Findings Of Fact Respondent, Dasie M. Melton, at all times material hereto, was employed as a teacher under a written contract of continuing employment with Petitioner, School Board of Glades County. For the 1982-83 school year Ms. Melton was assigned to Moore Haven Junior-Senior High School (High School) where she taught physical education. Her evaluations for that school year were quite satisfactory. For the 1983-54 school year Ms. Melton was assigned to Moore Haven Elementary School (Elementary School) where she was assigned to teach trainable mentally retarded (TMR) students. Although Ms. Melton had not requested the assignment and was not certified in the area, she accepted this new and difficult task and proved to be an effective and loving teacher with her special students. Ms. Melton was respected by her peers at the Elementary School. Her principal, Gary L. Clark, testified at final hearing that he would have no reservations about Ms. Melton rejoining his staff. One of Ms. Melton's TMR students for the 1983-84 school year was Lisa Fournier. Lisa had a pleasant disposition but tired easily and often became nauseous and sick to her stomach. Although capable of communicating, Lisa did not grasp instruction quickly, and instructions had to be simply stated and repeated several times. During the 1983-84 school year, Lisa was to reach her twenty-first birthday. Consequently, pursuant to law, she would be required to leave the public school system at the conclusion of that term. Ms. Melton, recognizing that Lisa would be leaving the school system that year, thought it appropriate and beneficial for Lisa to participate in the ceremonies and functions attended by graduating students at the High School since no functions or ceremonies were otherwise contemplated for students such as Lisa. Accordingly, she discussed the matter with Lisa's legal guardian, as well as Lisa's natural mother. Both were enthusiastic and supportive of Lisa's participation. Having secured the support of Lisa's legal guardian and natural mother, Ms. Melton approached the administration for approval. With the exception of George H. Steele, the principal of the High School, the remainder of the administration, including the superintendent, approved of the concept. Consequently, for the first time in the history of the Glades County school system, a TMR student was to be afforded the opportunity to receive the benefits and recognition afforded other students who had applied themselves during their public school career. In addition to her normal duties, Ms. Melton assumed the responsibility of guiding Lisa through the various events for graduating seniors at the High School. Her efforts were met with a lack of cooperation or open resistance by the administration and staff of the High School. Although directed by Superintendent Lester M. Mensch to cooperate with Ms. Melton and to accord Lisa the privileges of a graduating senior, the High School administration and staff continuously failed to keep Ms. Melton advised of upcoming events and otherwise continued to resist implementation of the concept. Friction quickly developed between Ms. Melton on one side and Mazie Ford, assistant principal of the High School, and Patricia Ringstaff, senior class sponsor, on the other side. This friction came to a head during preparation for and during Grad Nite, an annual activity hosted by Walt Disney World for graduating seniors. In order to assure Lisa's participation at Grad Nite, Ms. Melton had to agree to accompany Lisa to Disney World. Notwithstanding Ms. Melton's commitment to chaperone Lisa, Ms. Ringstaff listed Ms. Melton as a guest. Ms. Melton felt her classification as a guest, rather than as a chaperone, to be a personal affront. She was further insulted by the fact that while she was required to serve as Lisa's exclusive chaperone, she was required to pay $22 for her own admission to Disney World. No other chaperone was required to pay for their ticket. The day before Grad Nite, Ms. Melton and Ms. Ford were involved in a heated discussion. The discussion involved the question of whether Ms. Melton was a guest or a chaperone and whether or not Ms. Melton would, under the circumstances, accompany Lisa on Grad Nite. Both parties became increasingly angry during this conversation, which was concluded by Ms. Ford hanging up the receiver. Subsequent to that phone call, Mr. Steele spent nearly an hour with its. Melton and her principal, Mr. Clark, trying to straighten out the confusion and alleviate the tension created by the confrontations Ms. Melton had with Ms. Ford and Ms. Ringstaff. In an effort to assure tranquility during Grad Nite, Mr. Steele clearly delineated the responsibilities of Ms. Melton and Ms. Ringstaff so, hopefully, there would be no cause for further tension. He designated Ms. Melton as the exclusive chaperone for Lisa and made Lisa her complete and sole responsibility. He designated Ms. Ringstaff, who was the senior class sponsor, in charge of all other chaperones and students. Ms. Ringstaff and Ms. Melton were directed by Mr. Steele, in the presence of Ms. Ford, to have as little to do with each other as possible. On Saturday, May 12, 1984, while the Grad Nite Participants were boarding their buses for the trip to Disney World, Ms. Melton and Mr. Clark discussed the advisability of Ms. Melton and Lisa riding to Disney World in the school station wagon that would accompany the buses. At that time Ms. Melton told Mr. Clark that they did not want any special favors and would prefer being treated like everyone else. Before departing Mr. Clark cautioned Ms. Melton to call him collect if any problem arose. After Ms. Melton and Lisa had boarded the bus, Mr. Clark had a conversation with Superintendent Mensch regarding the circumstances under which the station wagon would be used. Since the station wagon was to provide alternative transportation should the need arise, Mr. Clark left that conversation with a clear understanding that, if necessary, it would be permissible for Ms. Melton and Lisa to use the station wagon for transportation. The nonstop trip to Disney World was hot and difficult for Lisa. By the time they arrived at Disney World, she was uncomfortable, nauseated, and her complexion had paled. Consequently, at eight o'clock that evening Jets. Melton called Mr. Clark and advised him of the effect the bus ridehad on Lisa and that "nine times out of ten we'll be riding the station wagon back." Mr. Clark advised Ms. Melton that he had spoken with Mr. Mensch and he had said it was "okay." Thereafter, Ms. Melton and Lisa spent the evening and early morning hours together at Disney World. At approximately 4:00 a.m. Lisa became tired, so Ms. Melton returned with her to the parking lot before the arrival of the other students. Relying on her conversation with Mr. Clark, Ms. Melton advised Frank L. Gill, the transportation director, that, with the permission of Mr. Clark and Mr. Mensch, she and Lisa would be returning to Moore Haven in the station wagon. Thereupon, she put Lisa in the back seat of the station wagon, went to the bus for pillows, and returned to rest beside Lisa, who was already asleep. By this time, Ms. Melton had been awake for almost 24 hours, had constantly cared for and assisted Lisa, and, not surprisingly, was exhausted and suffering a severe headache. At approximately 4:45 a.m., while Ms. Melton and Lisa were resting in the station wagon and awaiting the return of the rest of the party, Ms. Ringstaff returned to the area. The events which subsequently transpired, and which form the basis of the charges leveled against Ms. Melton, incredibly enough stem from Ms. Melton's decision to have Lisa return in the station wagon. When Ms. Ringstaff returned to the parking lot, Mr. Gill advised her that Ms. Melton and Lisa were in the station wagon and that there would be no insurance coverage if Wayne Reese (who had driven the station wagon to Disney World) drove them back, because he only had an operator's permit as opposed to a chauffeur's license. Mr. Gill apparently did not consider the simple alternative of driving the station wagon himself, although he concedes then there would