Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Respondent Jimmy Buoy has been employed by the School Board of Dade County as a School Resource Specialist, a non-instructional employee, at Madison Junior High School in Miami, Florida. He was hired for that position in January, 1980, by a Mr. Stergen, who was then the principal of Madison Junior High School. His duties at that time included maintaining the security of the students and school premises at Madison Junior High School, supervising the school monitors, enforcing school board policies and Madison Junior High School regulations, enforcing the school's dress code with reasonable force if necessary, and administering corporal punishment. In November 1982, Thelma Davis became the principal at Madison Junior High School. Although she took away Respondent's authority to administer corporal punishment, the remainder of Respondent's duties remained the same. Among his other duties, he continued to have the authority to enforce the school's dress code and the authority to use reasonable force in enforcing that dress code. In August 1984, a reorganization resulted in the school resource specialists being organizationally located within the special investigative unit of the school system. Pursuant thereto, area supervisors gained authority and control over school resource specialists at schools within each area however, the principals maintained their individual authority and supervision over the school resource specialist(s) employed at their schools. whether the principal's supervisory control over the school resource specialist was joint, concurrent, or "line supervision" with the area supervisor, the job description issued at the time for school resource specialists specified that the school resource specialist, among other duties, "performs other safe school activities as assigned by the principal." On three occasions prior to April 26, 1985, Tracy Merchison, a student at Madison Junior High School, had a hat in his possession while on school premises, a violation of the school's dress code. Respondent confiscated Tracy's hat on each of those occasions in accordance with his long-standing procedures for doing so: Respondent returned the hat to the student at the end of the school day if it was the student's first offense; Respondent retained the hat in his possession until the end of the school year if it was the student's second or subsequent offense. The student could regain possession of his hat prior to the end of the school year, however, if the student's parent made contact with the Respondent. Respondent used the opportunity of such parental contact to advise the parent regarding the school's dress code and to enlist the parent's support in obtaining that student's compliance with the dress code. Tracy's mother had been so contacted, and Tracy's hats had been returned to him, the last hat being returned to him a day or two before April 26, 1985. On April 26, 1985, Respondent observed Tracy Merchison outside the school library with a hat in his hand, the same hat that had just been returned to him after being confiscated for its appearance on the school grounds. Respondent approached Tracy and asked Tracy for his hat. Tracy refused to give Respondent his hat. Respondent repeatedly requested the hat, and Tracy repeatedly refused. After several requests, Respondent reached for the hat, and Tracy started switching the hat back and forth between his hands behind his back to keep it away from Respondent. Respondent continued to request the hat while reaching for it still hoping that Tracy would voluntarily and calmly relinquish it. Finally, Respondent grabbed one of Tracy's arms to hold it still and took the hat from Tracy's hands with his other hand. As Respondent then stepped away from Tracy, Tracy reached out with both of his hands and shoved Respondent in the chest pushing Respondent backward. Respondent grabbed the front of Tracy's shirt with both of his hands and pushed Tracy against the wall. Respondent spoke to Tracy telling him essentially to control himself so he would not get hurt and to stop showing off for his friends. Respondent then released his hold on Tracy. Tracy started walking away from Respondent but started cursing and threatening Respondent. Respondent said "Fine, Tracy. Fine, but I have the hat." Tracy came back to Respondent and started pushing against Respondent attempting to get his hat back from Respondent. As Tracy continued to lean against and shove Respondent, Respondent again grabbed Tracy and shoved him back against the wall. After he shoved Tracy into the wall, he then pushed Tracy against a pole a few feet away from the wall, and the momentum forced Tracy's head to move backward hitting the pole. Respondent released Tracy, and Tracy ran into the attendance office yelling, using profanity, and threatening Respondent with physical harm. Tracy grabbed a stick with a nail on one end of it which is used for picking up papers from the ground and started out of the office still yelling that he was going to "get" Respondent. He was restrained, however, by Principal Davis and Assistant Principal Thompson, and the stick was taken from him. Tracy then grabbed a stapler in his continuing attempt to "get" Respondent, and Principal Davis wrestled the stapler away from him. Tracy tried to again get the stick with the nail in it but was again restrained by the administrative personnel. Respondent at that point came into the office, told Principal Davis what had transpired, and left the office to break up a fight on the physical education field. Since Tracy failed to calm down, he was not permitted to leave school by himself. Rather, Principal Davis, after being unable to contact Tracy's parents, had someone drive Tracy home. No other disciplinary action has been taken by Petitioner against Respondent prior to or subsequent to the incident in question, and Respondent continues to enforce the dress code at Madison Junior High School in accordance with his normal procedures. Respondent continues to have authority to enforce the dress code at Madison Junior High School.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent Jimmy Buoy not guilty of the allegations contained in the Formal Notice of Charges filed against him and awarding full back pay and benefits for the period of time that he was suspended from his employment. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of September, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Britton, Superintendent. School Board of Dade County 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Phyllis O. Douglas Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Frank R. Harder, Esquire. Twin Oaks Building, Suite 100 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Dan J. Bradley, Esquire 2950 S.W. 27th Avenue Suite 310 Coconut Grove, Florida 33133
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Polk County School Board (Petitioner) has just cause for terminating the employment of Respondent, David McCall.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed by the Petitioner under a professional services contract as a classroom teacher at Lake Region High School, a unit of the Polk County Public School System. On Wednesday, October 3, 2007, a student entered the Respondent’s classroom approximately ten minutes after class had commenced. The student’s tardiness was apparently related to her participation as a donor in a blood drive occurring at the school on that date. At the time the student entered the classroom, the Respondent was engaged in administering a standard quiz, and the time allotted for the quiz was about to end. The Respondent directed the student to remain outside the classroom and take the quiz. The student advised the Respondent that she donated blood and, feeling dizzy, had hit her foot on a doorway. She told the Respondent that she injured her toe and requested that she be allowed to go to the school clinic. The Petitioner presented a statement allegedly written by the student asserting that her toe was bleeding at the time the Respondent observed the toe. The student did not testify, and the written statement is insufficient to establish that the toe was bleeding at the time she entered the classroom. The Respondent testified that he observed the toe and saw perhaps a minor abrasion but saw no evidence of serious injury. The Respondent declined to refer the student to the clinic and again instructed the student to remain outside the classroom and complete the quiz. The student remained outside the classroom and presumably began taking the quiz. Shortly thereafter, another teacher walking in the hallway observed the student sitting outside the Respondent’s classroom with a paper towel under her foot. The teacher observed the student shaking and blood on the towel and asked the student about the situation. The student advised the teacher of the circumstances, stating that she felt like she was going to “pass out.” The teacher, with the assistance of a third teacher, obtained a wheelchair, retrieved the student’s belongings from the Respondent’s classroom, and advised the Respondent that the student was being taken to the clinic. After the student was transported to the clinic, her mother was called. The mother came to the school and retrieved her daughter, observing that the toe was bloody and swollen. The mother subsequently took her daughter to a doctor and testified that the student was referred for x-rays of the injured toe. Later on October 3, 2007, the student’s mother contacted the school principal, Joel McGuire, to inquire as to the manner in which the matter had been handled by the Respondent. The principal advised the mother he would follow up on her inquiry. On Thursday morning, October 4, 2007, Principal McGuire sent an email to the Respondent and asked him to come to Principal McGuire’s office during a planning period or after 2:30 p.m. “to confirm some information” about the student. The Respondent did not respond to the email and did not comply with Principal McGuire’s request to meet at that time. After receiving no response from the Respondent, Principal McGuire left a copy of the email in the Respondent’s mailbox at approximately 2:30 p.m. on Thursday, October 4, 2007, with a handwritten note asking the Respondent to come to the principal’s office on the following Friday morning “before school.” The Respondent did not respond to the note left in the mailbox and did not appear at the principal’s office prior to the start of Friday classes. Based on the lack of response, Principal McGuire sent another email to the Respondent on Friday, October 5, 2007, and asked him to come to the principal’s office at 6:30 a.m. on Monday. The email advised that the meeting was “to