The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent should be terminated from his employment with the Broward County School Board and whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Background Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate 595579 in science and elementary education. Respondent's teaching certificate is valid through June 30, 1992. Respondent has filed an application for renewal. Respondent has held a professional service contract with the Broward County School Board (the "School Board") since September 11, 1987. Respondent began teaching in the Broward County school system in 1987. He taught at Seminole Elementary School. His mid-year evaluation indicated he needed some improvement in the preparation of lesson plans. His final evaluation indicated that Respondent had improved his lesson plans and had good control of his class. For the 1988-1989 school year, Respondent was employed as a fourth grade teacher at Banyan Elementary School. His mid-year evaluation indicated a need for improvement in lesson plans. His final evaluation, however, was satisfactory. Respondent continued teaching at Banyan Elementary School until December, 1989. From December, 1989, until he was suspended on January 16, 1992, Respondent taught at Rogers Middle School. Respondent's initial evaluation at Rogers Middle School indicated the need for some improvement, but his final evaluation for the 1989-1990 school year was satisfactory. At the end of the 1989-1990 school year, Mr. Sterling Dupont replaced Mr. Greg Clark as the principal of Rogers Middle School. Ms. Ellen Etling and Mr. Mike Newman, two of the three assistant principals, were also new members of the administration at Rogers Middle School. Mr. Dupont assigned Respondent to a self-contained drop out prevention class during the Summer of 1990. A class is self-contained when its students remain with the same teacher for the entire day. The drop out prevention class required a teacher certified in elementary education so that the students' academic needs could be individualized. Mr. Dupont wanted a male teacher in the class because of the students' inability to perform in a school setting and behavioral problems. Respondent is approximately 5 feet 7 inches tall and weighs approximately 112 pounds. Mr. Dupont did not consider other factors in applicable School Board guidelines for assignment of teachers to a disciplinary drop out prevention class. Mr. Dupont did not consider Respondent's: desire and ability to work with problem students; expertise in behavior management techniques; desire and ability to identify and solve underlying causes of student behavior rather than merely modify behavior; ability and expertise in diagnosing difficulties opposed to motivational achievement; ability to utilize school and community resources to benefit students; and ability to utilize a variety of instructional approaches to meet individual needs and learning styles of students. Mr. Dupont did not ask Respondent if he wanted to teach the drop out prevention class and did not otherwise confer with Respondent prior to making the assignment. Respondent was informed of his assignment in August, 1990, in accordance with customary practice for all class assignments. Criteria for placement in the drop out prevention class included excessive absences, being held back a grade or being older than other students, failing to perform at the appropriate grade level, and behavior difficulties. While a majority of the students were not placed in the class due to disruptive behavior, most of the students demonstrated disruptive behavior. The class was officially categorized as a drop out prevention class but was also a very disruptive class. Many students in the class came from single parent homes, disadvantaged socio-economic environments, and exhibited low self-esteem. One of the objectives of the class was to raise the students' self-esteem and grade level performance. The class was also intended to ensure that the students made a successful transition to the middle school setting. The Broward County school system has eliminated corporal punishment as a form of discipline. Teachers are not to become physically involved with students in order to discipline or control them. The use of force is appropriate only to prevent harm or injury to a teacher or student. Teachers may not use physical means to control students, punish their behavior, or maintain order in the classroom. Respondent violated the policy against corporal punishment. During the 1990-1991 school year and the 1991-1992 school year, Respondent engaged in inappropriate physical contact with students as a means of discipline or control. Respondent used excessive force to control students, yelled at students, faculty, and administrative staff, violated rules of the State Board of Education, and engaged in misconduct. Respondent's misconduct was so serious that it impaired his effectiveness in the school system. See paragraphs 21-44, infra. In most instances, the students involved in the events at issue in this proceeding were engaged in inappropriate behavior which warranted correction, discipline, and punishment. In addition, the relationship between Respondent and the administrative staff at Rogers Middle School was strained by Respondent's dissatisfaction with administrative support and his lack of success in obtaining a transfer. However, the underlying problems between Respondent and the administration and the disruptive behavior of Respondent's students did not justify Respondent's misconduct and violation of applicable rules. The School Board complied with the requirements in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.008 for fair dismissal procedures. Respondent received an unsatisfactory evaluation for the 1990-1991 school year. On January 9, 1991, Ms. Etling issued an evaluation that Respondent needed improvement in behavior management, lesson design, and oral speech. Ms. Etling advised Respondent verbally and in writing that he would be given the opportunity to improve his performance by observing other teachers and attending workshops. On April 22, 1991, Mr. Dupont issued an evaluation that Respondent needed to improve in behavior management, classroom atmosphere, and lesson design. Mr. Dupont advised Respondent to observe other drop out prevention teachers, attend workshops, and review articles and tapes on positive attitudes. The administration arranged for Respondent to visit drop out prevention classes at other middle schools and offered Respondent the opportunity to attend workshops. Respondent attended some drop out prevention classes at other middle schools. Mr. Dupont made every reasonable effort to assist Respondent in obtaining a transfer to another school, but Respondent was unable to obtain a transfer. The School Board investigated a complaint regarding Respondent's conduct at school. On March 13, 1991, the Professional Standards Committee found probable cause to support the complaint. The Committee recommended that Respondent receive a letter of reprimand, be referred to Professional Practices Services, and be suspended for a period of time. In lieu of suspension, the School Board and Respondent entered into a Memorandum of Understanding. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, Respondent received a letter of reprimand on May 3, 1991, sanctioning him for verbal abuse and battery against his students. The letter of reprimand was issued by Mr. Ronald Wright, Director of Professional Standards for the School Board. Respondent was referred to Professional Practices Services, required to attend in-service programs, required to implement those programs in his classroom, and required to participate in an employee assistance program. Respondent was assigned to teach seventh grade science for the 1991- 1992 school year. Many of the students in his seventh grade class also demonstrated behavior problems. Some of the students had been in the drop out prevention class during the previous school year. Respondent was placed on administrative leave effective January 17, 1992. He was suspended with pay on March 11, 1992, and suspended without pay on April 7, 1992. Reduced Effectiveness And Rule Violations In December, 1990, Respondent used excessive force to restrain a female student who was involved in a fight with a smaller male student. Quanika Murray was beating Ladarian Griffin with her fist. After Quanika failed to respond to Respondent's verbal commands, Respondent put both of his arms around Quanika in a "bear hug." Quanika hit Respondent in the ribs with her elbow. Respondent threw Quanika to the ground and pinned her there by holding both of her arms behind her back. When an administrator came to the scene in approximately 60 seconds, Respondent released Quanika Murray. She lunged at Ladarian Griffin again, and Respondent threw Quanika against the wall and pinned her there until the administrator took her away. On December 12, 1990, Respondent used excessive physical force to break up a verbal confrontation between two students and precipitated a physical confrontation between one of the students and Respondent. William Boyd and Tanika Boyd were arguing in the hall. Respondent told the students to go to class. William left but Tanika became verbally abusive and confrontational toward Respondent. Respondent pushed Tanika toward her class. Tanika hit Respondent. When another teacher approached, Respondent and Tanika backed away from each other. Tanika backed into the teacher and fell to the ground. The teacher pinned Tanika to the ground by holding both of her arms behind her. Respondent approached the two and inadvertently kicked sand in Tanika's face. On February 25, 1991, Respondent used unnecessary and excessive physical force to control and discipline a student. School policy prohibited students from being in designated areas without a pass. The policy was intended to give teachers time to prepare for class before school started each morning. Respondent was monitoring a gate to one of the designated areas. Quincy Wilkins attempted to enter the designated area without a pass. When Respondent told Quincy not to proceed without a pass, Quincy became loud, verbally abusive, and pushed Respondent. Respondent grabbed Quincy's arm, put it behind the student's back, and pushed Quincy against the wall. The hold was painful, and Quincy broke free. Respondent took the student to the front office, and charged Quincy with attempting to fight Respondent. On March 20, 1991, Respondent was verbally abusive toward a student, used unnecessary physical force to control and discipline the student, and engaged in unprofessional conduct during an IOWA testing procedure in the school cafeteria. Respondent was acting as one of the monitors for the test. He reprimanded a student for failing to follow instructions by yelling at the student, throwing the student's books on the floor, grabbing the student by the arm, and seating the student at a table closer to the front of the room. The incident created a major disturbance and caused some of the students to miss directions for taking the test. On April 15, 1991, Respondent used excessive physical force to control a student who was not threatening another teacher. Alex Hernandez had been involved in an altercation with another student. Another teacher broke up the fight and reprimanded Alex. Alex was a good student, and the teacher felt that a verbal warning was sufficient under the circumstances. While the teacher was speaking with Alex, Respondent approached Alex from behind, grabbed him by the arms, and threw him against the lockers. Respondent led Alex to the front office with both arms behind the student's back. Respondent charged Alex with trying to hit another teacher. The teacher informed the front office at a later time that Alex had not threatened him or tried to hit him. Respondent yelled at students over minuscule matters. On September 6, 1991, Respondent yelled at a student for chewing gum. Respondent's conduct prompted a complaint by the student's parents and required a conference with the parents to resolve a matter that would have been trivial in the absence of Respondent's conduct. On September 13, 1991, Respondent yelled at students over minuscule matters and called them stupid, arrogant, and rude. An administrator was required to intervene in Respondent's class. On September 16, 1991, Respondent denied a female student's request to use the bathroom. About 15 minutes after class started, a student with menstrual problems requested permission to use the bathroom. The student returned to her seat and approximately five minutes later began leaking blood onto her clothing. The student left the room and sought the assistance of an administrator. On September 20, 1991, Respondent engaged in a confrontation with the assistant principal in the presence of approximately 200 students. Respondent's anger, over the behavior of another student, was misdirected at the assistant principal. Respondent screamed and pointed his finger in the assistant principal's face. On September 30, 1991, Respondent used unnecessary and excessive physical force on a student and filed criminal charges against the student. Ladarian Griffin refused to comply with Respondent's request to behave in class. Respondent properly disciplined Ladarian by placing Ladarian in a separate chair at the front of the class. Ladarian persisted in his disruptive behavior. Respondent called the front office to have someone cover Respondent's class while Respondent ushered Ladarian to the front office. No coverage was provided. When the class was over, Respondent let all of his students leave except Ladarian and blocked Ladarian's exit through the classroom door. Ladarian attempted to run through Respondent. Respondent physically subdued Ladarian and took him to the front office. Respondent requested that the principal file charges against Ladarian with the public resource officer. When the principal refused, Respondent filed charges against Ladarian with the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. Respondent later requested that the charges be dropped. On October 4, 1991, the parents of two students telephoned the school administration to complain about Respondent yelling at their children during a class. The yelling interfered with the students' school work. On October 10, 1991, Respondent improperly accused a student of committing a felony against him. When the bell rang to end the sixth hour class, Respondent refused to allow his students to leave until the students returned their books. Respondent stood at the door to the classroom until each student placed a book on his or her desk. When Respondent turned to answer a knock at the door, Anthony Maclemore ran into Respondent with his head, shoved Respondent to the side, and ran out the door. Respondent mistakenly thought the student was Lashaun Johnson. Respondent wrote a referral for Lashaun and asked the principal to have Lashaun arrested. Mr. Dupont refused. Respondent filed a report and a complaint for prosecution against Lashaun with the local police department. Respondent told Lashaun's guardian that the police were going to arrest Lashaun that evening. The following day Lashaun and Lashaun's guardian participated in a conference with Ms. Etling and Respondent. Respondent realized his mistake and apologized. The mistaken identity caused substantial distress to Lashaun and Lashaun's