have been no problem as he had the necessary license. Following Mr. Gill's "revelation," Ms. Ringstaff seized command and called Superintendent Mensch without even inquiring of Ms. Melton as to why she and Lisa desired to return to Moore Haven in the station wagon. Neither Ms. Ringstaff nor Mr. Mensch agree to the substance of their early morning telephone conversation. Ms. Ringstaff insists the conversation centered around the insurance question. Mr. Mensch does not recall insurance being mentioned and testified at final hearing that there would have been no insurance problem under the circumstances. Mr. Mensch testified that Ms. Ringstaff simply told him that she was having trouble with Ms. Melton because she would not do as she requested and he advised Ms. Ringstaff that "she was senior sponsor of the program and that if she was having any difficulty, to get with Ms. Ford" and work it out. Mr. Mensch does not recall having advised Ms. Ringstaff that Ms. Melton could not return in the station wagon. The Hearing Officer finds Mr. Mensch's recollection the more credible. Ms. Ringstaff, armed with Mr. Mensch's direction to "work it out" went directly to the station wagon and advised Ms. Melton that the superintendent wanted her to return on the bus. Ms. Melton, embraced her prior directive, which delineated the parties' respective responsibilities, and declined to discuss the matter with Ms. Ringstaff. At no time during this conversation did Ms. Ringstaff inquire as to why Ms. Melton wished to return in the station wagon. Ms. Ringstaff then left the station wagon to consult with Ms. Ford. There is substantial confusion regarding Ms. Ford's status during Grad Nite. Although Ms. Ford was assistant principal of the High School and was, thereby, the senior administrator on the trip, it is uncertain whether she was actually acting in such capacity. It is Ms. Ford's position that she went to Disney World "merely as an assistant chaperone to assist the other chaperones, and that Ms. Ringstaff, as senior class sponsor, was in charge of the group. The Hearing Officer adopts Ms. Ford's description of her function during Grad Nite since she of all people should be knowledgeable of her capacity, and since her characterization comports with Mr. Steele's prior delineation of responsibility. At Ms. Ringstaff's direction, Ms. Ford went to the station wagon to discuss the matter with Ms. Melton. Although Ms. Ford never asked why Ms. Melton wished to return with Lisa in the station wagon, Ms. Melton did affirmatively advise her that she was sick, that she had a headache, and that her nerves were shot. Since Ms. Melton refused to leave the station wagon, Ms. Ford, Mr. Gill, and Ms. Ringstaff cloistered to work out this "problem." They resolved the issue by removing Lisa from Ms. Melton's custody and placing her in the custody of Ms. Ringstaff who was certified in learning disabilities and mental retardation. While Lisa rode back on the bus, Mr. Gill, who could have driven Ms. Melton and Lisa back in the first place, then drove Ms. Melton back to Moore Haven. At no time was Ms. Melton contemptuous, hostile, or abusive toward Ms. Ford, Ms. Ringstaff, or any other person on Grad Nite. Lisa had an uneventful trip back to Moore Haven. Mr. Clark, at Ms. Melton's request, met the returning party in Moore Haven. While strictly not necessary to the resolution of this case, the events which subsequently transpired lend credence to Ms. Melton's testimony and cast serious doubts on the motivations of her accusers. Upon returning to Moore Haven that morning, Ms. Melton, in the presence of Mr. Clark, asked Superintendent Mensch if he wanted to see her. Mr. Mensch advised her to get a good night's rest and that they would talk on Monday. On Monday Mr. Mensch avoided Ms. Melton until she cornered him late in the afternoon. At that time Mr. Mensch said he did not remember saying he would speak with her that day, and advised Ms. Melton he would see her the next day. In fact, Ms. Melton was never to have an opportunity to speak with Superintendent Mensch prior to her suspension. On Tuesday she was interviewed by Leonard Crowell, assistant superintendent, who had been appointed by the superintendent to act as an investigator and to gather statements. On Wednesday morning, May 16, 1984, Ms. Melton finally saw Mr. Mensch. At that time he advised her of his decision to suspend her and recommend her dismissal. At no time during this meeting did Superintendent Mensch ever ask Ms. Melton for her version of the incident. He also does not recall whether he listened to the taped statement Ms. Melton gave Mr. Crowell on Tuesday, before making his decision to suspend her. By letter dated May 16, 1984, Ms. Melton was formally suspended by the superintendent, with pay, from her duties as a classroom teacher at Moore Haven Elementary School for alleged gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty. On June 28, 1984, the Glades Count School Board changed her status to suspension without pay.
The Issue Whether just cause exists to sustain Respondent’s dismissal from employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted district school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const. In 2010, Whitley started working for the School Board as a school security monitor. During the 2016-2017 school year, Whitley was assigned to Thomas Jefferson Middle School (“Thomas Jefferson”) as a security monitor. He remains employed in that role at Thomas Jefferson presently. Whitley’s job duties and responsibilities include, but are not limited to, maintaining the safety of the children, ensuring the children make it to class on time, assisting with any problems that may be going on in the school, and monitoring the security cameras. At all times relevant to the proceeding, Respondent has been employed by the School Board pursuant to a continuing contract. The incident giving rise to this proceeding occurred on February 6, 2017. On February 6, 2017, Whitley was patrolling his assigned hall and noticed that M.G., a 13-year-old sixth grader, was out of class and sitting at Respondent’s desk in the hallway. Whitley requested that M.G. get out of the chair, and M.G. refused to get out of the desk. According to M.G., after M.G. refused, Whitley flipped the desk while he was seated, which caused M.G. to fall and hit his head on the floor. There is conflicting evidence as to what happened when Whitley approached the desk (“incident”). At hearing, M.G. credibly testified that he reported the incident to Principal Robin Atkins the same day and that he also got an ice pack for his head. Almost a month later, the Office of Professional Standards opened an investigation regarding the incident. Afterward, Respondent was notified that M.G. accused him of flipping the desk that he was sitting in and causing him to hit his head as a result. In 2017, law enforcement interviewed Respondent. The matter was ultimately turned over to the School Board's General Investigative Unit (“GIU”). The investigation took approximately two years to conclude. Even though Thomas Jefferson maintained security footage and recorded videos of the hallway where the incident occurred, no video footage existed for anyone to review regarding the incident. Based on its investigation, on or about May 30, 2019, GIU determined that there was probable cause to support the allegation that Respondent had violated School Board Policy 4210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; 4210.01, Code of Ethics; and 4213, Student Supervision and Welfare. Respondent learned about the determination soon thereafter. After summer break, when Respondent returned to work, on or about August 27, 2019, Carlos Diaz, the district director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards conducted a conference-for-the-record (“CFR”) meeting to discuss the pending allegations from the GIU case. Respondent was present at the CFR with his union representative. Following the CFR, the Disciplinary Review Team (“DRT”) met. DRT considered Respondent’s repeated and similar conduct for inappropriate contact with students and Respondent’s prior directives in its decision