (hereinafter referred to as “Student X”) that had been assigned to the class that day left the other students to go to the ladies’ restroom under the stadium (Stipulated Fact). She was gone approximately 45 minutes. Student X had been determined to have a Specific Learning Disability and was in the exceptional student education program. While Student X was under the stadium stands, she performed oral sex on several male students in the ladies’ bathroom (Stipulated Fact). Eight male students were subsequently arrested, charged and prosecuted for committing an unnatural and lascivious act with Student X. Seven students pled no contest to the charge, and one was tried and acquitted (Stipulated Fact). Five of the male students were supposed to be in the varsity sports class. At or close to the end of class period 7, an assistant coach came into the weightlifting room and told Mr. Sanders that he had heard that there was a girl underneath the stadium and suggested that Mr. Sanders “might want to go check.” Mr. Sanders left the weight room and began searching under the stadium from the north end where the weight room was located, to the south end. Mr. Sanders eventually found Student X and a male student in a small room in the back of the boys’ junior varsity locker room under the south end of the stadium. Mr. Sanders found Student X and the other student talking. He instructed the male student to return to his drivers' education class. Mr. Sanders took Student X back to the bleachers and the ISS Class. Mr. Sanders did not report the incident nor take any action against Student X or the male student he found her with. The next day, Student X reported that students in ISS Class were teasing her about having done something bad. Although not known by teachers at the time, Student X was being teased about what had happened to her on October 17, 1995. She reported the teasing to the Dean's office. Richard Souza, the head of the exceptional student education program, talked to Student X and concluded that Student X should not be sent back to the ISS Class. 38. Student X was teased further on the bus and in other parts of the school about the incident. What had happened to Student X on October 17, 1995, was not discovered until several days after the event took place. Student X was ultimately transferred to another school. Mr. Sanders' was issued a written reprimand for his involvement in the October 17, 1995, incident by the Superintendent of Schools, School District of Escambia County. Mr. Sanders was subsequently transferred to Workman Middle School as a physical education teacher. Mr. Sanders contested the suggestion in the reprimand that he was required to "provide direct supervision" of the ISS Class. Based upon the weight of the evidence, it is concluded that Mr. Sanders breached his responsibility to the ISS Class when he failed to make reasonable effort to protect the students of the ISS Class from conditions harmful to learning and/or to their mental and/or physical health and/or safety. He breached his responsibility when he left the students unattended and unsupervised. Until he knew that another teacher or adult had taken over the supervision of the ISS Class, it was unreasonable for him to abandon them. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Sanders "intentionally" exposed any student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. The evidence in this case proved the following facts concerning the aggravating and mitigating circumstances required to be considered in disciplinary cases by Rule 6B-11.007(3), Florida Administrative Code: The offense is this case was severe. Mr. Sanders breached one of the most important duties of a teacher: to insure that the students under his charge were properly supervised. The offense did not constitute a danger to the "public." The evidence only proved one repetition of Mr. Sanders' offense. It has been almost four years since the incident. Mr. Sanders has not been disciplined by the Education Practices Commission. Mr. Sanders has been an educator for approximately ten years and was, and still is, well thought of by some in the Escambia County School Board. He has been an educator in Florida since the 1989-1990 school year and was an educator in Alabama for one year prior to that. The actual damage as a result of the lack of supervision of the ISS students was severe. One student was severely harmed and the other students, who had evidenced a great need for supervision, were left unattended. The penalty will not be as effective a deterrent as the publicity concerning the incident. If Mr. Sanders is suspended, as recommended by Petitioner, it would have a serious impact on his livelihood. The evidence failed to prove any effort at rehabilitation by Mr. Sanders, nor is there any rehabilitation reasonably necessary in this matter. Mr. Sanders was not forthright concerning his responsibility in this matter. Mr. Sanders did not admit his responsibility to stay with the students at a minimum until he knew they were supervised. Instead, he attempted to lay the blame elsewhere. Mr. Sanders is currently employed as a teacher for the Escambia County School District. He is employed at Tate School. There was only one violation. Therefore, there was no need for any "[a]ttempts by the educator to correct or stop the violation or refusal by the licensee to correct or stop the violation." There have been no related violations against Mr. Sanders in another state, including findings of guilt or innocence, penalties imposed and penalties served. Mr. Sanders was negligent in his actions, but he did not commit any violation independent of his neglect. There were no penalties imposed for related offenses. No pecuniary benefit or self-gain enured to Mr. Sanders. The degree of physical and mental harm to Student X was great. No physical and/or mental condition contributed to Mr. Sanders' violation, including recovery from addiction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Kevin R. Sanders has violated the provisions of Section 231.29(1)(i), Florida Statutes, in that he violated Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in Count One and Count Two of the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that Count Three of the Administrative Complaint alleging that Mr. Sanders violated Rule 6b-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Mr. Sanders' teaching certificate be suspended for a period of six months, that he be issued a letter of reprimand, and that he be placed on probation for a period of two years following his suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Goodman holds Florida teaching certificate number 295031, post-graduate rank III, valid through June 30, 1983 covering the areas of physical education and junior college. At all times pertinent hereto, Goodman was employed in the public schools of Duval County, Florida, at Matthew Gilbert Seventh Grade Center as a