The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent held Florida Educator Certificate 477777, covering Physical Education and Social Sciences. Respondent’s certificate is valid through June 30, 2005. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the Palm Beach County School Board and assigned to a classroom at BRHS, where he taught psychology and history. In recent years, Respondent has taught advanced placement classes. The evidence established that Respondent is well-liked by students, parents, and faculty. The present principal of BRHS, who was not at the school during the 1985-86 or 2001-2002 school years, considers Respondent to be an asset to the school. FACTS PERTAINING TO K.P. AND B.K. Prior to the end of the 1985-86 school year, Respondent invited several female senior students to join him for dinner in celebration of their upcoming graduation. Respondent was 33 years old at that time. Each of these females was either 17 or 18-years-of-age. K.P. (now known as K.F.) was 17 and B.K. (now known as B.M.) was 18. K.P. and B.K. were invited to and attended the dinner and subsequent celebration. The dinner invitations were extended by Respondent, who was their teacher, during the school year. There was a conflict in the evidence as to when this dinner engagement occurred.2 That conflict is resolved by finding that the dinner engagement occurred at the Cork and Cleaver restaurant in Boca Raton prior to the graduation ceremonies for the class of 1986. At least four female seniors were invited to Respondent’s celebration. K.P., B.K., and two other female students attended the dinner. All four of the students consumed alcohol at the restaurant that was purchased by Respondent. Respondent knew that the drinking age was 21 and he knew that each of the girls was under that age. Respondent also consumed alcohol at the restaurant. Following the meal, K.P. and B.K. sat on a bench outside the restaurant and continued to drink alcoholic beverages with Respondent. After approximately five bottles of champagne and/or wine had been consumed, Respondent K.P. and B.K. went from the bench outside the restaurant to Respondent’s house. The three of them were alone in Respondent’s house for several hours. At Respondent’s house they drank four to five additional bottles of wine. The quantity of alcohol consumed by Respondent, B.K., and K.P. that evening impaired their judgment. By all accounts, K.P. was inebriated and incapable of consenting to the acts that followed. Both B.K. and K.P. were excellent students who had little or no experience with alcohol. During the 1985-86 school year, K.P. had been a member of BRHS’s varsity teams in basketball, volleyball, and softball. During that school year, B.K. had been a member of BRHS’s varsity tennis team. After K.P. became inebriated, Respondent and K.P. went to Respondent’s bedroom where Respondent had inappropriate sexual relations with her. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Respondent had sexual intercourse with K.P. K.P. testified, credibly, that Respondent had sexual intercourse with her and that she suffered bleeding and discomfort the following day. K.P. also testified, credibly, that she had been a virgin up until that evening. Respondent admitted that K.P. was with him in his darkened bedroom with little or no clothes on, but he denied having sexual intercourse with her. Respondent admitted that he fondled K.P.’s breasts and engaged in what he described as “heavy petting.” The undersigned finds Respondent’s denial that he had sexual intercourse with K.P. also to be credible. In view of conflicting, credible testimony and the absence of corroborating evidence to substantiate the fact of sexual intercourse as opposed to the fact that there was the opportunity for sexual intercourse, the undersigned is constrained to conclude that Petitioner did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent engaged in sexual intercourse with K.P. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that K.P. did not consent to Respondent’s inappropriate sexual behavior because she was too intoxicated and too young to do so. Respondent knew or should have known that K.P. was incapable of consenting to his behavior. After Respondent and K.P. entered Respondent’s bedroom, B.K. left Respondent’s house and drove around the block in her car for approximately 20 minutes. Because she was concerned about K.P., B.K. returned to Respondent’s house. When she returned to Respondent’s house, B.K. looked for K.P. She stepped into the doorway of Respondent’s bedroom and saw Respondent and K.P. in bed together. K.P. was not fully clothed, and the clothes she had on were in disarray. K.P. told B.K. to come in and get in the bed with them. K.P. grabbed B.K.’s arm and pulled her toward the bed. B.K. entered the bedroom and briefly lay on the bed with Respondent and K.P. Shortly thereafter, B.K. got up and left Respondent’s bedroom. Because she was feeling dizzy, B.K. lay down on a mattress in another bedroom. There was a conflict in the evidence as to what next occurred. It is clear that K.P. either intentionally cut herself or accidentally opened a cut on her hand. Respondent testified that K.P. accidentally opened up a cut on her finger while in his bedroom and then went to the kitchen. K.P. testified that she went from Respondent’s bedroom to the kitchen and intentionally cut herself in reaction to what had happened with Respondent. How the cut occurred is not relevant. It is relevant that Respondent went in the kitchen and helped K.P. stop the bleeding. After leaving the kitchen area, Respondent observed B.K. lying on the mattress in the second bedroom. He lay down on the mattress with B.K. with his body touching hers. He tried to kiss B.K., but she resisted his efforts. Respondent engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior with B.K. by lying next to her with his body in contact with hers and trying to kiss her. Respondent was obviously attempting to sexually arouse B.K. When K.P. saw Respondent and B.K. together in the second bedroom, she yelled at B.K. that they needed to get out of Respondent’s house. B.K. and K.P. then exited Respondent’s house and they returned to their respective homes in B.K.’s car without further incident. The next day, Respondent contacted B.K. and K.P. separately and apologized to them for his conduct. Respondent also apologized to B.K. for his conduct with K.P. Respondent stated that he had been unable to resist their athletic bodies. Respondent gave each of these girls a pair of diamond earrings as a gift. K.P. and B.K. did not report these events to any authority figure until 1993.3 As a result of difficulties K.P. (then known as K.F.) was having with sex in her marriage, she and her husband underwent counseling. It was during a session she and her husband had with their therapist that she revealed the events of the evening in 1986. Her husband, a teacher, felt obliged to report the incident to the Palm Beach County School District, which he did without naming K.P. and B.K. as being the students involved. His wife became upset when she learned of the report. After further reflection, K.P. revealed to the Palm Beach County School District that she and B.K. were the students involved with Respondent on the evening in question. The Palm Beach School District investigated the allegations, but it did not report these allegations to Petitioner. Petitioner learned of these events during its investigation of the facts pertaining to K.S. FACTS PERTAINING TO L.E. L.E., a female, graduated from BRHS in 1986. Respondent met L.E. when she was a freshman at BRHS and he subsequently became attracted to her. During her senior year, Respondent offered tickets to a Miami Dolphins football game to L.E. and other students as a reward for helping him grade papers in the class they took from him. Before she graduated, Respondent told L.E. that after she graduated he wanted to take her to dinner. There was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent engaged in an inappropriate relationship with L.E. before she graduated. After she graduated, Respondent treated L.E. to dinner,4 gave her a pair of diamond earrings, and told her he wanted to be more than friends. Later during the summer of 1986, Respondent and L.E. went to Marathon, Florida, together and also traveled to San Francisco, California, at Respondent’s expense. DISCIPLINE PERTAINING TO K.S. K.S., a female, attended BRHS for her freshman through her senior years. She graduated in 2003. Respondent was K.S.’s history teacher in her junior year and her psychology teacher her senior year. During the 2001-2002 school year, K.S. confided certain personal family matters to Respondent. Thereafter, Respondent engaged in inappropriate conduct toward K.S. On at least five occasions toward the end of the 2001-02 school year Respondent came to her place of employment (a Kmart) looking for her. On one occasion he left her a gift of a cheesecake and on another he left a bag of M & M candy as a gift. These visits upset and frightened K.S. At the beginning of the 2002-03 school year, Respondent physically hugged K.S. when he first saw her in his psychology class. On several occasions Respondent put his hands on K.S.’s shoulders and massaged them. On one occasion he rubbed her hair. This type physical contact continued even after K.S. told Respondent not to touch her. On one occasion Respondent referred to K.S. in front of her classmates as being his “baby.” Respondent’s conduct upset and embarrassed K.S. K.S. complained to Robert O’Leath, a dean of students at BRHS, about Respondent’s behavior. Following an investigation of these allegations, the School Board of Palm Beach County suspended Respondent’s employment without pay for a period of ten days and required him to attend diversity and sensitivity training. Respondent did not contest this discipline.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is further recommended that the final order permanently revoke Respondent’s educator certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of February, 2005, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of February, 2005.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent threw a chair at one student, missed him, but hit a desk that impacted and injured another student; if so, whether such conduct constitutes a violation of section 1012.27(5), Florida Statutes (2018), or any of the various School Board Policies (Policies) or Department of Education rules (Rules) discussed below; and, if so, whether Petitioner's termination of Respondent is consistent with the provision of progressive discipline set forth in the Collective Bargaining Agreement for the period, July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2020 (CBA).