Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the Petition For Dismissal, reinstating Respondent to his position of employment on professional service contract and directing payment to him of back pay and attendant benefits withheld from the date of his suspension to the date of his effective reinstatement. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 16th day of September, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Abbey G. Hairston, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida 3323 Belvedere Road Building 503, Room 232 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 John J. Chamblee, Jr., Esquire Chamblee, Miles and Grizzard 202 Cardy Street Tampa, Florida 33606 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Thomas J. Mills Superintendent The School Board of Palm Beach County Florida 3323 Belvedere Road Post Office Box 24690 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4690
The Issue Did Respondent Siebelts commit the offenses set forth in the petition for dismissal (Case No. 88-4697) and the amended administrative complaint (Case No. 89-0189) filed against her? If so, what discipline should she receive?
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Karen Siebelts has held a State of Florida teaching certificate since 1976. Her current certificate was issued May 1, 1986, and covers the areas of elementary education, elementary and secondary reading, and secondary social studies and psychology. For the past thirteen years Siebelts has been employed by the School Board of Broward County as a classroom teacher. During the early stages of her employment, she taught at Melrose Park Middle School. She then moved to Perry Middle School, where she taught a class of emotionally disturbed sixth graders. Her performance at these two schools was rated as acceptable. In November, 1979, Siebelts was assigned to teach at Charles Drew Elementary School, a neighborhood school located in the predominantly black Collier city area of Pompano Beach. The charges lodged against Siebelts are based on specific acts she allegedly committed while she was a Chapter I Reading/Math and Computer teacher at Charles Drew providing remedial instruction to students whose test scores reflected a need for such special assistance. On January 22, 1985, while seated with her fifth grade students at a table during a reading lesson, Siebelts inadvertently kicked one of the students in the shin. The incident occurred as Siebelts was moving her legs to a more comfortable position. The force involved was minimal and produced no visible injuries. The student immediately demanded an apology from Siebelts. Siebelts responded to this demand with silence. She neither apologized nor said anything to suggest that she had intended to kick the student. Earlier in the lesson, Siebelts had directed the student to stop talking. The student had defied the directive and continued to talk. It was not until approximately three minutes after the student's initial defiance of the directive, however, that the kicking incident occurred. Nonetheless, the student suspected that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her because of her failure to obey Siebelts' order that she not talk. When the student came home from school that day she told her mother that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her during class. The mother immediately reported the incident to the principal of the school, Hubert Lee. The matter was referred to the School Board's Internal Affairs Unit for investigation. The requested investigation was conducted. Following the completion of the investigation, a written report of the investigator's findings was submitted to the administration. No further action was taken regarding this incident until approximately three and a half years later when the instant petition for dismissal was issued. Siebelts was annoyed when she learned that the student and her mother had accused her of wrongdoing in connection with the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. On February 19, 1985, she expressed her annoyance in front of her fifth grade class and in their presence threatened to take legal action against those students and parents who had made libelous or slanderous statements about her or had otherwise verbally abused her. She told the students that they and their parents would be subpoenaed to court and if they did not appear they would be incarcerated. The principal of the school was informed of these remarks shortly after they were made, but it was not until the instant petition for dismissal was issued on August 22, 1988, that Siebelts was first formally charged with having made the remarks. Before coming to work on January 28 1986, Siebelts took a codeine pain medication that her physician had prescribed. When classes started that morning she was still under the influence of the medication. She was listless and drowsy. Her speech was slurred and she appeared incoherent at times. She also had difficulty maintaining her balance when she walked. Because Siebelts had been taking this medication "on and off" since 1979, she had been aware of these potential side effects of the medication when ingesting it on this particular occasion. A teacher's aide in Siebelts' classroom concerned about Siebelts' condition summoned the principal, Hubert Lee, to the classroom. When he arrived, Lee observed Siebelts seated at her desk. She was just staring and seemed "to be almost falling asleep." The students were out of control. They were laughing and making fun of Siebelts. After questioning Siebelts and receiving an answer that was not at all responsive to the question he had asked, Lee instructed Siebelts to come to his office. Siebelts complied, displaying an unsteady gait as she walked to Lee's office. In Lee's office, Siebelts insisted that she was fine, but conceded that she was "on" prescribed pain medication. Throughout their conversation, Siebelts continued to slur her words and it was difficult for Lee to understand her. Pursuant to Lee's request, Dr. Lorette David, Lee's immediate supervisor, and Nat Stokes, a School Board investigator, came to Lee's office to observe and assess Siebelts' condition. A determination was thereafter made that Siebelts was not capable of performing her instructional duties that day, which was an accurate assessment. She therefore was sent home for the day. Because of her impaired condition, rather than driving herself home, she was driven to her residence by Dr. David. Although she believed that she was not suffering from any impairment, Siebelts did not protest the decision to relieve her of her duties because she felt that any such protest would have fallen on deaf ears. Following this incident, Siebelts was issued a letter of reprimand by Lee. She also was referred to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program because it was felt that she might have a substance abuse problem. Siebelts agreed to participate in the program and received counselling. At no time subsequent to January 28, 1986, did Siebelts report to work under the influence of her pain medication or any other drug. During the 1987-1988 school year, Siebelts and two other Chapter I teachers, Rosa Moses and Mary Cooper, occupied space in Charles Drew's Chapter I reading and math laboratory. Their classrooms were located in the same large room and were separated by makeshift partitions. Siebelts is white. Moses and Cooper, as well as the aides who were assigned to the laboratory during that school year, are black. In October, 1987, Moses complained to Principal Lee that Siebelts was not teaching her students, but rather was constantly engaging in loud verbal confrontations with them that disrupted Moses' lessons. Lee had received similar complaints about Siebelts from others. He therefore asked Moses to advise him in writing of any future classroom misconduct on Siebelts' part. Siebelts continued to engage in conduct in her classroom which Moses deemed inappropriate and disruptive. On November 4, 1987, for the last five minutes of one of her classes, she loudly exchanged verbal barbs with her students. Her yelling made it difficult for Moses and Cooper to teach their lessons. On November 5, 1987, throughout an entire 45-minute class period, Siebelts was embroiled in a verbal battle with a student during which she made derogatory remarks about the student's size. She called the student "fat" and told her that she "shake[d] like jelly." The student, in turn, called Siebelts "fruity" and likened her to a "scarecrow." On that same day during a later class period, Siebelts took a student by the arm and, following a tussle with the student, placed him in his seat. Thereafter, she made belittling remarks to the other students in the class. She said that they were "stupid" and "belonged in a freak show." She also referred to them as "imbeciles." Siebelts further told her students that their "mothers eat dog food." On November 25, 1987, Siebelts commented to the students in one of her classes that they would be able to move around the classroom with greater ease if they were not so fat. As she had been asked to do, Moses provided Lee with a written account of these November, 1987, encounters between Siebelts and her students, but Lee did not take any immediate action to initiate disciplinary action against Siebelts. Although she did not so indicate in her report, Moses believed that the unflattering remarks that Siebelts had made to the students on these occasions constituted racial slurs inasmuch as all of the students to whom the remarks had been addressed were black and in addressing these remarks to the students as a group she had referred to them as "you people." Moses thought that "you people" had meant black people in general, whereas Siebelts had intended the phrase to refer to just the students in the classroom. At no time during any of these reported incidents did Siebelts make specific reference to the students' race, nor did she specifically attack black people in general. The target of her demeaning and insulting remarks were those of her students whose unruly and disrespectful behavior she was unable to control. Her efforts to maintain discipline and promote learning in the classroom had failed. She had become frustrated with the situation and verbally lashed out at her students. Unfortunately, these outbursts only served to further reduce her effectiveness as a teacher. On March 1, 1988, Siebelts was involved in an incident similar to the one which had occurred more than three years earlier on January 22, 1985. As on the prior occasion, Siebelts was sitting at a classroom table with her students. Her legs were crossed. When she repositioned her legs, her foot inadvertently came in contact with the top of the head of a student who was crawling under the table to retrieve a pencil the student had dropped. The student had been told by Siebelts not to go under the table but had disobeyed the instruction. She had been under the table for approximately a minute and a half before being struck by Siebelts foot. The blow to the student's head was a light one and produced only a slight bump. Nonetheless, after getting up from under the table, the student, a brash fourth grader who had had confrontations with Siebelts in the past, threatened to physically retaliate against Siebelts. Siebelts did not say anything to the student and the class ended without the student following through on her threat. Following this incident, Siebelts telephoned the student's mother at home to discuss the student's classroom behavior. The call was placed sometime before 9:00 p.m. The conversation between Siebelts and the mother soon degenerated into an argument. They terminated the discussion without settling their differences. Lee subsequently met with the mother. He suggested that a meeting with Siebelts at the school be arranged. The mother indicated to Lee that she would not attend such a meeting unless school security was present. She explained that she was so angry at Siebelts that she was afraid that she would lose her composure and physically attack Siebelts if they were in the same room together.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order suspending Karen Siebelts' teaching certificate for two years and that the School Board of Broward County issue a final order suspending Siebelts until the reinstatement of her teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of June, 1989. STUART M. LERNER 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 29th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 88-4687 AND 89-0189 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: Commisioner of Education's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance in the Findings of Fact portion of this Recommended Order. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Siebelts was not charged with having made threatening remarks the day after the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. These threats were allegedly made, according to the charging documents, on February 19, 1985. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts engaged in name-calling on dates other than those specfied in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint otherwise, it is accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Furthermore, the witness whose testimony is recited in this proposed finding later clarified her testimony and conceded that Siebelts did not use the precise words quoted in this proposed finding. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts made "racial comments" on the dates specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint. Insofar as it states that such comments were made on other occasions, it is rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. According to the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, Siebelts threatened her students with legal action on February 19, 1985. This proposed finding, however, relates to alleged threats of legal action made by Siebelts during the 1987-1988 school year. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Siebelts' Proposed Findings of Fact First unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Second unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and :incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Third unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as unnecessary; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fourth unnumbered paragraph: Rejected as more in the nature of a statement of opposing parties' position than a finding of fact; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fifth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as subordinate; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; tenth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; eleventh sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; twelfth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Sixth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Seventh unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony (The exculpatory testimony of Siebelts which is summarized in the first three sentences of this paragraph has not been credited because it is contrary to the more credible testimony of other witnesses) fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Eighth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as subordinate; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; ninth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Ninth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Tenth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Superintendent of School's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance, except for the fourth sentence, which has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated in substance except to the extent that it asserts that Siebelts "advised the students that they and their parents would be placed in jail because of the lies and the slander." The preponderance of the evidence reveals that she actually told them that they and their parents would be incarcerated if they did not appear in court when summoned. First sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second and third sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument concerning relatively insignificant matters than findings of fact addressing necessary and vital issues. Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts had alcohol on her breath. Any such suggestion has been rejected because it is contrary to the testimony of Investigator Stokes. Stokes, who has been employed by the School Board as an investigator for the past 20 years, testified that he was standing one or two feet away from Siebelts and did not detect the odor of alcohol on her breath. In view of his experience regarding the investigation of these matters, his testimony has been credited. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that this proposed finding states that Siebelts made inappropriate remarks regarding the students' clothing or other matters on dates other than those specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, it has been rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts made derogatory remarks about black people in general on the dates specified in these charging documents, it has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. To the extent that this proposed finding indicates that Siebelts otherwise insulted the students in her class on the dates specified in the charging documents, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "disparaging remarks" which are the subject of this proposed finding were purportedly made during the 1984-1985 school year. The "disparaging remarks" referenced in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint were allegedly made, according to these charging documents, during the 1987-1988 school year, more specifically, on November 4, 5, and 25, 1987. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "critical" remarks referred to in this proposed finding were allegedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. First sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial to the extent it references reactions to "disparaging" and "critical" remarks that were purportedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of the testimony of Siebelts' former students and colleagues rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it reflects that Moses actively monitored Siebelts classroom conduct "through December of 1987." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that such active monitoring actually ceased November 25, 1987; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent it indicates that Noses heard Siebelts tell her students that they "were dirty and needed baths." This comment was purportedly overheard, not by Moses, but by Margaret Cameron, a teacher's aide who had left Charles Drew prior to the commencement of the 1987- 1988 school year; fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. These proposed findings are based on Cameron's testimony regarding offensive comments she had allegedly overheard while an aide in Siebelts' classroom. These pre-1987-1988 school year comments, however, are not mentioned in either the petition for dismissal or the amended administrative complaint. First sentence: As this proposed finding correctly points out, Siebelts' insulting comments only served to heighten the students' hostility and anger toward her. There is no persuasive competent substantial evidence, though, to support the further finding that these comments "resulted in several physical altercations between the students;" second sentence: Rejected inasmuch as there no persuasive competent substantial evidence that there was any "heated verbal exchange" on November 5, 1987, between Siebelts and the student which preceded their "altercation." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the verbal battle with her students occurred immediately after this incident; third sentence: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Although she may used physical force during her encounter with this student, it is unlikely that she actually "tossed" him into his seat. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected inasmuch as there is no persuasive competent substantial evidence to support a finding that Siebelts telephoned the student's mother as a result of the incident near the air-conditioner. The preponderance of the evidence does establish that Siebelts did telephone the mother on a subsequent occasion, but there is no indication that Siebelts threatened the mother or otherwise acted inappropriately during this telephone conversation. Although the mother asked to have security personnel present during a parent-teacher conference with Siebelts, the preponderance of the evidence reveals that this request was not the product of any threats that Siebelts had made against the mother. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Siebelts' testimony that the contact was unintentional is plausible and has been credited. The circumstantial evidence presented by Petitioners (including evidence of prior confrontations between Siebelts and the student) raises some questions regarding the veracity of Siebelts' testimony on this point, but such evidence is not sufficiently compelling to warrant the discrediting this testimony. Given her penchant for verbalizing to her students her thoughts about them, had Siebelts intended to kick the student as a disciplinary measure, she undoubtedly would have made this known to the student, rather than remain silent as she did; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that immediately after kicking the student, Siebelts had a "smirk on her face." To this limited extent, this proposed finding is not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; second, third, fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. To the extent that this proposed finding suggests that Siebelts' behavior at school on January 28, 1986, and her verbal attack of her students on November 4, 5, and 25, 198', reduced her effectiveness as a teacher, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Insofar as it indicates that other conduct in which she engaged resulted in a reduction or loss of effectiveness, it has been rejected as either contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (other conduct specified in charging documents) or beyond the scope of the charges (other conduct not specified in charging documents). COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Whitelock, Esquire 1311 S.E. 2nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Edward J. Marko, Esquire Suite 322, Bayview Building 4,1040 Bayview Drive Post Office Box 4369 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33338 Virgil L. Morgan, Superintendent Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Thomas P. Johnson, Ed.D. Associate Superintendent Human Resources Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire Suite 315 1201 U.S. Highway One North Palm Beach, Florida 33408-3581 Karen B. Wilde Robert F. McRee, Esquire Executive Director Post Office Box 75638 Education Practices Commission Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact During the 1993/1994 school year, the Respondent, Alan Davis, was in his 12th year teaching eighth grade science at Meadowlawn Middle School in St. Petersburg, Florida. He is on a professional services contract. He has a good record and reputation as science teacher at the school and no prior disciplinary problems (or even accusations against him.) The Respondent's classroom was located on the east wall of the school building, at the intersection of two interior hallways to the north and west of the classroom. There is a classroom door to the outside to the east, and the entire east wall of the classroom consists of windows looking across a walkway directly onto portable special education classrooms. There are vertical blinds that can be drawn across the windows and closed. The blinds usually are drawn but not closed. There is a classroom door to the hallway to the west of the classroom. Immediately across the intersecting hallway to the north of the classroom is the door to the teachers' lounge. Immediately past the intersecting hallway to the north is the door to the office of the school resource officer. Immediately past the resource officer's office, only approximately 25 feet from the door to the Respondent's classroom, is a suite of offices belonging to the school principal and other school administration personnel. Kim Wilder was an eighth grader at Meadowlawn during the 1993/1994 school year. She was in the Respondent's fourth period science class. Through about half of the year, she enjoyed a good record and reputation as a pupil of the school. Her grades were A's and B's, and she was not a disciplinary problem. However, several people noticed a change in her behavior in the middle of the school year. Her relationship with her parents deteriorated somewhat, and she sometimes displayed an attitude of not caring about family or school. The beginning of these changes in Kim roughly coincided with her friendship with a boy named Gilbert, who was a poor student, both in academics (he had to repeat grades) and in conduct. Gilbert also later began to spread rumors that he and Kim allegedly were sexually active. Such rumors came to the attention of interested and concerned teachers, one of whom alerted Kim's parents. Kim's parents became convinced that Gilbert was a bad influence on Kim and that she would be better off not seeing him. They refused to allow him to visit at their home, and they insisted that she stop seeing him. This created a conflict between Kim and her family. In the course of conversations with some girl friends approximately the end of March or beginning of April, 1994, Kim disclosed that she had been sexually assaulted by the Respondent. Initially, she told one of her friends only that the Respondent had "felt on" and "kissed" her. She told others additional details. But the first three friends she told did not recall any allegation that the Respondent performed oral sex on Kim. In later retellings, Kim added that allegation. In one later retelling, she added the allegation that the Respondent felt her breasts. Kim forbade her friends to tell anyone about her allegations. But one of her friends disclosed the allegations, and school authorities were informed on or about April 8, 1994. When Kim learned that the school authorities were investigating her allegations, she was very upset and angry at the friend who disclosed her confidences. When the school authorities confronted Kim, she maintained that her allegations were true, and the school authorities brought her home from school. Kim's parents were not home but her sister-in-law, who lived next door, was home and spoke with Kim. Based on the sister-in-law's testimony, it does not appear that Kim's statement to her was very detailed. Although Kim and her parents reported that they generally have an open and communicative relationship, Kim refused to discuss the allegations with them when they came home from work. Instead, she referred her parents to her sister-in-law. Through at least August 26, 1994, Kim had not discussed the details of her allegations with her parents. (They have, however, read statements she has written concerning the allegations.) Law enforcement interviewed Kim at her home on April 8, 1994, and memorialized the interview in a written statement. On June 21, 1994, Kim wrote an account of the alleged assault by the Respondent. Kim also recounted the entirety of the alleged assault twice during testimony at final hearing, once on direct and again on cross; parts were repeated once more on redirect. All of these statements are replete with rich detail, making them seem real. However, with one noteworthy exception, the consistent precision with which the details are repeated seems unnatural and could give the impression of being recited from a memorized script. Before her fourth period science class on Friday, December 10, 1993, the Respondent told her that her mother had telephoned the Respondent earlier that morning to inquire about the C on her report card for the second grading period (after getting an A for the first grading period) and that the Respondent had told Kim's her mother that Kim was missing seven assignments. The Respondent told Kim that she could get the assignments, together with the book she needed to do them, after school. (The required book would not be available until after school because the Respondent's classes shared the use of the same books during class.) Meanwhile, in the detailed versions of her allegations, Kim stated that she was jokingly bantering with a friend and the Respondent about whose "man" the Respondent was, as they did from time to time. She stated that, on this occasion, the Respondent informed them that he was "a dirty old man." She stated that she and her friend did not take the Respondent's statement seriously. Kim stated that, after school ended at about 3:50 p.m. on Friday, December 10, 1993, she went to the Respondent's class room to get the make-up assignments. She testified that she would have arrived at approximately 4 p.m. She said the Respondent was straightening desks and that she helped him finish before sitting in one of the desks. She stated that he then asked her if she had come