guardian. Anthony Maclemore was suspended for three days. On October 15, 1991, Respondent yelled at Ms. Etling during a discussion on an educational matter. This incident occurred in the presence of numerous students. On November 13, 1991, Respondent issued a semester grade of "F" to 72 of his 160 students. During a conference with the parents of one of the students who received an "F", Respondent engaged in a tirade against the students' behavior and the failure of the administration to assist him in correcting that behavior. During a conference with the parent of another student, Respondent alluded to the student's bad behavior as a basis for the poor grade but was unable to present one disciplinary referral for that student. Between November 14 and November 21, 1991, several students or their parents complained to the administration of Respondent's verbal abuse and mistreatment of students. Respondent repeatedly yelled at students and disparaged them for their lack of academic effort. On November 21, 1991, Respondent took a folder away from Alex Holmes and told Alex he could get the folder back from Ms. Etling at the end of the day. Alex was disrupting the fifth period class by banging the folder on his desk. The folder contained materials Alex needed for another class. At the end of the class, Alex attempted to retrieve the folder himself, and Respondent attempted to prevent Alex from retrieving his folder before the end of the day. Alex hit Respondent. Respondent attempted to restrain Alex by placing his arms around Alex and pulling Alex's shirt over his head. Before Alex was restrained by other students, Alex hit Respondent in the head, forehead, face, and chest. Alex also used a bone from a skeleton that had been knocked over during the fight to hit Respondent on his leg and leave puncture wounds. Respondent filed criminal charges against Alex. Alex was arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced to one day house arrest. Respondent was absent from work until December 20, 1991, due to injuries sustained from the incident with Alex Holmes. From December 20, 1991, through January 13, 1992, Respondent was involved in several confrontations with students and administrative staff in which Respondent yelled at students and staff. On January 16, 1992, Mr. Dupont informed Respondent that Respondent was being placed on administrative leave. Mr. Dupont instructed Respondent to return to his classroom and remove his personal belongings. Respondent was escorted to the classroom by the school's resource officer. Respondent threw his personal belongings on the floor of the classroom. Documents were discarded and tossed about the classroom leaving it in complete disarray. The school resource officer was instructed by Mr. Dupont not to arrest Respondent. A police officer was called in to escort Respondent from the school campus. Respondent used a school cart to transport his personal belongings to his automobile. Respondent pushed the cart over prior to leaving the school campus. Respondent left his classroom in disarray. The classroom was cleaned by the cleaning service that night and used the next day for another class.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of misconduct in office and terminating Respondent from his employment with the School Board. It is recommended that The Educational Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of engaging in conduct which seriously reduced Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the School Board and otherwise violated applicable rules of the State Board of Education. It is further recommended that the Final Order of the Educational Practices Commission suspend Respondent's teaching certificate for one year from the date Respondent was first suspended without pay and place Respondent on probation for two years after the expiration of his suspension. Respondent's probation should be subject to such terms and conditions as may be determined by the Educational Practices Commission to be reasonable and necessary. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 9th day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-2388 and 92-3425 Proposed findings of Petitioner, Virgil L. Morgan. 1.-2. Accepted in substance 4.-5. Accepted in substance 7.-8. Accepted in substance 10.-13. Accepted in substance 18. Accepted in substance 3.,6.9. Rejected as not supported by the weight of evidence 14.-17. Rejected as not supported by the weight of evidence 19.-21. Rejected as not supported by the weight of evidence Proposed findings of Petitioner, Betty Castor. 1.-16. Accepted in substance 17.-21. Rejected as not supported by the weight of evidence Accepted in substance Rejected as not alleged in the administrative complaint 24.-25. Accepted in substance 26.-27. Rejected as not alleged in the administrative complaint Accepted in substance Rejected as not supported by the weight of evidence 30.-32. Rejected as not alleged in the administrative complaint Rejected as not supported by the weight of evidence Rejected as not alleged in the administrative complaint 35.-36. Accepted in substance 37.-40. Rejected as not alleged in the administrative complaint 41.-46. Accepted in substance 47.-50. Accepted in substance 51.-52. Rejected as not supported by the weight of evidence 53.-68. Accepted in substance Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in substance Rejected in part as irrelevant and immaterial 2.-13. Accepted in substance 14. Accepted in part and rejected in part as not supported by the weight of evidence 15.-16. Accepted in substance Accepted in part and rejected in part as not supported by the weight of evidence Accepted in substance Accepted in specifics but rejected as to the generalization for the reasons stated in findings 21-44 Accepted in substance Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence 22.-25. Accepted in substance 26. Accepted in part and rejected in part as contrary to the weight of evidence 27.-33. Accepted in substance 34. Accepted in part and rejected in part as contrary to the weight of evidence 35.-38. Accepted in substance 39. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence 40.-55. Accepted in substance COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire 1512 East Broward Boulevard Suite 300 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Margaret E. O'Sullivan, Esquire Department of Education 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sally C. Gertz, Esquire FEA/United 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Virgil L. Morgan, Superintendent Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest 4th Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33312
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent's contract for immorality, in violation of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code; misconduct in office, in violation of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-4.009(3), Florida Administrative Code; and incompetency, in violation of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-4.009(1), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Respondent came to the United States from British Guyana in 1977. In 1988, Respondent obtained an educator's certificate and began teaching in Dade County. Petitioner hired him in 1992 and assigned him to Silver Lakes Middle School. For several years, Respondent taught language arts, which is the area in which he is certified, to all grades. Petitioner later assigned Respondent to teach students in the dropout prevention program at Silver Lakes Middle School. The students in the dropout prevention program typically represent greater academic challenges to a teacher than do their counterparts in regular education. For the past five or six years, Respondent taught dropout prevention at Silver Lakes Middle School. His teaching approach is to try to develop rapport with the students during the first nine weeks of the school year while, at the same time, identify specific areas of weakness within each student that may require attention during the school year. On October 17, 2001, Respondent administered a diagnostic test to identify areas in which students needed work. Unable to answer some of the questions, some students asked Respondent for help. Respondent declined to help because his assistance would destroy the purpose of the test. Some of the students began to misbehave. After several attempts by Respondent to control these students, they threatened to go to the office and complain about Respondent. Respondent invited the students to go to the office and complain about him. He wrote passes for several students, and several more students joined the others to visit the office, rather than take the test, and complain to an administrator about Respondent. The principal received the students in her office and listened to their complaints, which appear to have been the source of the allegations in this case. The principal took statements from the students and then returned with them to Respondent's classroom. While in the classroom, the principal helped the students with the diagnostic test that Respondent had been administering. Recognizing that the diagnostic value of his test was lost, Respondent then joined the principal in helping the students with their diagnostic test. Prominent among the students' complaints to the principal was that Respondent had struck a student, J. H. Petitioner produced little direct evidence supporting this allegation. Twice, J. H. ignored subpoenas to testify in this case. Respondent testified that J. H. later admitted to him that other boys in the class made him lie and say that Respondent hit him. J. H.'s failure to comply with subpoenas is consistent with Respondent's testimony. Absent J. H.'s testimony, it is difficult to determine exactly what, if anything, happened with him and Respondent. The most likely scenario is that J. H. succumbed to the pressures of other students in the class and lied that Respondent had hit him, knowing that the only contact that had taken place between Respondent and J. H. was incidental contact during a minor incident of horseplay. Three of the four student witnesses whom Petitioner called to substantiate the charges were unconvincing. The fourth--J. G.--was vague and unable or unwilling to supply evidence against Respondent, whom he described as "the nicest man." Student D. S. testified at the hearing that Respondent ignored the students' questions in class about classroom material, called J. H. "peanut head," called "Jarvis" "bumbleclot," told D. S. that he lacked motivation and was lazy, and told other students that they came to school looking like a "bum." "Bumbleclot" appears to be a derogatory term in a Jamaican patois, although the record does not establish the intended or actual effect that any use of the word would have in Respondent's class. When handed a previous statement, D. S. added to his complaints that Respondent often said "bloody" in class and would . . . like nudge [J. H.], like, hit him in the arm." D. S. also recalled that Respondent said "cock-eyed" in class. D. S. admitted that he never heard Respondent threaten to "pop" a student. Discrepancies exist between D. S.'s testimony and his prior statements. First, he initially omitted the most significant allegation--that Respondent struck J. H.--and, when he later mentioned it, he downplayed it to a "nudge." Likewise, D. S. initially omitted any mention of Respondent's use of "bloody." Also, D. S. never mentioned Respondent's use of "bumbleclot" in his previous statements. D. S.'s testimony establishes the unlikelihood that Respondent actually hit J. H. or that he ever threatened to "pop" a student in class. Student J. P. testified that she heard other students say that Respondent pushed D. V. out the door of the portable classroom after ejecting him from class. Due to J. P.'s admitted failure to have observed the incident, the Administrative Law Judge struck the testimony. However, despite admitting that she did not see this incident, J. P. stated that she went to the office with other students and informed the principal of the incident. J. P. also testified that Respondent often said "bloody" and refused to explain all of an assignment to her after she missed school, which she admitted happened frequently. Lastly, J. P. complained that Respondent issued her a referral for going to the bathroom. In addition to missing school, J. P. was often tardy when returning from various errands, and many times she did not do her work. J. P.'s testimony establishes only that Respondent may have said "bloody" a few times in class. Student J. G. testified that he recalled Respondent using "hell or damn" in class, although, on cross-examination, he denied any recollection of any use of either of these words. J. G. testified that he heard Respondent say something about knocking a student into next week, although he could not recall whether the latter comment was made in jest. J. G. added that he saw Respondent give J. H. "a little hit." Student D. V. testified that he saw Respondent hit J. H., although his description of the conversation accompanying the incident was materially different at the hearing than in a previous statement. D. V. testified that Respondent threatened to "pop" students and told them to "shut [their] bloody mouths." D. V. added that he asked Respondent one time if he could call his mother to bring his medication for attention deficit disorder, and Respondent denied him permission to make the call. D. V. also testified that Respondent, while sitting beside the door, pushed D. V. on the shoulder to get him out of the classroom, and D. V. responded by warning that he would get his sister to "kick [Respondent's] ass." Although D. V.'s testimony is not undermined by the inconsistencies plaguing the testimony of D. S. and J. P., D. V. shares the antipathy of these other two students for Respondent. Each of these students resented Respondent's efforts to discipline and teach them. Each of these students betrayed a desire to act in concert to get Respondent in trouble, as they felt he had gotten them into trouble. Respondent called as a witness one student, W. L., who testified forcefully that she heard the other students coercing J. H. to say falsely that Respondent had hit him. W. L. testified that the only improper word that she heard Respondent use was "bloody" and that Respondent and J. H. engaged in some horseplay in class. Perhaps the most useful witness was an assistant principal at Silver Lakes Middle School. At the end of the 2001-02 school year, the assistant principal completed an evaluation of Respondent in which he assigned him a satisfactory rating, which is the highest, in all categories, including classroom management. It is clear from the testimony of the assistant principal that he gave the complaints of Respondent's students exactly the weight that they deserved. Respondent admitted that he used "bloody" in class, but the record fails to develop the appreciation of his students for the intensity of this word in certain non-American cultures. Respondent admitted that he once used the phrase, "pop you one," but the record fails to develop the context so as to preclude the likelihood that Respondent said these words in jest. Respondent admitted that he used "cock-eyed," "skinny boy," and "bony boy," but, again, the record fails to establish a context as to permit a finding that these terms were abusive or disparaging. Respondent, who is black, mentioned that he had been called "black nugget" and "kiwi," but only as part of an effort to develop tolerance for names among students eager to take offense. Respondent ejected D. V. from the classroom for legitimate reasons. According to D. V. himself, any followup contact was with Respondent in the seated position, so as not likely to have been significant. According to another student, D. V. grabbed Respondent. At most, the record depicts an angry, disruptive student who has stubbornly refused to comply with his teacher's ejection of him from the classroom, so that other students have a chance to learn. Likewise, D. V.'s complaint that Respondent denied him the chance to call his mother for his attention deficit medication suffers for the lack of context. Undoubtedly, D. V. joined in ongoing efforts to disrupt the class and avoid receiving instruction. The only context for this request provided by the record is that D. V. asked for permission immediately after returning from lunch, when he would have had ample opportunity to call his mother. Although it is possible that D. V. first thought of the missing medication after lunch, it is at least as likely that he thought of the missing medication as a convenient excuse to extend his mid-day respite from learning. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent was guilty of misconduct in office, incompetency, or immorality.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 2nd day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Franklin L. Till, Jr. Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125 Honorable Jim Horne Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Carmen M. Rodriguez Law Offices of Carmen Rodriguez, P.A. 9245 Southwest 157th Street Suite 209 Miami, Florida 33157 Mark F. Kelly Kelly & McKee, P.A. 1718 East 7th Avenue Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638
