The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated specified Miami- Dade County School Board rules, giving Petitioner just cause to suspend Respondent for five work days without pay.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, pursuant to article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes.1/ Respondent is a 27-year teacher employed by the Miami- Dade County Public Schools ("M-DCPS"). For the first 24 years of his career, Respondent taught adult vocational classes. For the past three years, Respondent has taught at Miami Lakes Educational Center ("Miami Lakes"). He is a television production teacher, teaching students entry-level television production skills to prepare them for careers in the television industry. Background of this Proceeding At all times material, Respondent's employment was governed by the collective bargaining agreement between M-DCPS and the United Teachers of Dade, Petitioner's rules and policies, and Florida law. This matter had its genesis in late 2010, when two or three female students complained to Miami Lakes Assistant Principal Michael Tandlich that they felt uncomfortable in Respondent's classroom, specifically because Respondent touched them. In response to the complaints, Mr. Tandlich took written statements from approximately ten students in Respondent's class.2/ He took the statements to the Miami Lakes principal. As a result, the school initiated an investigation of Respondent's actions regarding the students in his class. Once the investigation was complete, the matter was referred to Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards ("OPS") for a comprehensive review of all information related to the matter. On March 1, 2011, Milagros Hernandez, District Director for OPS, sent Respondent a letter stating that as a result of the investigation, "[t]he initial investigative findings indicate that Probable Cause has been established for the allegation of violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4.109, Employee Student Relationships. Probable cause is defined as '[b]ased upon an evaluation of the evidence, it is more likely than not the alleged act occurred.'" On March 8, 2011, OPS conducted a Conference-for-the- Record ("CFR"). Respondent and Ms. Hernandez were among the attendees. The CFR is a fact-finding conference held to discuss the incident and to afford the subject of the investigation the opportunity to tell his or her side of the story. Following the CFR, OPS sent a letter to Respondent, dated May 4, 2011, advising him that OPS recommended that he "be suspended without pay for 5 workdays for violation of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, and 6Gx13-4A-1.213, Code of Ethics " On May 11, 2011, Petitioner suspended Respondent for five work days without pay for alleged violation of the above- stated rules.3/ Incidents Giving Rise to Alleged Violations A.S. is a female student in Respondent's television production class. She is in her junior year of high school at Miami Lakes. A.S. testified that Respondent touched her on the shoulders on more than one occasion, the touching made her feel uncomfortable, and she told him to stop. On one occasion when Respondent touched her on the shoulders, A.S. yelled at Respondent, "Stop touching me, you pedophile!" or something to that effect. She testified that Respondent did not touch her on any part of her body other than her shoulders, and has stopped touching her. Testimony was elicited from A.S. and another student, J.G., establishing that A.S. is overly-dramatic, blows things out of proportion, and acts out in class in order to be the center of attention. The evidence also established that A.S. may have some animus toward Respondent because he is much stricter and has set much higher academic and behavioral standards than did his predecessor, and does not tolerate A.S's disruptive behavior in class. J.C. is a female student in Respondent's class, and is A.S.'s friend. She is in her junior year of high school at Miami Lakes. J.C. testified that Respondent sometimes touched her on the shoulders, and that once, Respondent touched her dress at about mid-thigh level. The touching made her uncomfortable, but she never asked him to stop. Respondent did not touch her on any other part of her body. She acknowledged that Respondent's conduct likely was meant as complimentary and encouraging. J.C. testified that Respondent had made the class much more demanding than had his predecessor, and that her classmates and friends had discussed their unhappiness with the change. She acknowledged that around that time, some students went to the assistant principal and complained that Respondent was touching students and making them feel uncomfortable. J.G. is a male student in Respondent's class. J.G. testified that Respondent is a very strict teacher and that his class is very demanding "in a good way." J.G. testified that Respondent is very respectful of his students and encourages them during class, verbally and by patting them on the back or touching them on the shoulders. He treats male and female students the same in that regard. J.G. has never seen Respondent touch any of his students, male or female, in an inappropriate manner. J.G. stated that Respondent is a very professional teacher. Respondent also presented the testimony of Dr. Angela Thomas Dupree, Vice Principal at Lindsay Hopkins Technical Education Center. Before assuming her current position, Dr. Dupree served at Miami Lakes for 12 years as an assistant principal and a vice principal. For approximately ten of her 12 years at Miami Lakes, she worked with Respondent as his direct supervisor and observed Respondent interacting with his students. She testified that he was very knowledgeable and always engaged in the classroom, and that he treated students with respect and dignity. She never observed, and was not aware of, any instances in which Respondent did not honor the integrity and retain the respect of his students. During her time in working with Respondent, he always conducted himself in a manner that reflected credit on him and on the school system. Respondent testified on his own behalf. Respondent's goal in teaching the television production class is to prepare his students to enter the workforce in the television production industry. His classes are structured according to the grade level of the students in the class. For his higher level classes (i.e., junior and senior classes), students are given assignments for the day, then move into different areas to work on their specific assignments. Respondent supervises the students by walking back and forth between the work areas to make sure everyone is on task. One studio is very small, so it is not unusual for Respondent to walk up behind students when they are working and to touch them as he is showing them how to perform a task or use the computer. Respondent also encourages his students, verbally, by patting them on the back or touching their shoulders, and by giving them "high five." Respondent testified that in one of his college communication courses, there was discussion about the importance of "breaking the shield" that each person has, in order to enhance interpersonal communication. Respondent noted that is often why people shake hands. Respondent testified that he tries to "break the shield" with his students, in part by touching them, in order to more effectively communicate with them. Touching always has been a part of the way Respondent teaches and conducts his class, until this incident. Respondent testified that he did touch A.S. on her shoulders. On the day on which A.S. called Respondent a "pedophile," A.S. had been doing her homework for another class while in Respondent's class, and Respondent had asked her to stop. She ignored Respondent's request. Respondent was lecturing and walking around the studio, and the students' chairs and desks were arranged in the middle of the studio. As Respondent was walking around the studio, he observed A.S. continuing to do her homework despite being asked to stop. He walked up behind her and put his hands on her shoulders to get her to stop. A.S. jumped up and yelled at him. Respondent testified that he touched A.S. on her shoulders, and, on another occasion, may have touched her hair, but that he did not touch her on any other part of her body. Respondent recalled touching J.C.'s dress. On the day in question, the students were wearing professional clothing, rather than their usual uniforms, as part of a "dressing for success" program being conducted