to discipline Respondent. DRT recommended that Respondent be terminated. The recommendation was adopted by the School Board. Prior Disciplinary History During his employment with the School Board, Whitley has been disciplined twice regarding inappropriate touching of students prior to the incident. The School Board kept a record of Respondent’s discipline in Whitley’s personnel file. On or about April 16, 2013, Whitley received a written reprimand after an investigation concluded that he shoved and touched a student’s shoulder repeatedly. Whitley’s reprimand directed Respondent to “[r]efrain from any physical touching of students.” In November 2013, Whitley was suspended for 12 workdays without pay after an investigation concluded that Respondent inappropriately picked up and dropped a student to the ground. The CFR memorandum regarding Respondent’s November 2013 occurrence directed Whitley to: “adhere to School Board Policies 4210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; 4210.01, Code of Ethics; and 4213, Student Supervision and Welfare”; “refrain from inappropriate communications with students”; and “refrain from inappropriate physical contact with students.” Hearing At the final hearing, M.G. provided persuasive credible testimony regarding the incident. He testified that he was sitting in Whitley’s chair in the hall. M.G. also admitted that he refused to move and told Respondent “no” when told to move. Whitley testified that M.G. “jumped” out of the chair. The undersigned does not credit Whitley’s testimony based on his contradictory statements about the incident, which diminish the trustworthiness of his testimony.1 Findings of Ultimate Fact Accordingly, the undersigned finds that M.G.’s credible testimony established that Whitley initiated contact with M.G., grabbed the desk to lean in, and flipped M.G., who was seated, out of the desk. As a result of Whitley’s actions, M.G. landed in a manner where his “hand hit the ground,” head hit the concrete floor, and, by doing so, jeopardized M.G.’s health, safety, and welfare.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order: finding Respondent in violation of rules 6A-5.056(2) and (4), 6A-10.081, and School Board Policies 4210, 4210.01, and 4213 as charged; and upholding Respondent's termination from employment for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 29th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Branden M. Vicari, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue Whether the Respondent should be dismissed from her employment with the Miami-Dade County School District.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is responsible for the administration and operation of the public schools within the Miami-Dade County Public School District. Such responsibility includes the discipline of teachers employed to work in the public schools of the district. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent, Iman Abd Al-Quddus, was employed as a math teacher by the Petitioner. The Respondent was assigned to Allapattah Middle School for the 1997-1998 school year pursuant to a professional service contract. On January 15, 1998, the Respondent grabbed a sixth grade student in her class named Raymond White. According to Raymond the Respondent pushed him against the wall and attempted to choke him. Raymond started crying and was upset. He immediately went to the office to report the incident and spoke with the Assistant Principal, Mr. Bonce. As a result of the foregoing incident, the student's neck became swollen. He was later taken to a hospital and examined. After the incident described above, Raymond's mother filed a complaint with the School Board. The complaint prompted a school police investigation of the incident. On May 13, 1998, during a conference for the record (CFR) with the Respondent, the school principal directed the Respondent to refrain from any conduct which could be perceived as inappropriate and from discussing the choking incident with others. Unrelated to the foregoing, on May 6, 1998, a parent complained that the Respondent used profanity in the presence of students. School administrators heard the Respondent use profanity in her classroom. They were able to overhear the Respondent's inappropriate language from the hallway outside her classroom. On May 18, 1998, Raymond's mother complained to school officials that the Respondent had announced that Raymond would receive a failing grade in the class. On another occasion, the parent advised the school officials that the Respondent had threatened to punish students who reported the Respondent's use of profanity. Given the number of incidents between the Respondent and students in Raymond's class, Mrs. White became concerned that the Respondent was not exhibiting appropriate professional conduct in the class. Delicia Johnson was a sixth grade math student in the Respondent's class during the 1997-1998 school year. According to this student, the Respondent used profanity on numerous occasions in the classroom. Delicia described the Respondent's treatment of students as "very bad." She observed the Respondent hit students and heard her describe them as "stupid," "dumb," "idiots," or "morons." Delicia earned an "A" grade but was given a "C" by the Respondent. Later the grade was changed to reflect the correct grade. According to Delicia, the Respondent's use of derogatory terms made the students feel uncomfortable. Delicia's mother filed letters with the Petitioner to complain of the Respondent's treatment of the class. She was concerned about the Respondent's use of profanity and demeaning treatment of students. Gilberto Bonce was the assistant principal at Allapattah during the 1997-1998 school year. Mr. Bonce counseled the Respondent on more than one occasion regarding her language in the classroom. Mr. Bonce also advised the Respondent to not speak with students regarding an ongoing investigation. According to Mr. Bonce the Respondent did not comply with these directives. On one occasion, the Respondent started screaming at Mr. Bonce and refused to calm down. He requested that she return to her classroom which had been left unsupervised. Mr. Bonce conceded that the Respondent knows her subject matter but failed as a teacher because she was unable to maintain discipline in the class, reverted to the use of derogatory names and profanity toward the students, and could not be effective in the classroom setting. Based upon the notoriety of the Respondent's classroom behavior, her demeaning treatment of students, and her physical attack on Raymond White, the Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher in the Miami-Dade County Public School District has been seriously impaired. Official recognition has been taken of the following provisions: School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, 6Gx13-4-1.08, 6Gx13-5D-1.07, and 6Gx13-5B-1.04; and Rules 6B-1.006, 6B-1.001, and 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade School Board enter a final order affirming the suspension and dismissal of the Respondent from her position as a teacher with the School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Luis M. Garcia, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Iman Abd Al-Quddus 181 Chafin Avenue Ewing, New Jersey 08638 Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent Dade County Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Room 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Honorable Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether the Board refused to re-employ Ms. Smith as a teacher's aide for the 1985-1986 school year in retaliation for a Complaint that she filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations in January, 1983?