The Issue Whether Respondent should be transferred from Glades Middle School to an opportunity school.
Findings Of Fact For the 1989-90 school year John Sarmiento was enrolled in the Dade County public school system and he was assigned to the eighth grade at Giades Middle School. On November 27, 1989, Petitioner administratively transferred him from Glades Middle School to J.R.E. Lee, an opportunity school. The stated basis for the transfer was the student's disruptive behavior and his failure to adjust to the regular school. As an opportunity school, J.R.E. Lee has a more structured program than a traditional school, such as Glades Middle School, and is designed to assist students with discipline problems. While attending Glades Middle School, John Sarmiento repeatedly engaged in disruptive conduct that interfered with his own learning and with the learning of others in his classes. This conduct resulted in his being referred to the assistant principal's office between five and ten times per week. On one occasion the student, while in class, threw a piece of chalk at another student. On another occasion, the student engaged in an argument with another student that almost resulted in a fight during class. On an almost daily basis, the student would wander around the class while making loud, boisterous comments. This student's misconduct would have merited his suspension according to the district code of student conduct. Instead of suspending this student, the school officials worked with him and with his parents in an effort to improve his behavior. Unfortunately the considerable efforts of the personnel at Glades Middle School to serve the student's educational needs did not succeed. The student needs the structured environment that the opportunity school can provide, and his educational needs will best be served by his transfer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order which approves John Sarmiento's assignment to the J.R.E. Lee opportunity school. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 3rd day of April 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank R. Harder, Esquire 2780 Galloway Road, Suite 100 Twin Oaks Building Miami, Florida 33165 Maria Ruiz de la Torre, Esquire 7111 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite Three Miami, Florida 33138 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Paul W. Bell Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether Petitioner has sufficient just cause to terminate Respondent, Jacqueline Skinner ("Skinner"), for multiple unapproved absences from work.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented and the record as a whole, the undersigned makes the following Findings of Fact: Parties' Stipulated Facts At all times pertinent, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a bookkeeper at Central Elementary School. Respondent's supervisor during the 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 school years was Joseph G. Stanley, principal of Central Elementary School. Respondent's supervisor during the 2019-20 school year was Cynthia Kubit, principal of Central Elementary School. At all times pertinent, Christina Norman was an assistant principal at Central Elementary School. At all times pertinent, Ken Kenworthy was superintendent of Okeechobee County Schools. The annual noninstructional employee evaluations of Respondent from the 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 school years showed that Respondent needed improvement in attendance. Pet. Ex. 1. Respondent failed to report for work on June 7, 2019, without arranging for leave in advance and without notifying her immediate supervisor. Principal Joseph G. Stanley issued a letter to Respondent dated June 14, 2019, confirming a verbal reprimand; Respondent acknowledged receipt of said letter. Pet. Ex. 2. Respondent failed to report for work on October 29, 2019, without arranging for leave in advance and without notifying her immediate supervisor. Principal Cynthia Kubit issued a letter of reprimand to Respondent dated October 30, 2019; Respondent acknowledged receipt of said letter. Pet. Ex. 3. During February 2020, Respondent continued to have incidents regarding leave and, by letter dated February 20, 2020, Principal Cynthia Kubit recommended disciplinary action against Respondent; Respondent acknowledged receipt of said letter. Pet. Ex. 4. On May 15, 2020, Respondent failed to report to work without arranging for leave in advance and without notifying her immediate supervisor. Principal Cynthia Kubit, in the presence of Assistant Principal Christina Norman, called Respondent several times and issued a memorandum of the telephone conversations. Pet. Ex. 6. Principal Cynthia Kubit issued a letter to Superintendent Ken Kenworthy dated May 18, 2020, recommending that Respondent be terminated; Respondent acknowledged receipt of a copy of said letter. Pet. Ex. 7. By letter dated May 18, 2020, to Respondent, Superintendent Ken Kenworthy informed Respondent that he was recommending to the Board that Respondent's employment be terminated. The letter was hand delivered to Respondent by Assistant Principal Dylan Tedders and Respondent acknowledged receipt of a copy of said letter. Pet. Ex. 8. At all times pertinent, School Board Policy 6.213--Notification of Absence--was in effect. Pet. Ex. 9. At all times pertinent, School Board Policy 6.20--Leave of Absence-- was in full force and effect. Pet. Ex. 10. At all times pertinent, School Board Policy 6.52--Suspension and Dismissal--was in full force and effect. Pet. Ex. 11. At all times pertinent, School Board Policy 6.45--Alcohol and Drug Free Workplace--was in full force and effect. Other Facts Established by the Evidence Skinner was employed pursuant to the Okeechobee County School Board Classified Personnel Contract for the 2019-20 School Year on a continuing basis. Pet. Ex. 18. An employee who has completed the probationary period may be dismissed under the Classified Personnel Contract for just cause. Pet. Ex. 18, p. 15. Pursuant to the Classified Personnel Contract, under Public Employer Rights, "[i]t is the right of the Board to direct its employees, to take disciplinary action for proper cause, and relieve its employees from duty because of lack of work and other legitimate reasons…." Pet. Ex. 18, p. 5. Pursuant to the Classified Personnel Contract, the Board is required to follow progressive discipline, the progression of which is as follows: "documented verbal warning; written reprimand following a meeting; suspension; termination." Pet. Ex. 18, p. 13. It was largely undisputed, as acknowledged in the Joint Pre-hearing Statement-Amended, filed September 1, 2020, that Skinner had attendance problems the past several years of her employment, which escalated in the last year of her employment. According to her supervisor, Kubit, Skinner's attendance problems started immediately when Kubit became principal in July 2019 and continued throughout the last year of Skinner's employment. During her last year of employment, from the time period July 1, 2019, through May 14, 2020, Skinner accumulated numerous absences from work. During her last year of employment, Skinner used more leave than she had allocated. This put her leave bank in the negative. Pet. Ex. 19. This was not the first time Skinner used more leave than she had accrued. Her prior supervisor, Dr. Stanley, testified that Skinner would run out of available sick days and then would have to take unpaid leave. During her last year of employment, Skinner failed to attend work approximately ten days and failed to arrange for advance leave with her supervisor. Pet. Ex. 12. Providing advance notice of an absence could have been accomplished by Skinner by calling, texting, or e-mailing her supervisor any time prior to the start of the work day, even a few minutes before. On some of the days when Skinner failed to attend work, arrange for leave, or notify her supervisor, her supervisor, Kubit, nonetheless tried to assist Skinner by not disciplining her for failure to attend work without notice. For instance, Kubit sometimes allowed Skinner to use vacation days when she ran out of sick days even though employees are normally required to arrange for vacation leave days in advance. Kubit did so because she wanted Skinner to come back and work more regularly. Kubit thought it would help Skinner to do so. According to Kubit, Skinner did not provide legitimate excuses for her unauthorized absences. Instead, she just repeatedly apologized and promised to improve her attendance in the future. Skinner candidly acknowledged during her testimony that she had attendance problems and that she had received multiple disciplinary letters for her problems with attendance. Annual Performance Evaluations As part of her employment, Skinner received annual employee evaluations. Pet. Ex. 1. Her attendance problems over time were documented and verified in her annual employee evaluations. Pet. Ex. 1. More specifically, Skinner's last four annual employee evaluations evaluated her on six main categories of performance, one of which was Attendance. This category evaluated the following performance attribute: "Complies with policies and procedures regarding usage of time and leave; [m]aintains scheduled work and break times; [r]eports absences for emergencies and illnesses, and requests leave, in a timely manner." Pet. Ex. 1, pp. 1-4. In each of her last three annual employee evaluations, Skinner was rated as "Needs Improvement" for Attendance. Pet. Ex. 1, pp. 2-4. On each of the last four annual employee evaluations, Skinner also received written comments from her supervisor about her attendance. These comments were consistent and pointed out that Skinner needed to improve attendance and work to comply with attendance policies. Pet. Ex. 1, pp. 1-4. Each annual performance evaluation was discussed with Skinner and she signed each. Pet. Ex. 1, pp. 1-4. School Board Attendance Policies and Requirements The Board's policies established and outlined general guidelines and expectations for work attendance. Employees were generally expected to attend work as scheduled unless they had arranged for advance leave. See generally, Pet. Ex. 10. Employees who were absent from duty for any reason were required to notify their supervisor as early as possible. Notification of an absence had to be given in advance unless conditions beyond the control of the employee made advance notice impossible. Pet. Ex. 9. The Classified Personnel Contract governing Skinner and other employees similarly provided that employees were required to arrange for advance leave for vacation and to notify their supervisor prior to the start of the work day if they were taking sick leave. Pet. Ex. 18, pp. 33 and 34. The School Bookkeeper Job Description, which applied to Skinner, required her to follow attendance, punctuality, and other qualities of an appropriate work ethic. Pet. Ex. 13, line 11. Skinner's significant and frequent attendance problems caused her to fall short of these policy, contract, and job description requirements. History of Attendance Problems The witnesses confirmed that Skinner violated the attendance policies on a frequent basis for several years. Regrettably, her attendance problems became most acute in her last year. This eventually lead to a recommendation for her termination in her last year of employment. The parties acknowledged in their Joint Pre-hearing Statement- Amended, that Skinner received all required stages of progressive discipline for her attendance problems. This included a verbal warning, a written reprimand, and a suspension, finally resulting in a recommendation by the Superintendent that her employment be terminated. Skinner's supervisors also discussed and counseled her on her attendance problems several times throughout the years, both informally and formally. In the disciplinary letters, Skinner was informed that, in the event of recurrence, she would be subjected to further discipline including a recommendation for termination. Pet. Exs. 2-3. More specifically, in the disciplinary letter from the Superintendent dated March 3, 2020, Skinner was informed that: "It is expected that there be no further occurrence of such behavior. If it continues, your position with the Okeechobee County School Board will be terminated." Pet. Ex. 5, p. 1. In this disciplinary letter, Skinner received numerous attachments including copies of the Board Policy 6.213, entitled "Notification of Absence and the Employee Assistance Plan." Skinner signed and acknowledged receiving the disciplinary letters for her attendance problems, and agreed that they put her on notice that her attendance shortcomings were a problem. Skinner also received negative employee evaluations on her attendance for the past three years, which were discussed and signed by her. Pet. Ex. 1, pp. 2-4. It was clear to the undersigned that Skinner received full, fair, and adequate notice of her attendance problem for several years. Unfortunately, she was unable to correct it after multiple warnings, corrective action, and progressive discipline. Termination Authority Superintendent Ken Kenworthy is responsible for determining and recommending whether an employee should be terminated for violation of Board policies or rules. Pet. Ex. 11. The Superintendent is only entitled to discipline and terminate the employment of an administrative employee on a continuing contract for "just cause." Pet. Ex. 18, p. 15. The Superintendent testified that he takes many factors into consideration when