Findings Of Fact John Manuel Gonzalez is certificated as a teacher by Petitioner and was so certificated at all times here involved. He was employed in the Pinellas County School System for 13 years until his termination in December 1979. He has been employed in education for 21 years. In 1972 Respondent became Principal of the new Bardmoor Elementary School in Pinellas County and was Principal at this school until his transfer in the summer of 1979. Although Respondent categorically denied any improprieties on his part, six teachers testified that during the period between 1972 when Bardmoor was opened and Respondent's departure in 1979 Respondent had kissed them in his office without their consent; four teachers testified that he hugged and attempted to kiss them; two testified Respondent suggested they go on out-of- town trips with him, which they declined; three testified Respondent had touched them on the breast without their consent; one testified to an incident where Respondent held up a pair of child's panties and looked into them while making jocular remarks; and several testified to comments Respondent made to them regarding their figures which they did not appreciate from their principal. The sheer number of the witnesses leads to the conclusion that Respondent did kiss and attempt to kiss those teachers who so testified and made inappropriate comments to teachers. The evidence respecting the touching of breasts is less convincing. No evidence was presented that Respondent offered special favors to obtain sexual advantage. All witnesses agreed that Respondent is demonstrative and prone to touch the person to whom he is talking; that he frequently put his arm around the shoulder of a teacher while walking down the hallway; and that he evaluated them fairly. Two of these witnesses Respondent attempted to kiss made their lack of appreciation of such conduct known to Respondent and were not so bothered again. Others who were kissed as often as twice per year during the four or five years they taught at Bardmoor acknowledged most of these kisses were "friendly" kisses at the beginning or end of the school year, holidays, or other festive occasions, but insisted these kisses were uncalled for and unwelcome. Their abhorrence of Respondent's advances was obviously more apparent in their testimony than in their actions at the time these advances occurred. One of the complaining witnesses is the daughter of a longtime employee of the Pinellas County school system and former Superintendent. Although she testified Respondent kissed, attempted to kiss, and even touched her on the breast after she commenced teaching at Bardmoor in 1974, she made no complaint to her father or to other administrative personnel in the school system whom she had known for many years as friends of her family. She also received good evaluations from Respondent. Another complaining witness who Respondent kissed five to seven times over a three- or four-year period never told Respondent not to do that but assumed Respondent knew she didn't want him to do so. She also assumed Respondent's motives were sexual and not the result of his gregarious personality. Several of the witnesses had disciplinary problems with Respondent. In one case, an altercation arose between Respondent and Ms. Rogero who, on the last day of the school year, was allowing her class to play games during the morning hours contrary to Respondent's instructions. When questioned by Respondent why this was happening, Ms. Rogero became agitated and argued in a loud voice with Respondent in the presence of her class. Later that afternoon Respondent met Ms. Rogero in the amphitheater and attempted to talk to her. He took her by the wrist and tightened his grip when she tried to pull away. When she jerked her arm free her bracelet abraded the skin on her arm. Her testimony that she yelled for help was not corroborated by another teacher who entered the amphitheater at the time Ms. Rogero pulled free from Respondent's grasp. No sexual connotation to this incident was indicated in Ms. Rogero's testimony. Another incident purporting to show sexual harassment involved Ms. Rogero being lifted by Respondent as if to put her in an open cardboard box from which she would emerge "as from a cake." Although Ms. Rogero described the incident as embarrassing other witnesses recognized the incident as a joke with Ms. Rogers departing laughing when put down by Respondent before reaching the box. Respondent's evaluation file was admitted as Exhibit 4. All of these evaluations show satisfactory performance. In the Appraisal Form dated March 15, 1977, items in which a need to improve was indicated involved only parents and community groups. At this hearing the former chairman of the Seminole Park Commission (the community group which Bardmoor serves) gave Respondent high praise for his community activities and relations during the past few years. Other witnesses called by Respondent averred to disciplinary problems Respondent had with some of the complaining witnesses adhering to the School Board's dress code. Some of these complaining witnesses acknowledged having minor disciplinary problems with Respondent. Following an earlier hearing on charges based upon the same conduct here alleged, the Pinellas County School Board dismissed Respondent and terminated his continuing contract status. Prior to preferring charges and the hearing that led to Respondent's dismissal, Respondent had been offered a position by the School Board as a teacher at Safety Harbor. Newspaper coverage given to the charges when preferred against Respondent by the School Board and when the results of the earlier hearing were released resulted in these charges becoming widely known in Pinellas County. However, several of the complaining witnesses at Respondent's earlier hearing were not aware of the School Board's action in that case until they were supplied with a copy of that final order by this Petitioner. Some complaining witnesses testified they would not again teach at a school at which Respondent was Principal and the other complaining witnesses testified they would prefer not to teach under Respondent. Witnesses called by Respondent would be happy to teach at a school at which Respondent was Principal.