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a 61-year-old teacher holding educator certificates in middle school mathematics and business education. Petitioner has employed Respondent as a classroom teacher since 2005. Respondent has no prior discipline. Since 2012, Respondent has taught at Turning Point Academy, which is an alternative school operated by Petitioner. The students at Turning Point Academy have been expelled from, or repeatedly disciplined at, other schools and range in age from 14 to 17 years old. In December 2018, 90 to 95 students were enrolled in the school, but absences, usually unexcused, averaged about 40% each day. The school building is organized with several classrooms opening onto a common area, where a behavior intervention associate (BIA) sits at a desk, ready to help a teacher in an adjoining classroom control disruptive student behavior. In each common area are restrooms and an eating area. The BIA serving Respondent's common area on the date in question had ten years' experience as a BIA and 22 years' prior experience as a sheriff's deputy. Respondent has been fully trained in appropriate interactions with students and classroom management. Respondent's evaluations for 2016-18 were all "Effective"; her evaluation for 2019 was "Highly Effective." However, the assistant principal of the school was dissatisfied with Respondent's classroom management skills. In response to what he viewed to be an excessive number of office referrals, the assistant principal had recently directed Respondent to take care of the behavior problems herself and had assigned her to take a two-part program on classroom management. The assistant principal also directed Respondent to use the school's system of assigning tally marks for good and bad behavior. Absent seriously inappropriate behavior, the tally system requires three bad tally marks before the teacher could refer a student to the BIA, who then could decide whether to refer the student to the office. The record is silent as to the effectiveness of the tally system in shaping student behavior in general, but it is unlikely that the two student disrupters at the center of the incident on December 20, 2018, were deterred by the prospect of a few (more) bad tally marks. During the 2018-19 school year, Respondent taught math to students in sixth through eighth grades. The class at issue was a 100-minute, eighth-grade math class that took place late on the day of December 20, 2018, just before winter break. Midway through the class, which was attended by six students on that day, three students began acting up. Respondent promptly intervened, and one of the students returned to his work. However, the other students left their assigned seats without permission. One student ran toward the back of the classroom, and the other student ran toward the front of the classroom, where Respondent was situated at her desk in the corner opposite from the corner at which the door to the common area was located. The students were yelling profanities and tossing paper in the air--some of both of which were directed at Respondent. One or both of the students demanded to know where Respondent lived and what kind of car she drove in a clear attempt to intimidate her. The student running toward Respondent invaded Respondent's space, as he ran behind her desk in the narrow space between her desk and the whiteboard, where he seized a marker, taunted Respondent that he had the marker, and wrote the word, "fuck," on the whiteboard. The class was equipped with a buzzer to summon the BIA, but the buzzer was located by the classroom door on the opposite side of the room from Respondent's desk. It is unclear if it occurred to Respondent to tell another student to hit the buzzer, but she never did so and had never previously done so. Instead, Respondent leaned over the depth of her desk-- about three feet--and grasped a lightweight chair with a plastic back and seat and metal legs. She shoved or pushed the chair briskly across the tile floor in the direction of the student who had rushed her desk, even though he was now careening toward the classroom door along the front of the classroom in the space between the whiteboard and the first row of desks. The chair missed the fleeing student, but struck the wall under the whiteboard with sufficient force that it ricocheted into the desk of a student who was seated, watching this incident unfold. The chair caused the desk to topple onto the right knee of the student. In his deposition, the injured student testified that, in addition to the ice applied to the knee immediately after the incident, the only treatment that his knee required was a couple of weeks' rest. The next day, the injured student was back at school walking without favoring the injured knee. The assistant principal directed Respondent to telephone the injured student's parent and inform her what had happened, suggesting that the assistant principal considered the injury minor--or else, from a liability perspective, he would have made the call himself, rather than assign the responsibility for making the call to the staffperson who had caused the injury. Respondent made the assigned call to the injured student's parents--and, on her own, several others during the winter break to check on the child whom she had accidentally injured with the shoved chair. In her initial statement, Respondent stated that she had thrown the chair, rather than shoved it along the floor. The injured student testified that Respondent threw the chair above the height of the desks, but desks did not occupy the space between her and the fleeing student, so, at minimum, elevation was unneeded to hit the student with the chair. Other student testimony indicated that the chair did not rise above the tops of the desks. More importantly, Respondent remained behind her desk, and the chair was in front of the desk. If Respondent could gain the leverage to lean across the desk and grasp the chair, she would lack the leverage to throw it with any force at all. The proof establishes no more than that Respondent leaned across her desk and gave the chair a hard shove across the front of the classroom in the direction of the fleeing student. It is difficult to understand why Respondent would state that she had thrown the chair, if she had not thrown the chair in the common sense of the word, "throw," which is "to propel through the air by a forward motion of the hand and arm."1 Clearly, when she gave the statement to the school police investigator shortly after the incident, Respondent remained overwhelmed 1 Merriam-Webster online dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/throw. by what had happened to her in her classroom. Also, as demonstrated at the hearing, Respondent's language skills are not so highly developed that she would invariably differentiate between throwing a chair in the air and shoving a chair along a floor. Two key witnesses establish Respondent's condition during and immediately after the incident. According to the BIA, who saw Respondent a few seconds after the incident ended, Respondent was not angry, but was visibly shaken up and upset. She told the BIA that she had been afraid when the student charged her. The injured student testified similarly that Respondent's reaction was fear, not anger. Interestingly, the injured student admitted that he too would have experienced fear, even though the charging student was a classmate. Immediately after testifying to this fact, the injured student added that he had overheard the two disruptive students at lunch discussing school shootings--a highly sensitive issue in schools today and even more so in December 2018, only a few months after the Parkland shootings. Respondent claims that she acted in self-defense. There are two problems with this claim. First, objectively, Respondent did not act in self- defense, because, by the time that she shoved the chair, the student was running away from her, and she was out of immediate peril. On the other hand, the charging student had momentarily terrified Respondent, and it is not inconceivable that, in her fearful or panicked state, she formed a plan of action that, by the time she executed it, was a fraction of a second after the rushing student had turned to run across the front of the classroom. The second problem is the belated emergence of Respondent's claim of self-defense, months after the incident took place, but there are a couple of explanations. As noted above, Respondent's claim of self-defense is a little bit of a mislabeling. Perhaps the two students' outrageous behavior caused Respondent to feel that she needed to defend herself; without doubt, this behavior caused Respondent to react in fear and even panic. Perhaps Respondent did not find even the self-defense label for her claim until represented by counsel. Clearly, Respondent omitted numerous important details concerning the behavior of the two disruptive students in her initial statement--again, not surprisingly, as she was still overwhelmed by what had happened to her and that she had accidentally injured an innocent student--in fear, not in anger. Interestingly, when Respondent finally presented the additional details, the assistant principal rejected them as Respondent's "changing her story." This dismissal betrays Petitioner's misconception of the case, whose center is not the changed fact of the specific action that Respondent applied to the chair, but to her state of mind when she applied the action to the chair. Regardless of whether she had thrown the chair high in the air or shoved it along the floor, Respondent had been driven by the two disruptive students to a state of utter fear and likely panic. To the assistant principal and Petitioner generally, a second changing fact may have been that she acted in fear, not anger, but no competent evidence ever supported characterizing her state of mind as angry. Despite the myriad conferences, emails, and witness statements filling Petitioner's file, there is no thoughtful analysis of what motivated, or drove, Respondent to apply force to the chair in the direction of the fleeing student. To the contrary, Petitioner has ignored strong evidence on this crucial issue from two witnesses--one of whom is disinterested and exceptionally experienced and competent at reading demeanors, collecting evidence, and analyzing evidence. And this evidence clearly establishes the reaction of an older woman in a state of fear or panic, not anger. Nor did student testimony, besides from the injured student, support Petitioner's theory of the case. The deposition testimony of these students was of little value because it was vague or guarded. During a particularly unproductive