physical education teacher. During the summer school session of 1978, at Matthew Gilbert, Goodman was assigned as teacher for the physical education class to be held during that session. The class was funded through the Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) program. In order to maintain the allocation of FTE funds, there was a requirement that a minimum number of 28 physical education students be enrolled and in attendance. In the event the required enrollment was not met, then the class could not be held. If that occurred, the teacher would receive no salary for the summer session relating to that course. Goodman prepared a student attendance register for the summer school of 1978 physical education class beginning June 16, 1978, and ending July 28, 1979. That register reflects 28 enrolled students in the course. Goodman also prepared two summer school class enrollment sheets for FTE reporting purposes. The first is dated June 29, 1978, and shows 28 students enrolled in physical education. The second is dated July 10, 1978, and reflects 27 full-time students enrolled in physical education. Notwithstanding these enrollment sheets, actual student enrollment and attendance was far below that which was reported by Goodman. Jacquelyn Merritt enrolled in the summer school physical education course but never attended. Nonetheless, the attendance register shows Ms. Merritt as having attended 28 days. Ms. Merritt was awarded the grade of "B" for the course. Lorretta Roundtree neither enrolled nor attended physical education class. Nonetheless, the attendance register reflects 30 days attendance and Ms. Roundtree received a grade of "A" for the physical education course. Patricia Willis never attended the physical education class although she did enroll. The student attendance register reflects that Ms. Willis attended 30 days and received a grade of "B" for the physical education course. Cimmie McBride attended the physical education class for about a week. However, the class attendance register reflects 30 days attendance for Ms. McBride and she ultimately received a grade of "A" for the physical education course. Shelia Jackson attended one day of physical education during the summer school session but the student attendance register reflects 28 days attendance. Ms. Jackson received a grade of "B" for the physical education course. Carla Todd did not enroll in nor attend the summer school physical education class but the student attendance register shows Carla Todd being present for 30 days. Ms. Todd received a grade of "A" for the physical education class. Raymond Riley did not attend the summer school but the student attendance register reflects 28 days attendance and Mr. Riley received a grade of "B" for the physical education course. Steve Simon never attended summer school but the student attendance register reflects 29 days attendance and Mr. Simon received a grade of "B" for the physical education course. Deidra Sampson enrolled in the physical education course for the summer school session and attended three or four days. However the student attendance register reflects 30 days attendance and Ms. Sampson was awarded a grade of "A" for the physical education course. Claudia Tyson never enrolled in nor attended physical education during the summer school session hut the student attendance register reflects 28 days of attendance and Ms. Tyson received a grade of "B" for the physical education course. Martin Vaughn attended one day of physical education during the summer school session but the student attendance register reflects 30 days of attendance. Mr. Vaughn received a grade of "B" for the physical education class. Sharon Williams enrolled in the physical education course but never attended any classes. Nonetheless, the student attendance register reflects 30 days attendance and Ms. Williams received a grade of "A" for the physical education course. Hellen Pinkney enrolled in the physical education course for the summer school session but never attended. Nonetheless, the student attendance register reflects 30 days attendance and Ms. Pinkney received a grade of "A" for the physical education class. Willie Ward attended the physical education class during summer school for approximately one week. The student attendance register reflects 29 days attendance and Mr. Ward received a grade of "B" for the physical education class. It was Goodman's responsibility to prepare the student attendance registers and grade reporting forms for her class. The evidence establishes that Goodman's signature appears on those forms which reflect inaccurate attendance data and the award of undeserved grades. Goodman signed her name to official reports that were patently incorrect. If the reports had been submitted correctly then FTE funds would have been terminated for the physical education class. Had the class been cancelled, Goodman would not have received remuneration for her services as a physical education instructor during that summer session of school. The evidence does not establish Goodman's motivation as being that of protecting her income or insuring that the course was made available to those students who did attend. Goodman's efficiency ratings reflect that she is an otherwise effective teacher.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint, as amended, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact Background Respondent, Maria Illescas-Dupree, held Florida educator's certificate number 631483, covering the areas of health education and physical education, which was valid for a period extending from 1994 through June 30, 1999, at which time it expired and was not renewed. From 1988 to 1992, Respondent was employed by the School Board of Dade County, Florida (School Board) as a physical education instructor and assigned to Citrus Grove Elementary School. Among those who knew of her, Respondent was regarded as an extremely competent and professional educator, who was dedicated to her students, who maintained an exceptional rapport with faculty and staff, and who evidenced good moral character. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) In 1992, Respondent took maternal leave from her employment with the School Board for the birth of her first child, Maggie (now 7 years of age). That leave was subsequently extended by the arrival of Respondent's second child, Caitlin (now 6 years of age) and thereafter by the arrival of Respondent's third child, Lauren (now 4 years of age). Given the size of her family, as well as the expiration of her maternal leave, 1/ Respondent resigned her employment with the School Board (presumably in 1995) with the expectation that she would continue in the role of homemaker and that her husband would continue to support the family. However, Respondent's expectations were short-lived, and by early September 1995, with his abusive behavior escalating (with threats of physical violence), Respondent was compelled to have her husband removed from their home. With her husband absent from the home, Respondent was left without a source of income, with de minimus funds to support the family, 2/ and without any permanent means of transportation. However, Respondent's neighbor, Ileana DePhillips, immediately offered her assistance. Over the ensuing days Mrs. DePhillips provided groceries for Respondent and her children, drove Respondent to the office of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (H.R.S.) to apply for food stamps and to W.I.C. "to get. . . milk and cereal, and basic things for the children since they were under five-years-old." Mrs. DePhillips also accompanied Respondent to court so she could obtain a restraining order against her husband. While apparently successful in obtaining a restraining order, and notwithstanding his abusive character, Respondent nevertheless allowed her husband to return to the family home before the end of September 1995. 3/ At the time, Respondent was hopeful for a reconciliation; however, by January 1996 she was convinced otherwise, left the family home, and filed for divorce. Today, Respondent is divorced, resides in Lakeland, Florida, with her three daughters, and hopes to resume her teaching career. The claim of misconduct Petitioner's claim of misconduct is premised on the banking activities of Respondent and Mrs. DePhillips in October 1995 (shortly after Respondent's husband returned to the marital home). It is Petitioner's contention that "Respondent deposited stolen checks into her own checking account worth $5,525.00 . . . [and that she] and her accomplice [Ileana DePhillips] had agreed to split the money." Respondent denies any wrongdoing and avers she was not aware the checks were stolen when they were deposited or when she wrote checks against the account, and that she immediately ceased writing checks when she learned from the bank that the checks (Mrs. DePhillips had asked her to deposit) were returned unpaid and her own checks were being dishonored. According to Respondent, she only allowed Mrs. DePhillips to deposit the subject checks into her account as an accommodation, and is of the opinion that Mrs. DePhillips deceived her. The transactions at issue The first questionable transaction occurred on or about October 11, 1995, when Mrs. DePhillips asked Respondent to deposit her paycheck (from Angel Norberto Diaz, Petitioner's Exhibit 2) in Respondent's bank account so she might clear and access the funds. Apparently, Respondent, who felt a sense of obligation for Mrs. DePhillips' recent acts of kindness, harbored no reason to distrust her and had previously accommodated such requests from Mrs. DePhillips (who did not have a bank account). Again, Respondent agreed and deposited the check to her account on October 11, 1995. Unknown to Respondent, as well as Mrs. DePhillips' employer, Mrs. DePhillips had made the check for $500.00, as opposed to the $175.00 that was due her. At or about the same time she was in the process of defrauding her employer, Mrs. DePhillips stole a book of checks from her sister-in-law, Raquel Saavedra. 4/ Subsequently, Mrs. DePhillips would write five checks to the order of "cash," and prevail on Respondent to deposit the checks to her account (as she had previously done with Mr. Diaz' checks). When Respondent accommodated Mrs. DePhillips by depositing the checks, and subsequently wrote checks against the deposits, she did so unwittingly, without knowledge of Mrs. DePhillips' unlawful conduct. 5/ The checks Mrs. DePhillips stole and forged on Mrs. Saavedra's account, and prevailed on Respondent to allow her to deposit to her (Respondent's) bank account, totaled $5,025.00, were dated between October 12, 1995, and October 22, 1995, and were deposited between October 13, 195, and October 23, 1995. The transactions were as follows: Check number 300, dated October 12, 1995, was drawn in the amount of $425.00 and deposited on October 13, 1995. Check number 248, dated October 20, 1995, was drawn in the amount of $500.00, and deposited on October 20, 1995 (as part of a larger deposit of $1,050.00). Check number 226, drawn in the amount of $2,025.00, and check number 232, drawn in the amount of $875.00, were both dated October 20, 1995, and were deposited on October 23, 1995 (as part of a larger deposit of $2,975.00). Check number 234, dated October 22, 1995, was drawn in the amount of $1,200.00, and deposited on October 23, 1995. Against these deposits, as well as the deposit of the Diaz check, Respondent wrote (with Mrs. DePhillips' permission or at her request) numerous checks during the month of October 1995 before she received notice from her bank that the checks were being returned unpaid and her own checks dishonored. The checks she wrote totaled $5,312.73, with $2,021.25 being written for Respondent's or her family's benefit, $1,257.77 being written for Mrs. DePillips' or her family's benefit, and the balance representing mixed purchases that benefited both families (i.e., a joint shopping trip to the grocery store). 6/ Facially, given the size of her family (two adults and three children), as well as the nature of the purchases or character of the store visited, the purchases appear to represent routine living expenses, as opposed to extravagances. Given the proof, it must be resolved that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate clearly and convincingly, that, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, "Respondent deposited stolen checks into her own checking account worth $5,525.00 . . . [and that she] and her accomplice [Ileana DePhillips] had agreed to split the money" or otherwise engaged in any unlawful or improper conduct with regard to her banking activities. 7/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the a final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of February, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 11th day of February, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Rasberry holds Florida Teaching Certificate Number 069503 post-graduate rank II, valid through June 30, 1983, covering the areas of physical education, health education and junior college. At all times pertinent hereto, Rasberry was employed in the public schools of Duval County, at Matthew Gilbert Seventh Grade Center as a physical education teacher. During the summer school session of 1978, at Matthew Gilbert, Rasberry was assigned as teacher for the physical education class to be held during that session. The class was funded through the Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) program. In order to maintain the allocation of FTE funds, there was a requirement that a minimum number of 28 physical education students be enrolled and in attendance. In the event the required enrollment was not met, then the class could not be held. If that occurred, the teacher would receive no salary for the summer session