discuss the situation which occurred on Wednesday, October 3rd” so that the principal could respond to the mother’s inquiry. Although the Respondent was routinely present on the school campus by 6:30 a.m. on school days, the Respondent replied to the principal and declined to meet at that time, stating that the “proposed meeting time is not within my contracted hours.” The principal thereafter emailed the Respondent and requested that he come to the principal’s office at 10:30 a.m. on Monday, October 8, 2007. The email stated as follows: Mother is really needing information concerning the situation which took place in your class. I do need to meet with you and provide a response to her. I believe 10:30 a.m. is during your planning period. Thanks for coming by my office. The principal received no response to this email and the October 8, 2007, meeting did not occur. The principal thereafter sent a letter to the Respondent dated October 12, 2007, which stated as follows: I am requesting a meeting with you Monday, October 15, 2007, at 8:00 a.m. I will provide a substitute in your classroom in order for you to meet with me. The meeting will be very brief. I need some information about [student], a student you had in 2nd period geometry, in order to inform her mother. This is the sixth request for a meeting. Failure to comply with my request will be deemed insubordination and will require additional actions. The Respondent attended the meeting, but refused to provide any information, stating, “I am not going to respond to you.” By letter dated October 22, 2007, the Respondent received a written reprimand for his “refusal to assist in the investigation of an incident involving [student] on October 3, 2007." The letter advised that the first step of progressive discipline, a verbal warning, was being omitted because of the “seriousness of your actions and the possible consequences.” In relevant part, the letter provided as follows: Attached to this letter is my memorandum setting forth the events and facts as I have best been able to determine. As indicated, you have been uncooperative in our effort to investigate the facts surrounding this incident. Most significantly, when we were finally able to meet in my office on October 15, 2007, you refused to discuss the circumstances surrounding [student’s] situation and you stated specifically, “I am not going to respond to you.” This situation involved an injured student and our school’s response to that incident. Your refusal to assist or participate in the investigation is contrary to your obligation as a teacher to respond suitably to issues of a student’s health and welfare, is adverse to the school’s obligation to address concerns of the parents, and is completely contrary to your obligations as an employee of the Polk County School Board. Please understand that this letter of reprimand is addressed solely to your refusal to participate, cooperate or assist in the investigation of this incident. Should the outcome of the investigation indicate that your conduct in dealing with the student was inappropriate, I am reserving the right to request further disciplinary action by the Superintendent. Please note that a suspension without pay is the next step in progressive discipline as set forth in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. In conclusion, the letter directed the Respondent to prepare a signed “full written report” of the incident, including “your recollections and observation of the events and your justification for your actions you took in response to this incident.” The letter directed the Respondent to deliver the report within five days of the Respondent’s receipt of the letter and, further, stated that “refusal to take such action and to cooperate in the investigation may have serious consequences regarding your employment.” The memorandum attached to the letter provided a chronology of events identifying all participants and specifically referencing the principal’s multiple attempts to obtain information from the Respondent. The Respondent failed to provide the written statement as required by the October 22, 2007, letter of reprimand and failed to otherwise provide information to the Petitioner. By letter dated November 15, 2007, from Principal McGuire to Superintendent Dr. Gail McKinzie, the principal requested that the superintendent issue a five-day suspension without pay to the Respondent for “gross insubordination.” The letter misidentified the date of the incident as October 4, 2007. By letter dated November 29, 2007, the superintendent suspended the Respondent without pay for five days. The letter, repeating the misidentification of the date of the incident, stated in relevant part as follows: On October 4, 2007, you denied a student’s request to go to the school clinic. It was determined that the student had a broken toe. Your administrator, Joel McGuire, has made six verbal requests and two written requests for information on this incident. The last request was made on October 22, 2007, in a formal letter of reprimand which stated “your refusal to take such action and to cooperate in this investigation may have serious consequence for your employment. This recommendation for a five day suspension without pay is provided for in Article IV section 4.4-1 of the Teacher Collective Bargaining Agreement and is a result of your continued insubordination and refusal to follow the requests of your immediate supervisor. Please be advised that future incidents of this nature may result in additional disciplinary action. The letter of suspension advised the Respondent that the suspension would be in effect from December 5 through 7, 10, and 11, 2007, and that he should report back to work on December 12, 2007. The Respondent served the suspension without pay. In a letter dated December 13, 2007 (“Subject: October 4, 2007, incident”), from Principal McGuire, the Respondent was advised as follows: I have made repeated verbal and written requests from you for your explanation of the events in which you participated on October 4, 2007, involving a student requiring medical attention. This is my final request to you for a written explanation of those events. You are herby directed to report to my office at 10:30 a.m. on Monday, December 17, 2007, and you are instructed to have with you at that time a written explanation of the events in question. You shall also be prepared to answer any questions regarding what occurred on that day and the actions you took. You should not have any classes at that time, but I will provide coverage for you if for any reason that is required. Please understand that this is a very serious matter, and you have previously received a five day disciplinary suspension. The next step in progressive discipline is termination, and insubordination can be just cause for termination. I hope that you will conduct yourself appropriately, if you wish to remain an employee of the Polk County School Board. On December 17, 2007, the Respondent appeared at the principal’s office at the appointed time, but asserted that he had not been involved in any incident on October 4, 2007, and declined to otherwise provide any information. Although the date of the incident, October 3, 2007, had been misidentified as October 4, 2007, in the referenced series of letters, there is no evidence that the Respondent was unaware of the specific event about which the information was being sought. It is reasonable to presume that the Respondent was fully aware of the matter being reviewed by Principal McGuire. In response to the December 17, 2007, meeting, Principal McGuire issued a letter dated December 18, 2007 (“Subject: October 3, 2007, incident”), essentially identical in most respects to the December 13, 2007, letter and correcting the referenced date. The letter scheduled another meeting for 10:30 a.m. on December 19, 2007. On December 19, 2007, the Respondent appeared at the principal’s office at the appointed time and declined to answer any questions, stating that he was invoking his rights under the Constitutions of the State of Florida and the United States of America. By letter to Superintendent McKinzie dated January 2, 2008, Principal McGuire recommended termination of the Respondent’s employment. Principal McGuire restated the chronology of the October 3, 2007, incident and wrote as follows: I have made repeated verbal and written requests of Mr. McCall to provide an explanation of the circumstances in order to include them in our investigation of the events. He refused to comply with each of those requests. He received a formal letter of reprimand and a five-day suspension without pay for his gross insubordination. Since his suspension, I have made written requests of Mr. McCall to provide an explanation of those events, and he has blatantly refused to do so. By letter also dated January 2, 2008, Superintendent McKinzie notified the Respondent that he was being suspended with pay and that she would recommend to the full school board that his employment be terminated. The letter set forth the grounds for the termination as follows: Since the incident on October 3, 2007, you have refused repeated verbal and written requests by the school administration to provide an explanation of the events which occurred on that date or to otherwise participate in the investigation of those events. As a result of your refusal to provide an explanation or participate in the investigation, you have received a formal written reprimand and a five-day suspension without pay. Since your suspension, you have again refused specific requests by your principal to provide an explanation of these events. Based on these facts, it is my opinion that you have intentionally violated the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education in Florida by failing to make reasonable efforts to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning and/or the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety (Rule 6B-1.006 FAC). Further you have engaged in ongoing, gross insubordination by repeatedly refusing to take certain actions which are a necessary and essential function of your position as a School Board employee. Progressive discipline, as specified in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement, has been followed in this case, and the next step of progressive discipline is termination. Therefore, it is my conclusion that "just cause" exists for your termination as an employee of the Polk County School Board. The Respondent requested a formal administrative hearing to challenge the termination, and the Petitioner referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Prior to the instant hearing, the Respondent made no effort to provide any information to the Petitioner regarding the events of October 3, 2007.