by to see if he really was a "dirty old man." She made an off-hand comment to the effect, "I guess," or "whatever." He then walked to the classroom door and shut it. Several of the witnesses, including her friends and her sister-in-law, testified that, when Kim first told them what happened, she said that the Respondent locked the classroom door. The report of the law enforcement interview on April 8, 1994, also indicated that Kim told law enforcement that the Respondent locked the door. In fact, the classroom door does not lock from the inside. In her June 21, 1994, statement and in her testimony at final hearing, Kim stated that she thought the Respondent locked the door. Kim alleged that, after shutting (and, in the early versions, locking) the door, the Respondent put a poster with a monkey on it over the window portion of the door and dragged an easel with a flip chart in front of the door, apparently to block access to the classroom or, at least, to serve as an alarm to give him some time to react in the event someone tried to enter the classroom. There was indeed a poster of a monkey (or chimpanzee) on display in the Respondent's classroom that year, and there also was an easel in the classroom that would have been at the Respondent's disposal. But, in fact, the classroom door opens into the hallway, not into the classroom, and the placement of the easel in front of the door would not have been very effective. It is possible that it was the Respondent, not Kim, who overlooked the manner in which the door opened. But, even if the classroom door had been locked or blocked, the Respondent's classroom was adjacent to another science classroom, and there is a door between the two classrooms that does not lock. Ordinarily, it would not be uncommon for the Respondent's fellow science teacher, as well as a few students, to be in the adjacent classroom from 3:50 p.m. until as late as 4:05 p.m. In addition, administration personnel in the suite containing the principal's office and the other administration offices generally are occupied until 4:30 p.m., or later, even on a Friday. Custodians also circulated through the building after school (although they generally did not clean the Respondent's classroom until later.) Fortuitously, it has been possible to deduce, from some of the details provided in Kim's allegations, the precise day on which the alleged assault occurred--Friday, December 10, 1993. It so happens that Friday, December 10, 1993, was the last day of the school science fair. There were approximately 200 projects on display in the school gymnasium, which was just down the hall from the Respondent's classroom. Entrants in the fair were required to dismantle and remove their projects after school that day. As a result, although both students and teachers generally leave the school building promptly on Fridays, and fewer after school activities usually are planned for Fridays, more than the normal number of students would have been in the hallway during the time immediately after the end of school on that particular Friday. In addition, the Respondent's fellow science teacher in the connecting classroom adjacent to the Respondent's had arranged with a handful of his students to allow them to dismantle their projects earlier in the day and store them in his classroom. These students would have been in the connecting adjacent classroom between approximately 3:50 and 4:05 p.m. picking up their science projects. Kim alleged that, after securing the classroom door, the Respondent returned to her and asked whether she thought he was a "dirty old man." She stated that, when she answered, "no, I think you are a nice guy," he suggested, "maybe you should go now," and went over to remove the easel and open the door. But, she alleged, when she insisted that she had to stay in order to get her assignments, he again went to the door and repeated the steps he had just taken to secure the door. This time, when he returned to her, he backed her into a corner of the classroom, using gentle pressure on the shoulders, and (in each telling, "putting his arm around her neck") began kissing her. Kim stated that she did not resist the Respondent or call for help because the Respondent was not being violent, and she was afraid that he would become violent if she was not compliant, so she kissed him back. She alleged that he proceeded to lift her ankle-length "peach and black floral print skirt" (which she was wearing with a "black, long sleeve V-neck shirt"), remove her panties (and, in each telling, she stepped out of the panties "with [her] right foot" while he held her panties) and insert his finger into her vagina. She alleged that he pressed down on her shoulders until she was in a squatting position, lay on his back on the floor and positioned his head under her, and initiated oral sex. After this, he allegedly stood her up, and resumed kissing her, while unbuckling his belt and unzipping his pants. She alleged that he took her hand and placed it on his penis. She alleged that, when he removed his hand from hers, she removed her hand from his penis. When she allegedly thwarted his attempt to have intercourse with her, he allegedly turned her around to face the wall, bent her over (somehow, towards the walls she was facing), again pulled up her skirt, and (as best she could tell) again attempted intercourse, this time from the rear (she alleged that she "felt something hard against her vagina"). Then, she alleged, she detected movement from behind her and assumed that he was masturbating and ejaculating because, when she turned around after the movement stopped, he was wiping something off the floor with a yellow towel. (A yellow cloth, from which a piece had been torn or cut, was found in one of the closets in the Respondent's classroom during the School Board's investigation of the allegations. But it was not proven that the cloth which the Respondent allegedly used to clean the floor on the afternoon of Friday, December 10, 1993, had come from the cloth found in the closet in the Respondent's classroom.) Kim alleged that the Respondent apologized to her for what he did and begged her both never to come back to his classroom alone after school and not to tell anyone. She alleged that the Respondent made reference to a teacher who was being disciplined for sexual misconduct with a student 20 years ago and stated that he always would be afraid that she would disclose what he had done. (In fact, such a story had been reported in the local newspapers on December 8, 1993.) Kim alleged that she promised the Respondent she would not tell anyone. According to Kim, after the incident, which lasted a total of 20-30 minutes, she and the Respondent calmly and amicably left the school together. They allegedly exited through the classroom door into the hallway to the west of the classroom, crossed the intersecting hallway, immediately down which is located the door to the teachers' lounge, and continued walking down the hallway. Immediately past the intersecting hallway, they would have had to pass both the office of the school resource officer and the suite of offices belonging to the school principal and other school administration personnel. A little further down the hallway, they would have passed between the school cafeteria and the school gymnasium (the site of the science fair). Just past the cafeteria and gymnasium, they would have come to the door leading to the parking lot. Kim stated that no one saw them and that they did not see anyone on their way out of the building. Kim alleged that, before she left the building to walk home, she watched the Respondent walk across the parking lot and get in his pickup truck. The Respondent testified that, after learning the date on which it was deduced that the assault allegedly occurred, he realized that it would have been impossible for Kim to have witnessed him getting into his pickup truck on the day in question. He testified that he was having mechanical problems with the truck that week and was driving his wife's car across the bay bridge to work after dropping her off at her place of employment in Tampa, where they lived, while his truck was being repaired. He produced a cancelled check and was able to secure a computer printout from the bill he paid for the repairs when he picked the truck up the next day, Saturday, December 11, 1993. Kim also testified that the Respondent left the "monkey poster" on the door covering the window when they left the classroom. But the custodian who cleaned the Respondent's classroom each evening did not recall ever seeing the "monkey poster" anywhere but on the wall. The Respondent denied engaging in any of the alleged inappropriate behavior. He was able to reconstruct that he had bus duty on Friday, December 10, 1993, and would not have returned to his classroom until 4 p.m. He recalled that there was an unusual amount of activity in the hallways, especially for a Friday, but that probably was attributable to the school science fair. He recalled that, as he approached his classroom, he noticed several students in the adjacent connecting classroom with his fellow science teacher. He thinks he saw Kim there, too. In any event, Kim followed him into his classroom shortly after he unlocked it, opened the door and turned on the lights. He remembered that she helped him straighten desks and that he sat at a desk with her to go over the assignments. He did not recall whether he or she actually wrote the assignments down. He then gave her the book she needed, and she left. He testified that the entire process took approximately five minutes and that the door to the classroom never was closed during that time. Kim alleged that, although she never completed the missing assignments, the Respondent raised her grade from a C to a B. The Respondent testified that Kim completed four of the seven missing assignments. The Respondent normally would not either keep the make-up assignments nor, to prevent other students from copying them, return them to the student. Kim alleged that the Respondent gave her special privileges, like library passes, after the assault. But it was not proven that the Respondent gave more privileges to Kim after the alleged incident than before, or that he gave her privileges that he did not also give to other good students like Kim. Kim alleged that the Respondent often complimented her appearance. The Respondent admitted to affirmatively answering occasional direct questions from Kim as to whether she was pretty. He also recalled occasions when he told Kim and other female students that they were "pretty enough already" and did not need to (and should not) comb their hair and apply makeup in class. Kim alleged that, on one occasion, the Respondent commented that a low-cut blouse she was wearing was distracting. The Respondent recalled once reprimanding Kim for wearing a blouse that was revealing and in violation of school dress code. He admitted that he may have told her that it could be distracting to other students. The Respondent admitted to making an inappropriate comment to or about Kim on one occasion. The school assembled in the gymnasium one day for the introduction of a fund-raising campaign that featured a "money machine." The money machine consisted of a transparent booth with dollar bills inside. As part of the fund-raising campaign, students would be allowed to enter the booth while fans blowing air through holes in the floor of the booth blew the dollars bills off the floor and around inside the booth. The student inside had a limited period of time to grab as many dollar bills as possible. When volunteers were requested to demonstrate the "money machine," Kim thought better of it since she was wearing a skirt. The next day, in the Respondent's class, the Respondent asked Kim why she hadn't volunteered. When she answered that she was wearing a skirt and was concerned that air in the booth would have lifted her skirt, the Respondent commented aloud to the class, "that would have been interesting," or words to that effect. The Respondent was trying to be funny but admitted that the comment was not appropriate. It is noteworthy that, when the Respondent was told that Gilbert was spreading rumors to the effect that he and Kim had an intimate sexual relationship, the Respondent warned Kim to take appropriate steps to protect her reputation. It was revealed during the course of the investigation into Kim's allegations against the Respondent that Kim also has made allegations that, during the summer of 1993, she was forcibly raped at two in the morning, in the bathroom of a restaurant, by a 24-year old male acquaintance. Although Kim's mother thought she remembered Kim returning home upset after the alleged incident, she also testified that she may have learned about it after the allegations against the Respondent surfaced--long after the alleged rape. (Kim's mother, who has been terminally ill and on several medications for some time, seemed confused on this point.) Regardless when Kim revealed the alleged rape, both she and her mother agreed that Kim asked her mother not to tell anyone because Kim could "handle it" by herself. Kim did not receive any treatment or counseling for the alleged rape. Kim also did not mention the alleged rape to law enforcement during the investigation into the allegations against the Respondent. Although it is possible that the alleged rape or the Respondent's alleged sexual assault actually happened, both seem improbable. Yet, it is troubling that no obvious motivation for Kim to fabricate the allegations against the Respondent appears from the evidence. It is possible that she was seeking attention. It is possible that her mother's medical condition could have played a role in motivating such action. On the other hand, it could have had something to do with the relationship between Kim and Gilbert. Maybe she was upset with the Respondent for his role, minor as it was, in turning her parents against Gilbert. Maybe she was trying to deflect her parents' attention away from the bad influence that Gilbert might have represented by trying to make the point that acquaintances or even teachers could pose a worse threat. Maybe the alleged rape and the allegations against the Respondent arose from apprehension about how to explain feared consequences of sexual activity with Gilbert, as irrational as it might seem. Maybe there are other possible explanations in the nature of mental or emotional instability. Perhaps the most likely explanation is that Kim was simply making up a story to impress her girl friends and found herself committed to the story when one of them disobeyed Kim's command not to tell anyone. One can only speculate as to what the actual motivation could have been.