deposition of one of the disruptive students, likely the one who rushed Respondent,2 the following exchanges occurred: Q: Okay, Mr. O, I want to make something very clear that we're not here today because of anything that you did. You're not in trouble or you're not here because you did something wrong. A: Uh-huh. Q: Okay. We just are trying to get some information and to see if you have any recollection of some events that occurred-- A. All right. Q: last school year in December. Do you recall giving a statement to school police about a situation that happened in Ms. Larson's class, a chair that was thrown? A: (Shakes head) Q: You don't? Say yes or no. A: No, ma'am. Q: All right. One moment please. Do you recall giving a statement to school police that you were getting papers off Ms. Larson's desk when a chair was thrown at another student? A: No. Who this go to? Q. Pardon me? A. Who this go to? Q. What is your question? A. Who do all this go to? 2 It is hard to identify individual students due to the redactions and absence even of students' initials in the Petitioner's investigative paperwork. Q. It's going before a judge in a case, a different case. A. I'm saying, so why do I got something to do with this? Q. Because you gave a statement to the school police. You were in class the day that Ms. Larson threw a chair and hit a student in his knee. A. I gave a statement? * * * [After the student refused to waive reading and signing]: Q. Okay. So we will have [the transcript] sent to Ms. Richardson. A. So this something that I got to go to court for? Q. Well, probably not. We might use your deposition instead of … . Remember, this has nothing to do with you. A. I thought-- Q. This is all about Ms. Larson. A. A deposition like when you get send sent to a program. Deposition of G.O., pp. 10-11 and 16-17. At bottom, Respondent found herself in a very bad situation not at all of her making. In a blatant attempt to reduce the classroom to utter chaos, rather than to cause a mere disruption, two students unfortunately seem to have succeeded in momentarily terrorizing a teacher into incoherence. Neither the school police officer nor any of Petitioner's supervisory employees saw the need to contact outside law enforcement. A document mentions a child protective investigator by name, but the record does not suggest that she pursued an investigation. The prevailing thinking among Petitioner's representatives seems to have been that Respondent was neither negligent nor reckless and that she did not intend to hurt the injured student, whose parents did not wish to pursue the matter due to the negligible injury. Understandably, no one seems to have analyzed the situation from the perspective of the actual target of the chair--the fleeing student--as such an exercise would have uneasily cast the real perpetrator as the victim. But such an exercise might have led Petitioner at least provisionally to set aside its fixation with the "fact" that Respondent had thrown the chair high in the air and, more importantly, its assumption that Respondent had acted in anger.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the charges set forth in the Administrative Complaint and reinstating her with full back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire V. Danielle Williams, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 (eServed) Nicholas A. Caggia, Esquire Johnson & Caggia Law Group 510 Vonderburg Drive, Suite 303 Brandon, Florida 33511 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Donald E. Fennoy II, Ed.D., Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869 Thomas L. Johnson, Esquire Law Office of Thomas Johnson, P.A. 510 Vonderburg Drive, Suite 309 Brandon, Florida 33511 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent’s employment with Petitioner as a high school principal should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact Beginning in 2011, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as the principal of Spanish River High School (“SRHS”). As the principal of SRHS, Respondent was required to “perform such duties as may be assigned by the district school superintendent pursuant to the rules of the school board, [including] rules relating to administrative responsibility, instructional leadership in implementing the Sunshine State Standards and the overall educational program of the school to which the principal is assigned.” § 1012.28(5), Fla. Stat.; Palm Beach Sch. Bd. Policy 1.014. The educational program which principals are charged with implementing is defined by Florida law. Section 1003.42(1), Florida Statutes, requires school boards to provide “all courses required for middle school promotion, high school graduation, and appropriate instruction designed to meet State Board of Education adopted standards [in the subject areas of reading and other language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, foreign languages, health and physical education, and the arts].” Additionally, the State of Florida requires “members of the instructional staff of the public schools” to teach certain specified subjects “using books and materials that meet the highest standards for professionalism and historical accuracy.” § 1003.42, Fla. Stat. These specifically required teachings, which are defined and described in varying degrees of detail, include: the “history of the state”; “conservation of natural resources”; “the elementary principles of agriculture”; “flag education, including proper flag display and flag salute”; the “study” of Hispanic and women’s contributions to society; kindness to animals; the “history and content of the Declaration of Independence, including national sovereignty … and how [these concepts] form the philosophical foundation of our government”; the “history, meaning, significance and effect of the provisions” of the United States Constitution; the “arguments in support of adopting our republican form of government, as they are embodied in the most important of the Federalist Papers”; and “the nature and importance of free enterprise to the United States economy.” Section 1003.42(2)(f) requires the teaching of the history of the United States, including the period of discovery, the Civil War, and the civil rights movement to the present, and includes the following direction: American history shall be viewed as factual, not as constructed, shall be viewed as knowable, teachable, and testable, and shall be defined as the creation of a new nation based largely on the universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence. Section 1003.42(2)(h), which requires Florida educators to teach the “history of African-Americans,” specifically requires instruction on: The history of African Americans, including the history of African peoples before the political conflicts that led to the development of slavery, the passage to America, the enslavement experience, abolition, and contributions of African Americans to society. Instructional materials shall include the contributions of African Americans to American society. The teaching of the history of the Holocaust is mandated by section 1003.42(2)(g), which provides: (2) Members of the instructional staff of the public schools, subject to the rules of the State Board of Education and the district school board, shall teach efficiently and faithfully, using the books and materials required that meet the highest standards for professionalism and historical accuracy, following the prescribed courses of study, and employing approved methods of instruction, the following: * * * (g) The history of the Holocaust (1933-1945), the systematic, planned annihilation of European Jews and other groups by Nazi Germany, a watershed event in the history of humanity, to be taught in a manner that leads to an investigation of human behavior, an understanding of the ramifications of prejudice, racism, and stereotyping, and an examination of what it means to be a responsible and respectful person, for the purposes of encouraging tolerance of diversity in a pluralistic society and for nurturing and protecting democratic values and institutions. The curriculum for teaching the Holocaust at SRHS included an assembly which all tenth-grade students were required to attend. Schools have discretion in constructing a curriculum. The school’s principal is responsible for determining the contents of the curriculum. A school is not required to have a Holocaust assembly as part of its curriculum, but if an assembly is part of the curriculum, the assembly must be mandatory. A Holocaust assembly was “part of [SRHS’s] mandatory curriculum for tenth- graders.” On April 13, 2018, the mother of a rising SRHS tenth-grader wrote to Dr. Latson “to discuss the Florida Mandate to include Holocaust Education each year in the student’s curriculum” and specifically to ask “in what ways/classes is Holocaust education provided to all of the students.” Dr. Latson answered the parent in an email which included these statements: [A]s far as [H]olocaust studies and the curriculum it can be dealt with in a variety of ways. The curriculum is to be introduced but not forced upon individuals as we all have the same rights but not all the same beliefs. Each year we do a Holocaust assembly and we target the 10th graders so every year that group will get a day[‘]s work with the [H]olocaust. We advertise it to the tenth grade parents as [there] are some who do not want their children to participate and we have to allow them the ability to decline. The parent replied to Dr. Latson in another email: Please clarify your statement: “The curriculum is to be introduced but not forced upon individuals as we all have the same rights but not all the same beliefs.” The Holocaust is a factual, historical event. It is not a right or a belief. Dr. Latson responded with the following statements: The clarification is that not everyone believes the Holocaust happened and you have your thoughts but we are a public school and not all of our parents have the same beliefs so they will react differently, my thoughts or beliefs have nothing to do with this because I am a public servant. I have the role to be politically neutral but support all groups in the school. I work to expose students to certain things but not all parents want their students exposed so they will not be and I can’t force the issue … . I can’t say the Holocaust is a factual, historical event because I am not in a position to do so as a school district employee. I do allow information about the Holocaust to be presented and allow students and parents to make decisions about it accordingly. I do the same with information about slavery, I don’t take a position but allow for the information to be presented and parents to be parents and educate