The Issue Whether just cause exists to terminate Respondent's employment for misconduct in office and immorality, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Broward County 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 pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Lauderhill Middle School ("Lauderhill"), which is a public school in Broward County. The Events of March 11, 2010 On March 11, 2010, Respondent was scheduled to administer the science portion of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ("FCAT") to a first-period class at Lauderhill. The FCAT is a significant test in that students' performance on the examination influences the letter grades (A through F) awarded annually to Florida's public schools, which in turn impacts the level of funding school districts receive from the state. Prior to March 11, 2010, and during the same school year, Respondent——as well as all other personnel who planned to administer the FCAT——were required to read the FCAT Test Administration Manual ("FCAT manual") and attend in-service training. Pertinent to the instant case and consistent with the FCAT manual, Respondent and her colleagues were specifically instructed during training that electronic devices, including cell phones, could not be used during testing. The testing schedule for March 11, 2010, contemplated that Respondent and the other teachers administering the FCAT would report to the office of Shalonda Griggs (one of Lauderhill's guidance counselors) at approximately 8:25 a.m. to pick up the testing materials for their respective first period students. Prior to leaving Ms. Griggs' office, each teacher was expected to examine the test booklets and ensure that the materials were intact——i.e., confirm that none of the seals on the test books were broken. It was further anticipated that each teacher would begin the FCAT at 8:30 a.m. On the morning of the examination, Respondent timely reported to Ms. Griggs' office and signed for the testing materials. Respondent reported no issues with the test booklets and proceeded to her classroom. At approximately 8:30 a.m., guidance counselor Janet Jackson——who was monitoring teachers in the area of the school where Respondent's classroom was located——observed Respondent, who had not started the FCAT, engaged in a verbal altercation with a student (C.H.). Ms. Jackson promptly advised Lauderhill's principal, Jeannie Floyd, of the situation, at which point Ms. Floyd and Ms. Griggs responded to the classroom and instructed Respondent to cease her inappropriate dialogue with C.H. and to begin the FCAT immediately. Before she returned to the front office, Ms. Floyd spoke briefly with C.H.——who was visibly upset——and advised her that she could take the FCAT on the following day. Approximately 35 minutes later, Assistant Principal Cindy Pluim proceeded to Respondent's classroom to monitor the testing procedures. Upon her arrival, Ms. Pluim observed Respondent, who had yet to begin administering the test, conversing on a cell phone in front of the class. Although Ms. Pluim ordered Respondent to end the telephone call and exit the classroom so that another member of the faculty could administer the test, Respondent refused and advised that she was speaking with her lawyer. Respondent further remarked that the seals of the test booklets had been prematurely broken——i.e., that the booklets had been unsealed prior to Respondent taking possession of them in Ms. Griggs' office. During the final hearing, Ms. Pluim credibly testified that contrary to Respondent's statement, the test booklets in question had not been unsealed. Between 9:15 and 9:20 a.m., Ms. Pluim returned to the front office and informed Ms. Floyd that Respondent had refused to comply with her directives. At that point, Ms. Floyd and Ms. Pluim proceeded to Respondent's classroom and observed that she had yet to end the telephone call. According to Ms. Pluim, whose testimony the undersigned credits fully, the students appeared nervous and upset by Respondent's conduct. In an effort to avoid any unpleasantness in the students' presence, Ms. Floyd stood in the doorway and repeatedly gestured for Respondent to exit the classroom. Undeterred, Respondent ignored Ms. Floyd and continued with her telephone conversation. After she waited fruitlessly for nearly five minutes in the hope that Respondent would comply, Ms. Floyd returned to the front office and requested assistance from the School Board's special investigative unit (SIU). At 9:44 a.m., Respondent——who was still in her classroom——sent an e-mail to: James Notter, the Superintendent of Schools for Broward County; the Commissioner of Education for the State of Florida; Paul Houchens, the Director of Assessment for the Broward County School District; and Ms. Floyd. The e- mail reads, in pertinent part: Mrs. Floyd you forgot to sign the security checklist the three times you entered my classroom even though I did ask you to. * * * Now I have students complaining that their tests have been tampered with and had to listen to complaints. I don't know what is going on, but testing is a serious matter and not to be taken lightly. I have already reported this information to others. Ms. Floyd, as you are aware my daughter attends this school and testing effects [sic] her. What is going on is a travesty and what is going on now isn't right. At approximately 10:15 a.m., several SIU officers (and an officer with the Lauderhill Police Department) arrived at Lauderhill, removed Respondent (who still had not started the FCAT) from her classroom, and later escorted her from the campus. Subsequent Events On a Saturday morning during late March or early April 2010, Respondent appeared unannounced at the residence of Ronald Bryant, whose daughter attended Lauderhill. During the visit—— which irritated Mr. Bryant due to the early hour and lack of advance notice——Respondent stated that Ms. Floyd was attempting to "cover-up" cheating on the FCAT. Respondent further indicated that she wished for Mr. Bryant to contact the Broward County School Board and lodge a complaint. Although Mr. Bryant did not believe that the allegations were any of his business, he later went to Lauderhill——in an effort to determine why Respondent had come to his home——and spoke with Ms. Floyd. On another occasion following the events of March 11, 2010, Respondent contacted (by telephone) a second parent, Leslie Pullum. During the phone conversation, Respondent attempted to convince Ms. Pullum that Ms. Floyd was using her (Ms. Pullum's) daughter as part of a conspiracy to get Respondent fired. Ms. Pullum, unconvinced and upset by Respondent's remarks, subsequently complained to Ms. Floyd about Respondent's behavior. During the final hearing, Petitioner elicited no evidence concerning the veracity of Respondent's allegations regarding Ms. Floyd.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order: (1) finding Respondent guilty of misconduct in office; finding Respondent not guilty of immorality; and (3) terminating Respondent's employment as a teacher with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 23rd day of November, 2011.