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 dismissing the charges and reinstating the Respondent with back pay. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 1st day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-8. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, accepted and incorporated; the rest is rejected as not proven. Accepted and incorporated. 13.-29. Rejected as not proven. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven that she "volunteered." (She decided not to volunteer.) Rejected as not proven that he told Kim (privately, as opposed to as part of the class). Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 32.-33. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-12. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 13.-17. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary or argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Keith B. Martin, Esquire School Board of Pinellas County 301-4th Street S.W. Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Kelly and McKee, P.A. Suite 301 1718 East Seventh Avenue Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 J. Howard Hinesley Superintendent Pinellas County School System Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4688
The Issue The issue presented herein concerns an appeal of the Respondent, School Board of Dade County, Florida's assignment of Respondent, Carlos Alberto Estevez, to the Youth Opportunity School-South, an alternative school placement.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact: Carlos Alberto Estevez, Lereia Carlos or Respondent, date of birth December 18, 1968, was assigned to the W. R. Thomas Jr. High School (Thomas) as a seventh grader during the 1982-83 school year. By letter dated February 1, 1983, Respondent's parents, Mr. and Mrs. Angel Estevez, were advised that their son, Carlos, was being administratively assigned to Youth Opportunity School- South based on his disruption of the educational process in the regular school program at Thomas. Throughout the 82-83 school year, Carlos was the subject of numerous indoor suspensions based on defiant and disruptive behavior which has resulted in a disruption of his classes at Thomas. As example, during November, 1982, Respondent was given a five (5) day in-school suspension due to his outbursts of abusive and profane language to an instructor at Thomas. Petitioner was also the subject of other suspensions due to physical and verbal threats and harassment of other students. Carlos was truant on numerous occasions during the 1982-83 school year. Carlos' parents were kept advised of his suspensions, both in school and out of school (testimony of Donald Helip, Assistant Principal, W. R. Thomas Jr. High School). Respondent's father contends that the school board is discriminating against Carlos for making the recommendation to as sign him to the Opportunity School Program. No evidence was offered in support of that contention.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner enter a Final Order assigning the Respondent, Carlos Alberto Estevez, to an alternative school placement. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse J. McCrary, Jr. and Mark Valentine, Esquires 300 Executive Plaza, Suite 800 3050 Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33137 Jorge L. Tabares, Esquire Intercontinental Bank Building Suite 210 3899 N.W. 7th Street Miami, Florida 33126
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment as a teacher by the Duval County School Board should be terminated for the reasons specified in the Notice of Termination of Employment Contract and Immediate Suspension without Pay dated March 27, 2013.
Findings Of Fact The Duval County School Board (School Board) is charged with the responsibility to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Duval County, Florida. Ms. Beverly L. Howard has been employed by the Duval County School Board as a classroom teacher for over 32 years. She went to Paxton Senior High School and then to Florida A & M University, graduating with a bachelor of science degree in elementary education. The School Board seeks to terminate Ms. Howard’s employment. Her substantial interests are affected by this intended action. Ms. Howard has a history of past misconduct and disciplinary action. While teaching at Hyde Grove Elementary School in 1992, Ms. Howard received three memoranda from Principal Theresa Stahlman concerning her interactions with parents and students and her teaching performance. Among other comments, Ms. Stahlman noted that Ms. Howard needed significant improvement to “show sensitivity to student needs by maintaining a positive school environment.” Ms. Stahlman testified that Ms. Howard exhibited a “very loud punitive behavior management style” and that she wanted to help Ms. Howard improve. A note at the end of one memorandum indicates that Ms. Howard had said that she did not need cadre assistance and that she would request assistance if she needed it. A note on another memorandum indicates that Ms. Howard refused to sign it. Ms. Howard testified at hearing that the things Ms. Stahlman wrote in the three memoranda were lies. Ms. Howard said that Ms. Stahlman was a racist and was prejudiced. Ms. Stahlman gave Ms. Howard an unsatisfactory evaluation. The next year, Ms. Howard got an option to go to another school. On March 8, 1995, a conference was held between Ms. Howard, a parent of one of her students, and Principal Debbie Sapp. The student had alleged that Ms. Howard had pushed her down. Principle Sapp noted in a memorandum that Ms. Howard “vehemently denied this, in an extremely rude and unprofessional manner” and said that she would never put her hands on a student. Principal Sapp advised Ms. Howard that being argumentative and defensive with parents was unacceptable and only made bad situations worse. On March 10, 1995, Principal Sapp was making morning classroom checks when she overheard Ms. Howard repeatedly yell at a student, “Get out of my classroom.” Ms. Howard’s final comment was “Get out before I throw you out.” Principal Sapp then entered the classroom and saw a student standing at her desk, about to leave. Ms. Howard said that the student had been misbehaving all morning. Principal Sapp told the students that she did not expect teachers to yell at them or threaten them and admonished them to behave. In a memorandum to Ms. Howard, Principal Sapp wrote that Ms. Howard needed to work on controlling her temper, noted that Ms. Howard’s classroom was frequently in disarray, and stated that yelling at students and threatening them was inappropriate behavior that only made things worse. Ms. Howard testified at hearing that when Ms. Sapp came down the hall and heard a teacher yelling, Ms. Sapp never came face-to-face with her, and that it could have been the voice of another teacher which Ms. Sapp heard. On May 27, 2003, the Office of Professional Standards investigated a complaint from a student’s parent that Ms. Howard had grabbed the student by the arm, choked him, and caused him to vomit. The student said that Ms. Howard dug her fingernails into his arm when he got up to retrieve a paper that another boy had taken from his desk. He said that her nails were hurting him, so he began hitting Ms. Howard. He then said that she put her hand around his throat and made him choke. He said he felt sick and threw up. Ms. Howard denied the accusation. She stated that the student was in a fight with a female student in her class and that she separated them. She said she asked the female student to sit down and attempted to gain control of the male student. Ms. Howard showed the investigator a scratch on her thumb that she said was made by the student. She stated that after she assisted the student to his desk he began gagging and attempting to vomit. She said that only saliva came up and she asked him to go to the bathroom to clean himself up. The investigation was closed as “unable to prove or disprove.” The Office of Professional Standards investigated allegations of unprofessional conduct against Ms. Howard on April 28, 2004. The mother of student T.J. had left a message with Ms. Howard to call her to talk about scratches on T.J.’s arm. Ms. Howard called the mother at her workplace, University of Florida Jacksonville Physicians. The mother asked Ms. Howard if she knew where the scratches came from, and Ms. Howard said they came from an incident in the library. The mother could then hear Ms. Howard asking T.J. and another girl in her class about what had happened. The other girl said that T.J. had done things to cause the incident. Ms. Howard immediately relayed to the mother that the incident had been T.J.’s fault. The mother became upset, realizing that Ms. Howard had not been present and yet was completely accepting the other girl’s version of what had happened. The mother then told Ms. Howard that this was not right and that she would go to see the principal. Ms. Howard told the mother that she could talk to whomever she wanted to, and then put the phone down as if intending to disconnect the call, but the mother could still hear what was going on in the classroom. Ms. Howard said, “Class, isn’t T.J. a nasty little girl?” The class responded, “Yes, ma’am.” The mother heard Ms. Howard say, “Class, don’t I send home paperwork?” The children responded, “Yes, ma’am.” The mother could hear T.J. trying to ask Ms. Howard a question, and Ms. Howard saying, “Go sit your behind down.” At this point the mother became angry that Ms. Howard was verbally abusing her child in front of the other children. She asked her “lead” at her workplace to continue to monitor the call. She immediately left, and drove directly to the school to talk to the principal, Ms. Blackshear. The investigator received statements from the mother’s lead and several co-workers which contained additional statements Ms. Howard made to the students. Ms. Howard said: [T.J.] get out of my face, you can go home and tell your mama all of those lies. Yeah, she is probably going to want to have a conference with Ms. Blackshear. Go ahead and get out of my face with your nasty disrespectful face. Ms. [T.J.] sit down, I have already told your mama that you will be retained in the second grade. You want to be all that, well I can be more. The investigator determined that the phone number shown on the workplace caller ID feature was the number of Ms. Howard’s cell phone. When interviewed by the Office of Professional Standards, Ms. Howard denied making the above comments regarding T.J. She stated that T.J. had been a problem all year and that the student’s mother “got an attitude” with her. Ms. Howard did admit she placed a “shelter kid,” who was a juvenile inmate, outside of her classroom without supervision “for a few minutes.” She stated that everyone in the school knew it was a bad class, but she was being blamed. Ms. Howard testified at hearing that the lead and co-workers of T.J.’s mother were lying when they made statements about her interactions with the students in her classroom. She said she put the phone in her purse, and the purse in her desk drawer, and that no one could have heard any conversations in the classroom. Student T.J. was then