their students accordingly. I am not looking for a situation to divide but just to let all know I don’t have a position on the topic, as an educator. My personal beliefs are separate and will always have no place in my profession. This is a very touchy subject, one I have had conversation with Rabbi Levin about. I am simply letting you know all we can do as a public school within our ability. Dr. Glenda Sheffield, who currently is Petitioner’s chief academic officer, was, at all times relevant to this matter, the instructional superintendent for Petitioner’s south region, which included SRHS. In that earlier position, Sheffield was the immediate supervisor of the principals of more than 20 middle and high schools located in the south region, including Dr. Latson. Sheffield reported to Dr. Ian Saltzman who was the regional superintendent for the south region. Saltzman reported to Mr. Keith Oswald. Oswald, at all times relevant to this matter, was Petitioner’s deputy superintendent of schools. Oswald’s duties included supervision of the regional and instructional superintendents who supervise the schools. Oswald was made aware of the email exchange between Dr. Latson and the SRHS parent by Dianna Fedderman, Petitioner’s assistant superintendent for curriculum, who had been told of it by Maureen Carter, Petitioner’s Holocaust program planner, to whom the parent had forwarded the emails. Carter and Fedderman expressed concern about the content of the emails, which Oswald shared. He forwarded the email chain to Saltzman and Sheffield to take action. Oswald directed Saltzman and Sheffield to keep him informed about the counseling they were giving to Dr. Latson, to address the Holocaust studies at the school to strengthen them, and to meet with the parent and address her concern. The Palm Beach County School District (“District”) did not publicize Dr. Latson’s emails, deciding the matter would be handled at the regional level. Dr. Latson was not disciplined for his statements to the parent. He was, however, counseled. Dr. Latson’s counsel described the coaching as advising Dr. Latson of the need for “more circumspect e-mail, e-mail composition to parents.” Dr. Latson testified that the “only criticism” he received was that he “could have worded a better email.” Sheffield did not feel the need to address the teaching of the Holocaust at SRHS because she knew from her own experience that the subject was, in fact, infused in the school’s curriculum. She, therefore, focused her work with Dr. Latson on what she considered to be his poor choice of words. Sheffield did work with the parent for “quite some time.” Between April of 2018 and July of 2019, there were numerous meetings and interactions among and between Sheffield, Saltzman, Carter, Fedderman, and the parent. Dr. Latson had no doubt that the District was supportive of him during this time and, again, the “only criticism” he received was that he “could have worded a better email.” Dr. Latson’s perception was that his emails to the parent were “not clear [and as I read them] some of the things weren’t clear and some of it, in retrospect I could have just left out.” Dr. Latson felt that his words to the parent “obviously gave her the belief that [he] did not believe in the Holocaust, [and he] was just saying [he] wasn’t going to affirm or deny it.” “[S]he kept bringing it back up, so that gave [him] the opinion that she didn’t understand what that meant, even after it was clarified.” When Sheffield was coaching Dr. Latson, she was not aware that he was allowing students to opt out of the Holocaust assembly because the students’ parents did not want the students to be exposed to the contents of the assembly. There is some confusion on this point because Dr. Latson says he never said directly that a student might “opt out” of an assembly with his blessing, but that parents were always free to keep their children home from school for any reason (including not wanting them exposed to the serious nature of the assembly), subject only to District attendance requirements. There is no District or SRHS provision authorizing a parent to opt out of instruction on the Holocaust. If a principal were to allow that practice, she believed he would not be enforcing the mandatory curriculum for the Holocaust. Oswald, who was to be kept informed of the efforts of Saltzman and the others, was told that Dr. Latson had acknowledged that his words were inappropriate. Like Sheffield, Oswald was not aware that Dr. Latson was allowing parents who wished to avoid the Holocaust assembly to “opt out” of it. On May 9, 2019, the same parent sent an email to Saltzman and copied Superintendent Fennoy, Oswald, and Sheffield about a meeting held on May 6, 2019, attended by the complaining parent and School District personnel. The email included the following statement referring specifically to Dr. Latson’s statements in his April 2018 emails: There is one major issue that was not resolved at the meeting, and we do not think there is any resolution other than to remove Mr. Latson as principal from [SRHS]. Mr. Latson made his thoughts very clear at the meeting. When he tried to explain that he thinks his statements in his offensive and erroneous emails last year were misunderstood, he ended up reiterating his offensive and erroneous views. Saltzman informed Oswald that the way the parent characterized the meeting of May 6, 2019, was not accurate. The District, therefore, gave no consideration to the parent’s call for Dr. Latson’s removal from his position at SRHS and took no action in response to the parent’s email. On July 5, 2019, the Palm Beach Post (“Post”) published an article headlined, “Spanish River High’s principal refused to call the Holocaust a fact: A mother pushed for a year to address what she described as a school leader’s failure to separate truth from myth.” Petitioner was aware before its publication that the article was being written. Oswald made a statement to the reporter writing the story. Oswald’s comments were reported in the article: Oswald, who oversees all the county’s principals, said he agreed with the mother that Latson’s email messages were inappropriate but were not reflective of who he was as an educator. Latson, he said, is a popular school leader whose school does more Holocaust education than most campuses and has led the school successfully for years. He should not be judged, he said, solely by a pair of email messages. “It was a hastily, poorly written email that he apologized for,” Oswald said. “That’s some of the challenge that we face when we email back and forth instead of picking up the phone.” Dr. Latson was also aware that the article was being written. The District’s communications director, Claudia Shea, worked with him to prepare a statement to be given to the writer. That statement was reported in the article: In a statement to The Post, Latson apologized for the way he expressed himself in his emails, saying it was not indicative of his actual beliefs or regard for historical fact. “I regret that the verbiage that I used when responding to an email message from a parent, one year ago, did not accurately reflect my professional and personal commitment to educating all students about the atrocities of the Holocaust,” Latson wrote. “It is critical that, as a society, we hold dear the memory of the victims and hold fast to our commitment to counter anti-Semitism,” he continued. He pointed out that [SRHS’s] educational offerings on the Holocaust exceed the state’s requirements. The Holocaust is taught, he said, in ninth- and 10th-grade English classes, as an elective course and in an annual assembly featuring a keynote speaker. The reaction to the publication of the article on July 5, 2019, was “complete outrage, chaos.” Oswald testified to the article’s impact: Q. Can you tell us how it was expressed? A. It was expressed … phone calls, e-mails, meeting with State representatives, locally to the White House. It was completely consuming of all my time on the following days. Q. The following day being the 6th? A. There and forward. The public reaction to the publication of the article and its impact on the District is not disputed. Dr. Latson himself acknowledged it in an email he sent to Oswald and others in the District at 3:36 p.m. on Saturday, July 6, 2019: The release of this article is having the effect the parent who wants to discredit me desired. It is causing a rift in the community, students and parents are attempting to defend me to those in the community who do not know me. I am not the public relations expert but I am wondering if something should come out from me to clear this up. Me not saying anything is fueling questions in the community. I am getting this daily from parents. My parent groups are trying to stop the negativity but they are asking if a statement can come out from me addressing this issue. They state that I have always been vocal and got ahead of things so it is the parents[‘] expectation to hear from me and not doing so is causing questions. Your thoughts? In response to Dr. Latson’s email, Oswald telephoned, telling him “not to make any statements and to not say anything and that we are working internally with the communications department about this.” Oswald specifically directed Dr. Latson not to make any further contact at that time. Oswald told Dr. Latson that they would talk on Monday, July 8, 2019. Dr. Latson testified that Oswald emailed his response to Dr. Latson’s July 6, 2019, email. No such email from Oswald was produced, but Dr. Latson’s telephone records indicate that he received a telephone call from Oswald on July 6, 2019, at 4:56 p.m., which lasted eight minutes. Dr. Latson acknowledged that this telephone call could have been Oswald’s response to his email. In any event, he did confirm being told that “we weren’t going to respond” to the article. The District continued to support Dr. Latson after the article was published. Before he left for vacation, he received a phone call from Sheffield, who told Dr. Latson that she was supporting him. Sheffield, having taken her current position as chief academic officer, was not Dr. Latson’s supervisor on July 6, 2019. She learned of the article’s publication while traveling back from her vacation. She nevertheless called Dr. Latson to ask how he was faring and to tell him to “hold [his] head high” and “[w]e’re going to get through this working together.” In the telephone conversation, Dr. Latson expressed the hope that “this doesn’t ruin [his] reputation.” He also spoke with Dr. Arthur Johnson, the representative of the principal’s association and his friend and former superintendent. Johnson told Dr. Latson to “hold on and let’s see what’s happening.” On Monday, July 8, 2019, Oswald called