relating to that course. Mr. James E. Thompson was principal of Matthew Gilbert during the summer school session of 1978. The usual procedure established by Mr. Thompson for the summer school physical education was to assign two teachers to the physical education program with only one of the teachers being responsible for attendance and grade records. Such was the case during summer school 1978. Rasberry was one of two teachers assigned to the physical education program. Mr. Rasberry was excluded from the requirement of reporting attendance and grades because of his other extensive duties. This procedure had the "blessing" of principal Thompson. Rasberry never submitted any paper work regarding the physical education course for summer school 1978. All grade reporting forms and attendance records were prepared and submitted by another instructor who in some cases signed Rasberry's name to the form. However, at no time did Rasberry sign his own name to any of these forms. While the evidence demonstrated that a high number of discrepancies exist in these reporting forms, there is no evidence to establish any connection between Rasberry and the inaccurate attendance data or the award of undeserved grades.
The Issue Whether Respondent, YouthFit by BodyZone Fitness, conducts activities that constitute "child care," so that it must obtain a child care facility license in order to conduct these activities.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner DCF is the state agency responsible, pursuant to chapter 402, Florida Statutes, for regulating providers of "child care," as that term is defined in section 402.302(1). Respondent YouthFit is a Florida limited liability company. It is located at, and its business address is, 2827 North Roosevelt Boulevard, Key West, Florida. YouthFit is owned and managed by Calvin Paquette. Paquette also owns BodyZone Fitness, LLC ("BodyZone"), a Florida limited liability company that operates a fitness facility located at 2740 North Roosevelt Boulevard, Key West, contiguous to YouthFit. Information Submitted in Questionnaire On July 13, 2018, Paquette submitted a Child Care Licensure Questionnaire ("Questionnaire") to DCF on behalf of YouthFit, requesting a determination whether YouthFit conducts "child care." The Questionnaire was admitted into evidence at the final hearing. The Questionnaire provided information regarding the nature and location of YouthFit's operation; the types of activities that YouthFit provides to children; the ages of the children participating in YouthFit's activities; the type of supervision that YouthFit provides to participants; and the payment/fee arrangements to participate in YouthFit's activities. According to the Questionnaire, YouthFit is a youth fitness program consisting of instructor-led classes offered to children ranging in age from preschool to high school. The classes identified in the Questionnaire were tumbling classes; strength, conditioning, and flexibility classes; and ninja classes. A YouthFit Class Pricing Schedule attached to the Questionnaire showed that, at the time the Questionnaire was submitted, YouthFit also offered "open gym" and "parents' night out" activities. Both of these activities entailed parents dropping children off at, and picking them up from, YouthFit. The Questionnaire stated that YouthFit offered classes from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven days a week. Per the Questionnaire, participation in these classes is limited to one to two hours of class per day for each child. Attendance is not required, and the same children do not necessarily attend YouthFit's classes on a regular basis. The Questionnaire stated that parents are not required to remain on the YouthFit premises at all times, although they are permitted to do so. Parents may drop children off at the YouthFit facility to participate in classes and are expected to pick them up after class is over. The Questionnaire stated that children are not permitted to enter and leave the YouthFit classes or premises unless they have permission pursuant to prior arrangement or have adult supervision. Parents are required to sign their children in and out of the YouthFit classes and premises. According to the Questionnaire YouthFit supervises all children who are participating in its classes, including the children whose parents remain on the premises. Prepackaged snacks and drinks are offered to the participants of each of YouthFit's classes. Payment for participation in YouthFit's activities is made two ways: payment through adult membership at BodyZone Fitness, and payment of a drop-in fee for persons who are not members of BodyZone Fitness. YouthFit is not operated by a public or nonpublic school and is not located on a school site. YouthFit is not affiliated with a national non-profit organization created for the purpose of providing youth service and youth development. Based on the foregoing information, DCF determined that YouthFit provides "child care," as defined in section 402.302(1); therefore, it is required to be licensed as a "child care facility" pursuant to section 402.305, unless it falls within a statutory or rule exemption from the licensure requirement. Based on its review of the Questionnaire, DCF also determined that YouthFit did not qualify for any statutory or rule exemption from licensure as a child care facility. Accordingly, DCF notified Paquette of its decision that YouthFit was required to obtain a child care facility license in order to provide its youth fitness program activities. Facts Stated in YouthFit's Request for Hearing As noted above, Paquette timely requested a hearing challenging DCF's decision that YouthFit must obtain a child care facility license. In the letter requesting a hearing, Paquette provided additional information regarding the YouthFit fitness program. This letter was admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit C. According to the letter, YouthFit classes will be offered in BodyZone's expanded premises, which accommodate both YouthFit classes and adult fitness activities. Per the letter, children ages two through 18 may take the YouthFit classes. The letter clarified that a parent must be present at all times for children ages four and under, and YouthFit may require a parent to be present for children up to age five. The letter also clarified that each child would be limited to one class per day, which may range from 45 minutes to two hours in duration. The letter stated that YouthFit would not offer "child care" services, but, instead, would "operate no different [sic] than a local gymnastics center (or martial-arts dojo) offering tumbling classes (or ju-jitsu classes)." The letter explained that the "intent is fitness activities, not child care services." Other Evidence Presented at the Final Hearing DCF presented evidence at the final hearing that included screenshots of YouthFit's website, Facebook page, and Twitter account. At the time the screenshots were taken, YouthFit's Facebook page and Twitter account advertised a range of YouthFit classes and activities, including tumbling, Zumba kids, yoga kids, ninja class, boot camp, open gym, parents' night out, and day camps. Paquette testified that the hours associated with YouthFit's program recently have changed, so that classes and activities are now offered from 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Additionally, YouthFit no longer offers parents' night out, open gym, or day camps. Paquette also testified that YouthFit no longer advertises its activities on Facebook and Twitter. However, at the time of the final hearing, he had not been able to access these accounts, so the advertisements had not been removed from the internet. Paquette testified that the sole means by which information on YouthFit's classes and activities is disseminated is by "word-of-mouth."