at the school. Respondent was sitting down and J.C. was standing next to him. He touched the skirt of her dress and complimented her on her appearance. Respondent testified that he only meant to compliment her, and that she did not appear to be uncomfortable. Respondent testified that he never has inappropriately touched students, and that when he has touched students, it has never been with intent to do anything wrong. He acknowledged that he understands the difference between touching adult students and minor students while encouraging them in their class work. Assistant Principal Michael Tandlich testified that Petitioner's policy is to prohibit the touching of students in any way; however, Mr. Tandlich was unable to identify any such policy or provision in Petitioner's rules. He also testified that he and the teachers at Miami Lakes routinely touch students——which he acknowledged would constitute widespread violation of such a policy, if one existed. Finally, he testified that he considers touching of students other than a handshake to be inappropriate——contradicting his previous testimony that there is an absolute prohibition on touching students. Mr. Tandlich testified that teachers are informed, in the first meeting with school administration personnel at the beginning of the school year, regarding Petitioner's policies. However, Respondent credibly testified that he never was told that all touching of students is prohibited.4/ IV. Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4A-1.213 Petitioner's rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, "Responsibilities and Duties," provides in pertinent part: I. Employee Conduct All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a matter that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive or profane language in the workplace is expressly prohibited. Petitioner's rule 6Gx-4A-1.213, "Code of Ethics," provides in pertinent part:
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 rescinding the suspension of Respondent from his employment for five days without pay, and paying Respondent’s back salary for the five-day period for which he was suspended. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 28th day of November, 2011.
The Issue The issue is whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent from his teaching position without pay for 15 days and to terminate his employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, is charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise free public schools within the School District of Palm Beach County ("District"), pursuant to article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution and section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher with Petitioner since 2008. During the timeframe relevant to this proceeding,5/ Respondent was employed as a teacher at Forest Hill High School ("Forest Hill"). He taught the Theatre I, II, III, and Theatre I IB classes (collectively, the "drama classes") and the Speech and Debate classes, and was the faculty sponsor for the school's drama club. Respondent has not previously been subject to discipline by Petitioner, and the evidence shows that he consistently received high performance evaluations and was a popular teacher with the students at Forest Hill. Administrative Charges On or about April 6, 2016, Petitioner took action to suspend Respondent for 15 days without pay and to terminate his employment as a teacher. Respondent timely challenged Petitioner's action by requesting an administrative hearing pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1). The factual bases for the administrative charges against Respondent are set forth in paragraph 10 of the Petition, which constitutes the administrative charging document in this proceeding. Paragraph 10 alleges: "[o]n or about May 14, 2015, it was reported that Respondent interacted inappropriately and made inappropriate comments to students in his drama class." The Petition does not identify the time frame in which the conduct referenced in paragraph 10 is alleged to have occurred, nor does it specifically describe the conduct in which Respondent is alleged to have engaged that would violate the rules and policies cited in the Petition. Based on the facts alleged in paragraph 10 of the Petition, Petitioner has charged Respondent with violating the following: Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-5.056(2), 6A- 10.080(2), and 6A-10.081(3); School Board Policy 0.01(2), (3), and (6); School Board Policy 1.013(1); School Board Policy 3.02(4)(a), (b), (d), (e) and (5)(a); School Board Policy 3.27; and School Board Policy 5.81(10)(c).6/ If proved, the alleged violations of these rules and policies would constitute just cause under section 1012.33 to suspend Petitioner and terminate his employment as a teacher. Events Giving Rise to This Proceeding In March 2015, R.H., a student at Forest Hill, reported to Shawn McCall, a teacher at Forest Hill, that Respondent had engaged in what McCall characterized as "inappropriate" behavior with respect to another student, S.G. R.H. also relayed to McCall that S.G. had told her that Respondent was having a sexual relationship with another student, C.W. According to McCall, R.H. was emotionally distraught as she relayed this information to McCall. However, the evidence shows that R.H. did not have any personal knowledge regarding any of the matters she reported to McCall; rather, she relayed to him what she had been told by S.G. R.H. did not testify at the final hearing. McCall did not have personal knowledge of any of the matters that R.H. relayed to him. McCall reported the information he had received from R.H. to Dr. Mary Stratos, the principal of Forest Hill. Thereafter, Stratos spoke with R.H., who relayed to her that Respondent "may have been inappropriately touching" S.G. Pursuant to protocol, Stratos contacted the Palm Beach County School Police Department ("School Police"), which conducted an investigation of the matters relayed by R.H. The School Police interviewed students and teachers who witnessed, or may have witnessed, matters germane to the investigation. Stratos did not have personal knowledge of any of the matters about which R.H. told her.7/ As a result of the School Police investigation, Petitioner took action to suspend Respondent without pay for 15 days and to terminate his employment as a teacher. Evidence Regarding Factual Allegations in Petition As discussed above, the Petition does not provide any detail or specificity regarding the type or nature of the "inappropriate" interactions in which Respondent allegedly engaged, or the "inappropriate comments" Respondent allegedly made, with respect to the students in his drama class. From the evidence presented at the final hearing, the undersigned gleans8/ that Petitioner has charged Respondent with making sexually-suggestive comments and jokes to, and making verbal sexual advances toward, students in his classes and in drama club; making physical sexual advances toward three students9/; and having a sexual relationship with one10/ of those students.11/ Student S.G. S.G., a former student in Respondent's drama classes, testified at the final hearing. S.G. was a student in Respondent's drama classes in the 2013-14 school year, when he was a junior, and the 2014-15 school year, when he was a senior. S.G. also was a member of the drama club for all of his junior year and part of his senior year. S.G. testified that Respondent engaged in verbal and physical sexual advances toward him during both years in which he was a student in Respondent's classes and was a member of the drama club. Specifically, S.G. testified that during both years, Respondent would constantly ask him how large his penis was in front of the entire class, loudly enough for others to hear. He also testified that Respondent would comment on his appearance openly in class, telling him that he looked "cute," and that Respondent would frequently look at him in a sexually-suggestive manner while biting his lower lip and sticking out his tongue. S.G. also testified that during both years, during drama class and in drama club rehearsals, Respondent often would get very close to his face, sniff his neck, and try to kiss him. On cross-examination, S.G. characterized the frequency of Respondent's attempts to kiss him and sniff his neck as occurring "daily" or "every other day, at least." Also on cross- examination, S.G. asserted that Respondent's behavior was open and obvious "to everyone," including to persons passing in the hallway