The Issue The issues concern the claim by the Petitioner to relief for alleged age discrimination. See Section 760.10, Florida Statutes. In particular, it is alleged that the Respondent dismissed the Petitioner from employment with the Duval County School Board based solely upon his age, in violation of the aforementioned statute. There is presented the collateral issue, which is the claim by the Respondent that this dismissal based upon age was authorized by Section 231.031, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact This cause is presented through the petition for relief from an alleged unlawful employment practice which the Petitioner filed with the Florida Human Relations Commission. The service date of that petition was May 9, 1984. Duval County School Board, Duval County, Florida, was the named respondent. Through the petition document Petitioner claims that the Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice by forcing the Petitioner to take an involuntary retirement due to his age. There being no successful informal resolution of this dispute, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing, which was held on August 20, 1984. The petition is brought under the authority of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, formerly Chapter 23, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is an individual within the meaning of Section 760.02(5) and .10(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 760.02(6), Florida Statutes. Petitioner, Robert P. Morrow, was continuously employed as a teacher by Respondent, Duval County School Board, from September, 1962, through June, 1983. During his employment he held tenured status or continuing contract status through the close of the 1981-1982 school year. The balance of the time in which he served as a teacher in the system was in the capacity of an employee on an annual contract basis. This latter arrangement pertains to the school year 1982-1983. Petitioner celebrated his seventieth birthday on September 26, 1981, which was shortly after the beginning of the 1981-1982 school year. In early 1982 Petitioner received a memorandum from Dalton D. Epting, Director of Certificated Personnel of the Duval County Schools, indicating that in view of the fact that the Petitioner would reach 70 years of age within the school year, and in keeping with Section 231.031, Florida Statutes, Petitioner should request an appointment with his principal, one Ronel J. Poppell. Epting had prepared the memorandum based upon information he had been given indicating that the Petitioner would reach 70 years of age within the 1981-1982 school year. In keeping with the suggestion of the memorandum from Epting, Petitioner spoke with Principal Poppell and in that conversation indicated a desire to teach for another year or two beyond the 1981-1982 school year. Poppell spoke to Epting and was reminded of the existence of Section 231.031, Florida Statutes, pertaining to teachers who have obtained 70 years of age. Epting did not advise Poppell on the question of whether to retain the Petitioner as a teacher in the Duval County high school where Poppell served as principal and Petitioner acted as a teacher. Out of the conversation between the Petitioner and Poppell, Poppell determined to allow the Petitioner to remain as a teacher at the subject school for one more year, i.e., the school year 1982-1983. As alluded to before, this arrangement was consummated and Petitioner served as a teacher at Nathan Bedford Forrest Senior High School in the school year 1982-1983 based upon an annual contract arrangement, as opposed to continuing contract. While Section 231.031, Florida Statutes, refers to the superintendent making the decision for retention, in fact Poppel caused the retention of Petitioner in the school year 1982-1983. The effects of such retention were to cause another teacher to be "surplused" who had been involved in the overall program at the school. This arrangement lasted for the 1982-1983 school year. Generally speaking Herb A. Sang, Superintendent of Schools in Duval County, Florida, makes the decision on the question of retention of 70year-old teachers based upon the recommendation of the principal and other school board staff members. Normally, according to Sang, a teacher who has reached 70 years of age would be retired as provided by Section 231.031, Florida Statute. If retained, per Sang, that retention is based upon the needs of the school system and not the record of achievement of the individual teacher in question. In application, teachers who are 70 years old will not be retained unless there is a specific need within the school system for services which they can provide, i.e., a specialty which cannot be filled by teachers under 70 years of age or for reasons of continuity of student projects in which the teacher is involved over more than one school year. On March 3, 1983, Principal Poppell completed an annual evaluation of the Petitioner's performance and on that occasion, as had been the case in all evaluations made of the Petitioner as an employee of the Duval County School System, Petitioner was found to be a satisfactory teacher, the highest possible rating that could have been given. Nonetheless, Poppell noted in the evaluation form that the Petitioner would not be recommended for an extension of his annual contract based upon Section 231.031, Florida Statutes. This opinion was expressed in a March 4, 1983, letter from Poppell to the Petitioner in which it was indicated that Poppell would not recommend that Superintendent Sang renew the annual contract of the Petitioner. In that correspondence Poppell indicated that he felt no further obligation to the Petitioner reference extension of his contract beyond 1982-1983, which extension was based upon Poppell's understanding of the discussion with the Petitioner in 1981-1982 in which the Petitioner had indicated that he would wish to teach for another year or two. In furtherance of Poppell's suggestion, Petitioner was not renewed as a teacher in Duval County and that decision was reached based upon the fact that the Petitioner was over 70 years old. No attempt was made to compare the relative merits of the Petitioner's performance with that of persons younger than 70 years of age, in deciding who to employ on annual employment as teachers for the school year 1983-1984.
The Issue Whether Petitioner had just cause to suspend Respondent without pay pending disposition of felony criminal charges.
Findings Of Fact The stipulations of the parties in the pre-hearing stipulation, the testimony presented, and the evidence received at the final hearing support the following Findings of Fact: Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the system of public schools in Escambia County, Florida. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. The School Board has the statutory responsibility to prescribe qualifications for positions of employment and for the suspension and dismissal of employees subject to the requirements of chapter 1012. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent is a noninstructional support employee, who has been employed as a Custodial Worker I by the School Board since October 13, 2014. Mr. Warren worked 40 hours a week at Pine Forest High School. Mr. Warren’s position with the School Board is annual, rather than based on the academic school year calendar. During the regular school year, students are required to be on campus from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. After the school day, there are students who remain at the school for various activities with clubs and organizations. While students are present, custodial workers complete their duties and work assignments throughout the school. On a regular school day students may be present at the school for clubs and organizations until as late as 9:00 p.m. Respondent works the 2:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. shift and would be present when students are present. The background regarding Respondent’s arrest arises from a dispute where it was alleged that he forged a quitclaim deed, transferring property from his uncle to himself. On May 9, 2017, Respondent was arrested. Thereafter, an information was filed against Respondent by the State Attorney’s Office alleging that he knowingly obtained or endeavored to obtain certain property of another valued at $20,000.00 or more, but less than $100,000.00, in violation of section 812.014(1)(a) and (1)(b), and (2)(b)1., a second degree felony. At the time of the final hearing, Respondent’s criminal case was pending final disposition. On May 18, 2017, Superintendent of the School Board, Malcolm Thomas, provided written notice to Respondent that he was suspended “with pay effective immediately . . . pending the outcome of an arrest for §812.014.2b1 [sic], F.S., a disqualifying offense.” The Superintendent’s letter did not provide authority for the Superintendent’s action. The Superintendent also cited no authority for his position that the alleged offense was a “disqualifying offense.” Also, on May 18, 2017, the Superintendent notified Respondent of his intent to recommend to the School Board that Mr. Warren be placed on suspension without pay beginning June 21, 2017. In his request to the School Board, the Superintendent stated that his recommendation was “based on conduct as more specifically identified in the notice letter to the employee.” Similar to the notice regarding the intended recommendation, the Superintendent cited no authority for his recommendation, nor his position that the alleged offense was a “disqualifying offense.” By letter dated June 21, 2017, Dr. Scott advised Respondent that the School Board voted to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation placing him on suspension without pay, effective June 21, 2017. As cause for Mr. Warren’s suspension without pay, Dr. Scott’s letter stated that it is “based on conduct as more specifically identified in the [Superintendent’s] notice letter to the employee.” Dr. Scott’s letter did not use the term “disqualifying offense,” nor did it cite any authority for the School Board’s action. Respondent had no history of disciplinary action during his employment by the School Board. In addition, Ms. Touchstone testified that Respondent “has been a good employee for us.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Escambia County School Board, issue a final order affirming suspension without pay of Respondent’s employment, pending disposition of his criminal charges. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 22nd day of December, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Hammons, Esquire The Hammons Law Firm, P.A. 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501-3125 (eServed) Mark S. Levine, Esquire Levine & Stivers, LLC 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Ronald G. Stowers, Esquire Levine and Stivers, LLC 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Malcolm Thomas, Superintendent Escambia County School District 75 North Pace Boulevard Pensacola, Florida 32505 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed October 11, 2010, and, if so, the discipline, if any, that should be imposed against Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been on an annual contract that is subject to a professional service contract and collective bargaining agreement between Miami-Dade County Public Schools (hereinafter "M-DCPS") and the United Teachers of Dade (hereinafter "the UTD Contract"), applicable Florida Statutes, applicable rules adopted by the Florida State Board of Education as set forth in the Florida Administrative Code, and Petitioner's adopted policies and procedures. Article XXI, Section 1.B(1)(a) of the UTD Contract provides that "Any member of the instructional staff may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the school year, provided that the charges against him/her are based upon Florida Statutes." Santa Clara Petitioner first employed Respondent as a classroom teacher beginning in 2004 and assigned him to teach fourth-grade math at Santa Clara Elementary School (Santa Clara). In May 2007, Petitioner's Civilian Investigative Unit (CIU) investigated an allegation that Respondent made verbal threats, using profane language, towards the principal at Santa Clara. Respondent was placed on alternate assignment at the Region 3 Office on May 3, 2007, pending the outcome of the case. The allegation was substantiated for violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 (Responsibilities and Duties). During a Conference for the Record, written directives were issued to Respondent. On November 1, 2007, Respondent was issued a written reprimand which contained the following directives: Please abide by Miami-Dade County Schools (M-DCPS) School Board Rules at all times, specifically, School Board Rule, 6Gx13-4A- 1.21 Responsibilities and Duties; School Board Rule, 6Gx13-4-1.08, Violence in the Workplace; and School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A- 1.23, Code of Ethics. Conduct yourself, both in your employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon yourself and M-DCPS. The Education Practices Commission filed a complaint against Respondent based on the incident at Santa Clara. That complaint was settled with Respondent receiving an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00. As part of the settlement agreement, Respondent did not admit or deny the alleged facts of the Santa Clara incident. Turner Tech 2007-08 School Year Petitioner transferred Respondent to Turner Technical Senior High School (Turner Tech) in November 2007, where he taught math. There were no adverse incidents during the balance of the 2007-08 school year. Turner Tech 2008-09 School Year Valmarie Rhoden was the principal of Turner Tech during the 2008-09 school year and part of the 2009-10 school year. Phillipe Napoleon was an assistant principal at Turner Tech during the 2008-09 and 2009-10 school years.1 On November 18, 2008, one of Respondent's students told Respondent not to touch him and threatened to harm Respondent if he did so. Dr. Napoleon and Ms. Rhoden handled the situation for Respondent by giving the student two days of indoor suspension. Respondent became irate when he learned that the student was not to be more severely punished. After he learned of the student's punishment, Respondent yelled at Dr. Napoleon in the earshot of students and other school personnel. Respondent attempted to undermine Dr. Napoleon's authority. After that incident, Respondent and Dr. Napoleon had a very contentious relationship. On February 19, 2009, Ms. Rhoden issued Respondent a memorandum entitled "Responsibilities and Duties" along with the Board Rule for his review regarding his unprofessional behavior because he had made an unprofessional outburst during