Findings Of Fact Ms. Smith is a graduate of a high school in the Gadsden County School system. Ms. Smith successfully completed a business education course at Gadsden Vo-Tech after receiving her high school diploma. Ms. Smith was rated qualified to work as a teacher's aide in the Gadsden County School system by the Central Administration office in 1982 and in 1984. Ms. Smith was employed as a teacher's aide at Gretna Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as "Gretna") during the 1982-1983 school year. She began her employment at Gretna in October, 1982. Ms. Smith's immediate supervisor at Gretna during the first month of her employment was the Principal, Mr. Witt Campbell. Mr. Campbell left Gretna in November, 1982. For the remainder of the 1982-1983 school year, Ms. Smith's immediate supervisor was Rosa Barkley, who replaced Mr. Witt as Principal. Ms. Smith was pregnant during the 1982-1983 school year. On January 24, 1983, Ms. Smith became ill because of her pregnancy and had to go to the hospital. Ms. Smith did not return to Gretna during the remainder of the school year. On March 14, 1983, Ms. Barkley went to visit with Ms. Smith at her home. Ms. Smith told Ms. Barkley that she would return to work approximately two weeks after her baby was born. This meant that Ms. Smith would return after the start of the 1983-1984 school year. Ms. Barkley helped Ms. Smith request a leave of absence. This leave of absence was approved by the Board on March 29, 1983. In March, 1983, Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith a satisfactory rating on a Gadsden County Non-instructional Personnel Assessment form which was filed with the Board. Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith the benefit of the doubt in completing this form because Ms. Smith had been under Ms. Barkley's supervision only from November, 1982 to January, 1983. Ms. Barkley also recommended to the Superintendent that Ms. Smith be re-employed for the 1983-1984 school year. By letter dated June 17, 1983, Ms. Barkley asked the Superintendent to terminate Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley made this request because she wanted to have an aide that would start the school year in August, 1983 and not in November, 1983, when Ms. Smith planned to return. Ms. Barkley indicated in the letter that Ms. Smith had been absent because of her pregnancy. The Superintendent, Mr. Bishop, decided to grant Ms. Barkley's request. The decision to terminate Ms. Smith was made by the Board and not by Ms. Barkley. Although the Superintendent generally relies heavily on the recommendation of a principal, the decision to terminate Ms. Smith was that of the Board. The Board, based upon the information it was provided, should have told Ms. Barkley, that a leave of absence, and not termination, was the proper remedy to Ms. Barkley's problem. By letter dated July 27, 1983, Ms. Smith was terminated by the Board. Ms. Smith filed a Complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations on January 19, 1984, alleging sex discrimination against Ms. Barkley. Upon the filing of the Complaint the Board investigated and decided that Ms. Smith should be rehired. The Board realized that it had caused the problem and not Ms. Barkley. Ms. Smith was offered the first teacher's aide position available. The position was at Chattahoochee Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as "Chattahoochee"). Ms. Smith accepted the position and began work at Chattahoochee in March, 1984. Ms. Smith worked with fourth grade Chapter 1 children (children who have been disadvantaged with regard to their educational opportunities). Ms. Martha Downs was her teacher. While at Chattahoochee, Ms. Smith had difficulty performing her duties as a teacher's aide. Her primary area of deficiency was in math. Mr. Corbin Scott, the Principal at Chattahoochee, attempted to help Ms. Smith by having Ms. Ella Ponder, a helping teacher, assist her. Although it was alleged that Ms. Smith was required to take a Criteria Reference Test normally taken by fourth graders, the evidence failed to support this allegation. Based upon Ms. Smith's poor performance, Mr. Corbin did not recommend that Ms. Smith be returned to Chattahoochee for the next school year. Although Ms. Smith admitted that she has some problems with math she failed to accept the fact that she was not adequately performing her duties as a teacher's aide. Instead, she believed that Mr. Corbin expected her to "teach" and that he was unfair when he did not recommend her continued employment at Chattahoochee for the next school year. Ms. Smith believed that the Complaint that she filed in January, 1984, affected the way that she was treated at Chattahoochee. This unfounded belief affected Ms. Smith's attitude while at Chattahoochee and later. The Board decided that the period of time that Ms. Smith was employed at Chattahoochee (March, 1984 to June, 1984) was too short. Therefore, in an effort to be fair with Ms. Smith and to settle the dispute with Ms. Smith, the Board decided to place Ms. Smith in another teacher's aide position for the 1984- 1985 school year. During the Summer of 1984, Ms. Smith and the Board settled the Complaint which Ms. Smith had filed in January, 1984. Pursuant to this settlement, Ms. Smith dismissed her Complaint for back-pay and her re-employment at Gretna. Ms. Smith was employed at Gretna during the 1984- 1985 school year as a teacher's aide pursuant to the settlement. Ms. Barkley, Ms. Smith's immediate supervisor at Gretna, was not consulted before the Board decided to return Ms. Smith to Gretna. Principals of schools are not consulted by the Board before employees are assigned to their schools. Although Ms. Smith agreed to return to Gretna as part of the settlement of her Complaint against the Board, she believed that Ms. Barkley would not treat her properly. This belief, which was unfounded, affected Ms. Smith's attitude toward Ms. Barkley and her job during the 1984-1985 school year. Ms. Smith was assigned to assist two teachers for most of the 1984- 1985 school year at Gretna: Ms. Corine D. Palmer and Ms. Charlotte Price. Neither Ms. Palmer nor Ms. Price talked to Ms. Smith about problems which they perceived in Ms. Smith's performance. Ms. Price's attitude was that she was there to teach students and, therefore, she did not want to be bothered with Ms. Smith. Ms. Palmer's attitude was to work around Ms. Smith; she gave up trying to use Ms. Smith effectively because of Ms. Smith's lack of effort. Both ladies essentially stuck their heads in the sand and ignored the problem since neither of them were responsible for evaluating Ms. Smith. Employees at Gretna were required to sign in and sign out on a sheet provided for them at the administrative office of the school. During the school year Ms. Smith was late arriving at school a total of fifteen times. Most of those times she was late more than a few minutes. She was late seven times during 1984 and eight times in 1985. At least three other teachers' aides (Inez Morris, Ida Miller and Mary Wright) were late to school more often than Ms. Smith. While Ms. Smith received an unsatisfactory rating for punctuality for the school year, the other three aides received a satisfactory rating. Many of the times that the other three aides were late, they were late only a few minutes. When they were late more than a few minutes, they notified Ms. Barkley or someone else at Gretna that they would be late, and indicated why. Ms. Smith, on the other hand, did not always notify Ms. Barkley or anyone else that she would be late, or indicate why she was late until she was asked. During the first week of the 1984-1985 school year (August 20-24, 1984), Ms. Smith was late three times. Ms. Smith rode to school with another employee who was late getting to school. On August 27, 1984, Ms. Barkley discussed Ms. Smith's lateness with her and gave her a letter indicating that she was expected to be at school at 8:05 a.m. Ms. Smith was late once during each of the next three weeks. She corrected the problem, however, by arranging to ride with someone else. After the week of September 10-14, 1984, Ms. Smith was late only one other time during 1984. During 1985, Ms. Smith was late at least once a week during seven of the eleven weeks ending March 15, 1985. In addition to being late reporting to school, Ms. Smith was late going to her assigned classroom after arriving at school and after lunch. Ms. Smith was required to be in her morning class no later than 8:15 a.m. Her lateness was reported by Ms. Palmer and