Dr. Latson at 7:36 a.m., and they spoke for five minutes. Oswald told Dr. Latson that the “Post article was starting to cause somewhat of a problem for [Oswald] and the District and [Oswald] wanted me to take a voluntary reassignment.” Dr. Latson told Oswald that he “needed to discuss [the reassignment] with [his] family” because he believed that his voluntary acceptance of a reassignment meant that the District could place him where they wanted and that might affect his compensation, and he “had an issue with that.” There is some variance between Dr. Latson’s testimony that he informed Oswald he would “try to get back” to him by noon, and Oswald’s testimony that Dr. Latson “stated he would get back to him that morning.” Dr. Latson admits “that Oswald requested a call back by noon.” Dr. Latson testified that, because he was on vacation, he was not obligated to call Oswald back before noon and, also, testified that, if he had been told to contact Oswald, that would be a directive he had to obey. It is, however, undisputed that Dr. Latson at least told Oswald he would “try” to get back to him by noon and undisputed that, even though he spoke with “individuals” about the reassignment, he made no effort to communicate with Oswald before noon of July 8, 2019. After speaking with Dr. Latson at 7:36 a.m., Oswald attempted to communicate with him no fewer than six times before noon on July 8, 2019, because of the urgency of the worsening situation. Oswald called Dr. Latson at 8:21 a.m., 9:35 a.m., 10:32 a.m., and 10:42 a.m., and texted him at 8:22 a.m. and 10:32 a.m. When Dr. Latson did not answer the telephone calls, Oswald left voicemails, increasing with urgency, saying the situation was escalating and asking him to return his call. In response to an automated text sent from Dr. Latson’s phone-- indicting he was driving and could not receive notifications, but informing the caller to “reply urgent” to send a notification with the original message-- Oswald texted him the word “urgent” twice at or around 10:32 a.m. Oswald received no response from Dr. Latson. Between 7:36 a.m. and noon on July 8, 2019, Dr. Latson placed nine and received four telephone calls to and from friends, family members, colleagues, and Johnson. Apparently, his cellular phone was functioning during this time. At approximately 12:33 p.m., not having heard back from Dr. Latson, Oswald sent Dr. Latson a text and an email informing him that Oswald was reassigning him to the District Office. Dr. Gonzalo La Cava, Petitioner’s chief of human resources, also left Dr. Latson a voicemail about the reassignment. Oswald’s text to Dr. Latson was as follows: “I have left you numerous messages to contact me. I am reassigning you to the district office. Please call me ASAP.” Dr. Latson’s argument, as opposed to his testimony, explaining his failure to respond to Oswald on July 8, 2019, is inconsistent. Dr. Latson initially justified his lack of a response to Oswald by arguing that the text he received from Oswald about being removed as principal of SRHS “did not seem to invite a response.” In fact, that text closed with the words, “Please call me ASAP.” In his Answer, Dr. Latson alleged that after he received the message about the re-assignment, he “attempted to email Oswald, but the message did not go through.” At hearing, Dr. Latson testified that he tried to text Oswald around 12:30 p.m., but the text did not go through. He also testified that he attempted to email Oswald at 9:30 p.m. from Jamaica. Dr. Latson explains his lack of response to Oswald by saying he was already on the phone whenever Oswald was trying to call and the calls could not have gone through. His telephone records, however, showed that other calls he was making during this time were interrupted and he was able to connect with the incoming caller. It is undisputed that Dr. Latson received Oswald’s communication telling him that he was being reassigned to the District Office. He admits he told Oswald he would “try” to get back to him specifically to tell Oswald whether he would accept the voluntary assignment. Dr. Latson’s failure to respond to Oswald’s several attempts to speak with him is consistent with a decision not to accept the voluntary reassignment. Contradicting testimony was given at hearing regarding whether Dr. Latson’s request to travel to Jamaica in July had even been approved or known about by Petitioner. A District spreadsheet showing a week-long leave beginning July 8, 2019, was offered into evidence and removed any doubt as to whether Dr. Latson was on recognized or approved leave. The public reaction that followed publication of the July 5, 2019, article was somewhat lessened by news of Dr. Latson’s reassignment, and, “after he was reassigned, there was some calming in the District.” The reassignment was widely publicized. The New York Times published an article datelined July 8, 2019, under the headline, “Principal Who Tried to Stay Politically Neutral About Holocaust Is Removed.” Although he did not respond to Oswald, Dr. Latson did email the faculty and staff at SRHS. The email was obtained by the author of the July 5, 2019, article. His email opened with the paragraph: I have been reassigned to the district office due to a statement that was not accurately relayed to the newspaper by one of our parents. It is unfortunate that someone can make a false statement and do so anonymously and it holds credibility but that is the world we live in. Dr. Latson describes his email as “a necessary and righteous denial of a false allegation.” He describes the “false statement”--the statement that was “not accurately relayed to the newspaper by a parent”--to be that “I was hesitant and I wouldn’t--I avoided confrontation with Holocaust deniers [and] that was not true [and] it also stated that, you know, I denied that the Holocaust occurred [and] that’s not true.” “She can fear my reluctance, but I had no reluctance, so that would be an incorrect statement.” However, in explaining his reasoning, Dr. Latson admits that the statements of the parent contained in the article were reported as the parent’s opinion and that, although she did not doubt that he knew the Holocaust was real, she “feared” that his reluctance to say so stemmed from a desire to “avoid confronting parents who deny the Holocaust reality.” He also made clear that the “statement” that was “relayed” by the parent to which he referred in his email to staff were, in fact, the statements that he had written in April of 2018. Dr. Latson believes that as an educator mandated by law to teach the history of the Holocaust, he is required--by the very statute which imposes that duty, to be tolerant of those who would deny that the Holocaust is historical fact, to the point of allowing some to avoid attending Holocaust remembrance assemblies required of all students. In his email to the complaining parent, Dr. Latson wrote that he could not, as a school district employee, say “the Holocaust is a factual, historical event.” At hearing, he testified that, although he could as a District employee state whether he believes the Holocaust to be a fact, he had the “option to be politically neutral.” In his email to the parent, Dr. Latson wrote that he advertised the tenth-grade Holocaust assembly “as there are some who do not want their children to participate and we have to allow them the ability to decline.” At hearing, Dr. Latson testified that he advertised the assembly so parents would know, in case a teacher marked a child who was attending the assembly absent. He testified that some parents do not want their children to attend the Holocaust assembly because of the graphic nature of the teaching materials used, and he is not “going to force a child to sit in a room where their parents don’t want them to be.” The District’s absence policy can be used to allow students to stay home from school during the Holocaust remembrance assembly, if the parents so desire. He believes that the statute mandating the teaching of the Holocaust as history requires that he be tolerant of those who do not want their children to be shown the graphic images of the atrocities, but that they could still learn from the required teachings through other means. Dr. Latson sent an email to faculty and staff at SRHS on the afternoon of July 8, 2019. Oswald, Fennoy, and the District did not learn of Dr. Latson’s statement concerning the complaining parent in this email until late that evening. Dr. Latson testified it was a common practice for principals leaving a school to inform the staff of their departure so they can prepare themselves for a change in administration, which generally means that an entering principal might do things a bit differently. He believed it was important to deliver the message of his leaving as early as possible. He admitted he wrote the email to staff quickly and did not take the time to fully consider the repercussions of his words regarding the complaining parent. He was frustrated that he had lost the support of the District at the time he wrote the email, after having received their support prior to that time. He admitted he did not do a good job of expressing his frustration, but he never believed the email would be seen by anyone but the faculty and staff at SRHS. While news of Dr. Latson’s reassignment had dampened the public reaction which the District was dealing with after publication of the July 5, 2019, article, Dr. Latson’s statement in the email re-energized the public. Instead of reconciliation over his poorly worded April 2018 emails, Dr. Latson’s placement of blame on the parent undermined the apology and made matters worse. There was “complete outrage [by District personnel] that he would do that to a parent.” An article which appeared in the Post on July 9, 2019, was headlined, “More calls for Spanish River High principal’s firing after he blames parent.” The article included the sub-heading, “Principal William Latson’s farewell message prompted an anti-hate group and two Boca-area legislators to join calls for his termination.” On July 10, 2019, the Post published an article headlined, “In defiant farewell, ousted principal blames parent.” Dr. Latson does not dispute that the public reaction to his email was negative, which he learned of while he was still in Jamaica. The personal impact of Dr. Latson’s statement in the July 8, 2019, email was demonstrated by those who testified on behalf of him. Dr. Latson conceded that he did not know the reasons for his reassignment at the time he wrote the email to SRHS faculty and staff. He wrote to his staff that he was reassigned because of a statement inaccurately relayed to the newspaper. He believes the statement to be that he did not want to confront Holocaust deniers. In fact, in