determining whether just cause exists for termination. He looks at the reasonableness of the Board's rules, whether the employee was informed of the rules, and whether the disciplinary action taken is proportionate to the infraction. The undersigned finds that this process is fair, and provides adequate due process to affected employees of the District. The Superintendent ensures that progressive discipline has been followed when taking an action against an employee's employment. See generally, Pet. Ex. 8. In this case, all the stages of progressive discipline from informal conversations and memoranda of conference through the formal disciplinary stages of verbal reprimand, written reprimand, suspension, and recommendation for termination were followed. The Board's rules on employee attendance are reasonable and necessary to ensure the proper functioning and operation of the school district. Several witnesses and the Superintendent testified that proper and regular attendance was a "critical" and "essential function" of an employee's job performance. Skinner's supervisors, Kubit and Dr. Stanley, both testified that notification of absences when an employee cannot attend work is "critical." Several Board witnesses provided testimony showing the hardship that Skinner's absences created for Central Elementary School. For instance, Dr. Stanley expressed his view that it was a hardship for Central Elementary School when Skinner was absent, especially at the last minute, because others had to cover her job. This left the school short staffed in other areas. Likewise, according to Kubit, it was especially difficult when Skinner was absent because other people had to perform her duties, but according to rules and regulations most people were not authorized to handle money. According to Assistant Principal Norman, when Skinner was absent from work, money would have to be kept at the school even though it is supposed to be promptly deposited. This was true because only Skinner could verify the money for a deposit. This violated bookkeeping rules about depositing money, and was unsafe when large sums of money were left undeposited at a school. Skinner was advised on numerous occasions and by different people that her repeated and unauthorized absences without notification were creating difficulty for the functioning of Central Elementary School. Not only did Skinner leave the school short staffed, but she had a tendency to do so when her presence was most needed. The witnesses concurred that Skinner's repeated absences tended to follow a pattern. For example, if Central Elementary School was at a busy time of year or an event occurred that required additional bookkeeping, like a fundraising event, Skinner often would not come to work and did not arrange for leave or call in. This left the school in a difficult predicament. Aside from her leaving the school short staffed, Skinner's work absences also had a negative effect on her job performance. Several Board witnesses testified, for example, that Skinner's work performance started to decline. This was caused by Skinner's work getting backed up and not completed on time because of her absences. This became particularly evident after her suspension when other employees came in to review her unfinished work and sort out the bookkeeping at Central Elementary School. During this review, several problems were noticed. Skinner acknowledged knowing that her problem with unauthorized absences was having a negative effect on Central Elementary School. During the hearing, Skinner admitted that her struggle with alcohol misuse caused or contributed to her attendance problems. According to her supervisor, Dr. Stanley, Skinner never provided alcoholism as an excuse for her absences. Instead, Skinner would make the excuse that she slept in or just did not get up to come to work. According to her supervisor, Kubit, Skinner did not offer or mention problems with alcohol as an excuse for her unauthorized absences. Instead, she regularly apologized and promised to improve her attendance in the future. Not only did Skinner not reveal to her supervisors that alcoholism was a reason for her absence problem, Skinner never sought assistance or accommodation for her struggle with alcohol prior to the Superintendent's recommendation for termination. The Board provides employees struggling with medical or other problems assistance through its Employee Assistance Program. It also provides leave for medical problems though the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"). Pet. Ex. 18, p. 32. Skinner was provided a copy of the Employee Assistance Plan when she was suspended for three days in March 2020, prior to the Superintendent's recommendation for termination of her employment two months later. Pet. Ex. 5, p. 2. However, despite her awareness of the assistance offered in March 2020, Skinner never used the Employee Assistance Plan or FMLA leave to try and save her job or correct her underlying problem prior to being terminated. While the evidence revealed that an employee suffering from an alcohol problem had an opportunity to seek treatment while still employed, this treatment was permitted when their employment was active and in good stead--not after the employee was suspended and dismissal of employment was in progress. Further, Skinner testified that she had been an alcoholic her "whole life" and it had progressively gotten worse in the last four years. Regrettably, there was no medical documentation or other evidence provided in advance for the Board to verify her problem with alcohol. But, at the end of the day, and to be clear, this was Skinner's illness and it was her responsibility to seek help and take advantage of programs the Board offered.2 2 The undersigned reasonably infers from the evidence and record that Skinner knew or should have known about the Employee Assistance Plan many months, if not years, before her termination. Sadly, however, she did not take advantage of the program. Turning directly to the matter at hand, the allegations of the Superintendent's termination letter were limited to her attendance problems. While problems with alcohol may have existed or accounted for her absences, the crux of this case concerns Skinner's attendance problem. Other violations or performance deficiencies related to Skinner's problems with alcohol or related performance issues were not alleged as a basis to terminate her. Those related problems provide some background and context to the attendance issue at hand, but they are not being considered by the undersigned as directly affecting the outcome of this case. Added to that, despite later discovering Skinner's problems with alcohol and how this affected her attendance, the Superintendent did not amend his recommendation for termination of employment to include abuse of alcohol or other related work performance issues. Superintendent Kenworthy felt that Skinner's chronic and disruptive workplace absences alone merited termination of employment. In his view, no other violations needed to be cited since Skinner was not meeting his attendance expectations. Based on the greater weight of the evidence, the undersigned finds that the Board had sufficient just cause to terminate Skinner for repeated and chronic attendance problems.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Okeechobee County School Board enter a Final Order terminating Jacqueline Skinner's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Nicholas Anthony Caggia, Esquire Johnson and Caggia Law Group 510 Vonderburg Drive, Suite 303 Brandon, Florida 33511 (eServed) Thomas L. Johnson, Esquire Law Office of Thomas Johnson, P.A. 510 Vonderburg Drive, Suite 309 Brandon, Florida 33511 (eServed) Thomas W. Conely, Esquire Conely & Conely, P.A. Post Office Box 1367 Okeechobee, Florida 34973 (eServed) Molly Lauren Shaddock, Esquire Sniffen and Spellman 605 North Olive Avenue, 2nd Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) Ken Kenworthy, Superintendent Okeechobee School Board 700 Southwest 2nd Avenue Okeechobee, Florida 34974 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The ultimate issue in the instant case is whether Respondent should be administratively reassigned to Petitioner's alternative education/disciplinary program at the Youth Opportunity School-South.
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Centennial Middle School is a public school operated by Petitioner. Respondent has been a student at Centennial Middle School since the beginning of the 1987-88 school year. As a student at the school, Respondent has consistently engaged in disruptive conduct that has adversely affected the educational process at the school. On approximately nineteen separate occasions, Respondent has been formally referred to the school administration by one of his teachers for disciplinary reasons. The school administration has made exhaustive efforts to help Respondent improve his behavior, but these efforts have been unsuccessful. The incident that precipitated the decision to remove Respondent from the regular school program at Centennial Middle School occurred on July 19, 1989, while Respondent was attending summer school. On that date Respondent brought to school a weapon in the form of a steak knife that he concealed in his sock the entire school day. He intended to use the knife to defend himself, if necessary, against a group of students with whom he had an ongoing dispute. Pursuant to Petitioner's Code of Student Conduct, students who bring weapons to school are subject to expulsion. On July 20, 1989, upon learning that Respondent had a concealed weapon on his person while on school grounds the previous day, Ted Hennis, Jr., one of the Assistant Principals at Centennial Middle School, suspended Respondent and recommended to the Dade County School Superintendent that Respondent be expelled from the Dade County public school system. In lieu of expulsion, the Superintendent decided to administratively reassign Respondent from Centennial Middle School to the alternative education/disciplinary program at the Youth Opportunity School-South. This decision to reassign Respondent is the subject of the instant controversy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter a final order approving Douglas Freeman's reassignment to the alternative education/disciplinary program at the Youth Opportunity School-South. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of November, 1989. STUART M. LERNER 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 6th day of November, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Stuart M. Gold, Esquire 1570 Madruga Avenue, Suite 211 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Jewel Harper 11001 Southwest 224th Street Miami, Florida 33170 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Russell W. Wheatley, Assistant Superintendent Office of Alternative Education 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Debra E. West, a middle school teacher, made inappropriate or disparaging remarks to her students or exposed them to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; whether she failed to correct performance deficiencies; and, if so, whether the proposed penalty of dismissal is reasonable.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed as a teacher in the Pinellas County School District since August 20, 1991. The allegations which are the subject of this case arose while Respondent was teaching sixth-grade physical education and health at Azalea Middle School (Azalea). Most of Respondent's students at Azalea are 12 years old. Before becoming a teacher at Azalea, Respondent was a physical education teacher at Gibbs High School. In 2001, the School Board administratively transferred Respondent to Azalea from Gibbs High School to provide Respondent a "fresh start," following numerous complaints from parents beginning in 1997 about Respondent's making inappropriate remarks to students and disclosing student grades at Gibbs High School. In 2003, the commissioner of education brought disciplinary action against Respondent for her alleged violations of state statutes and rules governing teachers during the time she was a teacher at Gibbs High School. On March 2, 2004, following an evidentiary hearing conducted by DOAH, the Education Practices Commission issued a Final Order suspending Respondent's educator's certificate for the 2004 summer session and placing Respondent on probation for two years. In his Recommended Order in the earlier case against Respondent, the Administrative Law Judge made the following findings: Respondent made derogatory comments to students during the [2000-2001] school year. The derogatory comments included terms such as: fat, little slacker, stupid, sorry bunch of kids, Gomer Pyle, and Dutch Boy. Respondent asked one of her students, "What's a black boy doing with a Dutch last name?" Respondent asked another student if the student was tired from walking the streets at night and called her "sleeping booty." * * * Respondent has made derogatory comments to students in previous school years. * * * Respondent read student grades aloud in class without the permission of the affected student in violation of District policy. Respondent also read the names of students receiving a grade of "A," "B," or "C" thereby disclosing the [identity] of students with lower grades. * * * Respondent has a history of disclosing student grades in class. * * * Respondent read to the class the grades of [five students]. Each had failing grades. Respondent passed a test completed by A.S. down a row of students so that each student could see the test score on the front of the test and stated audibly that the only thing A.S. "got right" on the test was the date. The comment embarrassed, upset, and humiliated A.S. At Azalea, parents continued to complain that Respondent was making disparaging remarks that upset and embarrassed their children. The complaints resulted in multiple conferences between Respondent and Azalea administrators and, ultimately, to her receipt of poor performance evaluations and official reprimands. Numerous students were transferred out of Respondent's classes at the request of parents whose children had complained to them about Respondent. On November 28, 2005, Superintendent Wilcox notified Respondent by letter of his intent to recommend to the School Board that Respondent be dismissed. At the School Board's meeting of December 13, 2005, the School Board accepted the superintendent's recommendation for dismissal. Respondent was suspended without pay beginning December 13, 2005, pending the outcome of this administrative proceeding to review the School Board's action. "Tiny Tot," "Shrimphead," and "Dumbo" T.J., who is small for his age, stated that Respondent called him "tiny tot" and "shrimphead," which embarrassed and upset him. T.J. also said Respondent called him "dumbo." Respondent denies calling T.J. by these names. No other student who testified at the final hearing said they heard Respondent call T.J. "tiny tot," "shrimphead," or "dumbo." No other student claimed that Respondent called him or her by one of these names. The evidence was insufficient to prove that Respondent called any student by another derogatory name. The only corroborating evidence presented by the School Board was the hearsay testimony of T.J.'s stepmother who said T.J. told her that Respondent called him by these names. Although T.J. might have been telling the