when Respondent engaged in such conduct while standing in the doorway of his classroom. S.G. also testified that during his junior year, Respondent sniffed his neck and bit his nipple as he and another student were moving a platform from center stage following a drama club rehearsal. According to S.G., the other student moving the platform was the only witness (other than Respondent) to the incident. That student did not testify at the final hearing. Additionally, S.G. testified that during his senior year, Respondent "cupped" his genitals on one occasion12/ as he held the auditorium door for female drama club students, and that after this incident, he quit participating in the drama club. S.G. testified that he heard Respondent frequently make sexual comments to students R.C. and C.W. in drama class and during drama club rehearsals, and he often saw Respondent try to kiss students R.C. and C.W. S.G. testified that Respondent engaged in this conduct frequently, in front of everyone in drama class and during drama club rehearsals. S.G. also testified that he heard Respondent and C.W. exchange sexual jokes, engage in sexually explicit discussions, and call each other "pet" names "all the time." Additionally, S.G. testified that one day, he saw Respondent and C.W. come to a pep rally "together" and sit together, and also that they were "just together constantly." On these bases, he surmised that Respondent and C.W. were engaged in a sexual relationship. S.G. testified that he did not report Respondent's conduct to anyone because he was embarrassed and thought that no one would believe him because Respondent was a popular teacher. He also testified that he was concerned that if he reported Respondent's conduct, school authorities would find out that he was attending Forest Hill instead of the school (Wellington) for which his actual place of residence was zoned. When asked why he chose to take a second year of Respondent's drama class after Respondent purportedly had engaged in the conduct that he claimed, S.G. testified that he took the drama course in his senior year because it was an easy class in which you could get an A just for attending, that Respondent was a very lax teacher who let students play on their phones, and that some of his friends were in the class. On or about March 5, 2015, S.G. told R.H. that Respondent had made verbal and physical sexual advances toward him and that Respondent was engaged in a sexual relationship with C.W. As discussed above, R.H. relayed this information to McCall, who relayed it to Stratos. Shortly thereafter, the investigation leading to this proceeding was initiated. Student R.C. As previously discussed, student R.C.'s deposition was admitted into evidence when R.C. did not appear to testify at the final hearing despite having been subpoenaed by Petitioner.13/ R.C. was a student in Respondent's drama class in his freshman and sophomore years and was a member of the drama club. R.C. initially testified that he had heard Respondent make "homosexual jokes," but then clarified that Respondent would, on occasion, compliment students, saying things like "you look nice today." R.C. testified that he had heard Respondent and C.W. engaged in "homosexual jabber," but was unable to recall anything specific that he had heard Respondent and C.W. say to each other that constituted "homosexual jabber." R.C. testified that S.G. had told him, in passing, that Respondent engaged in "homosexual jokes" with him and that S.G. was upset about it; however, R.C. testified that S.G. was mostly upset because Respondent gave preference to C.W. in assigning roles in the drama club plays. R.C. testified that S.G. felt that Respondent treated him unfairly by not giving him a more prominent role in a play being produced by the drama club, and that S.G. would become upset if Respondent corrected him on stage during rehearsals. R.C. also testified that S.G. told him that Respondent had tried to kiss him (S.G.), but that again, it was in passing, and that S.G. mainly vented about how he was upset about learning lines in drama class. R.C. testified that once during class, he had gone to Respondent with a personal issue, and that after Respondent listened and talked with him, Respondent tried to kiss him. However, R.C. subsequently clarified that Respondent had actually blown a kiss in a theatrical manner in R.C.'s direction as he went back to his seat. R.C. stated that he had never had a problem with Respondent and that he liked him as a teacher. Student C. W. C.W. was a student in Respondent's drama class in his junior and senior years of high school, and also served as Respondent's teacher's aide in his senior year. He also was a member of the drama club in his junior and senior years. In high school, C.W. aspired to be an actor. He is majoring in theater in college. While in high school, Respondent functioned as C.W.'s mentor and would coach him on acting techniques after school, either in his classroom or in the auditorium. C.W. credibly testified that Respondent did not charge him for the tutoring, and that he never paid Respondent for tutoring. C.W. credibly testified that his relationship with Respondent was strictly professional and related to acting. C.W. credibly testified that he and Respondent did not have a personal relationship; that neither had visited each other's house; that they did not date; that Respondent had not made any sexual advances toward him or tried to kiss him; and that Respondent had never done anything to make him feel uncomfortable. C.W. also credibly testified that he and Respondent did not engage in sexual discussions and did not call each other pet names. C.W. confirmed that he had talked to Respondent at a school pep rally. Specifically, C.W. arrived at the pep rally separately and sought Respondent out, because, as C.W. put it, "I'd rather spend my time talking to him, if I could, about acting or something whenever I could instead of just watching a pep rally." C.W. testified that he stood, not sat, next to Respondent during the pep rally. C.W. credibly testified that during his time as a student and teacher's aide in Respondent's classes and during drama club rehearsals, he never heard Respondent make inappropriate comments toward, engage in sexual discussions with, make verbal sexual advances toward, or otherwise engage in inappropriate conduct directed toward S.G., R.C., or any other students. He also never saw Respondent sniff any student's neck or embrace any student. C.W. also credibly testified that during Respondent's classes, students were required to be engaged in school work related to theater and were not allowed to use their phones. To that point, C.W. noted that Respondent often would confiscate phones if the use of them was "getting out of hand." C.W. also credibly testified that Respondent did not curse or participate in sexual joke-telling or banter, that he would not tolerate students making sexual jokes or cursing in his class, and that he would threaten discipline if they engaged in such conduct. Student I.D. I.D. was a student in Respondent's classes in her sophomore, junior, and senior years of high school, and she also served as Respondent's teacher's aide. She also was a member of the drama club. In her junior year, she was in drama class with S.G., who also was a junior that year. I.D. credibly testified that she had never seen Respondent act inappropriately toward S.G. She never saw Respondent try to kiss S.G. or get close to his face, nor did she ever see Respondent make overtures to any students in his class or in the drama club. She also testified, credibly, that she never saw any conduct by Respondent directed toward C.W. that suggested a personal relationship between Respondent and C.W. Student V.A. V.A. was a student in Respondent's classes. She took four classes from him while attending Forest Hill. During her junior and senior years, she took drama classes from Respondent. During both years, S.G. also was a student in those classes. V.A. credibly testified that she sat close enough to S.G. and Respondent to hear conversations between them, and that she never heard Respondent ask about S.G.'s penis size. She never saw Respondent try to kiss S.G., embrace him or smell his neck, or otherwise engage in any inappropriate conduct toward him, and she never saw Respondent make any sexual advances toward any other students, including R.C. and C.W., in the classroom. Likewise, she never saw Respondent make sexual advances or otherwise engage in inappropriate conduct, or make inappropriate