Ms. Price and was also noted by Ms. Barkley. Ms. Smith was in the employee lounge on many occasions when she should have been in a class. On October 15, 1984, Ms. Barkley spoke with all of the aides about being in the lounge in the morning when they should be in their classes. Despite Ms. Barkley's comments, that afternoon Ms. Smith was in the lounge when she should not have been, and she continued to be late to her assigned classroom in the mornings. Ms. Palmer and Ms. Price told Ms. Barkley that Ms. Smith was late to class. Both of them tended to do without her and to avoid any effort to try to correct the problem. On February 15, 1985, Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith a letter that indicated that Ms. Smith was in the lounge when she was not supposed to be. A similar letter was given to Ida Miller and Dorothy Smith. Ms. Miller and Ms. Dorothy Smith corrected the problem. Ms. Smith did not. Ms. Barkley rated Ms. Smith's attendance as "unsatisfactory". This rating was not based upon the number of days that she was absent. It was based upon the number of times that Ms. Smith was not in her assigned classroom. Ms. Barkley kept a notebook in which she noted the dates of some events involving employees' actions. She has kept these notes since she became a principal. Most of the notes concerning Ms. Smith did not give the reason for absences or lateness. Ms. Smith did not, however, always report the reason for her lateness. Most of the observations involved lateness and absences. The notes concerning Ms. Smith were provided to the Board because she was requested to provide any documentation concerning Ms. Smith. She did not know where her other notes were. Ms. Barkley noted the conference she had with Ms. Smith on August 27, 1984. In this note, she referred to Ms. Smith as "Ms. Attitude." This notation and a later notation that Ms. Smith was in the lounge one day "chomping" show a lack of judgment by Ms. Barkley in the manner that Ms. Barkley referred to Ms. Smith. This lack of judgment is not sufficient, however, to prove that Ms. Barkley terminated Ms. Smith at the end of the 1984-1985 school year in retaliation for the Complaint filed by Ms. Smith in 1983. Ms. Barkley's explanation for these notations is rejected. Ms. Barkley talked to teachers and other aides about Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley did not, however, limit her inquiries to Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley was responsible for the supervision of all of the employees at Gretna. She was very active in managing her school. She observed her employees in the halls of the school, in the lounge and in the classroom. She did not single out Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley asked teachers and other aides about all employees and she checked up on all her employees. Ms. Smith was observed in class by Ms. Barkley. Ms. Smith was seen giving wrong answers and performing sloppy work. When Ms. Barkley talked to Ms. Smith about some of her problems, Ms. Smith's attitude was defensive. She did not believe that she had any problems and believed that Ms. Barkley was being unfair to her. She therefore did not indicate that she agreed with Ms. Barkley or that she would make any efforts to correct her problems when Ms. Barkley spoke to her about her problems. Ms. Price indicated that Ms. Smith had evidenced a poor attitude about her performance with her also. On March 15, 1985, Ms. Barkley met with Ms. Smith and informed her that she would not be recommended for employment during the 1985-1986 school year. Ms. Barkley sent a letter to the Board dated March 15, 1985, recommending that Ms. Smith not be re-employed during the 1985-1986 school year. Ms. Barkley also rated Ms. Smith "unsatisfactory" on five characteristics listed on a Gadsden County Non-instructional Personnel Assessment form dated March 8, 1985. This form was signed by Ms. Smith on March 15, 1985. Ms. Smith was given an unsatisfactory rating for utilization of time, compliance with school and district policies, attendance, punctuality and leadership. This evaluation was similar to the evaluation given Ms. Smith by Mr. Corbin. Ms. Barkley, Ms. Price and Ms. Palmer were given a Personal Reference Form for Teacher Aide Applicants by Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith told Ms. Price and Ms. Palmer that the forms were going to be used by her to apply for a job outside of its school system. Although both teachers had misgivings about Ms. Smith's ability and did not want her back as a teacher's aide, they both liked her personally and wanted to help her find a job. They also wanted to avoid any conflict with Ms. Smith. Therefore, even though they should have known better, they completed the forms giving Ms. Smith affair rating and indicating that they would employ her as a teacher's aide. Ms. Barkley completed the form given to her by Ms. Smith on April 30, 1985. She gave her a poor rating and indicated that she would not employ her as a teacher's aide. Ms. Barkley had completed a Gadsden County Non-instructional Personnel Assessment form when Ms. Smith left Gretna in 1983. Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith a favorable evaluation. She did so, however, because Ms. Smith had only worked at Gretna during the 1982-1983 school year for approximately four months and Ms. Barkley had only been there during three of those months. Therefore, Ms. Barkley did not believe it would be fair to give Ms. Smith an unfavorable evaluation. The Board did not refuse to re-employ Ms. Smith for the 1985-1986 school year in retaliation for any dispute between Ms. Smith and Ms. Barkley or any other person. Ms. Smith was not re-employed because she lacked the necessary job skills to work as a teacher's aide and had failed to perform adequately. On or about July 15, 1985, Ms. Smith filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations alleging that the Board had discriminated against her on the basis of retaliation. The Executive Director of the Florida Commission on Human Relations issued a "Determination: No Cause" on May 12, 1987. Ms. Smith filed a Petition for Rehearing. On or about July 13, 1987, the Executive Director entered a "Redetermination: No Cause." Ms. Smith filed a Petition for Relief. The Florida Commission on Human Relations forwarded the Petition the Division of Administrative Hearings by order dated August 18, 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Ms. Smith's Petition for Relief be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2. 3 Irrelevant. 4-5 3. 6-7 22. 8 4. 9 23. 10 5. 11 12. The date of termination was July 27, 1983. 12 10. 13-14 13. 15 20-22. 16 10. 17 8. 18 9. 19 22. 20 23. 21 11. The evidence failed to prove that the Board acted solely on the recommendation of Ms. Barkley. 22 25. 23 26. 24 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 25-26 27. 27 28. 28 While Ms. Smith may have corrected the "ride problem" she continued to be late during the 1984-1985 school year. 29-31 27. 32-33 33. 34-36 Although these proposed findings of fact are correct they are irrelevant. 37 41. 38-39 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 40 Irrelevant and not supported by the weight of the evidence. 41 35. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. 44 35. 45-46 36. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although it is true that Ms. Smith did improve her punctuality arriving at Gretna during 1984 she failed to continue to arrive on time during the rest of the school year. See 28. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 45. 2 21. 3 10 and 11. 4 14. 5 16. 6 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 16. 7 16-18. 8 20 and 22. 9-10 37. 11 41. 12 42. 13 28 and 33. 14 28-29 and 33. 15 45. COPIES FURNISHED TO: EDWARD J. GRUNEWALD, ESQUIRE LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTH FLORIDA, INC. 400 NORTH MADISON STREET QUINCY, FLORIDA 32351 CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, ESQUIRE 211 EAST JEFFERSON STREET QUINCY, FLORIDA 32351 DONALD A. GRIFFIN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD BUILDING F, SUITE 240 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1925 DANA BAIRD GENERAL COUNSEL 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD BUILDING F, SUITE 240 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1925