reassigned from Ms. Howard’s class. At hearing, T.J. testified that when she was in Ms. Howard’s third-grade class, she “got her card flipped to pink” on a daily basis (this color indicating the worst conduct). She admitted that she deserved this sometimes, but not all the time. She testified that she remembered that Ms. Howard used to pinch her arm when she was “in trouble.” T.J. remembered that Ms. Howard called her names, saying she was nasty, disrespectful, and in need of home training, in front of the other students. She testified that she had problems in Ms. Howard’s class because she needed to go to the bathroom frequently and Ms. Howard would only let her go once a day. She would sometimes wet her pants. She then would have to wait until she was allowed to go to the office to call her mother to get clean clothing. On May 17, 2004, the Duval County School Board administered discipline to Ms. Howard for her interactions with her class as reported by T.J.’s mother and her co-workers. She was issued a written reprimand, suspended for five days without pay, and required to attend an anger management session. Ms. Howard was informed that she had been given the opportunity of constructive discipline instead of a reduction of pay or dismissal to afford her progressive discipline, and that any further improper conduct on Ms. Howard’s part would subject her to more severe disciplinary action. The written reprimand set forth Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) in its entirety, with its requirement that she “make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental and/or physical health and/or safety.” Ms. Howard signed a Receipt and Acknowledgement that she received a copy of the reprimand. On September 6, 2012, shortly after the start of the 2012-2013 school year, Louis Sheffield Elementary School held an open-house night. Ms. Lindsey Connor, assistant principle at the school, credibly testified to Ms. Howard’s response to a parent’s assertion that Ms. Howard had refused to allow her son, T.S., to go to the bathroom and that he had wet his pants in her class. Ms. Howard said to the mother of T.S., “What seems to be the problem?” in a harsh tone. After some discussion, Ms. Howard said something to the effect of: “Your son is a liar. He lies. He doesn’t need to be in my classroom anymore.” Ms. Howard denied that she ever told the mother of T.S. that her child was a liar. She stated that that would have been unprofessional. Ms. Howard testified that Ms. Connor’s statement that this had happened was a lie and that Ms. Connor was always taking the parents’ side. Ms. Howard testified that she never prevented a child from going to the bathroom and that T.S. just wet himself. Ms. Conner received numerous complaints about Ms. Howard from parents of Ms. Howard’s kindergarten students. Ms. Connor received six requests from parents to remove their children from Ms. Howard’s class. Ms. Connor testified that this was an unusually high number of requests and that she was concerned. J.F. was a student in Ms. Howard’s kindergarten class who exhibited behavioral problems. She would do acrobatic flips in the classroom and would tie her shoelaces to the chairs. She appeared to be hyper-active and would fall out of her chair when she was at her seat. J.F. would go all around Ms. Howard’s classroom and did not listen to Ms. Howard. She would back-talk Ms. Howard and showed her no respect. J.F. was frightened of Ms. Howard and often cried. Ms. Howard testified that she wanted to get specialized treatment or placement for J.F. but that the parents would not agree. In response to a complaint from the parents of J.F., Ms. Connor asked Ms. Howard to prepare a chart on which stickers could be placed to document J.F.’s progress in school. Ms. Connor asked Ms. Howard to bring the chart to a meeting to discuss how to help J.F. advance. Ms. Howard did not bring anything to the meeting and said nothing about how she might be able to help J.F. The mother of W.B. testified that her son was in Ms. Howard’s kindergarten class and that he loved Ms. Howard as a teacher. On one occasion in Ms. Howard’s classroom, W.B.’s mother observed Ms. Howard pull J.F. by the arm over to her when J.F. had gotten into trouble. The mother stated that J.F. appeared scared and she would not have liked Ms. Howard to do that to her child. In response to a call from the parent of C.B., a student in Ms. Howard’s class, Ms. Connor suspected that Ms. Howard may have hit one or more of her kindergarten students with a book. In a discussion with the Professional Standards office, Ms. Connor was told that she should investigate, advise the teacher, and contact the Department of Children and Families. Ms. Conner conducted interviews with students assigned to Ms. Howard’s class in the presence of a witness and took notes as to what the students told her. She testified that she brought the students into her office individually, that they didn’t know beforehand what she was going to talk to them about, and that they had no opportunity to collaborate or coordinate their statements. After conducting interviews with the children, Ms. Connor advised Ms. Howard of an allegation that Ms. Howard struck J.F. on multiple occasions with a book. Ms. Howard responded that she would not provide a written statement because she had never hit a student. Ms. Connor notified the Department of Children and Families. The report and testimony of the child protective investigator indicated that J.F was open, happy, and smiling during the “non-threatening” portions of the interview, but the investigator testified that when asked about Ms. Howard’s class, J.F. became nervous, chewed on the ends of her clothes, began to fidget, and asked if Ms. Howard was going to know what J.F. was saying. The investigator interviewed several students in the class. The report indicated that J.F. was free of suspicious marks or bruises. When the investigator interviewed Ms. Howard, she denied ever hitting J.F. with a book or slamming her down in her seat when J.F. was misbehaving. Ms. Howard indicated that she was close to retirement and would not hit a child. Student J.F. testified at hearing that she did not like Ms. Howard as her kindergarten teacher because Ms. Howard “did not want to be nice to me.” She testified that Ms. Howard “hurt me.” She testified that Ms. Howard “hit me on the leg with a book.” She testified that Ms. Howard hit her with the book because Ms. Howard had told her to get down on the carpet. She held up five fingers when asked how many times Ms. Howard had hit her. During cross-examination, she testified that she had been hit five times in succession on a single occasion. On redirect, she testified that she had been hit on five separate days. Student K.D., aged six, testified that J.F. did bad things in Ms. Howard’s class. He testified that J.F. put her head in her shirt. He testified that the class would sit on the carpet every day for a little while. He testified that sometimes J.F. would stay on the carpet when she was supposed to go to her seat. He said that J.F. got spanked on her back by Ms. Howard with a book. He testified that Ms. Howard hit her on more than one day, and when asked how many days, said “sixteen.” He did not know how he knew it was 16 days. He later testified that Ms. Howard hit her “sixteen times every day.” The father of student J.C.M. testified that he transferred J.C.M. from a Montessori school to Louis Sheffield Elementary because his wife was going to have another baby and that school was closer to their home, which would mean a shorter drive for her. The first day that J.C.M. went to Ms. Howard’s class was February 11, 2013. The parents immediately began receiving “agenda notes” from Ms. Howard saying that J.C.M. was not behaving well. The father testified that J.C.M. did not want to go back to Ms. Howard’s class the next few days and would cry when they dropped him off. The father testified that since J.C.M. had never been a discipline problem and had done well at his prior school, he sent a note in after the second day to schedule a conference with Ms. Howard. The father testified that on the second or third day, J.C.M. came home complaining that his arm hurt, but when questioned as to what had happened, J.C.M. gave different stories. First he said a lady had grabbed his arm in the classroom. When asked “What lady?” J.C.M. said that it was a friend, another student. Later, he said that the injury had happened on the playground. Still later, he said that the injury was caused by his grandfather. The father was confused by these different answers. When the parents received no response to the request to meet with Ms. Howard, the parents went to the school and met with Ms. Connor, who advised them that Ms. Howard was no longer in the classroom, but she did not tell them why. Since J.C.M. now had a new teacher, his parents did not ask that he be moved to another class. Student J.C.M., aged six, testified that he had been moved into Louis Sheffield Elementary in the middle of the school year and only had Ms. Howard as his teacher for a few days. J.C.M. testified that on one of those days, “I was in the door and then I -- I didn’t kicked it. I didn’t kicked it, I touched it with my feet.” He testified that Ms. Howard grabbed him and put him by her desk or table and that his “arm hurted for a little bit –- a little bit long.” He testified that he saw Ms. Howard hit J.F. on the head with a book because she was not writing when she was supposed to be writing. He testified that on a later day Ms. Howard also hit him on the head with a book when he was on the rug, but he forgot if he was supposed to be on the rug or not. Ms. Howard testified at hearing that she never put her hands on any of the students. She did not know why the children would say that she had, except that they had been coerced to say it. She testified that she had been under a doctor’s care and that she had had back surgery and that her medical condition affected her ability to lift or throw items. She testified she could not bend over or lift heavy objects because it probably would have torn her sutures. She testified that she had been under a doctor’s care since January 30 and that it took her until February 14, the day she was reassigned, to recover. She testified that not only was it not in her character to hit a child, she was physically incapable of doing so at the time. The testimony of Ms. Connor that the kindergarten children had no opportunity to coordinate their statements and that they did not even know in advance why she wanted to talk to them is credited. Ms. Connor’s notes as to what each child told her supplement and corroborate the testimony of the children later at hearing. Although the direct testimony as to Ms. Howard’s actions all came from these young children, they were capable of observing and recollecting what happened in their kindergarten class and capable of relating those facts at hearing. Their responses to questions at hearing showed that the children had a moral sense of the obligation to tell the truth. There was no objection from Respondent as to the children’s competency, and they were competent to testify. These young children’s accounts of