a faculty meeting that Ms. Rhoden conducted and because Respondent had made unprofessional comments to other administrators. That memorandum provided, in part, as follows: Please be reminded that it is your professional responsibility to conduct yourself in a manner that reflects credit upon yourself and the teaching profession. During the faculty meeting on Tuesday, February 17, 2009, you made an inappropriate comment and noise while I was addressing the faculty on the respect shown teachers at the North Central Regional Center Teacher of the Year Breakfast. On December 18, 2008, I met with you; Mr. Hoffman (Lead Steward); Ms. Meyers (Steward); Mr. Mantilla, Vice Principal; and Mr. Napoleon, Assistant Principal, to discuss a series of verbal altercations you had with these administrators. We discussed the importance of being professional and respectful when addressing administrators and students. Please be advised that your conduct is a violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and is unacceptable. Please refrain from addressing others in a manner that may be deemed unprofessional. A copy of the Board Rule is attached for your review. If you need further clarification, please see me. Your cooperation is expected and appreciated. On April 27, 2009, Ms. Rhoden convened an Emergency Conference for the Record with Respondent to discuss reports of misconduct by Respondent during a UTD meeting that had occurred on April 23, 2009, and reports of inappropriate comments attributed to Respondent during a parent-teacher conference that occurred on April 24, 2009. Participants at the UTD meeting reported that Respondent became uncontrollable and made disparaging remarks against the union representative who conducted the meeting. Teachers reported to Ms. Rhoden that they left the meeting because they had become afraid of Respondent. The parent in the parent-teacher meeting reported that, in the presence of students, Respondent referred to Ms. Rhoden as a "bitch" and to administrators as "three blind mice." The parent reported that Respondent had said "screw" administrators. When Ms. Rhoden confronted Respondent about his behavior, he became enraged and engaged in an uncontrolled tirade. A Conference for the Record was conducted at the school on Monday, April 27, 2009, and Ms. Rhoden issued the following directives to Respondent: Adhere to all School Board rules, especially those related to Responsibilities and Duties. Adhere to the Code of Ethics. Conduct yourself in a professional manner at all times with all school personnel, parents and other stakeholders. Do not use profanity in the presence of students, faculty, staff and other stakeholders. Do not disrespect your administrators in your manner of speech or physical approach. Do not use provocative language towards administrators, students, staff, or other stakeholders. Respondent was the subject of a separate investigation based on an incident of misconduct that occurred on April 13, 2009, first in the hallway outside of Respondent's classroom and later in or near Dr. Napoleon's office. The incident that triggered Respondent the confrontations on April 13, 2009, occurred when Dr. Napoleon, while conducting routine observations of classrooms, noticed that a student in Respondent's classroom was wearing headphones. Dr. Napoleon entered Respondent's classroom and removed the headphones from the student. Respondent confronted Dr. Napoleon outside his classroom and said "how dare you come into my classroom and disrupt my classroom" in a "profoundly loud" manner in the hallway within earshot of school personnel and students. Later in the day, Respondent confronted Dr. Napoleon in the office area. Respondent was upset and became aggressive towards Dr. Napoleon when he demanded an explanation of a memorandum relating to the earlier confrontation that Dr. Napoleon had issued to him. Ernesto Mantilla, a vice-principal at Turner Tech, stepped between Respondent and Dr. Napoleon because of Respondent's aggressive, threatening behavior. Mr. Mantilla, who has military training, put himself in what he referred to as "harm's way" because he felt it necessary to de- escalate the situation. During that incident, Respondent told Dr. Napoleon that he was a "joke" and that he should leave the administration's efforts to Ms. Rhoden and Mr. Mantilla. Respondent threatened to tear up Dr. Napoleon's memorandum in front of Dr. Napoleon. Respondent asserted that his contract did not mandate him to be professional. He taunted Dr. Napoleon by telling him that if Dr. Napoleon was going to fire him, to just go ahead and do it so he can collect a check and stay home. Respondent refused to provide a statement during the course of that investigation stating that "it will take a year and a half to go through the process", and he would be resigning anyway at the end of the year. On May 14, 2009, Ms. Rhoden issued Respondent a letter of reprimand for his behavior on April 13, 2009, which directed him to immediately refrain from displaying unprofessional, confrontational behavior. The letter of reprimand also directed Respondent to stop using abusive and profane language in the performance of his assigned duties. Ms. Rhoden testified, credibly, that she and many of the staff members were afraid at times when Respondent "would go into his rage." His conduct "disrupted the environment" and impeded the workings of the school. Turner Tech 2009-10 School Year In September 2009, Dr. Napoleon conducted a training session for faculty at Turner Tech referred to as IPEGS training. Respondent was required to complete that training to maintain his teaching certification. Respondent left the room in which the training occurred and was absent for over half of the training session. Dr. Napoleon refused to award Respondent credit for the IPEGS training. Respondent became irate when told he would not be given credit and believed that Dr. Napoleon was harassing him. Ms. Rhoden retired in October 2009, and Lavette Hunter became the principal of Turner Tech. On or about October 19, 2009, Respondent replied to a co-worker's email and sent it to all employees sarcastically commenting on the teacher's updating of the school on his involvement with a student internship program. Respondent stated, "please, no more e-mails about your presence. You're wonderful. Feel better?" The teacher complained to Ms. Vidal, and when she discussed the concern with Respondent, he was very irate and said that he was "tired of this bullshit" and was leaving for the day. Respondent told her to find coverage for his class and left school. On October 26, 2009, Respondent went into Dr. Napoleon's office "ranting and raving" because he said that Dr. Napoleon was talking about him. During that meeting, Respondent asked Dr. Napoleon whether he had gotten to be an assistant principal as a result of affirmative action. When Dr. Napoleon asked him to leave his office, Respondent refused, stating that he was going to leave when he got ready to leave. He thereafter left. Dr. Napoleon believed that Respondent's comment was a