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order terminating the employment of David McCall. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 20th day of May, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Boswell & Dunlap, LLP 245 South Central Avenue Post Office Drawer 30 Bartow, Florida 33831 David McCall 3036 Spirit Lake Drive Winter Haven, Florida 33880 Dr. Gail McKinzie, Superintendent Polk County School Board Post Office Box 391 Bartow, Florida 33831-0391 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent has violated the provisions of section 1012.795(1)(d), (g), or (j), Florida Statutes (2010), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 10.081(5)(d), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Doreen Whitfield, holds Florida Educator?s certificate 819770, which is valid through June 30, 2015. She is certified in the area of exceptional student education. At all times material to the proceedings in this case, Respondent was employed by the Duval County School District (DCSD). Beverly Cobb is a payroll technician employed by the DCSD for approximately 20 years. In December 1999, she was working as a payroll technician, when the district was implementing a new payroll system. On or about December 17, 1999, Ms. Cobb was in the payroll office on the second floor of the DCSD building when Ms. Whitfield came to the office because of a problem with a check. She had a young woman with her. Ms. Cobb did not assist Ms. Whitfield with her problem but was close enough to hear Ms. Whitfield?s conversation with her co-worker and with Ms. Whitfield?s companion. Ms. Cobb?s co-worker went to get a payroll supervisor to assist in dealing with Ms. Whitfield?s problem. Ms. Whitfield was angry, and Ms. Cobb heard her say to the young woman with her, “all they need is one fatality up here and everything would be okay.” She paused and then said, “if I have to come back, I?m going to take someone with me.” Ms. Whitfield?s statements disturbed Ms. Cobb, and she perceived them as a threat. She was especially concerned in light of a mass killing at a car dealership that had taken place in Jacksonville not long before. Ms. Cobb reported the comments to her director, Ms. Parker, who called security. Security staff asked Ms. Whitfield to leave the building, and Ms. Cobb was asked to write a statement, which she did. Ms. Cobb?s account of the incident is credible. On or about January 10, 2000, Respondent was given a written warning and directed not to go to the second floor of the DCSD building where the payroll section was located. On or about April 8, 2004, Respondent was notified by the DCSD that she would not be reappointed for the 2005-2006 school year.2/ On or about August 18, 2004, Respondent was issued a letter of reprimand by her principal, who at the time was John Lumpkin. The parties stipulated that the reprimand was issued, but no evidence was presented to indicate the reason for the reprimand. While the letter of reprimand refers to three incidents where Ms. Whitfield had apologized, and notes concerns on the part of other staff members, there was no evidence presented, beyond the fact of the reprimand itself, to indicate what prompted the disciplinary action. In October 2004, approximately two months after the issuance of the reprimand, Ms. Whitfield had a conversation with Johnetta Thorpe-Williams. Ms. Thorpe-Williams was an employee at Grand Park Middle and High School (Grand Park), where she worked as an office assistant for the house administrator in the discipline office for the school. At the time, Ms. Whitfield was working at Grand Park as a drama teacher. Ms. Thorpe-Williams? desk was situated where she could see everyone coming and going out of the office. Ms. Whitfield would often come by and talk to her in the mornings. On October 17, 2004, Ms. Whitfield came to her desk and started speaking about Mr. Lumpkin. Ms. Whitfield stated that Mr. Lumpkin was trying to discredit her, ruin her career, and take food out of her child?s mouth by making her lose her job. She also stated that she was standing up for her rights; that she hated him and could “take a knife and cut his heart out;” and that she wanted to kill him because he was nasty, mean, and treated her like a dog. Ms. Thorpe-Williams also described comments by Ms. Whitfield that Mr. Lumpkin was “nasty, mean, and dangerous, but that he did not know dangerous. He don?t know who I know. He don?t know what I can do.” Ms. Thorpe-Williams responded that she did not see those traits in Mr. Lumpkin, but that she did not want to be a part of this dispute and that Ms. Whitfield needed to talk to Mr. Lumpkin. She called Mr. Lumpkin and went with Ms. Whitfield to his office because she thought the comments should be addressed immediately. She had never seen Ms. Whitfield act this way, and did not know that she would not act on her statements. However, when the two women went to Mr. Lumpkins? office, Ms. Whitfield denied making any of the statements Ms. Thorpe-Williams reported. Ms. Whitfield started screaming, accused Ms. Thorpe-Williams of making it all up, and called her a liar. Understandably, Ms. Thorpe-Williams was very upset by this turn of events. Mr. Lumpkin sent her home for the rest of the day, and when she returned, Ms. Whitfield was no longer at the school. Ms. Thorpe-Williams? account of the incident is credible. During the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Winter Park High School in Duval County. Her specific assignment was as a support facilitator for the eighth grade. Support facilitators go into other teachers? classrooms and work with ESE students in those classrooms. Close to the end of the school year, Winter Park received its budget projections for the following year. As a result of those projections, one support facilitator position was going to be eliminated. Ronda Cotter, the principal at Winter Park High School, decided that Ms. Whitfield would be transferred from a support facilitator position to an ESE teacher position working in a self-contained classroom. She announced the change at a meeting with the ESE teachers in approximately May of 2011. Ms. Whitfield was unhappy with the prospect of returning to the classroom, and made her objections known. The support facilitators and speech and language pathologists at Winter Park shared an office. Marchete Kelly- Cole was a support facilitator for the seventh grade, Carol Thomas was a speech-language pathologist, and Martha Johnson was a support facilitator for the sixth grade. At some time shortly after the announcement regarding her reassignment, Ms. Whitfield was upset and started complaining, loudly, about being assigned to a self-contained classroom. Martha Johnson and Marchete Kelly-Cole were both present for this conversation, which took place in the shared office. Ms. Johnson suggested that she speak with Ms. Cotter about the reassignment, reminded her that she was going to have no reduction in pay, and told her that sometimes you just have to make adjustments. Ms. Whitfield responded that, “maybe something needs to happen to the principal?s children, and then she would know how it feels.” Ms. Johnson was concerned about the comment, and said to Ms. Whitfield, “what if someone said that about your granddaughter?” Ms. Whitfield got up and left the room. Ms. Kelly-Cole?s description of Ms. Whitfield?s comments is very similar to that of Ms. Johnson. She stayed very quiet during the conversation because she believed Ms. Whitfield sometimes came to school with extreme mood swings, and was unsure what Ms. Whitfield might do. Ms. Whitfield?s statements made her uneasy because she also has children and Ms. Whitfield knew where she lived. When she was eventually asked to write a statement about the incident during a subsequent investigation, she declined to do so because she was concerned for herself and for her children. Both Ms. Johnson?s and Ms. Kelly-Cole?s accounts of the conversation are credible. Ms. Whitfield had a similar, if perhaps more colorful, conversation with Carol Thomas. On a Monday morning in early June 2011, the two of them were in the office alone. Ms. Whitfield told her, “I am so angry at Ms. Cotter, I could take a gun and blow her brains out.” Ms. Thomas did not know how to respond to such a statement. Ms. Whitfield went on to say that Ms. Cotter ruined people?s lives and laughed about it, and that something bad should happen to her or her children so that she would know how other people feel. Ms. Thomas perceived the comments as a threat, but was initially reluctant to do anything about them. She did not want to be in the position of reporting a conversation with no witnesses, and felt unsafe even though the threats were not made toward her. She found the comments to be “chilling, given the current climate in our nation and the things happening in schools.” Ms. Thomas sought advice from her son, but did not get a clear answer from him regarding how she should handle the matter. However, on Wednesday of that week, Ms. Thomas went to see Ms. Cotter early in the morning and relayed to Ms. Cotter the conversation that had occurred on Monday. Ms. Thomas, like the other staff members who had encounters with Respondent, was a credible witness. Ms. Cotter was upset by the report and concerned about her two young children. She reported Ms. Thomas?s conversation to the district office, and staff from professional standards and the district police department came to the school and searched Respondent?s car. No weapons were found in the vehicle. However, Respondent was escorted off campus and not allowed to return, and was assigned to Bulls Bay where she would not have interaction with children. Ms. Cotter also called her husband to alert him regarding the comments, and asked him to check on their children. She also reported the potential threat to the director of the daycare facility her children attended. For some time after the incident, the school resource officer would come to school early to make sure Ms. Cotter entered the building safely, and for months she parked right next to the building entrance so that she could enter the building quickly. She still harbors some residual concern, although Ms. Whitfield now works at a different school. In her experience, the kinds of statements attributed to Ms. Whitfield are not normally made in a school environment. On or about July 12, 2011, the DCSD issued a letter of reprimand to Respondent and required her to attend the District?s employee assistance program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j) and rule 6A-10.081(5)(d). It is further recommended that the Commission revoke Respondent?s certification as an educator, with the decision concerning whether the revocation is permanent being left to the discretion of the Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 2014.