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the School Board of Pinellas County was the agency of county government responsible for the provision of public primary and secondary education in Pinellas County, operating Gibbs High School in the City of St. Petersburg. Respondent, Paul McDermond, was employed as a teacher by the Pinellas County School District since 1974. During the 1993 - 1994 school year, he was serving as an industrial arts teacher at Gibbs High School under a continuing contract. On October 11, 1993, Frankie McDermond, Respondent's son and an 11th grade student at Gibbs High School, was involved in a fight with another student, Aaron Simmons, and sustained some injury to his eye, including a fracture of the orbital bone. Respondent, who was in his classroom at the time, was summoned by some of the students to the quadrangle on campus where the fight had taken place and where the two participants were still located. Upon notification, Respondent left his classroom and went to the fight scene where he saw his son. After pushing his way through the crowd of students who had gathered as the scene, he approached his son and asked him. "Who did this?" Frankie indicated Simmons had done it and pointed in the direction of a nearby wall where Simmons was standing. Several other students also pointed in that direction. Respondent left his son and began moving toward Simmons. He appeared angry. Approaching to within three to four feet of Simmons, Respondent was grabbed by some students and restrained. The evidence indicates that Respondent was swinging his arms around at the time, but is not clear whether this was an attempt to break free of those holding him or a real attempt to get at Simmons and strike him. No contact was made with Simmons by the Respondent who said nothing all during this time. Some students and faculty called to the scene indicate Respondent was trying to get at Simmons to strike him. Ms. Shorter, the Principal, who spoke by phone with Respondent late in the afternoon of the incident, claims Respondent told her he wanted to strike Simmons but was restrained from doing so. On the other hand, Respondent claims he was trying to get to the crowd to which some of the students had pointed when asked who had assaulted his son, but denied even knowing that Simmons was the one who inured his son until, at Ms. Deleanis' direction, he went inside and then returned outside to get Frankie. It was only then, when he and Frankie had gone back inside, he claims, that he found that Simmons was the perpetrator. Clearly, this does not track with the other evidence of record. It is found, therefore, that Respondent knew after first speaking with his son that Simmons had injured him, and he was trying to get to Simmons who had been identified to him by other students, to apprehend him. Respondent admits to being very upset at the condition in which he found his son and wanted to take action against the individual responsible for that. It is possible that at some time, during the course of his movement from his son toward Simmons, Respondent intended to strike Simmons if he could. This is a perfectly natural reaction and it is so found. However, whether his anger cooled of its own accord, or whether, being restrained by students and intercepted by members of the administration he changed his mind, it is clear that by the time he reached the group in which Simmons was located, Respondent's desire to strike Simmons had abated, and his struggles as described by the students restraining him were more an effort to release himself from the hands of the students than an attempt to assault Simmons. It is impossible to know exactly what was in Respondent's mind at the time, but the fact remains that no contact was made between Respondent and the student. Respondent has been the subject of two previous disciplinary actions during his teaching and coaching career. In September, 1976, some seventeen years prior to the instant situation, Respondent assaulted and committed a battery upon a student who had stolen his car. Later that same month, he also threw to the ground a student who was disrespectful and defiant to him, as coach, during a football practice. For both these offenses Respondent received one combined letter of reprimand for exercising poor judgement. In February, 1985, nine years later, he subjected a female student to unnecessary disparagement and embarrassment in class, for which he was given a 30 day suspension without pay. Nothing untoward has been made a matter of record since that time. Petitioner claims it is School Board policy to take graduated action in matters of staff discipline. The documentation of other actions taken by the Board regarding other faculty members, however, does not show this policy to have been regularly or evenly applied. The incident with Simmons was made a matter of public knowledge when the Board's suspension action was reported in the local newspaper. All the faculty personnel who testified for the Board unanimously concluded that Respondent's actions severely compromised his effectiveness as a teacher. Teachers cannot, ideally, allow their students to learn what actions will cause the teacher to lose control - to identify their buttons, so to speak. All of the administrators and the Board staff who testified at hearing believe that by reacting as he did, Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher was destroyed. It is clear this is too quick a judgement to make. Numerous students testified at the hearing on Respondent's behalf, and there is evidence that a wave of support for Respondent manifested itself in the circulation of a student petition to save Respondent's employment with the school.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Pinellas county enter a Final Order finding the Respondent, Paul McDermond, guilty of misconduct in office based on a lack of judgement in his aggressive approach to a student, Aaron Simmons, and suspending him from duty without pay for a period of 15 days. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-6425 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 15. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by evidence of record. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18. & 19. Accepted. 20. Accepted. 21. Accepted. 22. & 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. 24. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are not numbered. Therefore, they will be referred to as the appear in the Proposal. Accepted and incorporated herein except for the last sentence of the paragraph which is merely a restatement of testimony. Conclusions are accepted and incorporated herein. However, the comments on the state of the evidence are disregarded. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence, except for the finding that Simmons was not struck by Respondent. COPIES FURNISHED: Keith B. Martin, Esquire School Board of Pinellas County 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Kelly & McKee, P.A. 1718 East Seventh Avenue Suite 301 Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Dr. J. Howard Hinesley Superintendent Pinellas County Schools 301 Fourth Street Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942