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Children and Families, enter a final order finding that Respondent, Youthfit by BodyZone Fitness, LLC, currently provides a program of classes and activities that constitute "child care," so that it is required to obtain a "child care facility" license to provide this program. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of March, 2019.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by Petitioner on a continuing contract as a physical education teacher at North Ward Elementary School in the Pinellas County school system. Respondent holds a professional teaching certificate number 495697, issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education. On April 6, 1988, Respondent was conducting a physical education class at North Ward Elementary School. The students were playing "T-ball" outdoors, and during the game, one student, Michelle Washington, became upset with Respondent when she told the teams to change sides in order to allow all students to have a turn at bat. The student ran up to Respondent and began screaming in her face. Respondent asked her several times to stop and to calm down, but the screaming continued for between thirty and forty-five seconds. When it became apparent that Washington would not calm down, and after trying to verbally quiet her, Respondent slapped Washington on the cheek. No marks or bruises resulted, and at the end of the class period Respondent and Washington hugged and apologized to each other. Respondent reported the incident immediately to her principal, and also called the student's mother to apologize. During December, 1987 and January, 1988, Respondent grabbed Amudin (Deenie) Tzekas by the jaw, and Jason Owens by the arm in order to discipline and quiet them. These actions caused no physical injury to either student, and were not reported by Respondent or the students at the time. Based upon the testimony of students involved in these incidents, as well as Respondent's own testimony, the testimony of her principal, Marcia Morgan, and a written summary prepared by Steven Crosby of a conference held within a week of the incident involving Michelle Washington, it is found that Respondent slapped Washington on the face on April 6, 1988, after having grabbed Tzekas by the jaw and Owens by the arm earlier in the school year. These actions were taken by Respondent as forms of discipline, and to maintain control in her classes. Based upon the testimony of Marcia Morgan and Steven Crosby, who were accepted as experts in education, Respondent's actions involving these three students impair her effectiveness as a teacher due to the loss of respect among students and parents which has resulted. She failed to exercise good profession judgment, and instead her actions caused embarrassment to her students. This conduct by a teacher impairs the teaching profession as a whole. According to school board policy, teachers should never touch students in a punitive manner. By proper notice to Respondent, Petitioner sought to impose a three day suspension without pay as a result of these incidents, and Respondent has timely sought review of this proposed action. In August, 1987, prior to these incidents, Respondent was counseled by Marcia Morgan, her principal, about getting angry with people. Morgan told Respondent that if she violated school board policy, she could not help her.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing a three day suspension without pay upon Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of October, 1988. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2291 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected as a finding of fact since this is a conclusion of law. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence in the record. 6-8. Rejected since these are conclusions of law. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 11-13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and s. 14-15. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 16-17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 18. Rejected as unnecessary. 19-20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2 and 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted and Rejected, in part, in Findings of Fact 3, 5. Rejected in Findings of Fact 4 and 5. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected in Findings of Fact 4 and 5. Rejected in Finding of Fact 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott Rose, Ph.D. Superintendent of Schools Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618 Charleen C. Ramus, Esquire Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged and violations charged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, on behalf of the Education Practices Commission, is charged with the responsibility of certifying and regulating public school teachers in Florida. Respondent is a teacher. At the time of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent held Florida Educator's Certificate 1266409, covering the area Exceptional Student Education (ESE). Respondent's Background Respondent earned a bachelor's degree in special education from New York University and a master's degree in early childhood special education. From 1998 to 2015 she taught ESE in self-contained classrooms (classrooms dedicated to ESE students) in New York. Respondent moved to Florida and began working for Orange County Public Schools, where she was employed in February 2015 as an ESE teacher at Ocoee Elementary School (Ocoee Elementary). For reasons unrelated to this case, Respondent was moved to the position of behavioral specialist (a non-classroom position), but returned to ESE classroom teaching in the fall of 2017. Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI) is a "best practice" crisis de- escalation protocol used district-wide in Orange County Public Schools. Respondent is CPI trained and certified. In June 2017, Respondent injured her shoulder and ankle at work while she was attempting to pick a student up from the floor. She returned to work after a few weeks of physical therapy. She continues to have pain in her shoulder and ankle. Respondent also suffers from asthma and recurrent nerve pain. By all accounts, Respondent was a dedicated and effective ESE teacher at Ocoee Elementary. She used her own funds to purchase supplies for her ESE students, including exercise balls for autistic students to prevent them from rocking in standard-issue chairs. Her evaluations from Ocoee Elementary were all "effective" or "highly effective." All of the witnesses who had occasion to observe Respondent in the classroom gave her high marks. There is no evidence that Respondent ever acted in anger or frustration with a student. She is accused of having done so in the incident at issue here. Respondent's Classroom For the fall of 2017, Respondent taught ESE students in a self- contained classroom at Ocoee Elementary. The grade level of her students spanned three grades, from second to fourth grade. The class size was approximately 12 students. The students were autistic and/or intellectually disabled. Paraprofessionals were assigned to assist Respondent in the classroom, including Cory Baker, Chanda Nguyen, and Michelle Hartley. The classroom had a designated "safe space," a small open area approximately three to four feet wide located between a large portable closet on wheels, a file cabinet on one side, and a wall on the other side. The safe space floor was covered with a soft mat and pillows. Posters on the safe space wall showed students how to breathe, relax, and decompress. A bathroom was located inside the classroom. The door opened out to the classroom. The door could be locked from the inside. Respondent and the paraprofessionals assigned to the classroom had access to an Allen key to unlock the bathroom door, but a disc had to be "popped" off of the lock to use it. Ocoee Elementary had a "crisis team" that could be called to assist when a student was in crisis, including removing the student if necessary. The crisis team included Juan Colon, who was the school's behavior specialist, and Isaac Bowen, a behavior trainer. The crisis team typically responded to a call for assistance within one to two minutes. The Incident with Student E.T. E.T. was assigned to Respondent's ESE classroom for the fall of 2017. He was 12 years old at that time. The other students ranged from seven to nine years of age. At approximately 5'6", E.T. was not only the largest student in the class, but he was also larger, and about four inches taller, than Respondent. E.T. was considered to be intellectually disabled. He was learning on a first or second grade level and his IQ was below 70. Some of the other students in the classroom were autistic, but E.T. was not. A Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) is a written plan that identifies problematic behaviors of a particular ESE student and strategies staff should use to address them. E.T. had a BIP that listed three problematic behaviors: (1) noncompliance (that is, refusing to perform tasks, by saying words like "no," "this is stupid," making faces or squeaking noises, or simply walking away); (2) physical aggression (including aggressive posturing towards his peers and throwing small objects like pencils, erasers, and papers); and (3) elopement (defined as walking away from staff). On the morning of October 12, 2017, E.T. began engaging in disruptive behavior that ultimately required his removal from the classroom. The disruptive behavior began when E.T. crawled under the desk of one or more other students and grabbed crayons and pencils that were not his. Respondent attempted to de-escalate and redirect E.T. with oral instructions, but her attempts failed. Ultimately, Respondent called the crisis team for help with E.T. Mr. Bowen arrived at Respondent's classroom within a short time with two other behavior trainers. The rest of the class was taken to the playground. Respondent and Mr. Bowen sat with E.T. at a table to work on compliance tasks, and E.T.'s behavior and mood improved. Respondent and Mr. Bowen walked with E.T. to the playground to retrieve the rest of the class. Respondent, E.T., and the rest of the class went back to the classroom. Mr. Bowen and the other behavior trainers left to respond to another call. On the way back to Respondent's classroom, E.T. refused to walk in line with the other students. One of the paraprofessionals walked with E.T. and redirected him back to the line. Back in the classroom, E.T.'s disruptive behavior resumed. He grabbed pencils and crayons that were not his and crawled under the desks of other students. He also blew mucus out of his nose, spit saliva onto his hands, and wiped his mucus and saliva all over his body. Respondent attempted to redirect E.T., initially by ignoring his behavior. When that failed, she attempted to redirect him with instructions and incentives. This strategy also failed. Finally, Respondent asked two of the paraprofessionals, Ms. Nguyen and Ms. Hartley, to take the other students to the sensory room, an activity room located outside of Respondent's classroom. The class was removed in the hope that E.T.'s behavior would improve once he was denied an audience of his peers. Respondent asked Ms. Baker to remain in the classroom with her to assist with E.T. When E.T.'s behavior did not improve, Respondent and Ms. Baker called the crisis team again, but this time they were unable to reach Mr. Colon or Mr. Bowen because they were either responding to other calls for help or in a radio "dead zone." Respondent thought E.T. might respond better if he was allowed to talk with his mother, so she called E.T.'s mother and allowed him to talk to her on the class telephone. At that time, E.T. was under a table in the classroom pretending to be a turtle. E.T. feigned illness (fake coughing) and told his mother he wanted to go home. He also asked for potato chips to eat. The call terminated and E.T. refused to come out from under the table. After repeated unsuccessful attempts to coax E.T. out from under the table without laying hands on him, Respondent carefully pulled E.T. from under the table, making sure he did not hit his head. E.T. was not injured in any way in the process. Respondent then took E.T. to the classroom safe space. Once in the safe space, E.T. started to crawl under the portable wheeled closet. Respondent was concerned E.T. would injure himself in the process— legitimately so—and lifted him up and held him against the wall. E.T. made himself go limp to become "dead weight" and slumped down to the floor mat. Respondent lifted him back to his feet again and E.T. slumped back down to the floor. This process was repeated several times until E.T. reached on top of the closet and grabbed a basket of toys, causing the basket contents to fall to the safe space floor. The basket included toy train cars made of