events were sufficiently credible and corroborative to prove that Respondent struck J.F. with a book on multiple occasions. There was credible testimony that J.F. was struck on her legs with a book when she would not get down on the carpet as she was supposed to, was struck on her back with a book when she would not get up off of the carpet as she was supposed to, and was struck on the head with a book when she would not write as she was supposed to. These physical contacts took place in front of other students. While the exact number of times she was struck was not clear, the testimony that it was deliberately done and was constantly repeated is credited. Ms. Sonita Young is the chief human resource officer of Duval County Schools. She reviewed Ms. Howard’s personnel file in making her recommendation to the Superintendent that Ms. Howard be suspended without pay pending termination. Ms. Howard’s employment record, including both performance issues and disciplinary issues, was considered in determining the appropriate recommendation to be made to the Superintendent and ultimately to the Board. A Notice of Termination of Employment Contract and Immediate Suspension without Pay from her position as a kindergarten teacher at Louis Sheffield Elementary was presented to Ms. Howard on March 27, 2013. The Notice alleged that Respondent had violated certain provisions of the Code of Ethics, contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.080, and a Principle of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, contained in rule 6A-10.081. Ms. Howard challenged the grounds for her termination and sought a hearing before an administrative law judge with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The rules cited above were adopted by the State Board of Education and relate to the public schools or the public school system. Rule 6A-10.081 was renumbered, but is substantively identical to the rule cited to Ms. Howard earlier in her May 17, 2004, Written Reprimand. Ms. Howard was well aware of her responsibility to protect students from conditions harmful to learning or to students’ mental or physical health or safety, because she had previously been disciplined for failing to do so. Ms. Howard’s actions in striking J.F. with a book failed to protect her students from conditions harmful to their mental and physical health and safety in violation of rule 6A- 10.081. Ms. Howard’s constantly repeated actions in striking J.F. constitute persistent violation of the rule and are cause to terminate her employment as a teacher. Ms. Howard’s deliberate actions in striking J.F. constitute willful refusal to obey the rule and are cause to terminate her employment as a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That the Duval County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Beverly L. Howard. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 15th day of October, 2013.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was a noninstructional employee of the School Board of Date County, Florida at all times material hereto, and was assigned to Thomas Jefferson Junior High School as a teacher's aide. The Respondent has six years' experience as a teacher's aide with the Dade County School System. He has a high school education and thirteen months of college, as well as twelve months of technical training, including studies in psychology. The Respondent has never, in all the time he has been employed in the Dade County School System, had any complaints lodged against him for aggressive or violent conduct and has never been previously involved in an incident in which he struck a student, although on one occasion he had to defend himself when a student attacked him. On September 22, 1980, the Respondent escorted some students to a physical education class on the school athletic field. While he was attempting to get the complaining student, Jose Velez, to return to the classroom, that student threatened him with violence and ultimately physically attacked the Respondent. Mr. Turnquist had to restrain the student and escort him to the school office for imposition of disciplinary measures regarding his behavior. The Petitioner's first witness, Gloria Randolph, is the Assistant Principal for Curriculum and Teacher Morale. She supervises the Exceptional Student Department, as well as the teachers' aides, and is acquainted with the protagonists in the subject incident. She observed the Respondent enter the school office with the student, Jose Velez, conversing in loud voices, both the Respondent and Velez appearing quite agitated. The Respondent told her that he "brought this boy up here and want something done about it." The Respondent and the subject student, at that time, were standing about five feet apart. She stepped between them, but the student kept advancing and she had to shove him back repeatedly. The student, Velez, acting in an aggressive, mocking manner, urged the Respondent to hit him, and threatened him with bodily harm. The tension between the two kept increasing, with the ultimate result that the Respondent struck the student with a light blow to the cheek. According to both Petitioner's witnesses, the student seemed relieved at that point and immediately calmed down. Witness Randolph acknowledged that the Respondent exercised good judgment, up until the point of striking the student, because he followed appropriate procedures in bringing the student to the office for disciplinary measures to be taken, and did not indulge in an argument with the student, although she did feel it was poor judgment for him to strike the student. The student, Jose Velez, is at least six feet in height and is considerably taller than the Respondent. Petitioner's witness, Marilyn Mattran, a teacher at Jefferson Junior High School, who was in the office and observed the subject altercation, established that Velez repeatedly threatened the Respondent with physical harm and that the student engaged in most of the yelling and in the aggressive behavior she observed. She corroborated the fact that when the Respondent actually struck Velez, that he immediately calmed down. She also corroborated the testimony of witness Randolph, as well as the Respondent's witness, Leah Alopari, that Jose Velez is an emotionally disturbed student who has an extensive history of aggressive, violent behavior and has made a practice of threatening students and teachers with physical violence and harm, even to the extent of threatening the use of a deadly weapon. He has, on occasion, done physical violence to other children. These three witnesses all acknowledged that the Respondent has never in the past, in their experience, demonstrated poor judgment in his conduct toward and transactions with students or teachers. Leah Aloari is the Respondent's supervising teacher. Jose Velez was one of her students, and she corroborated the fact, demonstrated by the other witnesses, that this particular student was aggressive, difficult to control and prone to engage in violent behavior. The Respondent assisted her in helping discipline her students, with the academic program and in escorting children to and from lunch, classes and the athletic field. She has never observed the Respondent engage in violent behavior in his relations with teachers or students, nor commit an act which exhibited poor judgment or misconduct in the course of his duties. As indicated above, the Respondent has had an exemplary record in his six years with the Dade County School System. Jose Velez, on the other hand, has been a constant disciplinary problem as acknowledged by the Petitioner's and Respondent's witnesses. The Respondent has a chronic neck injury involving a pinched nerve in the neck, and genuinely believed himself to be in danger of physical assault and harm by Velez when the incident occurred in the office. He believed it unwise to retreat in the fact of Velez's threats and aggressive advance upon him because he felt Velez was about to physically attack him. The Respondent did not feel that the other teacher and the Assistant Principal, who were the only other persons in the office at the time, could have restrained or adequately controlled Velez alone if he had retreated. There is no question, especially in view of the fact that the Respondent had already been assaulted by the student on the athletic field, that he genuinely believed that the situation called for him taking steps to defend himself. His act of self-defense in striking the student was itself marked by some restraint in the sense that he withheld striking the student with as much force as he was capable of. There is no evidence that he caused any permanent harm to the student. Indeed, even the Petitioner's witnesses established that it had the beneficial effect of calming the student down and preventing any further violent conduct on his part or possible injury to the students, the Respondent, others present, or possible damage to the Petitioner's property in the immediate vicinity. The undersigned considers it significant also that the student, although initially complaining of the Respondent's action, did not appear and testify at the hearing in furtherance of his complaint against the Respondent and that there was no significant physical injury inflicted upon Velez.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a licensed teacher in the state of Florida, having been issued Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 415935 by the Department of Education. In October, 1985, Respondent was a guidance counselor at the Larkdale Elementary School in Broward County, Florida. On October 30, 1985, T B. was eleven years old and a fifth-grade student at Larkdale Elementary School. On that date, while returning from the bathroom to her classroom T. B. encountered Respondent in the hallway. Respondent asked T. B. to accompany him to his office for the ostensible purpose of performing some filing. Upon arriving at Respondent's office, Respondent requested that T. B. fill up a candy jar. While T. B. was bending over getting candy out of the bottom of the filing cabinet, Respondent placed his hands around her waist. Respondent then lifted up so that she was standing in front of Respondent. Respondent placed his hand under her dress, then placed his hands inside her dress and fondled her breast. T. B. began crying and asked Respondent's permission to return to her classroom. At the time, Respondent was T. B.'s guidance counselor, and she talked to him about "everything." In February, 1986, Respondent was still employed as a counselor at Larkdale Elementary School. In February, 1986, K. C. was twelve years old and a fifth-grade student at Larkdale. In February, 1986, K. C. and two other students were standing in a hallway outside a classroom when they were approached by Respondent. Respondent placed his arms around K. C. and began talking to her. He then placed his hand on K. C.'s left breast. K. C. slapped Respondent's hand and told Respondent she was going to inform her teacher of what had occurred. On March 7, 1986 the Broward County Sheriff's Office filed a Probable Cause Affidavit against Respondent. The Probable Cause Affidavit alleged that on October 30, 1985, Respondent