Findings Of Fact Respondent attends Thomas Jefferson Junior High School. With the exception of band class which he attends regularly and achieves high marks, his absentee rate (unexcused) is approaching 50 percent and he is receiving failing grades. He is frequently disruptive in class and disrespectful to his instructors. He regularly comes late to his classes or leaves before being excused. Petitioner has made frequent attempts to assist Respondent. All available counseling and disciplining techniques have been used without success. Respondent will be 16 years old in September and intends to withdraw from school at that time. Respondent and his mother seek his release from mandatory school attendance now so that he may begin vocational training. School officials agree that this is appropriate, but the application has not been completed due to communication problems between Mrs. Perez and Thomas Jefferson Junior High School.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order assigning Respondent to its opportunity school pending release from mandatory school attendance. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 19th day of June, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mrs. Sylvia Perez 460 Northwest 125 Street Miami, Florida 33168 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact This matter comes on before the undersigned for consideration following an Administrative Complaint brought by Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education for the State of Florida, against Robert J. Browne, Respondent. No genuine factual issue is in dispute because no communication, including an election of rights or an appearance from the Respondent, has ever been received. Pursuant to the above-cited rule, the matter was required to proceed to hearing before the undersigned for the presentation of a prima facie case by the Petitioner, regarding the establishment of the reputed facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint upon which the Petitioner seeks revocation of the Respondent's Certificate. The Administrative Complaint is dated July 1, 1981. After the Administrative Complaint was filed, various efforts were made to achieve service of the same on the Respondent. The Respondent never responded to the Administrative Complaint. Diligent search and inquiry failed to locate the Respondent, or a means or location whereby he might be served with the Complaint. Attempts to serve him at his last-known forwarding address resulted in the certi- fied mail being returned unclaimed and unforwardable. The undersigned attempted to serve notice of this proceeding itself upon the Respondent at the last known address with the same result. Service by publication of the Administrative Complaint was achieved by the Petitioner. The Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate Number 440435, Post Graduate, Rank II, which expires on June 30, 1998, authorizing him to engage in the profession of teaching in the areas of mental retardation, junior college, administration, and supervision. At all times pertinent hereto, he was employed at the Exceptional Student Educational Center in Broward County, Florida, at Eastside Elementary School. The Respondent's position was that of administrator or assistant principal at the school. The Respondent was employed at the school during the summer of 1980. Mrs. Annie Turner was employed at the school as the custodian during that same summer. She worked from the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in the evening. She often took her son Ronnie, who was the youngest of seven children, to the school with her during her working hours. She did this in order for him to assist her in her job duties. On an early visit to the school, Ronnie met the Respondent, Mr. Browne. They met on frequent occasions thereafter, when Ronnie was at the school with his mother and talked of sports and other things of interest to Ronnie, and they ultimately struck up a friendship. Mrs. Turner began noticing that her son would go to a distant bathroom in the school and stay an inordinate period of time. This happened on a number of occasions and she noticed that Mr. Browne would follow her son into the mens' bathroom while she was engaged in cleaning another room nearby in the school. She did not feel anything was amiss until this happened on a regular basis. Finally, on a Thursday evening (she does not remember the date), in the summer of 1980, Mr. Browne and Ronnie entered the bathroom and stayed so long she opened the door to check on her son and observed the Respondent on his knees committing a homosexual act on the person of her son. She was not observed by Mr. Browne. She ultimately informed-the County Superintendent and Mr. Browne was confronted with the subject accusation by his superiors. Sometime thereafter the Respondent resigned his position at the school. Mrs. Turner no longer respects Mr. Browne and would not want one of her children in a school where he was principal or a teacher due to her apprehension regarding their physical and emotional welfare. The testimony of Ronnie Turner corroborates that of his mother, Annie Turner, and in addition, establishes that the homosexual act observed by Mrs. Turner occurred on three (3) other occasions in a substantially similar fashion and location. The occasion when Annie Turner discovered the Respondent committing a homosexual act on her son was the fourth and last of those occasions, all of which occurred during a three-week period during the summer of 1980. Ronnie Turner sougnt on several occasions to avoid association with the Respondent during this time after he became aware of the Respondent's intentions. He would not want to attend a school at which the Respondent was employed and fears that the same fate will befall other children at any school at which the Respondent should be employed. Ronnie Turner was fourteen years of age at the time the pertinent events occurred. After the Respondent resigned from his position with the Broward County School System, there ultimately ensued an Administrative Complaint brought by Ralph Turlington, Commissioner of Education of the State of Florida, seeking revocation of the Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence in the record and the pleadings and arguments of counsel for the Petitioner, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Robert J. Browne, have his Teacher's Certificate in and for the State of Florida revoked permanently. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire BERG AND HOLDER 203-B South Monroe Street Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Robert J. Browne 1771 Northeast 12th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304
Findings Of Fact Prior to May 18, 1977, the Respondent was employed by the School Board as a driver education teacher and head football coach at Miami South Ridge High School. At approximately 3:00 A.M. on May 15, 1977, the Respondent left his home in Miami, Florida, and drove to the back of a business located at 7211 S. W. 40th Street in Miami, Florida. John F. Allen operates a boat, motor, and trailer sales, service, and repair business at that location. In the back of the building there is a work area that is surrounded by a chain link fence. Customers' boats and motors are stored in this area while work is done on them in the shop. The Respondent walked down an alleyway along the fenced area, and climbed over the fence. He removed an outboard motor from a boat, and pulled it away from the boat toward the fence. The Respondent did not work in the boat yard, and he was not authorized to be there after regular business hours. There was no direct evidence as to the Respondent's intentions. The circumstance of his being in the fenced in portion of the boat yard at between 3:00 A.M. and 4:00 A.M. and the circumstance of his removing an outboard motor from a boat, and carrying it toward the fence, lead inescapably to the conclusion that the Respondent was seeking to steal the engine. The Respondent did not remove the engine from the boat yard. For unknown reasons, he abandoned his effort to steal the engine and left the boat yard. The Respondent was not armed with any weapon, and no other person was in the boat yard while he was there. The outboard engine which the Respondent was attempting to steal was a 40 horsepower Johnson outboard engine. The weight of the engine is approximately 140 pounds. The engine has a wholesale value of approximately $250. Even if the engine were in the worst possible operating condition, it would still be worth approximately $150. While the Respondent was in the boat yard, two police officers employed by the Dade County Public Safety Department were undertaking a routine patrol of the area in an unmarked car. They observed the Respondent's automobile parked adjacent to the boat yard. One of the officers walked