die cast metal. E.T. grabbed one of the train cars off the floor and threw it over the head of Ms. Baker, who was standing in the middle of the classroom. He threw another train car at Respondent, striking her in the head. Respondent stepped on one of the train cars and fell hard against the wall, pinning E.T. between her and the wall. E.T. said, "My chest hurts, my heart hurts," and "I think I am going to die." Respondent's shoulder hurt and she was short of breath. Having reached her physical limits, Respondent decided to remove E.T. from the safe space because she was concerned he would be able to reach other items on top of the closet, including a heavy paper slicer with a sharp cutting arm. Respondent's plan was to transport E.T. out of the classroom to the "calm-down" room, an empty classroom used to allow students in crisis to decompress. The calm-down room is located about 20 to 30 yards from Respondent's classroom. Respondent guided E.T. out of the safe space and toward the classroom door, with his arm under her armpit. This would be an approved CPI transport hold but for the fact that CPI transport requires two adults to transport a student in crisis in this manner, with each of the student's arms under the armpits of an adult on each side of the student. Ms. Baker—who was also CPI-trained—did not offer to serve as the second adult or provide any other assistance to Respondent while she was struggling to transport E.T. out of the safe space. E.T.—apparently unfazed by falling with Respondent against the safe space wall moments earlier—started to laugh and grabbed crayons off the desk of another student as he was being guided toward the classroom door. E.T. pulled away from Respondent and started walking quickly ahead of her. Respondent tried to maintain a hold on E.T., but was unable to do so without help from anyone (such as Ms. Baker, who continued as a spectator to Respondent's struggles). E.T. announced he was going to the bathroom and headed for the bathroom door. Respondent rushed to stop him, but tripped and landed hard against the bathroom door with E.T. Respondent was concerned—legitimately so—that E.T. could lock himself in the bathroom and create a mess or injure himself before the key to the bathroom could be accessed. Respondent applied all of her weight to the bathroom door, while E.T. held onto the doorknob, to prevent him from accessing the bathroom. Respondent held E.T. against the bathroom door, using her forearm against his chest. Respondent then struggled to lead E.T. away from the bathroom door and toward the classroom exit door, sliding with him against the wall. Natalie Hatch, a staffing specialist at Ocoee Elementary, and Mr. Colon entered the classroom door when Respondent was struggling to keep E.T. out of the bathroom. Mr. Colon immediately assisted Respondent to escort E.T. to the calm-down room using the dual-hold CPI transport position. On the way to the calm-down room, E.T. was crying and upset and he continued to wipe mucus and saliva on his body. In the calm-down room, E.T. tore paper and threw it on the floor. After about 15 minutes, he calmed down and Mr. Colon talked to him about the importance of following instructions. Ms. Colon asked E.T. to pick the paper off the floor and E.T. complied. Mr. Bowen also arrived and walked with E.T. and Mr. Colon back to Respondent's classroom. There were no further incidents involving E.T. that day. E.T. was not injured, physically or otherwise. The Findings of Fact regarding the incident with E.T. are based almost entirely on Respondent's testimony, which the undersigned found to be highly credible. The findings are also consistent with the credible testimony of Mr. Colon, who found nothing wrong with Respondent's attempt to keep E.T. from going into the bathroom by holding him against the bathroom door, nor did he find anything wrong with anything else he witnessed after entering Respondent's classroom. Ms. Baker stood in the middle of the classroom while Respondent struggled with E.T. Ms. Baker could not see all of the safe room interactions between Respondent and E.T., because her field of view was blocked by the closet and cabinet that formed the boundary of the safe space. Ms. Baker made repeated calls to the crisis team, but otherwise failed to offer any assistance to Respondent. Ms. Baker did not voice any objection to the manner in which Respondent physically interacted with E.T. The following day, Ms. Baker complained to administration that Respondent physically mistreated E.T. This led to an investigation of the incident and ultimately to Respondent's termination. Rejection of Corey Baker's Testimony Petitioner relies chiefly on the testimony of Ms. Baker to prove its case. For the reasons that follow, Ms. Baker's testimony was not credible and has not been accorded any weight. Ms. Baker's account of the incident differed from Respondent's in that she contends Respondent "manhandled" E.T. out of frustration, including: "snatching" him out from under the table when he was pretending to be a turtle; and repeatedly slamming E.T. hard against the wall of the safe room; and later the bathroom door. Essentially, Ms. Baker accuses Respondent of physically mistreating E.T. out of frustration with his conduct that day. Ms. Baker's testimony is rejected where it conflicts with the testimony of Respondent and Mr. Colon for several reasons. First, Ms. Baker 's field of view of the safe space was obstructed. No credit has been given to her testimony about what occurred when E.T. and Respondent were in the safe space together, because she could not see all of what happened there. That she would offer testimony describing events she could not have seen casts doubt on her overall veracity. Ms. Baker's credibility also suffers from her admitted failure to intercede in any way to aid a student she now claims to have been physically mistreated for a prolonged period of time. If, as Ms. Baker contends, Respondent "manhandled" E.T. while the three were alone in the classroom, then Ms. Baker should have attempted to separate the two or at least warn Respondent that she was being too rough; she did neither. Here is Ms. Baker's explanation for why she stood idle when Respondent and E.T. struggled: Q. So why didn't you jump into that space and help her lift him up? Why didn't you do something? A. Because, like I said, I do not feel comfortable with it being a blind corner [referring to the safe space] and already seeing stuff done that shouldn't have been done. If somebody came in, it would have literally looked like we were both just trying to take this kid out. In other words, Ms. Baker claims she did nothing to protect E.T. because she might also get into trouble. This explanation is rejected. It is inconceivable that Ms. Baker would sit back and do nothing if she believed Respondent was mistreating E.T. The rational explanation for why Ms. Baker did nothing to intercede to stop