The Issue Whether Respondent's suspension and termination from employment as a teacher by the Franklin County School Board was justified and, if not, whether backpay and attorney's fees should be awarded.
Findings Of Fact At the time of the incident that gave rise to this proceeding, Respondent, Webster Bozeman, was a teacher employed under a continuing contract at Carrabelle High School, Franklin County, Florida. Respondent had been employed by the Franklin County School Board from August 1985, until he was suspended on November 1, 1991. The Respondent was assigned to teach Physical Education (PE) classes for the 1991-1992 school year at Carrabelle High School, by the principal, Dr. J. Krawchuk. The Respondent had previously taught Social Studies from 1985 until 1989, and taught special education classes for two years, during 1989-90, and 1990-91. His teaching certification with the Florida Department of Education was in Social Science, with a designation for middle school. Mr. Bozeman was assigned to teach the Physical Education classes for the 1991-1992 school year because those classes were very free maintain control and discipline in more standard regular and special education classes. On September 6, 1991, Respondent's doctor had changed his medication from Triavil, a combined antipsychotic and antidepressant. The Triavil contained Trilafon, or perphenazine which is an antipsychotic used to modify psychotic abnormal behavior. The medication was changed because there was no indication that Respondent was overtly psychotic. Respondent remained on an antidepressant. However, the withdrawal of such an anti cause uncharacteristic aggressive behavior and the recurrence of any psychosis which the medication had been controlling. Approximately a week and one half later, on September 17, 1991, during Respondent's sixth period physical education class in the gym at Carrabelle High School, a group of eighth graders were sitting on the bleacher throwing wadded up paper. Lance Bockelman, a student in the class, was seated on the bleacher behind Respondent. Bockelman threw a piece of paper that struck Respondent on the left side of the head in the area of his ear. Although the evidence at the hearing demonstrated that Respondent was only struck by a wadded up piece of paper, either because his medication had been changed or because Respondent's eardrum already was traumatized, Respondent believed that he had been struck with something hard like metal. Respondent became angry and upset over being struck. Respondent ordered Bockelman to follow him to the locker room and Bockelman complied. The door between the gym and the corridor leading to the locker room closed behind them. Respondent told Bockelman to go over to the wall on one side of the corridor. Bockelman did not threaten Respondent but thought the incident a joke and exhibited laughter. Bockelman was also moving around although he wasn't trying to get away. In an attempt to discover what had hit him and to focus Bockelman's attention, Respondent grabbed Bockelman around the neck and pushed him up against the wall by putting his hands around Bockelman's collarbone area. Respondent began to inquire as to what Bockelman had thrown and was shaking his index finger at Bockelman, occasionally poking him in the chest. At some point, Respondent drew his fist back in a threatening, angry manner, saying, "I'll knock the shit out of you." Billy Dalton, a tenth-grade student, came from the locker room area into the corridor and observed Respondent holding Bockelman in a firm grip. Respondent appeared to be mad. Bockelman by then had realized the seriousness of the situation and was on the verge of tears. Dalton intervened by placing himself between Respondent and Bockelman, grabbing or tapping Respondent's raised arm and telling Respondent to cool off. Respondent let go of Bockelman and returned to the gym. At the point of Dalton's intervention, Respondent's physical contact with Bockelman had been minor and Respondent only threatened to use corporal punishment on Bockelman; Respondent never in fact used any corporal punishment against Bockelman, primarily because Dalton intervened. A group of students had followed Respondent and Bockelman and had gathered around the gym door, which was then open, and witnessed Respondent's actions. After Dalton interevened, Bockelman left the area and ran to where the buses pick up students. Maxine Taylor, a bus driver, saw Bockelman crying and walked him to the office where he spoke with the principal. Later, Principal Krawchuk conducted a conference with Bockelman's mother and Respondent. At the time of the conference, Mr. Krawchuk did not observe any outward signs of injury to Respondent, though Respondent began to complain that his head was ringing. Respondent also complained of ear pain caused by the object Bockelman had thrown. At the conference Bozeman denied any wrongdoing. However, at the hearing, Respondent admitted that pushing Bockelman up against the wall was not necessary. Respondent also admitted that his reaction to Bockelman's misbehavior was inappropriate. After the conference, Respondent filled out worker's compensation forms and visited Dr. Leslie Wilson. Dr. Wilson found an inflammation of the ear drum and prescribed antibiotics and pain medication. At a follow Wilson decided Respondent did not need to see a specialist. Dr. Wilson opined that the injury was the result of trauma, but could not determine the cause. Dr. Wilson also determined that Mr. Bozeman's ear drum injury resulted from "something hitting the head or actually hitting the ear drum." The injury to Mr. Bozeman could not have resulted from being struck by a piece of paper. Dr. Wilson's opinion was based, in part, on the information he had received from Respondent. Mr. Krawchuk, the principal, conducted an internal investigation of the incident. The investigation included searching the gym for any evidence of a hard object that could have been concealed in the paper Bockelman had thrown. Mr. Krawchuk was unable to find any such objects in the gym area. He had students who witnessed the incident write statements concerning this event. 1/ Krawchuk concluded that Respondent's actions were improper and amounted to excessive force and that Respondent's effectiveness would be diminished "quite a bit." He testified that the ability to keep order in a classroom and discipline students relates to effectiveness and that if a teacher could not keep students in line, the teacher was ineffective. Krawchuk also testified that using force against a child is a breach of a teacher's duty to protect the child's safety and health and violated the Code of Professional Conduct. The effect is to embarrass and demoralize the child, and has an adverse effect on the child's peers. He knew of no justification for physically touching a student in this situation. The appropriate response was to verbally reprimand the student and refer him to the office for discipline. Based on his entire investigation, Krawchuk recommended that Respondent be suspended without pay and then terminated. Krawchuk felt that Respondent could no longer be effective in the classroom, because he did not "have it within him now to deal with children." Mr. Ponder, the superintendent, agreed with Mr. Krawchuk and concluded that Respondent violated the Code of Professional Conduct by failing to protect the health, safety, welfare and learning environment of the students and that Respondent should therefore be terminated. He also concluded that Respondent violated the code by failing to preserve students from embarrassment and disparagement. Mr. Ponder believed that Respondent's actions amounted to misconduct in office because there would be concern or fear on the part of children later in that class. He testified that Respondent's actions seriously impaired Respondent's effectiveness in the classroom because Respondent's conduct was unprofessional, the students would be afraid and would lose respect for Respondent. Mr. Ponder also testified that an appropriate response to being hit by an object would be to send the student to the office. Once the student stops his bad conduct, there would be no justification for striking, touching or hitting the child. On the other hand, none of the students who testified offered any competent substantial evidence that there would be any ill effect to the students caused by Mr. Bozeman returning to teach. Indeed, Bockelman told another student, Jonathan Tindell, that he was not trying to get Mr. Bozeman fired, and did not want him fired on his account. In fact, the evidence showed that Respondent at the time did not have the respect of the students and was not very good at maintaining order in his classes. However, the evidence showed that Respondent's behavior prevented him from regaining any student's respect, thereby continuing his ineffectiveness as a teacher. Therefore, the evidence did demonstrate that Respondent remained ineffective as a teacher at least due in part to his conduct towards Bockelman. Franklin County does use progressive discipline for employees. However, an assault on a student is a severe infraction and at a minimum merits suspension under Franklin County's progressive disciplinary code. On the other hand, Respondent's disciplinary record shows no serious discipline being imposed other than peer help in maintaining better order and discipline in his classes. Based on these facts, the school board has demonstrated that Respondent committed misconduct in office by threatening the use of excessive force against Lance Bockelman. The evidence showed that Respondent's conduct was serious enough to continue his impaired effectiveness as a teacher. Therefore, the Board could have taken disciplinary action against Respondent. Finally, there were no mitigating factors shown by the evidence. Therefore, given the severity of Respondent's attempted use of force which was thwarted only by a student's intervention, termination is an appropriate penalty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is accordingly, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found guilty of violating Chapter 231.36, Florida Statutes, (1991), by committing an act of misconduct in office which seriously impaired his effectiveness as an employee of the school board and that his suspension without pay be upheld as well as his dismissal. DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 1994.