truth,1 his testimony with regard to these insults, standing alone and taking into account his demeanor, was not persuasive. The School Board, therefore, failed to meet its burden to prove that Respondent called T.J. "tiny tot," "shrimphead," or "dumbo." "You must have studied in the dark." Respondent admits that she made the comment, "You must have studied in the dark," to T.J. and to other students on occasion, but denies that it was ever meant to disparage or to embarrass the students to whom the comment was directed. Of all the disparaging comments that Respondent is alleged to have made, this one is the most innocuous. It is difficult to imagine how teachers could be held to a standard of refraining from any comment of this kind or risk dismissal. However, many otherwise innocuous comments, if made in a disrespectful tone of voice, can be disparaging and can embarrass a student. The testimony from the parents of several students was hearsay with regard to what Respondent said to their children, but it was not hearsay with regard to the parents' observations of the emotional distress that Respondent caused to their children. The emotional distress reported by the parents and which resulted in numerous complaints made to Azalea administrators about Respondent's comments, therefore, is persuasive evidence that Respondent's comments were often made in a tone of voice and under circumstances that caused the students to feel disparaged and embarrassed. "Take your grow up pill." T.J. also stated that Respondent told him in front of his classmates to “Take your grow-up pill.” He took this comment to be a reference to his small size, and he said the comment upset and embarrassed him. Respondent concedes that she told T.J. that he "needed to grow up" because he was acting immaturely by frequently failing to bring his folder to class, but that she did not intend to belittle T.J. because of his size. Respondent, herself, is of small stature. Respondent told other students to "Grow up" from time to time when she thought they were acting immaturely. The preponderance of the evidence supports Respondent's contention that her comment to T.J. was not intended to belittle him for his small size. A teacher's comment to "Grow up," or even to "Take a grow up pill," is a relatively innocuous comment that under ordinary circumstances should not cause a student to feel disparaged unless they are particularly sensitive. However, like the comment "You must have studied in the dark," the tone of voice used and other circumstances could make any student perceive the comment as disparaging and cause them to be embarrassed. "Dumb boys make dumb babies." Several students testified that Respondent made the comment “Dumb boys make dumb babies” during her health class in the fall of 2005. Respondent admits making this comment and explained that it was intended to make her students think about the consequences of the choices they make in life. Respondent denies directing the comment to T.J. or to any other student in her class to indicate that she thought the student was dumb. This comment is another example of Respondent's habit of making a comment by which she intends to convey a legitimate message with humor, but using words that also convey disparagement. The School Board's evidence was not persuasive that Respondent directed this comment to T.J. or any other student in her class to indicate she thought that student was dumb. However, the comment, even as explained by Respondent, was inappropriate because it indicated that Respondent had a low opinion of certain boys that "hung out" in the lunch room. Although Respondent's intended message was a good one, it is never appropriate for a teacher to refer to any student as being dumb. Respondent presented the testimony of other teachers and school employees who said they sometimes observed Respondent's classes and never heard Respondent make inappropriate comments to her students. That evidence was not sufficient to rebut the School Board's evidence that Respondent made the inappropriate comments discussed above because the comments could have been made, and evidently were made, at times when Respondent was not observed by these other teachers and school employees. There was other evidence presented by Respondent to show that she has a number of good teaching skills and is appreciated and even loved by many of her students. That evidence is accepted as credible, but is not inconsistent with the charge that she made inappropriate and disparaging comments to some of her students. Telephone Calls to Parents During Class While teaching at Gibbs High School, Respondent would occasionally make a telephone call to parents during class, which Respondent considered to be an effective "classroom management technique," in the presence of students Connie Kolosey, an assistant principal at Azalea and Respondent's supervisor, said that when she discovered that Respondent had called a parent from the classroom, she directed Respondent not to do it anymore. Respondent admits that Ms. Kolosey told her that making calls to parents during class was "not done at Azalea," but Respondent claims she was not told to stop. The School Board presented evidence to prove that Respondent continued to call parents from her classroom to discuss their children's low grades or misbehavior in a manner that allowed students to hear the conversations or, at least, to know which students were the subject of the conversations. Respondent said she never called parents during class time. She said that she sometimes called parents from the telephone in her classroom, but not during class time. Respondent also denied ever divulging confidential information about a student in front of other students. However, there appeared to be agreement that, on one occasion, a student, J.T., called his mother during class and then handed the telephone to Respondent so she could talk to his mother. Even under Respondent's version of the event, having the telephone conversation with J.T.'s mother during class and within sight and hearing of the other students was inappropriate and reasonably calculated to embarrass J.T. In another incident in which the mother of a student complained that she was called by Respondent about her child during class, Respondent told Theresa Anderson, the principal of Azalea, that the call was not made during class. However, Ms. Anderson later discovered that Respondent had not made the call from a certain school phone as Respondent had claimed, but from Respondent's own cell phone. Respondent's version of the event, therefore, is discredited, and the more persuasive evidence establishes this as a second instance in which Respondent called a parent during class, which exposed the student to unnecessary embarrassment. Respondent admitted that she would occasionally pretend to call a parent from the classroom as a classroom management technique. According to Respondent, instead of actually calling a parent, she would dial her own mother's phone number or no number at all and then pretend to have a conversation about the low grade or misbehavior of a student. Although Respondent did this in a manner that purposely allowed her students to see her make the call and to hear enough to know that Respondent was having a serious discussion with a parent about a student, Respondent denies that any student in her class knew whose parent she was pretending to call. That claim is not credible because, unless Respondent made these pretend calls in conjunction with an event related to a student's low grade or misbehavior, it would not serve its purpose as a classroom management technique. In other words, it is more likely that when Respondent made a pretend call to a parent, the students in her class had some idea which student was in trouble and why.2 This practice of Respondent, therefore, was inappropriate and exposed students to unnecessary embarrassment. Discussing Low Grades in the Classroom Respondent denied ever divulging student grades in class but admitted that she rewarded students who received A's and B's by calling them to the front of the class and awarding them “Azalea bucks.” Students who received A’s were given two Azalea bucks, and students who received B’s were given one Azalea buck. Azalea bucks could be redeemed for ice cream. By calling up the A and B students, Respondent created a situation in which the students who made lower grades were also identified. No evidence was presented by the School Board about its policies regarding the recognition given to students who make good grades. The School Board did not dispute that Azalea identifies honor roll students. Any time that a school recognizes students for their academic achievement, that recognition will necessarily have the effect of identifying the students who have not done as well. That is a reasonable consequence and does not cause the recognition of the best students to be an act of disparagement against all the other students. Students N.R. and J.G. said Respondent read student grades out loud in class. J.G. said Respondent read the grades of students who received D’s and F’s. N.R. said Respondent would line students up according to the grades they got. Their testimony was persuasive to prove that Respondent conducted her classes in such a way that student grades, including low grades, were sometimes made known to other students. Failure to Correct Performance Deficiencies Administrative officials at Azalea spent a considerable amount of time responding to complaints from parents about Respondent, investigating allegations against her, as well as counseling and disciplining Respondent. Three consecutive "success plans" were developed for Respondent in an attempt to change her style of speaking to students to eliminate the disparaging remarks and to prevent any further disclosure of a student's low grade. When the findings of the prior administrative hearing involving Respondent's problems at Gibbs High School are compared to the findings set forth above regarding Respondent's problems at Azalea, it appears that Respondent's latest infractions are less egregious. However, Respondent's deficiencies have not been corrected. It is significant that Respondent's deficiencies have been moderated only a small degree from the past despite her being on probation and repeatedly disciplined. Although slightly moderated, Respondent's deficiencies continue to upset students, cause numerous complaints to be made by parents, and create considerable inconveniences for school administrators. Two assistant principals at Azalea and an administrator in the Pinellas County School District's Office of Professional Standards were all of the opinion that Respondent is ineffective as a teacher due to her performance deficiencies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County School Board issue a final order finding that Respondent violated School Board policies set forth in Sections 8.25(1)(n), (t), and (x) and dismissing her from her employment with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 13th day of December, 2006.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of the alleged misconduct and, if so, whether such misconduct constitutes just cause for Respondent's termination, pursuant to section 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Introduction Respondent has been teaching for 30 years. At all material times, she has held a professional service contract, pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. For the past 13 years, Respondent has taught at Northport K-8 School. She taught at this school until she was suspended without pay, pending termination, for the incidents of March 20, 2013, which are the subject of this case. During second period on March 20, 2013, Respondent was teaching a seventh-grade class. One of the students, R. W., misbehaved. Respondent cautioned him to sit down and be quiet. Instead of doing so, R. W. asked her, "How do you know that I'm the only one talking?" Respondent again instructed him to be quiet, to which the student replied, "I wish I could cuss a teacher out right now." Respondent did not reply. Several nearby students heard this exchange and nothing more of significance. After the bell rang, R. W. proceeded to his next class, which was taught by Sandra Tyndale-Harvey, whose classroom is in the same hallway as Respondent's classroom. During the three-or four-minute interval between second and third periods, Respondent visited another teacher, Kalyn Nova, whose classroom is between the classrooms of Respondent and Ms. Tyndale-Harvey. "Inappropriate Language" and Three Alleged Failures to Act Respondent told Ms. Nova about the incident involving R. W. during the previous period. Although she was speaking in a whisper, she was upset and was overheard by D. S., an eighth-grade student in Ms. Nova's third-period class. According to D. S., he overheard Respondent tell Ms. Nova that R. W. had said to her: "If you don't shut the 'F' up, I'm going to beat the shit out of you," or words very close to that effect, including the abbreviated swear word, the unabbreviated swear word, and the threat of violence. Ms. Nova and Respondent recalled the statement differently from D. S., but similar to each other. Ms. Nova testified that Respondent stated that R. W. had said, "If you don't stop talking to me, I'm going to beat the shit out of you." Respondent testified that R. W. had said, "If you say my name one more time, I'm going to slap the shit out of you," implying that this was what Respondent told Ms. Nova that R. W. had said. The differences in language among all three statements are immaterial. All three versions capture a threat to physically beat Respondent and a hair-trigger precondition to the beating: failing to stop speaking or saying R. W.'s name one more time. All three versions also use the word, "shit." Respondent's use of this vulgarity was not inappropriate for three reasons. First, Respondent was merely recounting what she understood that R. W. had said to her. Based on this record, Respondent was wrong; R. W. never said anything like this to her. But Respondent is not charged with fabricating this statement. Although R. W. did not say it, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent intentionally misquoted the statement, such that her use of "shit" in Ms. Nova's classroom might have been inappropriate. It is at least as likely that Respondent misunderstood R. W. to have threatened Respondent using the word, "shit." Second, Respondent was visibly upset when she recounted what she had thought R. W. had said to her. And third, despite the fact that she was upset, Respondent took a reasonable precaution--i.e., whispering--to avoid being overheard by other students, even though she was unsuccessful in this effort. Perhaps because she was upset, Respondent's speech was loud enough for a nearby student to overhear it. After recounting R. W.'s statement to Ms. Nova, Respondent walked over to D. S. and M. B., who were seated next to D. S. D. S. knew Respondent because he had taken a class from her the previous school year. Respondent asked D. S. if he would talk to R. W. because he and R. W. were friends and see what was going on with him. The incident during second period was not the sole reason that Respondent might have wondered what was going on with R. W., whose behavior and academic performance had been deteriorating recently. By this time, the bell had rung, and