Respondent is that Respondent's actions were appropriate under the circumstances. Finally, Ms. Baker's credibility suffers from her embellishment of the incident, including the trauma she claims to have suffered after-the-fact. Ms. Baker testified that the incident was so traumatic that she had nightmares for a week or two afterwards. She went so far as to blame the stress of witnessing the incident for ending her relationship with her boyfriend. There was no evidence that E.T. was injured in the slightest. Indeed, as Ms. Baker admitted, E.T. laughed and continued to grab crayons that were not his after he left the safe space with Respondent. Ms. Baker grossly distorted the resulting trauma she claims to have suffered. For all of these reasons—and the undersigned's observation of the demeanor of the witnesses who testified live at the final hearing— Ms. Baker's account of the incident with E.T. is found to be grossly exaggerated and unreliable, and is given no weight.2 The OCPS Investigation Petitioner also offered the testimony of Acacia Vierbicky, an investigator for Orange County Public Schools (OCPS). Ms. Vierbicky was charged with investigating the incident involving E.T. after Ms. Baker complained to administration. Ms. Vierbicky testified that during the investigation, Respondent admitted to her that she "snatched" E.T.'s arm from underneath the table when he was pretending to be a turtle, and pinned him against the wall—face first—in the safe space. The Administrative Complaint does not allege facts regarding the manner in which Respondent removed E.T. from under the table as a predicate for any charges. Regardless, Respondent denied that she "snatched" E.T. from under the table and explained why she removed him from underneath the table. Respondent's testimony was credible and is accepted over Ms. Vierbicky's recollection of what she was told during her investigation. 2 Additional evidence was offered to impeach Ms. Baker's credibility. First, to suggest bias, Respondent and Ms. Baker were close friends at one time, but that relationship soured the summer before this incident occurred. Second, another teacher testified that Ms. Baker came forward with false allegations against her in an attempt to get her fired. Finally, another witness testified that Ms. Baker is prone to exaggerate events involving students in general. While all of this testimony may be true, it is unnecessary to rely upon it to reach the conclusion that Ms. Baker's testimony is unreliable. The characterization of whether Respondent "pinned" or "held" E.T. against the wall of the safe space with the weight of her body is not an important distinction here. What is important is that Respondent did so to prevent E.T. from crawling under the wheeled closet or grabbing dangerous items from the top of the closet. Holding E.T. against the wall under these circumstances—whether an approved CPI hold or not—was entirely reasonable to prevent E.T. from hurting himself or others. Ms. Vierbicky's testimony as to her recollection of Respondent's admissions is rejected where it differs from Respondent's live testimony.3 Crisis Prevention Intervention CPI is not the law; it has not been adopted by statute or rule. Petitioner offered the testimony of Kimberly Ann Smith, an expert in CPI and behavior analysis. Ms. Smith testified credibly that pinning or holding a student against a wall or holding a student with his arm behind his back is not an approved CPI hold. But, as Ms. Smith repeatedly acknowledged, CPI is a "best practice" protocol. As such, restraining a student with a non-CPI approved hold can be reasonable under certain circumstances even if it is not the "best practice." Ms. Smith testified that it is acceptable to physically restrain a student when the student may hurt himself or others. Ms. Smith also agreed that E.T. could have injured himself crawling under the wheeled closet and that throwing the metal trains presented a legitimate safety concern. The CPI training materials offer examples of approved holds that one teacher can apply to restrain a student, but these holds are not appropriate for a student 3 Ms. Vierbicky's investigative summary of the incident involving E.T. was admitted as an exhibit in this proceeding, as were the witness statements she collected during her investigation. Although admitted, these exhibits have not been relied upon here because they are largely hearsay. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. It is also noteworthy that there are obvious material omissions from Ms. Vierbicky's investigative summary, including the failure to mention that E.T. grabbed and threw metal trains while in the safe space and the failure to mention the fact that E.T. was not injured. Thus, even if not hearsay, or predicated on hearsay, the investigative summary represents an incomplete assessment of the incident with E.T., and is unreliable for this reason alone. who is taller than the teacher. In fact, these holds should only be used on a student who is at least a head shorter than the teacher. E.T. is significantly taller than Respondent. Petitioner offered no evidence of a CPI-approved hold that would have been appropriate for Respondent to use under the circumstances she confronted with E.T. Petitioner also offered testimony from Ms. Hatch to show that Respondent did not use a CPI-approved restraint when E.T. was attempting to enter the bathroom. Ms. Hatch testified that when she entered the classroom, she saw Respondent holding E.T. with his face against the wall with his hand behind his back. This differs from Mr. Colon's testimony, which was that Respondent was holding E.T. with his back against the bathroom door with her forearm on his chest. Although Mr. Colon's and Ms. Hatch's recollection of the positioning of Respondent and E.T. differ, the distinction is not material. Respondent had a legitimate concern to keep E.T. from entering the bathroom under the circumstances, and her attempts to do so—although not a CPI-approved hold—were reasonable under the circumstances. For all of these reasons, Respondent's admitted failure to use CPI- approved holds to restrain E.T. is not evidence that she failed to make reasonable effort to protect E.T. from any potentially harmful conditions, or that she exposed him to a risk of mental or physical harm. Ultimate Findings It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent, in fact, made reasonable effort to protect E.T. from conditions harmful to learning and/or to his mental or physical health and/or to his safety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRIAN A. NEWMAN 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 March, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tobe M. Lev, Esquire Egan, Lev, Lindstrom & Siwica, P.A. 231 East Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Ron Weaver, Esquire Law Office of Ron Weaver Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