comments, directed toward S.G., R.C., C.W., or any other students in the drama club. V.A. was friends with C.W. She credibly testified that she often was present when C.W. and Respondent were together and that she never heard them call each other pet names. Through her friendship with C.W. and her frequent interactions with Respondent and C.W., she did not believe that Respondent was any closer to C.W. than he was to other students in the class. V.A. also credibly testified that while in Respondent's classes, students always were engaged in classwork, were not allowed to sit around and play on their phones, and, in fact, were not permitted to have their phones out during Respondent's classes. Respondent Respondent credibly testified that he did not have a sexual interest in S.G. or C.W. He also credibly testified that he never tried to kiss S.G., R.C., or C.W. He credibly denied having ever groped S.G., and he also credibly denied having bitten S.G. He denied having ever embraced any students or having smelled their necks. Respondent credibly testified that he did not make sexual comments toward S.G., and he credibly denied having asked or joked about the size of S.G.'s penis or that of any other student. Respondent tutored C.W. in theater after school, and he credibly testified that he was not paid for it. He also credibly testified that he did not call C.W. by pet names, and he credibly denied having anything other than a teacher-student academic mentoring relationship with C.W. Clear and Convincing Evidentiary Standard As discussed in greater detail below, the clear and convincing evidentiary standard applies to this proceeding. This burden requires that: [T]he evidence must be found to be credible; the facts to which the witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered; the testimony must be precise and explicit and the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue. The evidence must be of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. In re Davey, 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994). Findings Regarding Alleged Sexual Comments, Jokes, and Verbal Sexual Advances Toward Students Petitioner has not shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent made sexual comments to, engaged in sexual jokes with, or made verbal sexual advances toward students in his drama classes or in the drama club. S.G.'s testimony that Respondent constantly asked him how large his penis was and also made similar comments to R.C. and S.G.——frequently, loudly, and openly in class, where others could hear——during both years in which he was a student in Respondent's drama class, was not credible. Not only did no other witness corroborate S.G.'s testimony, but the testimony of C.W., I.D., and V.A. flatly contradicted it. Those witnesses——who were students in Respondent's class, and, thus, in a position to hear and see any "constant," loud comments of a sexual nature——credibly and persuasively testified that they never heard Respondent make sexual comments, tell sexual jokes, or make verbal sexual advances to any members of the class, including S.G. Had Respondent made these comments——particularly in the loud, frequent, open, and obvious manner to which S.G. testified——it is highly likely that these students would have heard them; yet all consistently and credibly denied having ever heard them. Although R.C. initially testified that he heard Respondent make "homosexual" comments, he subsequently clarified that Respondent simply occasionally complimented students on their appearance. Additionally, although R.C. claimed to have heard Respondent and C.W. engage in "homosexual jabber," he was unable to specifically articulate anything that either Respondent or C.W. said that was, or could be considered, sexual or "homosexual" in nature. Additionally, Respondent credibly and persuasively denied having made sexual comments to, engaged in sexual jokes with, or engaged in verbal sexual advances toward S.G. or any other student in his class or in the drama club. The undersigned finds the testimony of C.W., I.D., V.A., and Respondent on these allegations credible and persuasive, while finding S.G.'s testimony incredible and unpersuasive. Further, R.C.'s testimony regarding hearing Respondent make "homosexual jokes" and engage in "homosexual jabber" was not precise, explicit, or distinctly remembered; rather, it was equivocal and non-specific. In sum, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent made sexual comments or jokes to, or made verbal sexual advances toward, the students in his drama classes and in the drama club. Findings Regarding Alleged Physical Sexual Advances toward Students The undersigned also finds incredible and unpersuasive S.G.'s testimony that Respondent would get close to his face, sniff his neck, and try to kiss him, and that Respondent engaged in similar conduct toward C.W. and R.C. S.G. testified that Respondent directed this conduct toward him openly and obviously to everyone, on an almost daily basis. However, C.W., I.D., and V.A.——all of whom were in the drama class, drama club, or both, so were in a position to observe any such behavior——all unequivocally testified that they had never observed Respondent engage in any of those actions toward S.G. or any other students. Again, had Respondent engaged in this conduct——particularly in the loud, frequent, open, and obvious manner to which S.G. testified——it is highly likely that these students would have seen that conduct; yet, all persuasively and credibly testified that they never saw Respondent engage in such conduct. S.G. also testified that on one occasion, Respondent bit him on the nipple, and that one other student (who did not testify at the final hearing) witnessed it. Respondent credibly denied having engaged in this behavior. The undersigned does not find S.G.'s testimony on this point credible or persuasive. To the contrary, the undersigned finds it far more likely that, had Respondent engaged in such behavior, S.G. would have told his mother, school authorities, or other students——and, most important——would not have voluntarily taken another drama class from Respondent the following year.14/ Furthermore, the undersigned finds Respondent's testimony that he did not bite S.G.'s nipple credible and persuasive. S.G. also testified at the hearing that on one occasion during his senior year, Respondent had purposely groped his genitals. However, in his sworn statement made during the School Police investigation, S.G. stated that Respondent had "constantly" tried to kiss him and grab him in his "private area," and that Respondent had grabbed his genitals on more than one occasion——the latest occasion as recently as a week before S.G. was interviewed as part of the investigation. S.G.'s hearing testimony is patently inconsistent with his sworn statement on a material detail——i.e., the frequency with which he claims Respondent grabbed or attempted to grab his genitals. This inconsistency bears directly on S.G.'s credibility as a witness. Due to this obvious inconsistency on a key detail——one which cannot credibly be explained to mistake or lapse of memory——S.G.'s testimony that Respondent grabbed his genitals is deemed incredible and unpersuasive. Further, the undersigned finds credible and persuasive Respondent's testimony that he did not ever grab S.G.'s genitals. Although R.C. initially testified that Respondent tried to kiss him, he subsequently clarified that Respondent had, in fact, blown a "theatrical kiss" toward him as he returned to his seat after they had engaged in a discussion. This testimony does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent made a sexual advance toward R.C. In sum, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent made physical sexual advances toward S.G., R.C., C.W., or any other students in his drama class or in the drama club. Findings Regarding Alleged Sexual Relationship with Student The credible, persuasive evidence does not show that Respondent engaged in a sexual relationship with C.W. S.G.'s testimony that he heard Respondent and C.W. engage in sexually explicit discussions, exchange sexual jokes, and call each other pet names "all the time" was directly contradicted by the credible, persuasive testimony of C.W. and Respondent, both of whom denied engaging in such conduct. Furthermore, I.D. and V.A.——both of whom were in Respondent's classes and in the drama club, so were often around both Respondent and C.W.