had committed a lewd and lascivious assault on T. B., a child under the age of 16, contrary to section 800.04(1), Florida Statutes. The Probable Cause Affidavit alleged: The victim was doing secretarial work for the Defendant, and was sitting on the floor in the Defendant's office sorting papers. The Defendant came up behind the victim, and put both his arms around her sliding one of his hands inside her shirt, and began to fondle her breast, the victim had forcibly [sic] get away from the Defendant. Respondent was arrested and charged with lewd and lascivious assault upon T. B. Subsequent to the filing of the Probable Cause Affidavit, the State Attorney's Office for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit filed a one-count criminal information against Respondent (Case No. 86-4538CF) which charged Respondent with committing a lewd and lascivious assault on a child (T. B.), in violation of section 800.04(1), Florida Statutes. The State Attorney's Office for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit also filed a one-count criminal information against Respondent (Case No. 86-4539CF) which charged Respondent with simple battery on a child K. C., in violation of section 784.03, Florida Statutes. On June 5, 1986, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to the violation of section 800.04(1), Florida Statutes, a second degree felony, as alleged in the information filed by the State Attorney's Office in the matter of State of Florida v. James R. Feldman, Case No. 86-4538CF. Adjudication was withheld. On June 5, 1986, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, a violation of section 784.03, Florida Statutes, a first degree misdemeanor, as alleged in the information filed by the State Attorney's Office in the matter of State of Florida v. James R. Feldman, Case No. 4539CF. Jacquelyn Box (f/k/a Jacquelyn Moore) was the Principal of Larkdale Elementary School during the 1985-86 school year. With regard to T. B., Ms. Box received a report from a teacher that Respondent had been touching the student inappropriately. She discussed the matter with the student and informed the student's mother. Ms. Box also reported the incident to the school system's Internal Affairs Department. With regard to K. C., Ms. Box became aware of the incident after the student's mother confronted Respondent. Upon being informed of the incident by her daughter, the student's mother came to the school to confront Respondent. During the confrontation, the student's mother struck Respondent. Upon being notified of the confrontation, Ms. Box contacted the Police Department and the school system's Internal Affairs Department. Both the staff and the students of Larkdale Elementary School were aware of the sexual improprieties committed by Respondent with regard to each of the female students. Certain students discussed the allegations with the Principal. Approximately 40-50% of the 4th and 5th grade students were aware of the allegations. The Principal was contacted by the parents of students in that school who were concerned about the incidents. Students and staff must have trust and confidence in a guidance counselor for the counselor to be effective. At times, a guidance counselor has to engage in one-on-one counseling with a student. One of the areas a guidance counselor works in with the students is human sexuality. A guidance counselor cannot be effective if the students do not trust him. The disclosure of the foregoing incidents had a negative impact upon Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher, substantially reducing that effectiveness. The students did not trust Respondent following the disclosure and would not trust Respondent if he returned to the school as a guidance counselor. Respondent's actions in fondling the two female students and the subsequent disclosure of Respondent's actions rendered Respondent totally ineffective as a guidance counselor. Respondent's actions in conjunction with the disclosure destroyed the bond of trust necessary for a guidance counselor to be effective.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order permanently revoking Respondent's teaching certificate. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of April, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 12th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER D0AH Case No. 87-3908 Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 20 has been rejected as not being supported by the evidence in this cause. The remainder of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are in the form of a letter with unnumbered paragraphs. For purposes of specific rulings herein, each paragraph has been numbered consecutively. Only Respondent's paragraph numbered 7 has been adopted in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's paragraphs numbered 1, 47 6, 8-13, and 15-17 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact bud rather as consisting primarily of argument. Respondent's paragraphs numbered 2, 3, 5 and 14 have been rejected as being contrary to the credible evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Chris H. Bentley, Esquire 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James R. Feldmann 6210 Northwest 26th Court Sunrise, Florida 33313 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The first issue in this case is whether, as the district school board alleges, a teacher abused, mistreated, or otherwise behaved inappropriately towards one of his special-needs students; if the allegations of wrongdoing are proved to be true, then it will be necessary to decide whether the school board has just cause to terminate the teacher's employment.
Findings Of Fact The Broward County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Broward County Public School System. At all times relevant to this case, Respondent Edouard Jean ("Jean") was employed as an Exceptional Student Education ("ESE") teacher in the Broward County public schools, a position which he had held for the preceding 16 years. During that period, Jean taught students with disabilities, who typically receive specially designed instruction and related services pursuant to individual educational plans. Ahead of the 2013-14 school year, Jean was transferred to Crystal Lake Middle School, where he had not previously worked. He was placed in an "SVE" class and assigned to teach ESE students having "varying exceptionalities." Jean's class contained a mix of high- and low-functioning students, about nine in number. Jean's colleague, Ray Montalbano, taught a similar SVE class in a nearby room. At the beginning of the school year, the two ESE teachers agreed to share responsibility for their respective students under an arrangement that separated the higher functioning students from the lower functioning students. Jean and Mr. Montalbano took turns teaching the two groups, exchanging one for the other at midday. In this way, each teacher spent roughly equal time with the respective sets of students. For the last hour of the day, they combined the two groups and jointly instructed the approximately 18 students in Mr. Montalbano's classroom, which was larger. There were two paraprofessionals, or teacher's assistants, working in Jean and Mr. Montalbano's SVE classes. One, named Lisa Phillips, was assigned to both teachers; she alternated between their classrooms during the day. The other, Donna Rollins, was assigned to Mr. Montalbano's class, where Jean spent an hour each afternoon. In view of the cooperative arrangement between Jean and Mr. Montalbano, both of the teacher's assistants regularly worked in the same classroom as Jean and assisted with the provision of instruction and services to the 18 students for whom Jean and Mr. Montalbano were responsible. On October 15, 2013, Jean was removed from his classroom and informed that he was the target of a criminal investigation arising from allegations that he recently had abused one of his pupils, a 13-year-old boy with Down Syndrome named Z.P., who was among the lower functioning students. Jean's accuser was an occupational therapist named Lisa Taormina, who at all relevant times worked as an independent contractor for the School Board, providing services to students at various public schools in Broward County. Jean consistently has denied Ms. Taormina's allegations, which shocked and surprised him. Ms. Taormina, who that year was seeing students at Crystal Lake Middle School once per week each Friday, reported having observed Jean mistreat Z.P. on October 4, 2013, and again on October 11, 2013. Ms. Taormina claimed that the alleged events of October 4 took place in Jean's classroom with Ms. Phillips in attendance. The alleged events of October 11, in contrast, purportedly took place in Mr. Montalbano's classroom during the hour when the two SVE classes were combined. Thus, the alleged abuse supposedly occurred in the presence of Mr. Montalbano, Ms. Phillips, Ms. Rollins, and a substitute teacher named Shirley Ashcroft who happened to be there that day. Ms. Taormina's allegations were investigated by the Broward County Sheriff's Office and the Broward District Schools Police Department. During these investigations, neither Z.P. nor any of the other students were interviewed, because most of them (including Z.P.) are either nonverbal or too intellectually limited to be reliable witnesses.1/ All of the adults were questioned, however, and none of them corroborated Ms. Taormina's allegations. Unsurprisingly, therefore, no criminal charges were brought against Jean. On the strength of Ms. Taormina's allegations, the School Board nevertheless determined that Jean had abused Z.P. and thus should be fired. As it happens, Ms. Taormina's final hearing testimony is the only direct evidence against Jean, whose colleagues Mr. Montalbano, Ms. Phillips, Ms. Rollins, and Ms. Ashcroft, to a person, credibly denied under oath having ever seen him mistreat Z.P. or any other student. The outcome of this case, therefore, depends on whether Ms. Taormina's testimony is believed likely to be an accurate account of the relevant historical events. In assessing Ms. Taormina's credibility, the undersigned finds it especially significant that Jean's co- workers, who were able to observe him for extended periods of time on a daily basis in the classroom, never witnessed him engage in any troubling or suspicious behavior during the roughly seven weeks he taught at Crystal Lake Middle School; to the contrary, everyone who testified (except Ms. Taormina) who had seen Jean in the classroom praised his performance generally, and his relationship with Z.P. in particular. The undersigned credits the consistent, mutually corroborative, and overwhelmingly favorable testimony about Jean's exemplary conduct. Because an isolated incident, however out of character, can be squared with evidence of otherwise superlative performance, the fact that Jean was well regarded by the employees with whom he closely worked does not exclude the possibility that Jean abused Z.P., but it does diminish the likelihood that he could have abused Z.P. on multiple occasions. For that reason, if Ms. Taormina claimed only to have seen Jean mistreat Z.P. once, her testimony