racial slur and, on October 27, 2009, filed a complaint with the M-DCPS Office of Civil Rights, which triggered an investigation (the civil rights investigation). Dr. Napoleon is African- American, and Respondent is Caucasian. Respondent disrupted a faculty meeting conducted by Dr. Napoleon on October 27, 2009, and stormed out of the meeting causing his co-workers to feel uneasy and unsafe. Respondent got upset when Dr. Napoleon declined to interrupt his presentation to answer Respondent's question. Respondent was loud and disruptive (Dr. Napoleon described it as "ranting and raving"). Respondent made a threatening gesture towards Dr. Napoleon as he left the room. Dr. Napoleon testified, credibly, that Respondent's conduct undermined his authority to lead and to provide a safe learning environment for students and for teachers. On October 28, 2009, Ms. Vidal (an assistant principal at Turner Tech) met with Respondent. During the course of the meeting, Respondent expressed that he thought he was being harassed and that he viewed himself as a disgruntled employee. He then made an implied threat that students would suffer on the FCAT because of the manner in which he was being treated. Ms. Vidal was so disturbed by Respondent's comments that she felt that she immediately contacted her principal and put the incident in writing. Respondent was removed from the school effective November 5, 2009 and placed on alternate assignment during the course of the civil rights investigation. On his last day at his worksite, Ms. Vidal and a security guard escorted Respondent to his classroom so he could collect his belongings before he was escorted out of the building. While in the classroom, in the presence of students, Respondent made demeaning comments to Ms. Vidal and told her that she and Ms. Hunter were responsible because they had not protected him from Dr. Napoleon. Respondent's demeanor and his outbursts caused Ms. Vidal to fear for her safety. Based on Respondent's conduct in October and November 2009, Ms. Hunter made a finding that "Probable Cause" existed that Respondent had violation of School Board Rule, 6Gx13- 4A- 1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. A Conference for the Record was conducted by Ms. Hunter on January 5, 2010, and Respondent was directed to "refrain from using inappropriate actions [sic] during the work day" and was issued copies of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.001, FAC, and State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006, FAC, The Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession. He was also issued a letter of reprimand. Respondent was warned that "noncompliance with this directive will necessitate further review for the imposition of additional disciplinary measures" and "any recurrences of the above infraction will result in further disciplinary action." The matter was referred to the Regional Office to for further review (the conduct investigation). Administrative Placement Respondent remained out on Administrative Placement pending the disposition of the conduct investigation and the civil rights investigation. On March 16, 2010, the School Board's Office of Civil Rights Compliance closed its civil rights investigation, concluding that "No Probable Cause" existed that a violation had occurred. During his administrative placement for the civil rights investigation, Respondent was assigned to his residence and was not working. As part of his administrative placement, Respondent was instructed to call the Region Office twice each day at specific times, once in the morning and once in the afternoon. If he failed to call-in as instructed, he would not be entitled to payment for that day. Respondent did not call either morning or afternoon on seven days on which he was assigned to his residence and not working. On four days he called in the morning, but not in the afternoon. Petitioner initially withheld pay from Respondent for 11 days, but later issued him pay for the four days on which he called in the morning, but not the afternoon. During his administrative placement, Respondent again began to exhibit abusive behavior by making numerous and repeated harassing telephone calls to administrative offices. On March 17, 2010, at 1:00 p.m., M-DCPS Region I Secretary Maria Rosemond received a phone call from Respondent. Respondent asked to speak to Mr. Richard Vidal, who is the administrative director of Region I. Ms. Rosemond told Respondent that Mr. Vidal was not in. Mr. Cohen again asked to speak to Mr. Vidal, and Ms. Rosemond told him he was not there. Respondent then said, "I know Vidal is there. Tell him I will be there in half an hour to get his fucking ass out." Respondent then hung up the phone. Ms. Rosemond was afraid that he was going to actually come to region and harm Mr. Vidal or others at the Region I office. An hour later, Respondent called again and asked to speak to Mr. Vidal. Ms. Rosemond transferred the call to Jennifer Andreu, Administrative Director, and Respondent explained that he was upset about a situation at Turner Tech. Ms. Andreu told Respondent that she would speak to the principal and rectify the problem. Respondent cursed at her and called her incompetent. On March 4, 2010, Respondent called Turner Tech demanding to speak to Ms. Hunter. When the phone call was transferred to Dr. Napoleon, Respondent yelled out, "Why the fuck did they transfer the call to you. I want to speak with Ms. Hunter, not you." When he spoke to Ms. Hunter, Respondent became irate and very loud. Ms. Hunter disconnected the line and never spoke to Respondent again (until the formal hearing). During the call, Respondent referred to Dr. Napoleon as an idiot and demanded that personnel at Turner Tech inform any caller asking about Respondent to respond by informing the caller that that he works at the Region I office. He further threatened that his lawyer would be calling and that the calls would be recorded. Respondent does not dispute his confrontations on the phone with numerous secretaries with whom he spoke. Respondent admitted to the admissibility and the accuracy of the written statements from those secretaries taken during the course of the investigation(s). Respondent believed that he should have been reinstated to the classroom at the conclusion of the civil rights investigation. Because the conduct investigation was still pending, it was not appropriate to place Respondent back into a classroom while the additional issues concerning his conduct were being reviewed. As such, Respondent remained out on alternate assignment pending the disposition of this new investigation. On April 22, 2010, Dr. Marinelli, the Region I superintendent, met with Respondent to discuss his employment status. They reviewed the disposition of the civil rights complaint and formally informed Respondent that a CIU investigation was being conducted regarding his alleged violations of School Board Rules and misconduct. During the meeting, Respondent referred to Dr. Marinelli as "dear," told her to be careful when reading and if she was