——persuasively and credibly testified that they never heard Respondent and C.W. engage in sexually explicit discussions, exchange sexual jokes, call each other pet names, or otherwise engage in inappropriate verbal or physical conduct toward each other. Additionally, as previously discussed, although R.C. claimed to have heard Respondent and C.W. engage in "homosexual jabber," he was not able to specifically articulate anything that Respondent or C.W. said to each other that was, or could be considered, sexual or "homosexual" in nature. The fact that Respondent and C.W. stood (or even sat) next to each other and talked to each other during a school pep rally——and that, consequently, S.G. and R.C. perceived them as a "couple"——is of no probative value in proving the existence of a sexual relationship between Respondent and C.W.15/ Indeed, the undersigned finds completely credible and persuasive C.W.'s testimony that he had gone to the pep rally separately, and found Respondent and stood by him specifically to talk to him about acting instead of watching the pep rally. Respondent and C.W. both credibly and persuasively denied being involved in a sexual relationship, engaging in sexual jokes with each other, or calling each other pet names. The evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent engaged in a sexual relationship with C.W. Findings of Ultimate Fact It is well-established in Florida law that whether charged conduct constitutes a deviation from a standard of conduct established by rule or statute is a question of fact to be decided by the trier of fact, considering the testimony and evidence in the context of the alleged violation. Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Holmes v. Turlington, 480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). See also McKinney v. Castor, 667 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); MacMillan v. Nassau Cnty. Sch. Bd., 629 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Accordingly, whether alleged conduct violates the laws, rules, and policies set forth in the charging document is a factual, not legal, determination. For the reasons addressed in detail above, the competent substantial evidence in the record does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent engaged in any of the conduct with which he was charged in the Petition. Therefore, the undersigned finds, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent did not violate the following rules and policies, as charged in the Petition: Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-5.056(2), 6A-10.080(2), and 6A- 10.081(3); School Board Policy 0.01(2), (3), (4) and (6); School Board Policy 1.013(1); School Board Policy 3.02(4)(a), (b), (d), (e) and (5)(a); and School Board Policy 5.81(10)(c).16/ Accordingly, the undersigned finds, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Petitioner did not show, by clear and convincing evidence, that there is just cause, as defined in section 1012.33(1)(a), to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate his employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondent, reinstating his employment as a teacher, and awarding him back pay to the date on which he was first suspended without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 24th day of April, 2017.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner terminated Respondent's annual contract as a teacher for just cause.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner hired Respondent, an inexperienced teacher who had recently graduated from college, and assigned him to teach and serve as an assistant basketball coach at Dixie Hollins High School during the 2000-01 school year. For the 2001-02 school year, Petitioner reassigned Respondent to Tarpon Springs High School, where Respondent assumed the duties of head basketball coach. During both school years, Respondent was on annual contract. Initially, an administrator at Tarpon Springs High School informed Respondent that he would teach American history and economics, which are the subjects that he had taught at Dixie Hollins High School. When Respondent reported for duty at Tarpon Springs High School, administrators did not give him a schedule until a couple of days before classes started. At that time, Respondent learned that, during the first quarter, he was to teach counseling and personal fitness, neither of which he had taught before. He also learned that, the following quarter, he was to teach Freshman Experience, which was a relatively new course, and personal fitness. In the third quarter, he was due to teach earth-space science in place of personal fitness. At least for the first two quarters, Respondent was assigned students in the GOALS program, which is designed for students who have not made substantial academic progress due to social problems. In this program, the students take only four classes per quarter. Each class runs one hour and forty-five minutes, five days weekly. Respondent had difficulties assembling materials for the peer counseling course. Teachers who had previously taught the course were not available. Extensive renovations at the school made it difficult to locate materials for this and other courses. Respondent finally visited a teacher at another school and obtained books, guides, and tests for peer counseling. These materials advised Respondent to help the students learn to settle their disputes peaceably without adult intervention and suggested that the teacher supplement the book with relevant movies dealing with peer pressures, conflict, and social issues. Respondent experienced similar difficulties with the personal fitness course, for which he had books, but no teacher edition or worksheets. However, Respondent's background in athletics presumably prepared him to teach this course. Although Respondent voiced similar complaints about Freshman Experience, he had a quarter to try to obtain materials. Also, no one else at the school had any experience with this course, which the District had abruptly required the high schools to teach. Similar to peer counseling, Freshman Experience is a motivational course that also covers personal and academic issues, as revealed by the titles of the required books, Chicken Soup for the Soul and Ten Steps for How To Manage Time. The seven charges listed in the Preliminary Statement fall into four groups. Charges 1 and 2 are the most serious; they allege that Respondent kissed two students and touched the vaginal area of one of these students. Charges 3 and 4 are also sexual in nature; they allege that Respondent made inappropriate comments to female students about their appearance and inappropriate sexual comments to or in front of students. Charges 5 and 6 pertain to classroom management; they allege that Respondent allowed students to come to his classroom for no legitimate purpose and encouraged students to leave campus to get him food. Charges 7-9 pertain to curriculum, administration, and instruction; they allege that Respondent used noncurriculum-related materials (such as videos), lacked appropriate recordkeeping, and lacked appropriate classroom instruction. Petitioner wisely dropped Charges 6, 8, and 9. No evidence in the record supported these allegations prior to Petitioner's announcement that it was not pursuing these allegations. Charges 5 and 7 require little more analysis. The evidence supports neither of these allegations. Concerning Charge 5, unenrolled students visiting Respondent's classroom included basketball players. While Respondent remained the basketball coach, these players briefly visited the room from time to time to discuss something about the basketball program. Petitioner did not show the extent of these visits or that they were illegitimate. Unenrolled students who were not participating in the basketball program infrequently visited Respondent's classroom. Although the principal testified that one of his assistant principals told him that there was a problem with unenrolled students visiting Respondent's classroom, he added that she rejected his offer to talk to Respondent and said she would handle it. After that conversation between the principal and assistant principal, the principal said the problem was eliminated. Interestingly, though, neither the assistant principal nor anyone else ever talked to Respondent about this issue, which appears not to have loomed large at the time. Concerning Charge 7, Petitioner never proved the rating of any of the films mentioned during the hearing as shown in Petitioner's classroom. Films mentioned during the hearing as shown in one of Respondent's classes include