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by petitioner as a biology teacher at McArthur High School for the past ten years. He previously taught school in southern Illinois. Nicholas Tricoli attended McArthur High School during the 1980-81 school year and was then in the ninth grade. Tricoli was assigned to Respondent's biology class during the first semester, which he failed. He was thereafter transferred to the biology class of Mr. John Lyzott for the second semester. The charges against Respondent involve a single incident which took place during a class change period on May 19, 1981. Uncontroverted testimony established that Respondent followed Tricoli into Lyzott's biology classroom, grabbed Tricoli by the front of his shirt and stated, "I told you never to call me that again," or words of similar import. He continued to hold Tricoli by his shirt and either pushed him backward over a counter or Tricoli, in the struggle to free himself, leaned backward over the counter, resulting in a blow to the back of his head. The incident was witnessed by Lyzott and two of his students, Fred Stoltzfus and Kelly Lathan. Their testimony established that Respondent demonstrated substantial anger, that he held Tricoli helpless for one or two minutes and spoke angrily to him during that time. Stoltzfus testified that Berg raised his hand as if to strike Tricoli, but neither Stoltzfus nor any other witness saw him strike Tricoli. Subsequently, Mr. Tom Patterson, the school board investigator, observed a bump on Tricoli's head, which resulted from contact with the counter described above. Patterson also observed a laceration inside Tricoli's mouth which was allegedly caused by a blow to his face. Although there is little doubt the laceration occurred during the struggle, the evidence is not sufficient to establish that Respondent struck Tricoli. Respondent had no official basis to enter Lyzott's classroom or discipline Tricoli, who was not then his student. Lyzott was in fear that Berg, who was obviously angry, would injure Tricoli and attempted to dissuade Respondent during the course of the incident. It should be noted that Tricoli is about five feet five inches tall and weighs about 130 pounds, while Berg is over six feet tall and weighs over 200 pounds. Respondent testified that he became angered when Tricoli referred to him as "a dick" while passing in the hallway, and that Tricoli had previously made a similar remark in the presence of other students. Respondent then followed Tricoli into Lyzott's classroom, grabbed him by the shirt and attempted to extract an agreement from him to stop referring to Berg as "a dick." However, Tricoli remained silent and Respondent perceived him to be smirking, which further angered him. Respondent's testimony regarding the name-calling was not corroborated but is nonetheless credible. Respondent has no reputation for erratic behavior, loss of self-control or abuse of students. Conversely, Tricoli's denial of the offensive remarks was not credible. Tricoli was overheard by another teacher bragging to fellow students about getting Berg fired, and offering a large sum of money to one student to obtain his testimony in a civil suit against Berg. Respondent demonstrated through the testimony of Lyzott and five other male teachers at McArthur High School that school administrators do not vigorously enforce discipline. These teachers also believe the principal does not support them in their efforts to discipline troublemakers. Their testimony established that it is not uncommon for a teacher to physically restrain an unruly student. However, none of the incidents of physical intervention or approved corporal punishment which they related were in any way analagous to Respondent's attack on Tricoli. Petitioner, through the testimony of the McArthur High School principal and the Broward County Associate Superintendent for personnel, established that corporal punishment policies require prior approval of such punishment which is then administered by the principal or his designee. These policies are set forth in rules and statutes which are made available to all teachers.
The Issue Whether the Respondent should be dismissed from his employment with the Miami-Dade County School District.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is charged by Florida law with the operation, control, management, and supervision of all public schools within the Dade County School District. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent, Maurice Cherry, was employed by Petitioner as a security monitor at Thomas Jefferson Middle School (TJMS). Sergeant Buck is a seventeen-year veteran police officer employed by the Metro-Dade Police Department. During the month of November 1996, Officer Buck was deployed in an undercover assignment related to activities and complaints at several adult bookstores. These complaints alleged lewd and lascivious acts were occurring on the premises of several named bookstores. While in his undercover capacity at or near one of the adult bookstores, Officer Buck met the Respondent. During this initial conversation with the Respondent, Officer Buck noted that the Respondent wore what appeared to be a school security jacket. Because Respondent made several suggestive sexual comments and verbal advances, Officer Buck determined to investigate the Respondent further as he was concerned that Respondent might be pursuing improper sexual conduct on school property with minors. In furtherance of his investigation, Officer Buck discovered that Respondent did, in fact, provide security monitor services at TJMS. The officer went to the school property and was attempting to verify that the security monitor employed at TJMS was the individual he had previously encountered at the adult bookstore site. While not expecting to run into Respondent, Officer Buck did make contact with the suspect in the school hallway. On this occasion Respondent ushered the police officer into a locked, second-story classroom (for which Respondent had the key) and engaged in conversation of a sexual nature. During the course of this brief encounter, Respondent grabbed Officer Buck in the groin area, and, as the police sergeant interpreted it, attempted to touch the officer's penis. Officer Buck resisted the sexual advance and, after making an excuse to Respondent, left the school premises. At no time during this episode did Respondent say or indicate to Officer Buck that students or minors were involved in any sexual activities with the Respondent. After several months of reassignment on another police project, Officer Buck returned to TJMS in April 1997 to resume his investigation of the Respondent. Again, his primary focus was to assure that the security monitor was not engaged in any sexual activities with minors. In this connection, Officer Buck approached the Respondent and engaged in conversation to determine if the Respondent would divulge any information related to minors. Respondent did not. It did not appear that Respondent was interested in minors. On the other hand, Respondent again attempted to make sexual contact with Officer Buck. Although during school hours and with students present on campus, Respondent ushered the undercover officer into a locked room, asked him to show him his penis, grabbed Officer Buck in the groin area as if to attempt to remove his penis from his pants, and exposed his own penis to Officer Buck. All of this occurred within a matter of moments. Since Officer Buck had sounded a verbal signal to officers who were waiting outside, police backups were making their way to the classroom where the officer and Respondent were located. Within a short time, Respondent was in police custody and was charged with criminal offenses stemming from the lewd behavior. This event made the evening television news. It was also covered by at least one prominent Miami-area newspaper. As a result of the publicity generated by Respondent's arrest, the principal at TJMS did not want the security monitor back at her school. Parents expressed concerns regarding Respondent and his presence at the school. The allegations related to Respondent's arrest resulted in a disturbance at the school such that to permit him to return would have caused additional turmoil and disruption. Such turmoil would result in the school system being brought into further disgrace and disrespect because of the unacceptable conduct Respondent exhibited. Respondent's effectiveness as a school security monitor has been greatly diminished as a result of his conduct and the resulting criminal charges. That the case was not criminally prosecuted does not mitigate the damage done to Respondent's effectiveness because, while he was not prosecuted, the lewd acts were committed on school property during the school day.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a Final Order dismissing Respondent from his employment with the school district. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlos E. Mustelier, Jr., Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Leslie A. Meek, Esquire United Teachers of Dade 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board, (Board), was responsible for operating the public schools in Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent, Susan E. Brown, was employed as a plant operator at the 16th Street Middle School in St. Petersburg, a school operated by the Board. She had a son enrolled in Lynch Elementary School, operated by the Board. On or about November 9, 1995, Respondent's son, V.B., was sent home at the end of the regular school day with a referral slip, signed by Ms. Proper, the principal, which reflected that the child had used inappropriate language to a female student in the class that day. The language was, "Suck my dick." The alleged incident was discussed in a class meeting and the matter was referred to the principal as the result of a recommendation by the class. The referral slip was not enclosed in an envelope. The child's teacher had had prior conferences with Respondent regarding her child's academics and behavior. Mrs. Brown was very much upset by this referral, not only from the standpoint that such language was attributed to her son, but also because the referral slip was not enclosed in an envelope. As a result, early the next day, November 10, 1995, she arrived in the office at Lynch Elementary where she was met by Ms. Lemos, the data preparation clerk, at the front counter. Respondent loudly demanded to speak with the principal. When informed by Ms. Lemos that the principal was in an awards ceremony at the time but would be back shortly and would see her upon her return, Respondent nonetheless insisted on seeing the principal immediately. She also demanded to speak with the teacher involved. She was upset about the referral slip a teacher has written regarding her son. When informed that the offending teacher was in class and could not be interrupted at