the predetermination hearing, Dr. Latson’s representative began the defense with the statement that the District “cannot remove a principal or adversely transfer him for not being zealous enough in a parent’s personal crusade against anti-Semitism.” That is not how Dr. Latson’s supporters saw it. The record makes clear that the controversy was about Dr. Latson’s earlier words, specifically, that, as a public educator who was mandated to teach the history of the Holocaust, he thought it would be improper for him to state that the Holocaust was a fact since he would not be acting in a neutral manner as an educator. Shari Fox, the Magnet Academy coordinator at SRHS, testified that she specifically asked Dr. Latson, “What is controversial about the Holocaust?” His response was that he did not think it was controversial in the beginning, but it has more recently come to his attention that Holocaust deniers exist, which makes its existence controversial. Mr. Aaron Ryan Wells, a SRHS teacher and debate coach, described a news article that “was essentially fabricated in the sense that it didn’t give all the facts, basically creates the disaster that removes a man of three decades from his post.” Because of Dr. Latson’s treatment, Wells “treads lightly even when teaching geography.” He has had inquiries regarding whether the Holocaust is even an appropriate subject for high school students. This incident detracts from the power of the course that introduces the skill that is supposed to be introduced with these types of students, namely tolerance and respect for others who may be different from you. He took from Dr. Latson’s reassignment the lesson that a single parent can question how you teach a subject, which could potentially result in your reassignment or termination as an educator should you fail to bend to the parent’s wishes. The lesson and perception that Wells and others took from Dr. Latson’s removal was that you should not teach controversial subjects. In fact, and as a matter of law, the State of Florida does not consider the occurrence of the Holocaust to be controversial. It does not and cannot prevent any student or parent from holding the absurd “belief” that the Holocaust did not happen. It can and does mandate that the student will be taught that history is not opinion or belief and that the Holocaust did occur. Through his actions, Dr. Latson caused a great number of people to doubt the commitment of the District to honor that mandate. His unilateral attribution of the reasons for his termination caused further disruption in the SRHS community. Many SRHS faculty and staff were left with the idea that Dr. Latson was reassigned because of the April 2018 emails, and were left with a sense of “injustice” and “unfairness.” The Community, the faculty, and the staff were angry, and some of that anger was directed at the complaining parent and her student. Dr. Latson’s allocation of blame to the parent and pointing out a “false statement” also sowed discontent among the faculty and staff, directed towards the District. Because Dr. Latson’s email stating the reasons for his reassignment were the April 2018 emails and, what he considered to be, a false statement from a parent, the faculty and staff felt that the District did not support the staff. Prior to learning of Dr. Latson’s July 8, 2019, email, the District had not taken any action to terminate him. Dr. Latson believes he was terminated because of outside pressure, to satisfy the not insignificant group of public officials and members of the public who called for his resignation. But those calls were made some time before he was terminated. Despite those calls, the District took Dr. Latson at his word, that he had been misunderstood, that his emails could be worded better, and that he understood the parents’ perception of his views. After the newspaper article of July 5, 2019, was published, when Oswald faced the reaction of the public and public officials, the District stood by Dr. Latson. The article itself contained Oswald’s defense of Dr. Latson, that he had written a poorly worded email. Even after Dr. Latson made no effort to contact Oswald before noon on July 8, 2019, the District did not move to terminate him. He was reassigned. Not until Dr. Latson made clear that he had not been misinterpreted in his “neutrality” statements to the complaining parent and it was clear to the District personnel involved that he was not walking back these statements, did Fennoy conclude that Dr. Latson’s employment was incompatible with the District’s commitment to teach the Holocaust. At some level, Dr. Latson believed that parents who do not want their children to be taught the Holocaust should be allowed to keep their children out of school on that day. He believed that he had a professional obligation to be neutral on matters of historical fact, even as espoused by members of, for example, the Flat Earth Society. Further, he believed that a statute that mandated the teaching of the Holocaust in a way that promoted tolerance required the teacher to be tolerant of those who said the history to be taught was, in fact, not history. Johnson, a long-serving principal, former Palm Beach County school superintendent, and now a consultant to principals, testified that no progressive discipline was imposed on Dr. Latson. Respondent admitted into evidence a document entitled “The Discipline Process, A Guide for Principals and Department Heads.” He testified the manual is still in existence and used by the District. Describing the process, Johnson discussed how, typically, “we start from the bottom and move to the top,” beginning with a verbal reprimand, followed by a written reprimand, then a short-term suspension, followed by a longer-term suspension, and, ultimately, a termination. He noted that there are occasional instances where discipline can go from “zero to one hundred, all the way to termination,” but these must involve “very serious offenses” that “put the District at risk.” He testified that the initial problem here was “an overly zealous parent’s intolerance of Dr. Latson’s tolerance.” He believes that an educator’s role is to be neutral and provide both sides of an issue. “You stick with the facts.” “You present both sides of the story. And you as a teacher or administrator may have to become very neutral, meaning you can’t advocate.” “We are definitely not in a position to proselytize or to indoctrinate young people,” he testified. He did admit that Dr. Latson could have used better language to communicate his thoughts on neutrality and to communicate with faculty and staff via email. Dr. Ben Marlin, another former Palm Beach County school superintendent, concurred with Johnson’s analysis and the appropriateness of exercising progressive discipline in this case. He likened the process to a ladder, with the penalty growing more severe the higher you climb. He testified that he would not have terminated Dr. Latson under the circumstances of this case. He would have resolved the matter through a meeting with a possible verbal reprimand. If the behavior occurred again, he would consider a written reprimand. Subsequent violations would result in more severe penalties. The testimony of the two former superintendents was not challenged or rebutted by Petitioner. No witnesses were called to state that progressive discipline was not applicable to this matter. Fox testified “we have to stay neutral in all of these topics [including the Holocaust] and just explain the facts to the students and guide the information and the discussion.” Fox specifically testified she does not believe Dr. Latson is Anti-Semitic. According to SRHS history teacher, Ms. Rachel Ostrow, the teacher’s role is “to present the facts, to guide the discussion amongst the students. But I lay out the facts from every point of view and then we discuss the content.” Ostrow specifically testified she does not believe Dr. Latson is Anti- Semitic. On July 17, 2019, Dr. Latson received notice that an administrative investigation had been opened by the Department of Employee and Labor Relations related to Ethical Misconduct. An investigative report was authored by Ms. Vicki Evans-Paré on August 23, 2019. On September 26, 2019, Dr. Latson received a copy of the investigative file, including the written investigative report. On October 7, 2019, a predetermination meeting was held to allow Dr. Latson to respond to the allegations, produce any documents that he believed would be supportive of his position, or rebut information in the investigation materials he was provided. He submitted a written response to the potential charges and his representatives, Dr. Thomas E. Elfers and Johnson provided oral presentations. Dr. Latson’s response at the predetermination meeting again compared the Holocaust to a belief, claiming that “constitutional liberty interests are involved: an interest in not being forced to reveal information about personal beliefs and an interest in being forced to make statements about one’s views.” The response preached neutrality in the presentation of “various hot buttons or touchy subjects.” Dr. Latson believed his body of work as an educator should have been taken into account and should not have resulted in a termination of his employment. He had never been disciplined previously by the District or the Educational Practice Commission in 26 years as an educator. He had received a “highly effective evaluation” for each of his eight years as the principal of SRHS, and the highest possible evaluation for 25 of his 26 years as an educator. Under his leadership, Dr. Latson oversaw the raising of SRHS from a “B” to an “A” rating in 2012, which was maintained throughout his tenure as principal. He achieved many successes as principal, such as significantly raising the school’s national academic ranking, being recognized by the District as the highest performing Palm Beach County school in advanced academic studies, and creating a school environment described by teacher Wells as “phenomenal,” and engendering an atmosphere of trust among the teachers, as stated by Fox and Ostrow at hearing. When asked by his counsel at hearing, Dr. Latson unequivocally stated that he is not Anti-Semitic. This statement was unrebutted by Petitioner. On October 11, 2019, however, based upon the information presented to him from the investigation and the predetermination meeting, Fennoy informed Dr. Latson that there was just cause, which can be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, to warrant his termination from his position as a principal, and that Fennoy would recommend Dr. Latson’s suspension without pay and termination of employment at the October 30, 2019, School Board meeting.