With Honors, Rudy (shown repeatedly), Finding Forrestor, Saving Private Ryan, The Hurricane, [The Mask of] Zorro, and assorted basketball videotapes. The record reflects disagreement among Petitioner's administrators as to the policy concerning the application of the District policy regarding R-rated films. According to the representative of the Office of Professional Standards, The Patriot (apparently an R-rated film) "could" violate this policy, but, according to the principal, who is now handling workforce development in the District office, The Patriot "probably" would not be a problem. Even if The Patriot were a problem, as an R-rated film, it would be so only if Respondent had not obtained permission slips from parents to show this and perhaps other R- rated films. Respondent testified that he did so. Notwithstanding the testimony of one student to the contrary, Petitioner never proved that Respondent failed to obtain permission slips. The issue of the relationship, if any, between the films and the courses fails because Petitioner failed to prove the contents of the films or to prove adequately the prescribed content of the courses, so as to permit a finding that the films were irrelevant to the courses. The broad outlines of peer counseling in particular, at least as established in this record, would appear to accommodate a vast array of films. A sufficient number of students testified in sufficient detail to a broad array of bookwork, class discussion, and other instructional and assessment methods in both peer counseling and Freshman Counseling to overcome whatever proof that Petitioner offered in support of Charge 7. The crux of this case lies in the charges involving sexual improprieties, as alleged in Charges 1-4. The quality of proof was considerably different between Charges 1 and 2, on the one hand, and Charges 3 and 4, on the other hand. Analyzing Charges 3 and 4 first may help explain the findings as to Charges 1 and 2. Concerning Charges 3 and 4, Petitioner proved that Respondent made numerous inappropriate comments to female students, of a sexual nature, that understandably made the students feel uncomfortable. Respondent directed three of these comments and one behavior to T. R., a junior. While walking around the track during the personal fitness class that T. R. was taking from Respondent, he asked her what she thought of a 26-year-old dating an 18-year-old. T. R. was either 18 years old or Respondent implied that the dating would await her 18th birthday; either way, T. R. reasonably believed that Respondent meant her. Although actually 29 or 30 years old at the time, Respondent typically told his students that he was only 26 years old, so T. R. reasonably believed that Respondent meant him. T. R. was so uncomfortable with this question that she mentioned it to a female teacher at the school, Cheryl Marks- Satinoff. Thoughtfully considering the matter, Ms. Marks- Satinoff found that the question was "odd," but not "extremely inappropriate" and "on the fence." Ms. Marks-Satinoff's characterization of the question, in isolation, is fair. In the context of other comments to T. R. and other female students during the relatively short period of two school quarters--little else, if any, of which was Ms. Marks-Satinoff was then aware--the comment acquires its proper characterization. To T. R., Respondent also said, "If I were still in high school, I'd be climbing in your window at night." T. R. was "shocked" by this comment, but her mother or stepmother, when told by T. R. about the comment--again, in isolation--did not attach much importance to it. On another occasion, when a female student asked why T. R.'s grade was better than D. P.'s grade, Respondent replied, "T. R. and I have an agreement." While taking Respondent for personal fitness, T. R. found Respondent staring at her repeatedly. Accordingly, T. R. switched from stretch pants to baggies. T. R.'s testimony is credible. She spoke with adults about two of the comments roughly at the time that they were made. Also, T. R. bore no grudge against Respondent. She said that she did not think twice about the dating comment, although she obviously gave it enough thought to raise it with Ms. Marks- Satinoff. T. R. freely admitted that Respondent made the comment about crawling into her window in a joking manner. She discredited D. P., who is the alleged victim of the most serious sexual incident, discussed below, as a person who always lies, convincingly. T. R. added that D. P. told her once that Respondent "tried" to kiss her and put his hand up her skirt and did not understand why D. P. confided in her initially. T. R. testified that she never heard Respondent do or say anything inappropriate in the personal fitness class that she took with D. P. T. R. testified that Respondent made her and her friends leave if they disturbed his class the few times they got out of their assigned class to visit his office and watch movies. T. R. described another female student, B. H., who testified to several inappropriate comments made by Respondent, as someone who "likes to stir the pot." To A. T., an 18-year-old who graduated from Tarpon Springs High School in June 2002, Respondent alluded to the size of her breasts, in front of the class, and used his hands to frame them. Although done in connection with a warning that A. T. was violating the school dress code due to the revealing nature of her shirt, Respondent delivered this warning in a sexual manner that was obviously unnecessary for the purpose of reminding the student to conform to the dress code. A. T. testified that she liked Respondent as a teacher, but he made her uncomfortable, and he should be more a teacher than a friend. Like T. R., A. T. seemed not to bear any negative feelings toward Respondent, but instead merely seemed to be describing an insensitive incident as it happened. To N. S., a junior at the time, Respondent said, upon learning that she had surgically implanted rods in her back, that he wanted to have sex with her. N. S. testified that she was not bothered by the remark. N. S.'s testimony is credited. She was friendly toward Respondent and had long dated Respondent's teacher assistant. To A. M., Respondent said that she looked pretty and could get any guy she wanted. A. M.'s testimony is credited. She did not have much interaction with Respondent and was not part of any group interested in causing him trouble. She seems simply to have truthfully reported an ill-advised comment that Respondent made to her, although she did not describe her reaction to the comment. To L. D., Respondent said that he had a bracelet of hers that she had lent him and that, whenever he looked at it, it reminded him of her. L. D. felt uncomfortable about this remark. L. D. also testified that Respondent sometimes tried to get the boys to treat the girls with respect, and her testimony is credited. Other witnesses, especially D. P. and B. H., described other comments, but their credibility is poor, and their testimony cannot be credited. The demeanor of two witnesses favorable to Respondent revealed something bordering on exasperation with him, even as they testified that he never said anything sexually inappropriate in class. The demeanor of each witness was consistent with someone who believed that Respondent was only joking around in class, when making sexually charged comments, and had suffered more than enough due to the consequences of lies told by two female students, as described below. In isolation, the comment about having sex with a student with orthopedic rods in her back is sexually offensive, as is the sexual comment and gesture framing a female student's breasts is sexually offensive. The comments about the agreement between T. R. and Respondent, the bracelet reminding Respondent of L. D., and A. M. being able to sufficiently pretty to get any boy are not sexually offensive, in isolation, but, even in isolation, betray a tendency by Respondent to regard certain of his female students as females more than students. With the exception of the comment to A. M., all of the comments, gesture, and behavior, in the aggregate during a relatively short period of time, depict a transformation by Respondent of the relationship between a teacher and several of his students to a more ambiguous relationship, at times resembling the relationship that might exist between these girls and the boys with whom they attended high school. Nearly all of these incidents embarrassed the female students; all of them, except perhaps A. M., reasonably should have been