likely would have been more believable. Ms. Taormina claims, however, to have seen Jean abuse Z.P. on two separate days——on consecutive weekly visits to the school, no less. If Ms. Taormina is to be believed, Jean's alleged abuse of Z.P. was not an isolated incident but was rather, if not necessarily part of a pattern of behavior, at least something Jean was capable of repeating. Here it bears emphasizing that Ms. Taormina saw Jean, at most, once per week for relatively brief periods of less than 30 minutes apiece. Within the context of this limited contact, Ms. Taormina (if she is believed) happened to witness Jean abuse Z.P. on back-to-back visits, while Jean's colleagues, who saw him every workday, never noticed anything amiss. Logically, there are, broadly speaking, two possible explanations for this anomalous situation. First, Jean might have abused Z.P. only when Ms. Taormina was present in the classroom, which would explain why no one else ever saw him mistreat the student, so long as the failure of the four other adults in the room on October 11 to witness the alleged misconduct——a lack of attentiveness that defies reasonable expectations——is overlooked. Given that Ms. Taormina's brief weekly visits comprised such a tiny percentage of Jean's total time with the students, however, to abuse Z.P. only in her presence probably would have required Jean to act according to a plan, which beggars belief;2/ otherwise, Ms. Taormina's presence at the very moments that all such abuse occurred was a most remarkable coincidence. At any rate, while the probability that Jean abused Z.P. only when Ms. Taormina was around to witness his misdeeds is perhaps greater than zero percent, the undersigned regards this explanation as far too implausible to be considered likely. Alternatively, and likelier, Jean might have abused Z.P. not only in Ms. Taormina's presence, but also in her absence. Because Ms. Taormina is the only person who has ever claimed to have seen Jean mistreat Z.P., however, to accept this explanation requires believing that Jean's co-workers never saw him abusing Z.P., or that everyone who witnessed such abuse except Ms. Taormina resolved not to report it.3/ Yet both situations are unworthy of belief. More likely than not, if Jean were abusing Z.P. at times when Ms. Taormina was not in the room, which was most of the time, then at some point over the course of seven weeks Mr. Montalbano or one of the paraprofessionals would have noticed something wrong4/——and none of them did, as found above. Similarly, it is difficult to imagine——and impossible reasonably to infer in the absence of any supporting evidence——that another teacher or paraprofessional, or some combination of these employees, would fail to report suspected child abuse and lie under oath to protect Jean. In any event, the undersigned has found that Jean's fellow employees never saw Jean abuse Z.P., which means that, in all likelihood, Jean did not abuse Z.P. when Ms. Taormina was not in the room. In sum, it is unlikely that Jean repeatedly abused Z.P. only in Ms. Taormina's presence; and yet, it is unlikely that Jean ever abused Z.P. during the vast majority of the time when Ms. Taormina was not in the room (but another adult or adults typically were). Therefore, the logical conclusion is that Jean likely never abused Z.P. at all, contrary to Ms. Taormina's allegations. The foregoing reasons are sufficient for the undersigned to reject Ms. Taormina's testimony as ultimately unpersuasive and to find that the School Board has failed to prove its allegations against Jean. Nevertheless, Ms. Taormina was a good witness in many respects. Her story has been consistent, her recollection seemingly clear, her testimony vivid and detailed. Ms. Taormina is articulate and her demeanor at hearing suggested sincerity. She had barely known Jean before the events at issue and was not shown to have had grounds to dislike him or any other motive for damaging him with false allegations of misconduct. Thus, while not necessary to the disposition, it is desirable to examine Ms. Taormina's specific accusations in greater detail. Ms. Taormina claims that on October 4, 2013, while Z.P. was lying on his back on the floor, Jean spun Z.P. around, using the student's legs as a handle for twirling the boy's body. Then, she says, Jean tapped Z.P. with a ruler to prod him into getting up from the floor. Z.P. refused to rise, and Jean resumed spinning the student. Ms. Taormina recognized that Jean and Z.P. were "playing around" and concluded nothing "abusive" had occurred, but she deemed Jean's conduct "inappropriate." As mentioned, Z.P. is cognitively limited in consequence of Down syndrome. He was also, at the time of the events at issue, aggressive, sometimes mean and abusive towards teachers, including Jean, and known to bite, scratch, kick, and spit on others. Z.P., who was a big boy, could be difficult to redirect. By October 2013, however, Jean had established a rapport with Z.P. The student liked his teacher, and Jean and Z.P. would play with each other. One activity that they enjoyed entailed Jean spinning Z.P. around——which is what Ms. Taormina observed. Except for Ms. Taormina, no one who witnessed Jean playfully spinning Z.P.——which Jean admits doing——considered this activity to be inappropriate. There is no persuasive evidence in the record establishing an objective standard of conduct that Jean might have violated when he played with Z.P. in this manner. Striking Z.P. with a ruler would be another matter, of course. Jean denies ever having done that, however, and no one but Ms. Taormina claims to have observed Jean misbehave in such fashion. The undersigned finds, based on the greater weight of the evidence, that Jean did not hit Z.P. with a ruler on October 4, 2013, as alleged, but rather tapped the floor with it, as he testified. According to Ms. Taormina, Jean's conduct the following week, on October 11, was worse. She testified that, upon arriving in the classroom, she noticed that Jean's fingers were resting on the back of Z.P.'s neck as he (Jean) moved the student around. To Ms. Taormina, "it looked . . . like [Jean] was searching for, like, a pressure point or tender point . . . ." In fact, Jean was not searching for a pressure point, and he did not dig his fingers into a tender spot on Z.P.'s neck, which explains why no one (including Ms. Taormina) saw or heard the student cry out or grimace in pain. The undersigned credits Jean's testimony that he touched Z.P.'s back and shoulders to guide or comfort him, not to hurt him. Ms. Taormina asserted that after putting his fingers on the back of Z.P.'s neck, Jean gave Z.P. a "violent shaking" which caused Z.P.'s head to rock up and down ("just flapping back and forth") so fast that Z.P.'s features were an unrecognizable blur, but only for "just a few seconds." Somewhat incongruously, however, she characterized this "mockery" as being "more, like, playing" and noted that Jean, who was smiling, did not appear to be acting out of anger. The behavior that Ms. Taormina recounted is indeed disturbing. Yet some of the details seem a bit off. For example, although no expert testimony was presented, the undersigned's rudimentary understanding of simple biomechanics makes him think that violently shaking a passive or helpless person so hard that his features become blurry (assuming this could be accomplished in just a few seconds' time) would cause the victim's dangling head, not to flap up and down (rapidly nodding), as Ms. Taormina described, but to rotate uncontrollably. The undersigned finds it difficult, too, to imagine that such abuse could ever look "like playing." Moreover, it seems peculiar, given the number of adults in the room, that Ms. Taormina did not immediately intervene or speak up to protect Z.P., if Jean were harming the student as she has stated. More important, it is likely that a vigorous physical battery such as the attack on Z.P. that Ms. Taormina recalls would have caused a considerable commotion. And yet, even though there were four other adults in the room besides Jean and Ms. Taormina, no one but the occupational therapist noticed Jean inflicting this alleged abuse. The undersigned cannot find, based on the greater weight of the evidence, that Jean violently shook Z.P. as alleged. This incident, therefore, was not proved. After Jean allegedly shook Z.P., according to Ms. Taormina, the student climbed up on a table, where he proceeded to eat a banana. Ms. Taormina testified that all of the students and adults in the room (except her) laughed at Z.P. when someone exclaimed that he looked like a monkey. She said that Jean then led Z.P. to a garbage can and made him spit out the piece of banana in his mouth. When Z.P. got down on the floor afterwards, said Ms. Taormina, Jean hit the student with a broom to compel him to stand and, having no success with that, lifted Z.P. by his shirt and pants and shook him a few times before standing the boy upright. Once on his feet, Z.P. wet his pants, Ms. Taormina stated. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the undersigned finds that Z.P. did, in fact, eat a banana while standing on a table. Further, Jean did hustle Z.P. to the garbage can to spit out the banana in his mouth because the boy was gagging on the fruit. The evidence does not support a finding that the adults laughed at Z.P., although one student did call him a monkey, which prompted Jean to reprimand the offender. The evidence does not support a finding that Jean struck Z.P. with a broom, an act of abuse which Jean credibly denied, or that Jean picked up Z.P. and shook him, a feat which likely could not be accomplished, given the student's size and weight, and which Jean credibly denied. Z.P. did urinate on himself, as Ms. Taormina reported, but the greater weight of the evidence establishes that this was not a response to stress, fright, or abuse, but a common occurrence. In sum, the evidence does not support a determination that Jean likely mistreated Z.P. as alleged. Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Jean is guilty of the offense of immorality as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(1).5/ The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Jean is guilty of the offense of misconduct in office, which is defined in rule 6A-5.056(2).6/ The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Jean is guilty of incompetency, which is defined in rule 6A-5.056(3).7/ It is undisputed that Jean was never charged with, much less found guilty of, any crime as a result of the events which gave rise to this proceeding. Therefore, the School Board does not have just cause to terminate his employment pursuant to section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes, for "being convicted or found guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty to, regardless of adjudication of guilt, any crime involving moral turpitude."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order exonerating Jean of all charges brought against him in this proceeding, reinstating him as an ESE teacher, and awarding him back salary as required under section 1012.33(6)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 23rd day of December, 2014.