Respondent was walking toward the classroom door to return to her classroom. D. S. and M. B. asked Ms. Nova if they could go to the restroom. Ms. Nova said that they could, so D. S. and M. B. exited the classroom directly behind Respondent, who held open the classroom door for them. Hallway camcorders recorded much of what followed. The camcorders of main interest are identified in the video as Cameras 5 and 6. Located in close proximity to each other, these cameras display opposite ends of the same hallway. Thus, a person walking toward one camera will eventually walk off the bottom of the frame, only to appear at the bottom of the frame of the other camera. A small portion of the hallway, directly beneath both cameras, is not covered by either camera, so a person would not instantly appear in the frame of the other camera as soon as she left the frame of the first camera. The video is timestamped to thousandths of a second, and, at least at the level of seconds, the times for the two cameras are closely synchronized. If the cameras are out of sync at all, it is by no more than a couple of seconds. The video from Camera 6 reveals that Respondent held open the door for D. S., who passed through the door immediately ahead of Respondent. Respondent released the door, but, before it had swung closed, M. B. passed through the door a few steps behind D. S. Both boys walked in the direction of Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom. Rather than proceed in the opposite direction, toward her occupied classroom, Respondent stopped in the middle of the hallway and then followed the two boys for about six seconds, as they approached and stopped at the door of Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom. Both boys looked directly at Respondent, who, for two to three seconds, might have talked to the boys, but it is impossible to know for sure because her back was to the camera. Respondent suggests that she counseled the boys not to run in the hallway, but clearly they were not running. Also, considering that third period had already begun, it is unlikely that, even if two eighth-grade boys were running down the hall, Respondent would so diligently supervise them, even to the extent of following them down the hall for six seconds in the opposite direction of her classroom, and completely ignore the needs of the classroom of her students awaiting her arrival. It appears, then, that Respondent said something to the boys, and it had nothing to do with not running in the hallway. Just before the boys entered Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom, Respondent turned around and started to walk up the hall toward her classroom. Seven seconds after entering Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom, D. S. and M. B. reentered the hallway with R. W. By this time, Respondent was out of range of Camera 6, but she was within range of Camera 5. The video from Camera 5 reveals that Respondent did not immediately enter her classroom. Instead, for about ten seconds, Respondent stared down the hall in the direction of Ms. Tyndale- Harvey's classroom. Based on the timestamps on the two videos, Respondent saw D. S. and M. B. leave the classroom with R. W., and she saw the boys walk R. W. across the hall, where one of the eighth-grade boys opened the door of another classroom, which was occupied at the time. At this point, Respondent entered her classroom, so she did not see what followed in the hallway. The circumstances under which R. W. left Ms. Tyndale- Harvey's classroom are difficult to establish. D. S. testified that he asked to talk to R. W., but he did not say whom he asked. R. W. testified that two boys--D. S. and A. S.--entered Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom and asked the teacher if they could take R. W. because Respondent needed to talk to him. An especially reliable student witness, S. W., testified that she heard the boys tell R. W. that Respondent needed him, and he thus left the classroom with them. Ms. Tyndale-Harvey testified that, by the time that she took attendance toward the beginning of third period, R. W. was not in her classroom. When she asked if anyone knew where he was, several of the students said that he was talking to Respondent. The hallway was clear when the boys and R. W. left Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom, so third period had started, but it is possible that the teacher had not yet taken attendance by the time that R. W. had left. Given the statements of the other students and presence of D. S. and M. B. in the classroom for a total of only seven seconds, it is more likely than not that they persuaded R. W. to join them in the hall without informing or asking Ms. Tyndale-Harvey. The video from Camera 6 reveals that no one left the second classroom to join D. S., M. B., and R. W. in the hall. The three boys went down the hall, still within range of Camera 6, but no longer being observed by Respondent. D. S. or M. B. ducked into a third classroom, from which, in short order, four students joined them in the hall. Up to this point, R. W. was being escorted, but did not appear restrained. While standing in the hall at the door of the third classroom, R. W. stood by himself, only two or three steps from his classroom, but making no attempt to reenter his classroom. However, almost immediately after the four boys joined D. W. and M. B. in the hallway, several of the boys physically confronted R. W., who tried to escape up the hall. One of the boys grabbed him after only a couple of steps and R. W. stumbled. Now surrounded by five or six boys, R. W. kneeled on the floor as the boys grabbed at and pushed him. One of the boys removed his cloth belt and swatted at R. W.'s lower torso seven times, as three of the other boys held R. W. against the wall. The evidentiary record does not establish that R. W. suffered any physical injuries as a result of this incident, whose intensity is impossible to describe. The boys are relatively far from Camera 6, and any views of R. W. are intermittent due to the movement of him and the other boys during the incident. Clearly, though, whatever level of intensity that the incident attained, tapered off considerably after about 30 seconds. About one minute after the start of the incident, the media specialist, who has worked at the school in her present position and as a teacher for 28 years, entered the hallway and walked right by the boys. She gave them a look, but noted nothing out of order--besides, one hopes, the presence of six students loitering in the hall in the middle of third period. The media specialist continued walking up the hall. The students followed her five or six steps behind. At this point, two students were holding R. W., possibly by his backpack, which had remained in place during the hallway incident. As these three boys approach Camera 6--and thus were clearly depicted right in front of the lens--the boys' grasp of R. W. is light, and R. W. is smiling. The other four boys are trailing the first three and are talking in pairs, paying no attention to R. W. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner proved that Respondent was aware that D. S. and M. B. left Ms. Nova's classroom and headed toward R. W.'s classroom, departed Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom with R. W., and walked across the hall with R. W. and opened the door of another, occupied classroom. Petitioner also proved, of course, that Respondent never intervened with the boys during these actions. Petitioner proved that Respondent had just asked one of the boys to talk to R. W. before he left the classroom to visit Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom. Even in a preponderance case, it is impossible to infer that Respondent knew or reasonably should have known that D. S.'s walking to and into Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom meant that he was going to act on her request. But this is a reasonable inference as soon as D. S. emerged from the classroom with R. W., especially given the proximity in time between Respondent's request and D. S.'s action in retrieving R. W. from class. Seeing D. S. and M. B. walking R. W. across the hall and open the door of another occupied classroom establishes the inference that Respondent knew or reasonably should have known that the boys were not merely going to talk to R. W. about what might be wrong. D. S. and M. B., as well as all of the other eighth-grade boys, were much larger than R. W., so D. S. and M. B. did not need allies in order to talk to R. W. safely. More likely, the presence of allies was at least for intimidation, or worse. The Petition alleges a duty to act based on Respondent's having just heard one or both of the students ask if they could confront R. W. The evidentiary record does not establish such a request. However, Petitioner's opening statement predicates the duty to act on Respondent's instruction to one of the boys to talk to R. W. (Tr. 15) As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the point here is that Respondent has established a specific basis for notice and a heightened duty to act on Respondent's part, and basis alleged in the Petition--D. S.'s asking Respondent if he may confront R. W.--is close in time and content to the proved basis-- asking D. S. to talk to R. W. Interlude The media specialist who had passed the boys in the hall was headed to Respondent's classroom to schedule an author visit. The media specialist entered the classroom and, four or five seconds later, so did the six students and R. W. The media specialist remained in Respondent's classroom for a little over one minute. About 20 seconds after she left the room, so did the six students and R. W. The boys urged R. W. to apologize to Respondent. He did so once, but laughingly. Urged by the boys to apologize again, R. W. did so, the second time more sincerely. Respondent thanked R. W. for the apology, but said that she was still going to have to write a referral. Respondent said nothing else to R. W. The boys escorted R. W. down the hall, past his classroom, and into an adjoining hall, where they walked him into a restroom. From the video, it appears that one of the boys locked the door behind them. The boys remained in the restroom for less than one minute. R. W. then walked out of the restroom. About 15 minutes after the boys had left Respondent's classroom, the Dean's clerk went by the classroom and informed Respondent that R. W. had told her that he had been "jumped in the boys' bathroom" by six boys. The clerk added that R. W. had told her that the boys had attacked him on Respondent's instruction. The clerk told Respondent that she was taking R. W. to the front office so he could tell administrators what had happened. Three Alleged Instances of Student Witness Tampering Within three minutes after the clerk and Respondent parted, the six eighth-grade students involved in the hallway incident (plus another student who does not appear to have been involved) entered Respondent's classroom. They met with Respondent in a separate planning room that was in the back of the classroom. Respondent testified that she asked what had happened, and the boys told her about the incident in the hall--with one boy saying that he had removed his belt, but he had hit the floor with it. Respondent testified that they would have to tell the Dean what they had done. About five minutes after entering Respondent's classroom, the six students left it. On this record, it is impossible to find that that Respondent said anything more to the boys. It is thus impossible to find that Respondent tried to influence or interfere with these students in terms of what they would tell school investigators. The second alleged instance of interfering with student witnesses involves Respondent's third-period class, which witnessed the eighth-grade students' production of R. W. before Respondent. One student from this class, D. D., testified that, after Respondent had finished meeting with the boys in the planning room, she asked the class what would R. W. have looked like if he had been beaten up, and the class responded with suggestions. Although this student testified that R. W. did not look as if he had been beaten up, he did not testify that Respondent ever followed up with the obvious question of whether W. looked as if he had been beaten up to the students. Another student from this class, M. C., testified, but was not asked what Respondent had said to the class after talking to the boys in the planning room. The only other student from this class called as a witness, V. S., was also not asked about any comments that Respondent made to the class after talking to the boys in the planning room. It appears that, at hearing, Petitioner decided not to press the second alleged instance of interference with student witnesses. Any implication by Respondent that R. W. did not look beaten up while he was in her classroom was no more an attempt to influence the students than a statement asking them to remember when R. W. was in the classroom: both statements were true. Petitioner thus failed to prove any attempt by Respondent to influence student witnesses on these first two alleged occasions. However, at lunch on the day of the incident, Respondent visited some of her second-period students in the cafeteria. Five students concerning this incident were called as witnesses: W., C. T., K. H., L. J., and J. R. All of them were in R. W.'s second- and third-period classes. S. W. was an especially impressive witness. She also appeared to be quite fond of Respondent. S. W. testified that Respondent approached her and some friends while they were eating and asked if R. W. had said that he had been hurt, and S. W. replied that he had not. Respondent also asked if S. W. or her friends had heard R. W. say during second period, "If she opens her mouth one more time, I'm going to beat the shit out of her." Neither S. W. nor her friends could recall that; S. W. recalled that R. W. had said only, "Sometimes I wish I could curse out a teacher." C. T. was at lunch when Respondent approached him and asked if he and his friends remembered when R. W. had said, "If this bitch won't shut up, I'm going to knock her on the floor." Neither C. T. nor his friends recalled this statement. C. T. testified that R. W. said in second period, "I wish I could cuss out a teacher right now." K. H. testified that Respondent approached him at lunch and asked if he had heard R. W. say that "he wished he could knock that bitch the fuck out." K. H. replied that he not heard any such statement. K. H. testified that R. W. said that he had wished he could cuss out teachers, or words to that effect. L. J. testified that he did not recall anything, except that Respondent approached him during lunch and asked if R. W. had said "anything about he was going to beat the shit out of me." J. R. testified only that Respondent approached him at lunch and asked if he recalled that R. W. had used a curse word at her in class. Petitioner has proved that Respondent asked leading questions to each of these five students. Although the leading questions framed what Respondent apparently had understood R. W. to have said, not a single witness recalled any such statement from R. W. Under the circumstances, including the fact that Respondent had no role in conducting an investigation of her acts and omissions, the leading questions constituted improper influencing of student witnesses. Despite what Respondent understood R. W. to have said, the leading questions suggested to these student witnesses that R. W.'s statement was physically threatening, when it was not, and used one or more swear words, when it did not.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the above-cited violations of the Principles of Professional Conduct and School Board policy and terminating her employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark S. Wilensky, Esquire Dubiner and Wilensky, LLC Suite 103 1300 Corporate Center Way Wellington, Florida 33414-8594 Leslie Jennings Beuttell, Esquire Richeson and Coke, P.A. Post Office Box 4048 Fort Pierce, Florida 34948 Dena Foman, Esquire McLaughlin and Stern, LLP Suite 1530 525 Okeechobee Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael Lannon, Superintendent St. Lucie County School Board 4204 Okeechobee Road Ft. Pierce, Florida 34947-5414