the time, Respondent said, "I'll interrupt her," and left the office, heading for the classroom. Ms. Lemos immediately used the intercom system to forewarn the teacher and also immediately called the intervention specialist. Ms. Robinson, the teacher in question, heard Ms. Lemos' warning over the intercom system and within a few seconds, Respondent burst into the classroom, waived a sheet of paper, later determined to be the offending referral sheet, in her face and said, "I don't want this shit again", along with other obscene words including the word, "fucking." Ms. Robinson asked Respondent to leave the classroom, but she refused. Respondent asked for "that ass-hole, Jonathan." Jonathan is another child in the class who, Respondent believed, is the one who made the offensive comment attributed to her son. Respondent's actions were upsetting the children. Some were screaming and others were crying. Ms. Robinson claims that even Respondent's son called for her to stop, but she did not. Respondent stated to the teacher, "If I have to come back, I'll kick someone's ass." Ms. Robinson continued to try to get the Respondent to leave the room and managed to get herself and Respondent out of the room and into the hall. At this point, Ms. Robinson tried to go back into the classroom and close the door with Respondent out in the hall, but Respondent forestalled this, slapping Ms. Robinson's hands away from the door. At one point in the altercation, apparently in the classroom or nearby but in sight of some of the children, Respondent pushed Ms. Robinson away from the door, using both hands to the teacher's upper arms or torso. As a result of the Respondent's actions, Ms. Robinson was emotionally and mentally affected. She was afraid for her life at the time of the incident because the Respondent appeared very angry and was physical with her. The teacher's professional and family life has been affected by this assault. She was afraid to go back into the classroom and missed several days work because of it. She did not seek psychological counselling or a physician and she has now returned to the classroom, but this incident has affected her teaching and she still has trouble sleeping at times. Based on what happened, Ms. Robinson would not want to work in the same school with the Respondent. The altercation involving the Respondent and Ms. Robinson was heard by another third grade teacher, Ms. McLaughlin, who had come to the third grade pod of four classrooms to get another student. As she walked toward the pod she heard someone using profanity, including the words, "Shit. How dare you write this?" After going into her own classroom to get the student she wanted, Ms. McLaughlin came out to see Ms. Robinson pinned with her back to the open door facing away from the classroom, and a parent, identified as the Respondent, up close to her face. She saw Respondent, who was very loud, push Ms. Robinson with both hands Ms. McLaughlin did not hear Ms. Robinson say anything but noted she was trying to close the classroom door. As Ms. McLaughlin watched, the intervention specialist, Ms. Mills came up and took control. Ms. Mills went to the room as a result of the request by Ms. Lemos. As she approached the pod, she heard loud yelling and saw Ms. Robinson with her back to the door and Respondent yelling at her, facing her. Ms. Mills yelled at the Respondent directing her to return to the office. At this point, Respondent turned toward her and yelled that some "shit had been written on [her] baby's paper." She wanted to talk with the principal and, according to Ms. Mills, threatened to "mess them all up." As the two women were walking toward the office, Respondent also allegedly called the staff "fucking crackers", and when advised by Ms. Mills to keep her voice down because children were present, said she didn't care. Ms. Mills claims some children were present as they went toward the office. As Ms. Mills and Respondent arrived at the school office the Respondent was still yelling. Ms. Mills directed her to leave the campus but she refused and continued to demand to see the principal. At this point, Ms. Mills advised the office staff to call the police. Upon the arrival of the principal, Ms. Mills left the office and returned to the classroom where she found the children frightened and upset. When the principal, Ms. Proper, arrived at the front office she told the Respondent to go into her private office because she was yelling so loud. Ms. Proper could hear Respondent from down the hall. When Proper got the Respondent into her office, she asked what was wrong and in response, Respondent waived the referral slip. Ms. Proper took it and looked at it and this had the effect of calming the Respondent down somewhat. However, when Ms. Proper explained why the referral had been written, Respondent exploded again and Ms. Proper told her to leave the campus. Before she could do so, the police arrived. According to Ms. Proper, Respondent's actions upset the awards ceremony, a teacher was made upset and required a substitute, the office staff was upset, and she had to spend several hours with the police. In addition, at least one parent has called the school and expressed concern about the incident. This was the parent to whose daughter the obscene comment was allegedly made by V.B., Respondent's son. At the time of the incident neither Ms. Proper nor anyone else involved knew that the Respondent worked for the school system. Respondent did not identify herself as a school employee nor was she wearing any kind of uniform which identified her as a Board employee. All of the children who testified at the hearing, whether for the Board or for the Respondent, indicated they had, to some degree or another seen and heard the incident. There is no doubt that Respondent physically battered Ms. Robinson at the doorway to the classroom. Whether she intended to injure her is doubtful, however. Respondent clearly used profanity in front of the children, but it is equally clear she did not address the profanity toward them. By the same token, it does not appear that Respondent threatened the children in any way. Though she denies having done so, it is found she did refer to one child, Jonathan, as an ass-hole, but she did not direct that comment to him directly. Respondent has worked as a plant operator, (janitor), for the school system for four years, starting at the 16th Street Middle School only shortly before the incident in issue. Her hours are from four in the afternoon to midnight. She has one child, V.B., who attended Lynch Elementary at the time in issue. Respondent recalls that on November 9, 1995, V.B. came home from school with a referral which was not in an envelope nor was it folded over. When she saw it she was upset over the way it was written. She felt that her son's alleged language could have been more discreetly put and she also felt the slip should have been put in an envelope for transmittal. The referral did not require her to come to school, but she went anyway to see why the slip had been written and transmitted as it was. She also wanted to know why she wasn't called about it. Consequently, on the morning of November 11, 1995 she went to the school office and spoke with the lady at the front desk. Respondent admits to using the word "shit" to describe the referral but denies she cursed anyone in the office. When she asked to speak with the principal she was told that she was in a ceremony and to come back later. Nonetheless, Respondent insisted on speaking with the principal but cannot recall what she said next. She remembers having the impression that the office staff did not want to see the referral, so she decided to go to her son's classroom to speak with the teacher about it. Respondent claims the office staff did not tell her not to go to the classroom. When she got there she asked the teacher why she sent the referral home without it being in a sealed envelope. When the teacher merely shrugged in reply, Respondent repeated the question and admits to again using the word, "shit". With that the teacher asked her to leave the classroom and she claims she started to do so with the teacher behind her. Respondent admits to using the word "shit" a third time but denies calling the teacher a bitch, and most specifically, she denies having cursed at any of the students. It has been found that she did not curse at the student. As she and the teacher were departing the classroom, Respondent indicates she again asked the teacher, in a voice louder than normal, why she had sent the referral home as she did. In doing so, she admits to holding the referral up in front of the teacher's face and claims that the teacher then pushed her hand out of the way. The teacher allegedly pulled on the door to close it and told Respondent to leave. Respondent claims she then turned away and pushed the door but denies having ever come into contact with the teacher. The overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates, however, that she pushed the teacher at least once, and it is so found. Respondent also admits to having used the word "shit" in front of the second lady who came to the room in a query about the referral. It was this individual, Ms. Mills, with whom Respondent walked back to the office. However, she denies having threatened her or stating that she or anyone else would be "messed up", and further denies having referred to Ms. Mills or anyone else as a "fucking cracker." She also denies having used the word "shit" with the principal, though it is clear she did. She claims, however, that the principal neither asked her to come into the private office nor gave her a reason for the referral. This is irrelevant, however. Respondent admits she was on her way back to the classroom from the office a second time but before she could do so, the police arrived and she talked with them. Respondent did not think she was frightening the children by her actions, but it is clear she was. She did not intend to do so. All she wanted was an answer to her question. She admits she was angry when she went to the office and when she went to the classroom. She admits to entering the classroom without knocking or without an invitation because the door was open even though the class was in session. However, she justifies her conduct as a result of having been upset. Respondent's work supervisor has never heard Respondent use profanity to her co-workers, to teachers or to students while on the job or otherwise. He has never received a complaint about her behavior from either students or teachers. He has heard other employees use profanity from time to time, but never in a direct confrontation with each other or in front of students or teachers. Mr. Morris has never disciplined any