along the chain link fence in back of the boat yard and observed the Respondent inside the yard holding an engine. There was heavy vegetation along the fence, but the police officer was able to see through it at one point. The officer went back to his car, and told his partner what he had witnessed. Shortly thereafter the Respondent came out of the alley, got into his car, and drove away. The police officers turned on a flashing light in their car, pulled up behind the Respondent's car, and stopped him. The Respondent was placed under arrest. The police officer read the Respondent his rights from a "Miranda card". During interrogation after the arrest the Respondent pointed out the motor that he had removed from the boat, and told the officers were he had gotten it. The Respondent was then taken to a police station where he was fingerprinted, and later released on bail. A criminal action is now pending against the Respondent in the courts in Dade County. Tools of a sort which could have been used in perpetration of a burglary were found in the Respondent's pockets and on the floor of the Respondent's automobile by the police after they stopped him. There was no evidence presented that these tools were used by the Respondent in breaking into the boat yard or in removing the outboard engine from the boat. There was no evidence that the Respondent intended to use the tools for these purposes. There was evidence presented that the tools were put in the automobile by a friend of the Respondent's wife. There is insufficient evidence from which it could be concluded that the Respondent intended to use the tools to commit any trespass or burglary. The School Board acted promptly to suspend the Respondent from his position at South Ridge High School. The instant proceeding ensued.
The Issue The issues concern the claim by the Petitioner to relief for alleged age discrimination. See Section 760.10, Florida Statutes. In particular, it is alleged that the Respondent dismissed the Petitioner from employment with the Duval County School Board based solely upon his age, in violation of the aforementioned statute. There is presented the collateral issue, which is the claim by the Respondent that this dismissal based upon age was authorized by Section 231.031, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact This cause is presented through the petition for relief from an alleged unlawful employment practice which the Petitioner filed with the Florida Human Relations Commission. The service date of that petition was May 9, 1984. Duval County School Board, Duval County, Florida, was the named respondent. Through the petition document Petitioner claims that the Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice by forcing the Petitioner to take an involuntary retirement due to his age. There being no successful informal resolution of this dispute, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing, which was held on August 20, 1984. The petition is brought under the authority of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, formerly Chapter 23, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is an individual within the meaning of Section 760.02(5) and .10(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 760.02(6), Florida Statutes. Petitioner, Robert P. Morrow, was continuously employed as a teacher by Respondent, Duval County School Board, from September, 1962, through June, 1983. During his employment he held tenured status or continuing contract status through the close of the 1981-1982 school year. The balance of the time in which he served as a teacher in the system was in the capacity of an employee on an annual contract basis. This latter arrangement pertains to the school year 1982-1983. Petitioner celebrated his seventieth birthday on September 26, 1981, which was shortly after the beginning of the 1981-1982 school year. In early 1982 Petitioner received a memorandum from Dalton D. Epting, Director of Certificated Personnel of the Duval County Schools, indicating that in view of the fact that the Petitioner would reach 70 years of age within the school year, and in keeping with Section 231.031, Florida Statutes, Petitioner should request an appointment with his principal, one Ronel J. Poppell. Epting had prepared the memorandum based upon information he had been given indicating that the Petitioner would reach 70 years of age within the 1981-1982 school year. In keeping with the suggestion of the memorandum from Epting, Petitioner spoke with Principal Poppell and in that conversation indicated a desire to teach for another year or two beyond the 1981-1982 school year. Poppell spoke to Epting and was reminded of the existence of Section 231.031, Florida Statutes, pertaining to teachers who have obtained 70 years of age. Epting did not advise Poppell on the question of whether to retain the Petitioner as a teacher in the Duval County high school where Poppell served as principal and Petitioner acted as a teacher. Out of the conversation between the Petitioner and Poppell, Poppell determined to allow the Petitioner to remain as a teacher at the subject school for one more year, i.e., the school year 1982-1983. As alluded to before, this arrangement was consummated and Petitioner served as a teacher at Nathan Bedford Forrest Senior High School in the school year 1982-1983 based upon an annual contract arrangement, as opposed to continuing contract. While Section 231.031, Florida Statutes, refers to the superintendent making the decision for retention, in fact Poppel caused the retention of Petitioner in the school year 1982-1983. The effects of such retention were to cause another teacher to be "surplused" who had been involved in the overall program at the school. This arrangement lasted for the 1982-1983 school year. Generally speaking Herb A. Sang, Superintendent of Schools in Duval County, Florida, makes the decision on the question of retention of 70year-old teachers based upon the recommendation of the principal and other school board staff members. Normally, according to Sang, a teacher who has reached 70 years of age would be retired as provided by Section 231.031, Florida Statute. If retained, per Sang, that retention is based upon the needs of the school system and not the record of achievement of the individual teacher in question. In application, teachers who are 70 years old will not be retained unless there is a specific need within the school system for services which they can provide, i.e., a specialty which cannot be filled by teachers under 70 years of age or for reasons of continuity of student projects in which the teacher is involved over more than one school year. On March 3, 1983, Principal Poppell completed an annual evaluation of the Petitioner's performance and on that occasion, as had been the case in all evaluations made of the Petitioner as an employee of the Duval County School System, Petitioner was found to be a satisfactory teacher, the highest possible rating that could have been given. Nonetheless, Poppell noted in the evaluation form that the Petitioner would not be recommended for an extension of his annual contract based upon Section 231.031, Florida Statutes. This opinion was expressed in a March 4, 1983, letter from Poppell to the Petitioner in which it was indicated that Poppell would not recommend that Superintendent Sang renew the annual contract of the Petitioner. In that correspondence Poppell indicated that he felt no further obligation to the Petitioner reference extension of his contract beyond 1982-1983, which extension was based upon Poppell's understanding of the discussion with the Petitioner in 1981-1982 in which the Petitioner had indicated that he would wish to teach for another year or two. In furtherance of Poppell's suggestion, Petitioner was not renewed as a teacher in Duval County and that decision was reached based upon the fact that the Petitioner was over 70 years old. No attempt was made to compare the relative merits of the Petitioner's performance with that of persons younger than 70 years of age, in deciding who to employ on annual employment as teachers for the school year 1983-1984.