nervous to relax, and tried to speak over her as she read the allegations of misconduct to him. He further goaded her by telling her that the complaint should have been filed by Mr. Vidal and to get with his attorney because she was getting bad advice. When Dr. Marinelli read the allegation to him, he said "let me see that paper". She discussed the terms and conditions of his administrative placement and advised him that the conduct investigation was a separate proceeding than the civil rights case. Respondent became increasingly agitated as Dr. Marinelli read him his terms and conditions, and then yelled "just give me those papers". When she handed him the papers, he tore them in pieces and said in a loud voice "this is garbage, you are the queen of garbage". Respondent told Dr. Marinelli, "you may be able to click your fingers and your husband may do what you say, but I don't have to do what you say. I'm not afraid of you." Police came into the room due to his loud and disruptive behavior. During the course of the conduct investigation, Respondent was interviewed by CIU investigators. During his interview, he told one of the investigators to just fire him already, and he called the investigators liars. He took out his cell phone and represented that he was on the phone with an attorney and that he was recording their meeting. He even fabricated that one investigator was physically attacking him. Due to his belligerent and aggressive conduct and his verbal tirade, the meeting was terminated and a police officer was summoned to escort him out. On June 8, 2010, CIU issued a report that concluded that "Probable Cause" existed that Respondent had violated School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, 6Gx13-4A1.212, code of Ethics, and School Board Rule 6Gx13-4- 1.08, Violence in the Workplace. Before Respondent was administered disciplinary action as a result of the conduct investigation, he again engaged in additional misconduct toward Dr. Marinelli that led to a final investigation conducted by the School Police. On July 29, 2010, Dr. Marinelli received a phone call from Respondent wherein he was agitated and uttered profanity, including the "F" word, at her. He further yelled, "Don't think I'm afraid of you. What I'm afraid is if you would sit on me." That call was disconnected. He called again, and Dr. Marinelli took the call. Prior to her taking the call, Respondent had told a secretary that Dr. Marinelli could not hide behind a secretary. During that call Respondent continued to yell at Dr. Marinelli, stating "I dare you to do anything. You can't do anything to me." Dr. Marinelli told him to not call again, and he proceeded to call numerous times. When an investigator questioned Respondent during his investigation of the calls on July 29, 2010, Respondent told the investigator that he had called Dr. Marinelli a "fucking fat cow." That investigation was concluded with a finding of probable cause that Respondent had violated the rules cited in the Notice of Specific Charges. A Conference for the Record was held with Respondent on August 5, 2010, at the Office of Professional Standards. Following that conference, the superintendent of schools recommended to Petitioner that Respondent's employment be terminated. Petitioner, at its regularly scheduled meeting of September 7, 2010, took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against Respondent for just cause, including but not limited to, misconduct in office, gross insubordination, violence in the workplace, and violation of the School Board Rules cited in the Notice of Specific Charges. Petitioner followed all relevant procedures in prosecuting this disciplinary proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order sustain the suspension of Respondent's employment without pay and terminate that employment based on misconduct in office and gross insubordination. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a classroom teacher by Petitioner under a continuing contract. Respondent has been a classroom teacher for nineteen (19) years, and has been employed by Petitioner for the last eighteen (18) years. Petitioner taught primarily at elementary school level but, at various times, she has also taught at the high school level. Respondent was awarded a continuing contract of employment by Petitioner in 1973. Respondent has never been, other than this proceeding, the subject of any formal disciplinary proceeding during the time she has been employed by the Petitioner. On September 25, 1957, Respondent brought three (3) students to Helen Ramsey, Assistant Principal, Port St. Joe High School, for discipline due to their alleged misbehavior in the Respondent's classroom. The more credible evidence shows that Respondent insisted that Ramsey discipline the students in her presence. The reason for Respondent's insistence was that students previously sent by Respondent for discipline had bragged to other students that no punishment had been administered and this created further disciplinary problems in her classroom. Ramsey requested that Respondent leave and let her "handle the situation." Due to Respondent's insistence, Ramsey discussed the matter with Respondent alone in Ramsey's office. After this discussion, Ramsey agreed to question the students. Two (2) students admitted misbehaving in the classroom and were paddled. The third student denied misbehaving in the classroom and Ramsey refused to proceed any further until she had questioned the student without Respondent being present. After further discussion, and with Ramsey refusing to proceed any further, Respondent left. There is insufficient evidence to show that Ramsey ever gave Respondent a direct order to leave her office or the reception area but only requested that Respondent leave and allow Ramsey "to handle the situation" which Respondent did, after a lengthy and heated discussion with Ramsey. Ramsey had not experienced a problem, such as this, with Respondent before and, although Ramsey saw no apparent reason for Respondent's "unusual" attitude, Ramsey did not question Respondent at any time concerning her attitude. The entire incident between Ramsey and Respondent lasted about thirty (30) minutes, including the five (5) to ten (10) minutes Respondent spent with Ramsey without the students in the beginning and the ten (10) to fifteen (15) minutes Respondent was in Ramsey's office while Ramsey discussed the matter with students and paddled two (2) of them. On September 25, 1986, Edwin Williams, (Williams) Principal, Port St. Joe High School, was away from school, and therefore Ramsey reported the incident to Superintendent Walter Wilder (Wilder). When Williams returned on September 26, 1987, Ramsey reported the incident to him. On September 26, 1987, when Williams, became aware of the incident, he sent an aide, Ellie Padgett (Padgett) to Respondent's room to ask Respondent to report to Williams' office and for Padgett to stay with Respondent's class. Upon receiving the message from Padgett, despondent advised Padgett that she would go to Williams' office