Findings Of Fact Bryce David Forrester attended 7th grade at Glades Junior High for the 1984-1985 school year until his alternative school assignment on May 18, 1985. Petitioner's witness Judy Cobb, Assistant Principal of Glades Junior High had no personal knowledge of Bryce David Forrester's behavior and was not the official record custodian of his records. Her testimony provided no information of probative value. Thomas Zelenak is presently Principal of Glades Junior High and was formerly assistant principal there during the 1984- 1985 school year. He had no personal knowledge of the referrals which allegedly culminated in the computer record of disciplinary referrals admitted as the School's business record (P-2). The discipline referral slips were not offered. All discipline referrals had been by teachers who were not present for hearing and all counseling of the student had been handled by retired Principal Skinner or former Assistant Principal Zahner, neither of whom were available for hearing. Mr. Zelenak also had no personal knowledge of the Respondent's alleged disruptive/ behavior which resulted in the referrals and referral slips which allegedly were behind the computer record. Mr. Zelenak did conduct a parent-administrator conference on April 1, 1985 with Respondent's parents and agreed to Respondent's continued placement at Glades Junior High School provided his behavior improved. Respondent's father testified that at this conference Mr. Zelenak told him that alternative school placement was not in the student's best interest. Mr. Zelanek denied saying this. It is significant that P-2 does not reflect this conference ever occurred even though both Mr Zelenak and Mr. Forrester agree it did occur and the occurrence of this conference is corroborated by other exhibits. Therefore, this entire computer record (P-2) is of doubtful credibility. Mr. Zelenak gave his opinion at hearing that although the student may possess the ability to become a productive student he was not doing so at Glades Junior High and that the student belongs in an alternative placement program because of his disruptive behavior and its effect on the children around him. However, there was no predicate established for Mr. Zelenek's forming this opinion. The official record of the student's final grades for the year indicates failure in three subjects on the date he was withdrawn by the parent, May 22, 1985. Respondent's position was that the School Board did not make appropriate parent contact so as to forestall the alternative school assignment and that the procedure by which School Board officials reviewed and acted upon the principal's(Mr. Skinner's) recommendation of alternative school placement was contrary to School Board Rules duly adopted and promulgated. The testimony of William R. Perry, Director of Alternative Education Placement and Donald Hollis, Coordinator, Alternative Education Placement, that the procedure by which the assignment was made was in substantial compliance with the School Board rules is accepted over a single late postmark offered by Respondent for one of the notifications.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the School Board enter a final order returning Bryce David Forrester to an appropriate regular school program, preferably at Glades Junior High School. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 27th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Jackie Gabe, Esquire 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33137 Gary Forrester (Parent) 8340 S. W. 97th Street Miami, Florida 33130 Phyllis 0. Douglas, Esquire 1450 N. E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33122 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire 1450 N. E. 2nd Avenue - Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether Respondent, Teresa Wimmer, violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.080, the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida (Code of Ethics), or 6A-10.081, the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida (Principles of Professional Conduct), as alleged in the Hernando County School Board’s March 9, 2015, notice of recommendation of termination, and March 24, 2015, modification of that notice; and, if so, the nature of the sanctions.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the system of public schools in Hernando County, Florida. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner has the authority to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Respondent has been a teacher at Pine Grove for roughly 11 years. During the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent was a teacher of first-grade students, with a class of approximately 18 students. As a classroom teacher, Respondent was expected to comply with the 2014-2015 Staff Handbook. Among the provisions applicable to Respondent was the following: TOUCHING STUDENTS Employees are advised that they should not touch students in any way except for the protection of the health, safety and/or welfare of a student or for protection of themselves. Respondent has been the subject of several disciplinary proceedings over the years. In September 2004, Respondent was involved in an employee conference for grabbing a student’s arm on two occasions to correct misbehaviors, the result of which appeared to be a reprimand. The report of the employee conference was to remain in the school file for one year. In January 2006, Respondent was involved in an employee conference for making derogatory comments regarding a student and allowing classmates to do the same. Respondent was required to re-read the Code of Ethics and Professional Practice forms and write a letter of apology to the student and parents. The employee conference report closed with “[a]ny further behaviors involving embarrassment to students will result in further disciplinary action.” In September 2013, Respondent was involved in an incident that is of more direct relevance to this proceeding. In that instance, Respondent was accused of roughly handling students in her classroom. As a result, she was offered, and accepted, a Stipulation for Employee Discipline and Last Chance Agreement (Stipulation). In the Stipulation, Respondent acknowledged that she “engaged in misconduct by having inappropriate and unprofessional interactions with students in her classroom” and that such conduct “warrants disciplinary action up to and including termination.” In lieu of termination, the School Board and Respondent agreed that she would be suspended for ten days and, thereafter, serve a probationary period for the remainder of the 2013-2014 school year. The Stipulation further provided that Respondent “agrees that she will not engage in the conduct which gave rise to this Stipulation at any time or any place so long as she is an employee of the Hernando County School District. Further, [Respondent] understands that if she does engage in misconduct, it will result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination.” Respondent successfully completed the terms of her probation without incident. School principals, assistant principals, guidance counselors, and persons in similar duties are trained in Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI), which is an approved method of restraining or transporting completely out-of-control students or removing children from the classroom. CPI training is not provided as a matter of course to classroom teachers. Respondent has not received CPI training. Holding a student’s hand is not a CPI hold. There is nothing inherently inappropriate with a teacher taking a student by the hand and walking with the student. The 2014-2015 Staff Handbook provides, in the section entitled “Return of Students to Classroom (Authority of the Teacher),” that: Teachers should follow their school’s procedure for the removal of students who are acting out. Suggestions include: having an adult accompany the student from the class or requesting an administrator to come to the class. (emphasis added). The routine procedure for removal of a disruptive or unruly student from the classroom is for the classroom teacher to call the office, whereupon Ms. Johnson, Ms. Kasten, or a guidance counselor, each of whom are trained in CPI, would go to the room, try to calm the student, and, if warranted, take the student to the office. Despite the procedure described above, Ms. Kasten testified that teachers, on occasion, “would bring the student down for me to talk to or the guidance counselor to talk to.” In such instances, “[t]hey would just walk them down” to the office. Although the teacher would usually call the office first, the evidence did not support a finding that a call was required or necessary, or that it happened in each event. Although the timing of those other events of taking students to the office was described as generally occurring “during their planning period or whatever, if they were at specials or whatever,” the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the act of walking a student to the office, per se, does not constitute a violation of the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook and that the school has not previously determined it to be so. Among the reasons for having teachers call the office for assistance with disruptive students is to limit those periods in which a teacher may leave students unattended or, as in this case, leave a co-teacher responsible for up to 36 students while the disruptive student was walked to the office. However, Ms. Tyree testified that there have been times when she would ask Respondent to “keep an eye on [her] class” while she went to attend to other things, and vice versa. There was no suggestion that asking a co-teacher to watch over a class was improper, as long as “your class is covered.” In the weeks prior to February 4, 2015, J.S., a student in Respondent’s classroom, had become increasingly disruptive in the classroom. The behaviors ranged from J.S. talking in “baby-talk” and rolling crayons on his desk, to choking another student with a lanyard. Respondent did not know why J.S.’s behavior had spiraled out of control, but indicated to Ms. Kasten that it was creating a problem for her ability not only to teach J.S., but to teach the other students in her classroom. The office was called on three occasions to deal with J.S., and Ms. Kasten went to the class to address the situations. On two occasions, J.S. remained in the classroom after Ms. Kasten’s intervention. On one occasion, Ms. Kasten removed J.S. from the classroom. On the occasion when Ms. Kasten removed him from Respondent’s classroom, J.S. was walking around the room and disturbing the other students. Ms. Kasten could not get J.S. to listen to her. Thus, she decided to take J.S. to the office. She did not employ her CPI training or use a CPI hold, but took him by the hand “with the idea of keeping him from getting away.” During the walk to the office, J.S. “was pulling a little bit” to try and get away.1/ There was no suggestion that the actions of Ms. Kasten in taking J.S. by the hand and walking him to the office were inappropriate or contrary to the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook. On the afternoon of February 3, 2015, Ms. Kasten met with Respondent to discuss the behavior of J.S. in her classroom. Respondent was upset and frustrated with J.S.’s unruly behavior and wanted to know what could be done about it. Ms. Kasten suggested that the two of them could work to develop a behavior plan for J.S. and indicated that she would bring a plan to Respondent the next day for them to work on. The incident that forms the basis of this proceeding occurred on February 4, 2015. As students were entering the class for the day, Respondent heard screaming and the words “stop hitting me.” She turned and saw J.S. striking a female student with his fists. Respondent was able to verbally quell the disturbance. However, after initially returning to his seat, J.S. went to the back of the room where he began kicking table legs and other items. Respondent asserted that prior to her taking the student to the office, she called Ms. Kasten to advise her that she would be doing so and received permission from Ms. Kasten. Ms. Kasten had no recollection of having received any such call. The telephone records admitted at the hearing do not reflect that any calls were placed between Respondent’s line and the office.2/ There was no evidence to support a finding that the telephone records maintained by the school were unreliable. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Respondent did not receive prior approval before taking the student to the office on the morning of February 4, 2015. However, the issue of whether Respondent received or did not receive permission to take J.S. to the office, and whether the act of doing so violated any school policy, was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. On her way out of the classroom with J.S., Respondent passed through the classroom of her co-teacher, Ms. Tyree, with whom she shared a paired classroom, and stated to her something to the effect of “[c]an you watch my class? They told me to take [J.S.] to the office.” Although not a frequent occurrence, it was not unusual for Respondent and Ms. Tyree, as paired teachers, to watch one another’s classes while the other was out for short periods. In this case, Respondent’s class was covered while she walked J.S. to the office. Respondent took J.S. by the hand and tucked his arm inside her arm. Although J.S. did not want to go to the office, his resistance was described by Ms. Tyree as “verbal like ‘I don't want to go, I don't want to go.’ But there wasn't a, like, a tug of war going on there.” Respondent indicated that she took J.S. by the hand in order to keep him safe. Given J.S.’s actions of physically assaulting a fellow student, followed by continued physical agitation at the back of the room, Respondent’s concern for safety, not only for J.S., but for the other students in her charge, was warranted. The walk to the office was captured by the school’s video system. The video covered the time from 8:33:00 to 8:33:58. Respondent and J.S. are clearly visible in the video for approximately 30 seconds, from frame 08:33:04 to frame 08:33:32. The video is somewhat grainy, and certain details are not readily observable. However, the video is consistent with Respondent’s statement that she was holding J.S. by the hand. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence supports that Respondent was holding J.S. by the hand as she walked with him to the office and not by the “wrist area,” as surmised by Ms. Johnson. At frames 08:33:12 and 08:33:13, J.S. appears to briefly resist Respondent’s efforts to take him to the office by trying to remove his hand from Respondent’s hand as they walked side-by-side. Despite his resistance, Respondent was not “pulling/dragging” J.S. during those frames. At frames 08:33:18 and 08:33:19, J.S. appears to briefly pull away from Respondent. The action was that of J.S., not of Respondent. Respondent did not release J.S., but neither did she pull or drag J.S. The action at frames 08:33:18 and 08:33:19 is entirely consistent with that described by Ms. Kasten when giving the account of her earlier walk to the office with J.S. -- which did not involve a CPI hold -- when J.S. “was pulling a little bit” to try and get away. Despite J.S.’s efforts to pull away in both instances, neither Respondent nor Ms. Kasten was “pulling/dragging” J.S. during their walks to the office. For the remainder of the walk to the office, Respondent and J.S. walked side-by-side at a consistent pace. The evidence suggests that J.S. was vocal in his reluctance to be taken to the office, consistent with the description of his verbal resistance when being taken from the classroom as described by Ms. Tyree. The verbal resistance apparently continued, as evidenced by the reaction of the boy using the walker, who comes into the picture at frame 08:33:22. However, J.S.’s verbal protestations did not involve pulling or dragging and do not form the basis of a violation of the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook. Respondent’s actions, though firm, did not appear to be aggressive. They were consistent with the description offered by Ms. Tyree, who testified that, as to the Respondent’s walk through her classroom, “there wasn't an altercation of, like, dragging or, you know -- it wasn't -- she was walking, he was walking. But he wasn't happy, you could tell that he didn't want to.” As Respondent entered the office with J.S., Ms. Kasten, the elementary assistant, was in the office, though on the other side of the office. Respondent approached the office with J.S. The door to the office opens out. It occasionally slams, and Ms. Kasten has seen it slam on students. In order to ensure J.S.’s safety, Respondent placed both of her hands on his arms to move him through the door and into the office. Respondent yelled for Ms. Kasten to “take him.” Ms. Kasten observed that Respondent was trying to get J.S. into the doorway to someone who could help. Although Respondent’s calls for Ms. Kasten to take J.S. were loud, her tone of voice was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. Upon their entry into the office, Ms. Kasten went over to Respondent and J.S. J.S. stopped resisting once he saw Ms. Kasten. There was no evidence that J.S. was physically harmed in any way, i.e., there were no bruises, scratches, or marks of any kind. Respondent indicated to Ms. Kasten that J.S. had come to class very angry and was physically fighting with his female cousin. Ms. Kasten’s contemporaneous statement of the incident indicated that J.S. was “very upset that he had a fight with his sister.”3/ There was no suggestion that J.S. was upset about his walk to the office with Respondent. Ms. Kasten took J.S. off to the side and talked with him. After J.S. calmed down, Ms. Kasten advised Respondent that she would handle the situation from there, and Respondent left the office. J.S. was ultimately kept in the in-school suspension room for an hour or two. Ms. Kasten reported the incident to Ms. Johnson, who was not in her office or out front and did not witness the event. Shortly thereafter, in a conversation regarding other matters, Ms. Johnson reported to Ms. Martin at the District office that Respondent “brought a student in yelling and dragging.” Ms. Johnson was instructed to immediately remove Respondent from student contact. Ms. Johnson called to Respondent’s classroom and left a message with Respondent that she needed to speak with her. The following day, a meeting was convened to discuss the incident. Present at the meeting were Ms. Johnson, Respondent, and Respondent’s union representative. The confidential secretary to the school principal, Mr. Deen, was also in attendance to take minutes of the meeting. During her February 5, 2015, interview regarding the incident, Respondent indicated that “I was keeping him safe. I was holding his hand at first and he was okay. Then he started pulling away from me and I wanted to make sure he didn't hurt himself.” Her statement is consistent with the video. During the meeting, Respondent remained adamant that she had called Ms. Kasten and received the instruction to bring J.S. to the office. In conjunction with the investigation of the incident by Petitioner, Ms. Johnson reported the incident to the Department of Children and Families. The School Board received nothing from the Department of Children and Families to suggest that it found wrongdoing on the part of Respondent. Ms. Johnson believed, based on the information conveyed to her, that there was no reason for Respondent to remove the disruptive student from the classroom and that such action did not follow the protocol for the school for the removal of an unruly student. The alleged breach of protocol involved in taking the child to the office was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. On February 18, 2015, Respondent was advised of the opportunity for a pre-determination meeting to be held the following week. Respondent took advantage of the opportunity. The pre-determination meeting was held on February 25, 2015. In attendance were Respondent, Ms. Martin, labor counsel Tom Gonzales, Ms. Johnson, and Joann Hartage, who appeared to be representing Respondent. Ms. Martin’s secretary, Sherrie Kudla, was also in attendance to take minutes of the meeting. During the pre-determination meeting, Respondent gave her account of the incident and was questioned, primarily by Ms. Martin. In addition to questions regarding the walk to the office, Ms. Martin asked about interviews of Respondent’s students undertaken by Ms. Johnson, which Ms. Martin found to be “very concerning.” Among the issues raised by Ms. Martin was “their perception [] that you yell and get aggravated with students and that you’re mean to [J.S.].” Although Respondent stated that she had read the statements, she was not involved in the interviews, and had no opportunity to ascertain the accuracy of the statements. More to the point, whether Respondent yelled or was a mean teacher was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. At the conclusion of the pre-determination meeting, Ms. Martin conferred with the school superintendent, and the decision was made to recommend to the School Board that Respondent be terminated from employment. By letter dated March 9, 2015, Respondent was advised that, as a result of her “pulling/dragging a student to the front office,” the District determined that she had violated rules 6A-10.080(2) and (3), rules 6A-10.81(3)(a) and (3)(e), and the School Board Policy/Staff Handbook; that she was suspended with pay; and that she had the right to appeal the recommendation of termination. On March 23, 2015, Respondent appealed the recommendation of termination. By letter dated March 24, 2015, Respondent was notified that the recommendation to the School Board would be modified to one of suspension without pay, effective April 22, 2015, and referral of her appeal to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At the April 21, 2015, meeting of the School Board, the School Board authorized that this case be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, whereupon this case ensued. Ultimate Findings of Fact Based upon the facts as set forth herein, Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent engaged in an incident of “pulling/dragging a student to the front office.” The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Respondent walked J.S. to the office and, despite J.S.’s verbal protestations and brief efforts to resist, did so in a safe and effective manner. Any “pulling” was brief and on the part of J.S., not on the part of Respondent. There was no “dragging.” The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that a teacher’s act of walking an unruly or disruptive student to the office is not, in and of itself, a violation of any applicable procedure or standard and has not been determined to be so in the past. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that there is nothing inherently inappropriate or improper with a teacher taking a student by the hand and walking with the student. Issues of whether Respondent received telephonic approval to take J.S. to the office, should have left Ms. Tyree to watch her class, spoke to Ms. Kasten in a loud voice, or was loud or mean with her students were not pled as bases for Respondent’s termination, and, thus, cannot form the basis for any disciplinary sanction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Hernando County School Board, enter a final order: dismissing the March 9, 2015, notice of recommendation of termination; reinstating Respondent to a position equivalent to that previously held with the Hernando County School Board; and to the extent there is a statute, rule, employment contract, or collective bargaining agreement that authorizes back pay as a remedy for Respondent’s wrongful termination/suspension without pay, Respondent should be awarded full back pay and benefits. See Sch. Bd. of Seminole Cnty. v. Morgan, 582 So. 2d 787, 788 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Brooks v. Sch. Bd. of Brevard Cnty., 419 So. 2d 659, 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S GARY EARLY 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 25th day of August, 2015.
The Issue The issues in this case are (1) whether an education paraprofessional made salacious and vulgar comments to a female student and, if so, (2) whether such conduct gives the district school board just cause to suspend this member of its instructional staff for 30 workdays, without pay.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, Respondent Alfredo Regueira ("Regueira") was an employee of Petitioner Miami-Dade County School Board ("School Board"), for which he worked full time as a physical education paraprofessional. At the time of the events giving rise to this proceeding, Regueira was assigned to Miami Senior High School ("Miami High"), where he led exercise and fitness classes in the gymnasium. As of the final hearing, A. M., aged 17, was a senior at Miami High. She had met Regueira in the spring of her sophomore year at the school, in 2005, outside the gym. Thereafter, although never a student of Regueira's, A. M. would chat with "Fred"——as she (and other students) called him——about once or twice per week, on the gymnasium steps, during school hours. As a result of these encounters, A. M. and Regueira developed a friendly relationship. At some point, their relationship became closer than it prudently should have, moving from merely friendly to (the undersigned infers) nearly flirty. A. M. gave Regueira a picture of herself inscribed on the back with an affectionate note addressed to "the prettiest teacher" at Miami High. Regueira, in turn, spoke to A. M. about sexual matters, disclosing "what he did with women" and admitting a proclivity for lesbians. Notwithstanding this flirtatious banter, there is no allegation (nor any evidence) that the relationship between Regueira and A. M. was ever physically or emotionally intimate. As time passed, however, it became increasingly indiscreet and (for Regueira at least) dangerous. At around eight o'clock one morning in late February or early March 2006, A. M. and her friend E. S. went to the gym to buy snacks, which were sold there. Regueira approached the pair and, within earshot of E. S., made some suggestive comments to A. M., inviting her to get into his car for a trip to the beach. Later, when E. S. was farther away, Regueira spoke to A. M. alone, using vulgar language to communicate his desire to have sexual relations with her. In A. M.'s words, "Mr. Fred me dijo en English 'I want to fuck you.'" (Mr. Fred told me in English "I want to fuck you.")1 At lunch that day, while conversing with E. S., A. M. repeated Regueira's coarse comment. A. M. did not, however, report the incident contemporaneously either to her parents, being unsure about how they would react, or to anyone else in authority, for fear that she would be disbelieved. After the incident, A. M. stopped going to the gym because she was afraid and embarrassed. A few weeks later, A. M. disclosed to her homeroom teacher, whom she trusted, what Regueira had said to her. The teacher promptly reported the incident to an assistant principal, triggering an investigation that led ultimately to the School Board's decision to suspend Regueira. Thus had the candle singed the moth.2 That this incident has diminished Regueira's effectiveness in the school system is manifest from a revealing sentence that Regueira himself wrote, in his proposed recommended order: "Since this situation has been made public[,] . . . my peers have lost all respect for me." An employee who no longer commands any respect from his colleagues is unlikely to be as effective as he once was, when his peers held him in higher regard. Ultimate Factual Determinations Regueira's sexually inappropriate comments to A. M. violated several rules and policies that establish standards of conduct for teachers and other instructional personnel, namely, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e)(prohibiting intentional exposure of student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement), Rule 6B-1.006(3)(g)(forbidding sexual harassment of student), Rule 6B-1.006(3)(h)(disallowing the exploitation of a student relationship for personal advantage), School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 (banning unseemly conduct); and Board Rule 6Gx13-4-1.09 (proscribing unacceptable relationships or communications with students). Regueira's misconduct, which violated several principles of professional conduct as noted above, also violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.001(3)(employee shall strive to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct). This ethics code violation, it should be mentioned, is secondary to the previously described misdeeds, inasmuch as sexually inappropriate behavior in the presence of, or directed toward, a student necessarily demonstrates a failure to sustain the "highest degree of ethical conduct." Regueira's violations of the ethics code and the principles of professional conduct were serious and caused his effectiveness in the school system to be impaired. In this regard, Regueira's admission that his colleagues have lost all respect for him was powerful proof that, after the incident, he could no longer be as effective as he previously had been. Based on the above findings, it is determined that Regueira is guilty of the offense of misconduct in office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order suspending Regueira from his duties as a physical education paraprofessional for a period of 30 workdays. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2007, 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 11th day of April, 2007.