embarrassed by them. Several of these incidents suggest that Respondent regarded these female students as available for him in some role other than that of student--for instance, as females with whom to flirt. Petitioner has proved that Respondent exploited these female students, with the possible exception of A. M., for personal gain. This characterization of these comments, gesture, and behavior is confirmed by Respondent's implausible assertion that all of these students, except N. S., are lying. If confident that the comments, gesture, and behavior were innocuous or at least not improper, Respondent could have gained credibility by admitting these incidents and explaining their innocence. With one exception, Petitioner has not proved that Respondent sexually harassed or discriminated against his female students or these students in particular. The record does not suggest any quid pro quo in the sexual incidents, although the agreement with T. R. approaches the type of proof required. Nor does the record suggest that the sexual commentary, gesturing, or behavior were so pervasive as to create a hostile environment. Two students, N. S., A. M., and L. D., were each the subject of a single comment. One student, A. T., was the subject of a single incident, which consisted of a comment and gesture. On this record, Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent's treatment of these students rose to harassment or discrimination of them or of his female students in general. However, Respondent's treatment of T. R. rose to harassment and sexual discrimination because he made three sexually inappropriate comments and engaged in one sexually inappropriate behavior that caused her to alter her mode of dress. Respondent implicitly asked her to think about dating him--now or later--with the comment about a 26-year-old dating an 18-year-old. Respondent implicitly identified the possibility of their having sex with the comment about climbing in her window. Respondent alluded to the possibility of sex between T. R., a student, and himself, a teacher with the power of the grade, with the comment about her grade resulting from an agreement. And Respondent leered at T. R. sufficiently to cause her to change her workout clothes. In partial mitigation of the sexual comments, gesture, and behavior, but not the harassment or discrimination, no one seems to have provided Respondent with any timely feedback on this manner of interacting with certain female students. The only reports to adults seem to have been of isolated comments. In addition to the two reports noted above, a male student reported inappropriate comments, midway through the first quarter, to the teacher who was head of GOALS. Although the teacher did not describe the inappropriate comments, she said that she talked only to the two female students involved and evidently decided that the matter was not sufficiently important to discuss with Respondent or the administration. As noted above, Ms. Marks-Satinoff learned from T. R. of a borderline inappropriate comment. Sometime later, in January, she spoke briefly with Respondent and advised him to watch inappropriate comments. This marks the only feedback, and it was too late to alter the course of events. However, for the same reason that this lack of feedback does not mitigate at all the harassment and discrimination involving T. R., the value of this mitigation is largely undermined by the fact that the knowledge of the need to refrain from improper personal references to students is not granted only to the most experienced teachers or administrators. Perhaps Respondent was not fully aware that his comments, gesture, and behavior were sexually charged and did not realize the effects of these comments, gesture, and behavior on his students, as some teachers may not be fully aware of their sarcasm and its effect on their students. However, Respondent, as a teacher, remains responsible for determining the effect of his interaction upon his students and ultimately must bear the consequences if he fails to identify the problem. D. P. is the complainant in Charge 1. She was born in September 1984 and was a senior during the 2001-02 school year. Respondent taught her peer counseling during the first quarter and personal fitness during the second quarter. D. P. testified that on Monday, January 14, 2002, she approached Respondent to ask if she could exempt a final exam. She testified that he said to return after lunch. When she did, she testified that they met in his office where he kissed her and moved his hand up her leg until he digitally penetrated her vagina. D. P.'s testimony is unbelievable for several reasons. First, two different students testified that they heard her say that she would get Respondent into trouble. One of the students testified that he heard her say this immediately after an argument D. P. had with Respondent over absences and tardies. D. P. was upset with Respondent because her numerous absences and tardies prevented him from exempting her from the final examination in his class. D. P. did not tell anyone of the alleged incident until immediately after she found that she could not obtain an exam exemption from Respondent. Second, D. P.'s testimony is unusually inconsistent with other statements that she has given. Some inconsistencies are not fatal to credibility, but the number and importance of inconsistencies in her testimony and statements preclude a finding of credibility. Numerous material discrepancies exist between D. P.'s testimony at the hearing and her testimony in a prehearing deposition. Other discrepancies exist between her testimony at the hearing and earlier statements given to law- enforcement officers or made to others. These discrepancies include differences of two hours as to when during the day the incident occurred and one day as to which day on which it occurred. D. P.'s implausible implication is often that the persons taking down her version of events made a mistake. Third, D. P.'s testimony is improbable. First, Respondent was aware of the investigation into his dealings with female students by the morning of January 14. The investigation was already underway by the end of the prior week. For instance, D. P. had given her first statement on January 11. It is unlikely that Respondent would engage in such egregious sexual abuse of a student while he knew that he was under investigation. Second, Respondent's teacher assistant testified that he was in the office during the entire time that the incident supposedly would have taken place, and he never saw D. P. Fourth, D. P. has a poor reputation for honesty among her peers who know her well. D. P. testified that she told several persons about the sexual abuse, but they all denied such conversations. At one point during her testimony, she stated that everyone at school had his or her own opinion concerning rumors as to with which student Respondent was accused of having an improper relationship. As she testified, D. P. seemed clearly to have relished the attention that she had gained by making the charge. S. Y. is the complainant in Charge 2. S. Y. was born in April 1987 and was a sophomore during the 2001-02 school year. She was a student of Respondent. She testified that Respondent taught her Freshman Experience during the third quarter, although she was not a freshman and Respondent did not teach very long into the third quarter before he was terminated, as described below. S. Y. testified that Respondent kissed her one day while they were alone in his office. A number of reasons exist that undermine the credibility of this assertion. First, S. Y.'s testimony is also unusually inconsistent with other statements that she has given. At different times, she has attested that the kiss occurred between Thanksgiving and Christmas, before Thanksgiving, and in January. Second, S. Y.'s timing in reporting the kiss is suspect. First, three times she told investigators nothing about a kiss. Second, she reported the kiss only after she knew that D. P. had accused Respondent of sexual improprieties. S. Y. admitted that emotions were running "sky high" at the time. Unlike D. P., who did not like Respondent, S. Y. liked him, at one time even having a crush on him. S. Y. appeared capable of jealousy regarding her feelings about Respondent, as evidenced by the following facts. Third, S. Y. reported the kiss immediately after he referred her to the office for abruptly interrupting his class and loudly demanding that he tell her who else he was "fucking." Although she denied knowledge