of his workers for using curse words but would do so for inappropriate conduct. He is aware of the Board's sexual harassment rule, but other than this is unaware of any Board rule which prohibits the use of curse words. Based on his limited experience with the Respondent, he has no concern over her working in an environment where she might come into contact with middle school students or teachers. When he hired her he knew of no record of prior discipline regarding the Respondent and apparently there is none. He agrees it is important not to use profanity around students and that students should feel safe in the school setting. In that regard, if he were to know that an employee did what Respondent is alleged to have done, he would feel that person should not be employed as a plant operator. James M. Barker, an administrator with the Board's Office of Professional Standards, investigated the allegations against the Respondent and concluded that they were accurate and constituted various violations of Board Policy 6Gx52-5.31 which outlines in writing offenses and penalty ranges for employee misconduct. He interviewed the teachers involved but not the students, and when he interviewed the Respondent, she denied all of the allegations. She admitted she was upset by the comments contained on the referral slip but denied either touching a teacher or using threatening language. Notwithstanding, Mr. Barker's investigation indicated to him that Respondent had improperly harassed a student, used inappropriate or disparaging remarks to students, improperly interacted with colleagues, and committed misconduct in office, all in violation of Subsections (l), (n), (p) and (v) of the policy. The aforementioned sections list not only the conduct which is considered actionable, but also suggests a penalty range for the imposition of discipline when misconduct is found to exist. In each case, the suggested penalty ranges from either a caution or a reprimand to dismissal. Section 3 of the same policy outlines aggravating or mitigating factors which may be considered when determining the appropriate penalty. In this case, Mr. Barker recommended dismissal of the respondent because he could find no factors in mitigation but did find aggravation in the severity of the offenses committed, the involvement of students, the potential for damage to the public and the actual emotional damage imposed upon Ms. Robinson and the students. Even though the Board's policy and general practice is to impose discipline progressively, here he recommended dismissal immediately because of Respondent's comments before students and her aggression toward Ms. Robinson. Mr. Barker is aware that Respondent has been employed by the Board for only a relatively short time and that she was not employed at the school where her misconduct occurred. He is also aware that Ms. Robinson did not seek medical of psychological help as a result of her contact with Respondent but does not know if any member of the public was involved. He considers Ms. Robinson and the staff at Lynch to be coworkers of the Respondent even though they are not employed at the same school and they did not know Respondent was a Board employee at the time of the incident. This is an overly broad interpretation. Mr. Barker's recommendation was based on his determination that the Board does not consider it appropriate for any employee of a public or private school to act as Respondent did in this instance. Teachers should not have to fear assault in class and students should not have to be exposed to conduct like that alleged here.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Pinellas County enter a Final Order affirming the temporary suspension of Respondent with pay and her termination from employment with the Board as of December 14, 1995. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 29th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-6148 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. 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein, except for the allegation that the Respondent pointed her finger at the students. - 33. Accepted and incorporated herein. 34. & 35. Accepted but not probative of any fact in issue. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. & 8. Accepted Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Keith B. Martin, Esquire Pinellas County Schools 301 4th Street, Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Lydia S. Castle, Esquire Gulfcoast Legal Services, Incorporated 641 First Street South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Dr. J. Howard Hinesley Superintendent Pinellas County Schools 301 4th Street Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida Michael H. Olenick General Counsel 32399-0400 The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues concern the claim by the Petitioner to relief for alleged age discrimination. See Section 760.10, Florida Statutes. In particular, it is alleged that the Respondent dismissed the Petitioner from employment with the Duval County School Board based solely upon his age, in violation of the aforementioned statute. There is presented the collateral issue, which is the claim by the Respondent that this dismissal based upon age was authorized by Section 231.031, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact This cause is presented through the petition for relief from an alleged unlawful employment practice which the Petitioner filed with the Florida Human Relations Commission. The service date of that petition was May 9, 1984. Duval County School Board, Duval County, Florida, was the named respondent. Through the petition document Petitioner claims that the Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice by forcing the Petitioner to take an involuntary retirement due to his age. There being no successful informal resolution of this dispute, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing, which was held on August 20, 1984. The petition is brought under the authority of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, formerly Chapter 23, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is an individual within the meaning of Section 760.02(5) and .10(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 760.02(6), Florida Statutes. Petitioner, Robert P. Morrow, was continuously employed as a teacher by Respondent, Duval County School Board, from September, 1962, through June, 1983. During his employment he held tenured status or continuing contract status through the close of the 1981-1982 school year. The balance of the time in which he served as a teacher in the system was in the capacity of an employee on an annual contract basis. This latter arrangement pertains to the school year 1982-1983. Petitioner celebrated his seventieth birthday on September 26, 1981, which was shortly after the beginning of the 1981-1982 school year. In early 1982 Petitioner received a memorandum from Dalton D. Epting, Director of Certificated Personnel of the Duval County Schools, indicating that in view of the fact that the Petitioner would reach 70 years of age within the school year, and in keeping with Section 231.031, Florida Statutes, Petitioner should request an appointment with his principal, one Ronel J. Poppell. Epting had prepared the memorandum based upon information he had been given indicating that the Petitioner would reach 70 years of age within the 1981-1982 school year. In keeping with the suggestion of the memorandum from Epting, Petitioner spoke with Principal Poppell and in that conversation indicated a desire to teach for another year or two beyond the 1981-1982 school year. Poppell spoke to Epting and was reminded of the existence of Section 231.031, Florida Statutes, pertaining to teachers who have obtained 70 years of age. Epting did not advise Poppell on the question of whether to retain the Petitioner as a teacher in the Duval County high school where Poppell served as principal and Petitioner acted as a teacher. Out of the conversation between the Petitioner and Poppell, Poppell determined to allow the Petitioner to remain as a teacher at the subject school for one more year, i.e., the school year 1982-1983. As alluded to before, this arrangement was consummated and Petitioner served as a teacher at Nathan Bedford Forrest Senior High School in the school year 1982-1983 based upon an annual contract arrangement, as opposed to continuing contract. While Section 231.031, Florida Statutes, refers to the superintendent making the decision for retention, in fact Poppel caused the retention of Petitioner in the school year 1982-1983. The effects of such retention were to cause another teacher to be "surplused" who had been involved in the overall program at the school. This arrangement lasted for the 1982-1983 school year. Generally speaking Herb A. Sang, Superintendent of Schools in Duval County, Florida, makes the decision on the question of retention of 70year-old teachers based upon the recommendation of the principal and other school board staff members. Normally, according to Sang, a teacher who has reached 70 years of age would be retired as provided by Section 231.031, Florida Statute. If retained, per Sang, that retention is based upon the needs of the school system and not the record of achievement of the individual teacher in question. In application, teachers who are 70 years old will not be retained unless there is a specific need within the school system for services which they can provide, i.e., a specialty which cannot be filled by teachers under 70 years of age or for reasons of continuity of student projects in which the teacher is involved over more than one school year. On March 3, 1983, Principal Poppell completed an annual evaluation of the Petitioner's performance and on that occasion, as had been the case in all evaluations made of the Petitioner as an employee of the Duval County School System, Petitioner was found to be a satisfactory teacher, the highest possible rating that could have been given. Nonetheless, Poppell noted in the evaluation form that the Petitioner would not be recommended for an extension of his annual contract based upon Section 231.031, Florida Statutes. This opinion was expressed in a March 4, 1983, letter from Poppell to the Petitioner in which it was indicated that Poppell would not recommend that Superintendent Sang renew the annual contract of the Petitioner. In that correspondence Poppell indicated that he felt no further obligation to the Petitioner reference extension of his contract beyond 1982-1983, which extension was based upon Poppell's understanding of the discussion with the Petitioner in 1981-1982 in which the Petitioner had indicated that he would wish to teach for another year or two. In furtherance of Poppell's suggestion, Petitioner was not renewed as a teacher in Duval County and that decision was reached based upon the fact that the Petitioner was over 70 years old. No attempt was made to compare the relative merits of the Petitioner's performance with that of persons younger than 70 years of age, in deciding who to employ on annual employment as teachers for the school year 1983-1984.