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order rescinding the suspension and termination of Dr. Latson; awarding him his lost wages for the period beginning with his suspension without pay; and transferring him to a position within the District, as determined by the superintendent, commensurate with his qualifications. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 13th day of August, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas E. Elfers, Esquire Law Office of Thomas Elfers 14036 Southwest 148th Lane Miami, Florida 33186 (eServed) Thomas Martin Gonzalez, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2700 Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Craig J. Freger, Esquire 16247 Northwest 15th Street Pembroke Pines, Florida 33028-1223 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Donald E. Fennoy II, Ed.D., Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, C-316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent held Teacher's Certificate #123157 (Petitioners' Exhibit #1). In 1980-1981, Respondent was employed as an elementary school teacher at Cove Elementary School ("Cove") in Belle Glade, Palm Beach County, Florida. Respondent had been employed at Cove for approximately ten years and in 1980-1981 taught second grade. In 1976-1977, Respondent had been cautioned for inflicting corporal punishment on students without following the statutory guidelines and school board policies. At the beginning of the 1980-1981 school year, Respondent was accused of inflicting corporal punishment on her second grade students. Respondent was cautioned by her principal, who restated the policies of the Palm Beach School System to the Respondent. These policies were consistent with Section 232.27, Florida Statutes. On or about February 10, 1980, Respondent struck Buster Brockman, an eight-year-old second grade student, in the head with an automobile fan belt. This caused an injury to the child's face about his left eye. The Respondent also threw Brockman against a table, bruising his ribs. Brockman was treated at the emergency room and released. This incident occurred in Respondent's classroom without an adult witness and without the prior permission of her principal. Respondent was severely cautioned by her principal. In March of 1981, Respondent stuck Tony Aunspaugh, Jr., an eight-year- old second grade student, with an automobile fan belt across the right thigh. The blow left a dark welt/bruise on the boy's thigh. Respondent struck Aunspaugh in her classroom without an adult witness and without her principal's permission. Respondent was again cautioned by her principal. On or about May 29, 1981, the Respondent struck Reyes Reyes and another boy, both students in her second grade class, several times on the back with an automobile fan belt. The blows left dark welts/bruises on their backs. Respondent was suspended on this occasion, pending the school board's action. At all times during the 1980-1981 school year, the West Palm Beach School Board's policy regarding corporal punishment was that before corporal punishment could be administered to a student, the principal was to be advised and was to give permission, and the punishment was to be administered by the principal or the principal's designee before an adult witness who was a member of the staff. On none of the several occasions Respondent struck students did she adhere to this policy. The investigation which followed the Respondent's suspension brought to light other incidents of Respondent having struck children which had not been known to the school administration previously. Various students of Respondent testified about being struck by her during the 1980-1981 school year. Their collective testimony was that Respondent had engaged in inflicting corporal punishment during the entire school year in a manner contrary to the school board's rules and the statutory requirements. Notice of the subject hearing was provided the parties as required by the statutes and rules. The Education Practices Commission introduced Petitioner's Exhibits #1 through #5, which were received in evidence.
Recommendation Having found the Respondent guilty of violating Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Education Practices Commission revoke Respondent's teaching certificate and, further, that recertification be considered only upon a demonstration by Respondent that she is fully rehabilitated. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 26th day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas F. Woods, Esquire 1030 East Lafayette Street, Suite 112 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mrs. Audrey Clark 1213 Vaughn Circle Belle Glade, Florida 33430 Donald L. Griesheimer, Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to terminate the employment of the Respondent, who is a continuing contract teacher, on several grounds alleged in a three-count Notice of Specific Charges. The Respondent is charged in Count I with incompetency; in Count II with gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty; and in Count III with misconduct in office.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Section 4(b) of Article IX of the Constitution of the State of Florida, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a teacher-on-special-assignment and a Language Arts (English) teacher within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, assigned to Miami Beach Senior High School, Lake Stevens Middle School, and other work sites within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent was employed by Petitioner pursuant to a continuing contract of employment and subject to the rules and regulations of the School Board. During the 1992/93 school year Respondent exhibited erratic behavior, mood changes, engaged in altercations with staff, was excessively absent, and chronically arrived late to the Chapter I Office, her assigned work site at that time. On November 6, 1992, a meeting was held with Respondent to notify Respondent that, due to her excessive absenteeism, repeated tardiness, mood swings, and altercations with other staff members, Respondent was being referred to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program (hereinafter "EAP"). At the November 6, 1992 meeting, Respondent became verbally aggressive and combative in her demeanor and stated that, since there was nothing wrong with her, she did not need to go to the EAP. On November 10, 1992, Respondent's then immediate supervisor requested a medical fitness evaluation due to, among other things, Respondent's excessive absenteeism, inability to accept directives, confrontations with staff members, lack of respect for authority, and because of Respondent's refusal to comply with the supervisory referral to EAP. On November 17, 1992, Respondent was directed to report for a Conference-for-the-Record (hereinafter "CFR") at Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards (hereinafter "OPS"). On December 14, 1992, a CFR was held with Respondent to address Respondent's medical fitness to perform assigned duties, as well as her excessive tardiness, excessive absenteeism, and non-compliance with administrative directives. At the December 14, 1992, CFR, it was decided that, because Respondent's duties at the Chapter I office were unclear, Respondent would be given a chance to return to her duties as a teacher-on-special-assignment at the Chapter I Office. At the conclusion of the December 14, 1992, CFR, Respondent agreed to strive to maintain a professional work environment. On January 19, 1993, Respondent's EAP case was closed after Respondent failed to appear at the scheduled EAP conference and after Respondent refused to participate in the program. During the 1993/94 school year, Respondent was assigned to teach an English for Speakers of Other Languages ("ESOL") class at Miami Beach Senior High School. During the first week of school in August of 1993, Respondent became involved in a verbal altercation in front of students after she was told that her classroom had been changed. During the altercation described in paragraph 14 above, Respondent, in front of the students in the classroom, became so upset over being notified of the room change that she screamed and yelled at her Department chairperson and pushed 15 to 20 books off a table. On September 1, 1994, several students in Respondent's ESOL class accused Respondent of directing disparaging statements to them, belittling them, and threatening to have her nephews harm them, if they reported her actions to the school principal. On September 2, 1994, as a result of Respondent's persistent erratic behavior and inappropriate conduct, including, but not limited to, calling students "bastards," and demeaning, accosting, and harassing other teachers in the hallways, the principal at Miami Beach Senior High School requested that Respondent undergo a medical fitness evaluation. On September 14, 1994, Respondent was involved in a verbal confrontation with another teacher at her school in the presence of students. Because of Respondent's agitated and irrational behavior, the other teacher was afraid that Respondent might hit her. Due to Respondent's expressed desire to transfer to a middle school, and because of her continuing behavioral problems, Respondent was transferred to Lake Stevens Middle School with the assistance of the principal at Miami Beach Senior High. Prior to Respondent's transfer to Lake Stevens Middle School, the principal at Lake Stevens Middle school was not informed of Respondent's history of behavioral problems until Respondent was involved in several incidents with other staff members at her new school. On December 4, 1995, a conference was held with Respondent and the school clerk at Lake Stevens Middle School in an attempt to resolve a dispute between the two employees. The conference was held after Respondent had been involved in an altercation with the school clerk. At the December 4, 1995, conference, Respondent was directed to avoid contact or communications with the school clerk unless initiated through a school administrator. On May 4, 1995, during a parent-teacher conference, the conference had to be terminated after Respondent became enraged and started yelling and screaming at the parent, the student, and an assistant principal. Respondent continued screaming even after the parent and student had left and persisted in shouting and yelling at the assistant principal while Respondent followed her around the main office. On February 8, 1996, another conference was held with the Respondent at Lake Stevens Middle School by the assistant principal to address a complaint filed by Respondent against a school secretary. As the conference was about to be concluded, Respondent started shouting