the next period which was her free period. While Padgett was in Respondent's room, Juanita Powell (Powell), Williams' Secretary, paged Respondent on the intercom and there was credible evidence that Respondent informed Powell that she would come to Williams' office shortly. After Padgett returned to Williams' office, Powell went to Respondent's room to inform Respondent that Williams wanted to see her. Respondent told Powell that she had planned on giving treats to her students at the end of the period and would come when she finished. After Powell returned to Williams' office, Williams went to Respondent's room and told her he wanted to see her in his office. There was credible evidence that Williams was angry with Respondent and expressed his anger when he demanded that she come to his office right away. Respondent went to Williams' office in about five (5) minutes after he demanded that she come. This gave Williams time to return to his office and "cool-off." No one advised Respondent what Williams wanted to speak to her about or that the matter needed immediate attention. Upon arrival at William's office, Williams confronted Respondent with the report of the incident regarding the students given to him by Ramsey. A heated discussion ensued and Williams told Respondent to leave his office and the school, and then Williams proceeded to Wilder's office. After Williams left, Respondent went to her classroom to gather up her personal things. While gathering up her personal things, Respondent was advised by Mr. Osborne, a school employee, to report back to Williams' office. Respondent reported to William's office and shortly thereafter Williams and Wilder arrived. Wilder advised Respondent that they were dealing with "what was potentially a serious disciplinary problem." At this juncture, Wilder directed Respondent to respond to a series of questions concerning the Ramsey incident which Respondent declined to answer, but addressed her remarks to Williams concerning what Respondent felt was Williams' unfair treatment of her during this incident. Respondent continued to discuss the matter with Williams even after he again directed her to leave the school premises. However, Respondent did leave the school in about ten (10) to fifteen (15) minutes. Respondent was not offered an opportunity to have another teacher present to witness the conversation during this meeting with Williams and Wilder. Respondent did comply, although belatedly, with: (a) the request from Ramsey to leave her office; (b) Williams' request to leave his office and the school premises and, (c) Williams' request to report to his office. There was credible evidence that Respondent's failure to notify the school secretary of her absence from duty on September 12, 1983, was due to Respondent's belief that her husband, Clarence Monette, had advised the secretary of her absence. There was credible evidence to show that Respondent was dividing her time between Highland Elementary School and Port St. Joe High School on May 22, 1986, and that Respondent's reason for not reporting to Highlands on May 22, 1986, was due to her staying at the high school to attend an art festival with the children. There was credible evidence that on September 23, 1986, Respondent was absent but made arrangements to have her lesson plan delivered to the school secretary and for a substitute teacher; however, Respondent failed to notify school authorities that she had engaged a substitute teacher which resulted in the school engaging a substitute teacher also. Respondent has had an annual formal evaluation for each of the eighteen (18) years she has taught in the Gulf County School district and, during that entire time, no school administrator has ever indicated that she was guilty of insubordination or that she had willfully neglected her duties. There was insufficient evidence to show that Respondent intended to violate school policies or to disobey an order of her superiors. There was insufficient evidence to show that Respondent's material acts and omissions were willful.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, School Board of Gulf County, enter a Final Order dismissing all charges filed against the Respondent, Audrey Monette and that Respondent be restored to her position as a continuing contract employee of the Gulf County School Board, and that she receive back pay for the entire period she has been in a non-pay status because of these charges. Respectfully submitted and entered this 2nd day of July 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 2nd day of July 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-4471 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. First and second sentence adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 12 and 13 except for that part of second sentence regarding Respondent ignoring Williams' orders which is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The balance of paragraph 3 adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14 and 16 except for that part of the fifth sentence concerning Respondent calling Williams an "Uncle Tom" and that part of sixth sentence concerning Respondent charging Williams with believing Ramsey in preference to her which I reject as immaterial and irrelevant. Reject that portion of paragraph 4 concerning Respondent's refusal to leave Williams' office as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The balance of paragraph 4 is adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 17. 5-6. Covered in background material. 7-8. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1-2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6 and 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Not stated as a finding of fact but as recitation of testimony. However, it is covered in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Not stated as a finding of fact but as a recitation of testimony. However, it is covered in Finding of Fact 6. 10-11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 14-15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 16-17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 18-19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 20-22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Findings of Fact 14 and 15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 14 and 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 27. Adopted in Findings of Fact 16 and 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Not stated as a finding of fact but a recitation of testimony but covered in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 17. 31-32. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 25. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil G. Costin, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 98 Port St. Joe, Florida 32456 Philip J. Padovano Post Office Box 873 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 B. Walter Wilder, Superintendent Gulf County School Board Port St. Joe, Florida 32456 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399