Findings Of Fact Except to the extent they are consistent with these Findings of Fact, all proposed findings of fact are rejected as either not supported by competent, substantial evidence, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence or irrelevant. On November 6, 1974, LaRosa was granted a Florida Teacher's Certificate and subsequently was employed by the Duval County School System. On October 24, 1975, LaRosa failed to appear at 3 a.m. for work as a substitute teacher in the P.E. Department at John Gorrie Junior High School. After having been involved in a car accident the night before and not having gotten to sleep until 5 a.m., LaRosa overslept and therefore did not notify the school board that he would be absent or advise the school of the reason for his failure to appear for class until noon that day. On or about February 25, 1976, LaRosa was convicted in Duval County, Florida, of driving while intoxicated on the previous February 15. He was fined $200, and his driver's license was suspended for three months. On June 9, 1976, LaRosa was arrested in Duval County, Florida, for driving while intoxicated on that day. On or about July 2, 1976, LaRosa was convicted in Duval County, Florida, of having driven while intoxicated on June 9, 1976. He was sentenced to ten days in the Duval County Jail. LaRosa's convictions, set forth above, were considered by the Professional Practices Council of the Department of Education. The Council found "no probable cause to believe that the certificate be revoked or suspended at this time . . . and a letter of warning regarding repeated offenses be directed to the educator." By letter dated September 23, 1976, the Council warned LaRosa against future conduct that would reduce his effectiveness as an educator. Subsequent to the events set forth in the proceeding Findings of Fact, LaRosa left the teaching field and his certificate lapsed. From 1978 to the present, he has engaged in a number of employment positions unconnected with the field of education. On or about May 5, 1981, LaRosa was arrested for disorderly intoxication and public disturbance in Duval County, Florida. He subsequently was convicted on his plea of guilty and sentenced to 15 days' suspended sentence with six months' probation. In or about September, 1981, LaRosa was arrested for disorderly intoxication in Duval County, Florida. On November 18, 1981, be was convicted of that offense and violation of the probation alleged in the preceding paragraph. The court sentenced LaRosa to 68 days in jail (58 days were suspended) and given six months' probation for that offense, as well as for the violation of probation with regard to the previous offense. On or about July 6, 1982, LaRosa was convicted in Duval County, Florida, for driving while intoxicated during the previous March. He was sentenced to 38 days in jail. LaRosa's Application for Teacher's Certificate was received by DOE on August 26, 1982. The application reflects that it was signed by LaRosa and that be swore and subscribed to its accuracy before a notary public on August 20, 1982. In the application, LaRosa was asked the following question: Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations? The application then provided spaces for a yes/no response and asked for details about any arrests, dates, nature of charges and dispositions. LaRosa's August 28, 1982, response to the foregoing question was simply that he had been arrested in "Jax Fla" and that the nature of the charge(s) was "DWI." LaRosa failed to include any further statement about the nature of his charges, and he did not include any information or reference to the dates and dispositions of the arrests and convictions set forth in the preceding paragraphs. On February 25, 1983, LaRosa was convicted in Duval County, Florida, of driving while licensee was suspended in December 1982. He was sentenced to 68 days in jail with 58 days suspended and was placed on unsupervised probation. LaRosa was not intoxicated at the time of his arrest. At the time of the arrest for this incident, the police administered a field sobriety test, which LaRosa passed. The arrest report states that LaRosa bad been drinking. LaRosa denies that he had been drinking. But the circumstances were suspicious and, coupled with the police officer's observations, prevent me from finding that LaRosa was not drinking. Since LaRosa has the ultimate burden of persuasion, I find that he had been drinking immediately prior to the time of his arrest. In a letter dated May 26, 1983, LaRosa responded to a letter from Professional Practices regarding his admission of "DWI" arrest on Section V of the Application for Teacher's Certificate. In his letter, LaRosa wrote: The explanation of my charges are as follows: Driving while under the influence of alcohol. Driving on a suspended license. Public intoxication. I was sentenced 18, 38, and 68 days for these offenses. On October 6, 1983, LaRosa was again convicted in Duval County, Florida, for driving while license was suspended. For that offense, LaRosa received a 38-day suspended sentence and a $25 fine. When LaRosa was stopped by police, he at first misstated his name but was not intoxicated. At the time of the arrest, LaRosa again was given and apparently passed a field sobriety test. LaRosa denies having been drinking. But, again, the circumstances were suspicious, and the police arrest report contains a statement that the policeman thought LaRosa bad been drinking. Therefore, I find that LaRosa had been drinking just before the time of his arrest. LaRosa claims that be stopped drinking in August, 1982, after being released from jail, and that he has not been drinking since. As stated, I find his claim not to be completely accurate. He attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings at least twice a month during the year 1982 and attended eight to ten meetings in 1983. At the time of the final hearing, LaRosa had not been to an AA meeting in four months. LaRosa's personal conduct, set forth above, seriously reduces his effectiveness as a teacher. Mr. Nolan G. Gillmore, Secretary Staffing Supervisor for the Duval County School Board, gave opinion testimony in the area of education and personnel administration in Duval County and the State of Florida and in the area of effectiveness of teachers. Mr. Gillmore is of the opinion that, at this time, LaRosa's conduct would disqualify him from being a person the Duval County School System would hire as a teacher. Mr. Gillmore also is of the opinion that, at this time, LaRosa could not be an effective teacher because of the effect of his conduct on his relationship with his students and that be would have difficulty in his relationships with his fellow teachers and the community. Finally, Mr. Gillmore opined that, upon the evidence DOE presented at the final bearing, the Duval County School System would move to terminate LaRosa if he were a teacher in the system. LaRosa concedes to wrongdoing and says he would "take a two-year suspension." He thinks he has rehabilitated himself from his drinking problems and thinks be can be a good teacher. So does his friend, Paul Galloway, who is a teacher and has taught with LaRosa in the past. But, Mr. Gillmore's testimony was more persuasive than the testimony of LaRosa and Galloway.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Education Practices Commission deny this application of Anthony W. LaRosa for a Florida Teacher's Certificate. RECOMMENDED this 15th of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 15th day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Anthony W. LaRosa 3554 College Place Jacksonville, Florida 32204 Wilson Jerry Foster, Esquire 616 Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of Monroe County District School Board Policy Rule 2.5.1 on or about January 8, 1976, by possession of marijuana on school grounds.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a 16 year old, 11th grade high school student attending Marathon High School, Marathon, Florida. On January 8, 1976, Respondent was found in possession of 32 grams of marijuana on the grounds of Marathon High School. (Stipulation of the Parties) On April 21, 1976, the Circuit Court of Monroe County, Florida, accepted Respondent's plea of guilty to a charge of possession of marijuana, withheld adjudication as a delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of six months under the supervision of a Youth Counselor, State of Florida Youth Services Division. Conditions of probation included a curfew, weekly meetings with the counselor and part-time employment while attending school. (Testimony of Seale) At the time of his apprehension, Respondent admitted possession of marijuana to authorities and cooperated with them by divulging its source. Respondent denies any prior arrests and, in the opinion of the Youth Counselor, he is not likely to commit an offense of this nature in the future. He has evidenced remorse and desires to continue attendance at the high school. The Youth Counselor feels that it would serve no useful purpose to prevent him from further attendance. (Testimony of Seale, Collins) Respondent is not a problem student nor is he considered to be incorrigible or a socially maladjusted child. An alternative to expulsion exists at Marathon High School in the form of a rehabilitative program for socially maladjusted children that is supervised by one instructor who exercises close supervision over the students in the program. A student who is expelled from high school may enter an evening adult education program whereby he can acquire necessary academic credits by attending evening classes. The principal of Marathon High School recommends that Respondent be expelled because of the seriousness of his offense as evidenced by the unusually large amount of marijuana. (Testimony of Gradick)
Recommendation That Respondent, Gordon Collins, be expelled from Marathon High School, Marathon, Florida, effective June 8, 1976, for violation of Monroe County District School Board Policy Rule 2.5.1, by possession of marijuana on the school grounds on or about January 8, 1976. DONE and ENTERED 14th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: Glenn Archer, Jr. Assistant Superintendent Post Office Drawer 1430 Key West, Florida 33040 Peter Lenzi, Esquire Post Office Box 938 Marathon, Florida 33050