and making disparaging remarks against the school secretary, and was generally "out-of-control." On May 2, 1996, Respondent was cited with insubordination after she entered the main office area and started yelling at the assistant principal and refused to cease her tirade after twice being directed by the assistant principal to stop shouting and explain her problem. On May 15, 1996, a formal observation of the Respondent's classroom performance was not conducted because Respondent was unable to provide her lesson plans and grade book to the administrator who was to observe her. Rather than place Respondent on prescription, the principal decided to give Respondent another opportunity to get her documentation in order for another observation. Prior to the May 15, 1996 voided observation, the assistant principal at Lake Stevens Middle School had noted that Respondent did not have her roll book, lesson plans, or student folders during the first thirty days after she had been transferred to Lake Stevens Middle School. During the beginning of the summer school session, on July 8, 1996, Respondent again became involved in a verbal altercation with the school clerk at Lake Stevens Middle School. This second altercation with the school clerk commenced when the school clerk, who was now the principal's secretary, told the Respondent that the Respondent could not walk into the principal's office without first contacting the principal's secretary. When an assistant principal intervened to resolve this altercation, Respondent became irate and refused to leave the assistant principal's office and instead told him to "push" her out. At the end of the school day on July 8, 1996, Respondent again became involved in an altercation with the principal's secretary after the Respondent purposefully pushed the secretary with her briefcase in the main office and thus provoked a verbal altercation, which required the intervention of school administrators. After the school buses had left, on July 8, 1996, the interim principal at Lake Stevens Middle School met with the Respondent to discuss the physical confrontation that had occurred earlier that day and verbally reprimanded the Respondent, advising her that the school administration would not tolerate another incident of this nature. As a result of the July 8, 1996, incident, a personnel investigation was conducted by the Division of School Police, which determined that the charge that Respondent had committed a battery was substantiated. On August 28, 1996, a temporary restraining order was issued against Respondent after Respondent allegedly threatened to kill her former boyfriend, who is also employed on an hourly basis by Petitioner. On October 7, 1996, a CFR was held with Respondent to address numerous incidents involving inappropriate and unprofessional conduct, the personnel investigation on the charge that Respondent had committed a battery, and Respondent's classroom performance and attendance. At that CFR, Respondent was directed to avoid any further altercations (verbal or physical) with other staff members. Respondent was also advised that her failure to comply with previous directives regarding altercations with staff members was considered insubordination and was in violation of School Board rules on employee conduct and violence in the workplace. Respondent was also advised that any further incidents would be considered gross insubordination. At the CFR held on October 7, 1996, Respondent was assigned to her home as an alternate assignment due to her repeated involvement in altercations at the school sites and her unprofessional conduct. Due to Respondent's continued involvement in altercations with other employees--even after being repeatedly directed to avoid same--and because of Respondent's history of erratic behavior at her work site, Respondent was further required to undergo a medical fitness evaluation. On October 8 through 11, 1996, a psychological evaluation was conducted by Dr. Michael Hendrickson, Ph.D., a licensed psychologist. Dr. Hendrickson recommended that Respondent become involved in psychotherapy through the EAP, and that Respondent be required to undergo a neurological evaluation to rule out a neurological basis for Respondent's reported behavioral problems. He also recommended that Respondent be required to undergo psychotherapy once a week for a full year. On October 15, 1996, Respondent was allowed to return to Lake Stevens Middle School. On October 22, 1996, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom and was found to be unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, and in assessment techniques in accordance with the Teacher Assessment and Development System. Respondent was prescribed activities to assist her in overcoming her deficiencies. On the day of the formal observation described immediately above, the administrator who conducted the classroom observation noted, among other things, that Respondent's lesson plans were incomplete; that Respondent's grade book did not contain grades for at least two of her classes; that there was no evidence of tests or quizzes given to the students; that students' work was piled on the teacher's desk, table, and cabinets; and that students' folders were incomplete. By November 5, 1996, Respondent had yet to complete the prescriptive activities that had been assigned to her as a result of the formal classroom observation conducted on October 22, 1996. At the and of the school day on December 12, 1996, Respondent approached the school principal, in the presence of students who were just getting into their school busses, and accused the principal of taking part in a plot to fire her and stated that she wanted to be assigned to the region office rather than work at Lake Stevens Middle School. The principal advised Respondent that this was not the appropriate place to hold such a discussion and that she should meet with him later in his office. On December 12, 1996, upon entering the principal's office, Respondent began to cry, used profanity, started shouting and screaming at the school principal, refused to leave the office, and, ultimately, had to be escorted out of principal's office into the main office, where Respondent continued to scream and shout in the presence of parents, students, and staff. While in the main office area on December 12, 1996, Respondent had to be restrained by other staff members after she started directing her verbal attack--in a threatening manner--at a school counselor. Respondent was finally escorted out of the school. On December 17, 1996, a follow-up CFR was held with Respondent to review the results of the psychological evaluation of Respondent and her continued inappropriate and unprofessional conduct as evidenced by her involvement in the December 12, 1996, incident in the main office of Lake Stevens Middle School, and her continuing acts of insubordination. At the December 17, 1996, follow-up CFR, Respondent was directed to attend psychotherapy once a week, for one (1) year, to undergo a neurological evaluation, and to immediately report to the EAP. Because of the school district's concern that Respondent had a propensity for violence, as evidenced by her numerous altercations with other employees, Respondent was also directed to remain on alternate assignment at her home. On January 31, 1997, Respondent was notified that her failure to comply with the administrative directives issued at the follow-up CFR held on December 17, 1996, constituted gross insubordination. Respondent was again directed to comply with the directives listed immediately above, within five (5) work days or face further disciplinary action. On March 6, 1997, Respondent underwent a follow-up consultation with Dr. Hendrickson, the psychologist that had conducted the initial psychological evaluation. The follow-up consultation with Dr. Hendrickson was necessitated by Respondent's continued involvement in altercations with other employees at her work site after she had completed her psychological evaluation on October 11, 1996. After the follow- up consultation, Dr. Hendrickson recommended that Respondent be required to undergo a psychiatric evaluation to assess the cause of her various conflicts and aggressive outbursts. On March 27, 1997, a CFR was held with Respondent to address Respondent's follow-up consultation with Dr. Hendrickson. At this CFR, Respondent was directed to undergo a psychiatric evaluation as a condition of Respondent's continued employment with Petitioner and to report the results of that evaluation within five (5) work days. On or about April 29, 1997, Respondent was directed to report on May 1, 1997, to OPS for a CFR, to discuss, among other things, Respondent's failure to comply with administrative directives regarding her medical fitness to perform assigned duties, specifically Respondent's failure to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, and Respondent's failure to adhere to previously issued administrative directives relative to her unprofessional conduct, and her unacceptable and disruptive behavior. On or about May 1, 1997, Respondent failed to attend the CFR scheduled for that day. The May 1, 1997, CFR was rescheduled to May 2, 1997, after Respondent indicated that she would not attend unless escorted by a police officer because she feared for her personal safety. On May 2, 1997, Respondent was notified that her failure to attend the CFR scheduled for that day would constitute gross insubordination. Due to Respondent's failure to attend the May 2, 1997, CFR, on May 9, 1997, Respondent was directed to attend a CFR scheduled for May 13, 1997, at OPS. Respondent was also advised that her failure to attend the May 13, 1997, CFR would be considered gross insubordination and that Respondent would be subject to dismissal from further employment with Petitioner. Respondent failed to attend the CFR scheduled for May 13, 1997. At its regularly scheduled meeting of May 21, 1997, the School Board of Dade County, Florida, took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against Respondent on the grounds of incompetency, misconduct in office, gross insubordination or willful neglect of duty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida ordering that: Respondent be found to be guilty of incompetency, gross insubordination or willful neglect of duty, and misconduct in office, as charged in the Notice of Specific Charges; Respondent's suspension without pay from employment on May 21, 1997, be sustained and that she receive no back pay for the period of her suspension; and that Respondent be dismissed from all employment with the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. 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 2nd day of July, 1998.