that Respondent was having sexual intercourse with any students, including herself, S. Y. admitted that the referral prompted her to report the kiss to an investigator. Fourth, S. Y. engaged in embellishment concerning her relationship with Respondent, as would be consistent with a fantasy attachment to him. Although S. Y. implausibly denied it, she told Ms. Marks-Satinoff that she had been to Respondent's home, which was in a poor section of Clearwater. Respondent's home is not in a poor section of Clearwater. S. Y. also has said that Respondent proposed that she and another girl perform in a porn movie that he would make. The reality is either that she proposed it to Respondent, who told her never to suggest such a thing again, or that a former boyfriend proposed the porn movie--without Respondent's involvement. For the reasons listed above, it is impossible to credit the testimony of D. P. or S. Y. that Respondent sexually abused them. Although the presence of multiple accusations of this type may sometimes be indicative of their reliability, they are more likely due to Respondent's sexual banter and flirtation and repeated failure to maintain appropriate boundaries between the professional and the personal. Both D. P. and S. Y. were doubtlessly aware of Respondent's tendencies in this regard, and, from this sexually charged atmosphere, which Respondent himself had helped create, they struck back at Respondent by making sexual allegations. D. P. chose to strike out at Respondent for not granting her an exemption to which she was not entitled, and S. Y. chose to strike out at Respondent for referring her to the office and not meeting the unrealistic expectations that she and her infatuation on Respondent had generated. Shortly after D. P. and possibly S. Y.'s charges emerged, law enforcement officers arrested Respondent, who remained in jail for nine days. In June 2002, the state attorney's office dropped the charges, although D. P. testified at the hearing that she intended to sue Respondent and Petitioner. Petitioner then terminated Respondent's employment six weeks prior to the end of the term of his annual contract. A proper penalty must reflect the nature of the offense and its impact on the students. Some students who were the subject of improper comments, gesture, and behavior denied embarrassment. Of those admitting to embarrassment, it does not seem to have been traumatizing or even especially painful. Not entirely without reason, some of the students implied that Respondent had already suffered enough, having been fired and served nine days in jail on accusations that were not established on this record. Also, the mitigation discussed above, as to the failure of authority figures to provide Respondent with timely feedback as to the improper comments, gesture, and behavior, but not harassment and discrimination, plays a role in setting the penalty. Petitioner's representative from the Office of Professional Standards testified that Charges 3 and 4 would suffice to warrant dismissal, depending on the frequency of the improper comments. The improper comments warrant, at most, an unpaid suspension of three days, but the harassment and discrimination involving T. R. warrant a more serious penalty. In the absence of the other sexually inappropriate comments and gesture, the harassment and discrimination involving T. R. probably would warrant a long suspension. However, two facts warrant termination. First, the harassment and discrimination involving T. R. are accompanied by the sexually inappropriate comments and gesture involving the other students. Second, still not grasping the requirements of a professional's proper relationship toward his students, Respondent has continued, implausibly, to deny all of the sexually inappropriate comments, except for an admission of a vague version of the comment about the orthopedic rod in N. S.'s back. By branding these students liars when he himself is lying, Respondent makes the case for Petitioner that termination is the proper remedy.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County School Board enter a final order dismissing Respondent from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 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 13th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Florida Education Center Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Jacqueline M. Spoto, Esquire School Board of Pinellas County 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), 1012.795(1)(f)1, 1012.795(1)(i), and 1012.795(1)(k), Florida Statutes (2002-2005),2 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(e), 6B-1.006(3)(g), and 6B-1.006(3)(i), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Ms. West holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 666407, which covers the area of physical education and is valid through June 30, 2012. She began her teaching career in 1990. At all times pertinent to this case, Ms. West was employed as a physical education teacher at Azalea Middle School in the Pinellas County School District. By Final Order dated February 20, 2004, the Education Practices Commission found Ms. West guilty of violating Subsection 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and 6B-1.006(3)(e), by, among other things, making derogatory remarks to students and disclosing students’ grades without their permission. The Education Practices Commission suspended Ms. West’s educator certificate for the summer session for 2004 and placed her on probation for two years, effective February 20, 2004. The violations for which Ms. West was disciplined occurred while Ms. West was a teacher at Gibbs High School. In an effort to give Ms. West a fresh start, she was administratively transferred from Gibbs High School to Azalea Middle School beginning August 2001. Ms. West was assigned to teach seventh-grade physical education. Connie Kolosey was the seventh-grade assistant principal at Azalea Middle School who was responsible for supervising everything having to do with the seventh grade, including the seventh-grade teachers. The principal at Azalea Middle School received an anonymous letter early in the 2001- 2002 school year complaining that Ms. West was using offensive language and making derogatory remarks to students. About the same time as the arrival of the anonymous letter, Ms. Kolosey became aware that Ms. West was using her cell phone in class to call parents to talk about students’ behavior. Ms. Kolosey met with Ms. West on September 7, 2001, to discuss these issues. Ms. West felt that the anonymous letter came from individuals who were involved in Ms. West’s problems at Gibbs High School. The use of the cell phone was discussed during the conference. Ms. West stated that when she was at Bay Pointe Middle School she had used the cell phone to call parents during class and found it to be an effective way to curb student misbehavior. Ms. West indicated that she would leave the gymnasium and make the cell phone calls in the hallway. Ms. Kolosey explained to Ms. West that the use of cell phones to call parents during class was not appropriate. Students could be embarrassed by having Ms. West discuss their discipline issues in front of the class or in the hallways. Additionally, it was not a safe practice to leave the students in the gymnasium while she went into the hall to make telephone calls. On February 8, 2002, Ms. Kolosey had another conference with Ms. West to discuss accusations which had been made by several students that Ms. West had been making derogatory remarks to them about their physical appearance. Ms. West denied making the comments. During the spring of 2002, the parents of one of Ms. West’s students demanded that their child be removed from Ms. West’s class for comments which Ms. West allegedly made to their child, S.B. Ms. Kolosey investigated the matter and could find no one to corroborate the allegations made by S.B. and her parents. Thus, Ms. Kolosey refused to remove the student from Ms. West’s class. The parents of S.B. continued to request that their child be removed from Ms. West’s class because S.B. had skipped Ms. West’s class, and they felt it was a result of the child having been traumatized by Ms. West’s actions. Ms. Kolosey discussed the issues concerning S.B. She specifically told Ms. West not to bring the issues up to S.B. in a negative way but to attempt to mend her relationship with S.B. On March 12, 2002, Ms. Kolosey received a telephone call from S.B.’s mother again demanding that S.B. be removed from Ms. West’s class. Ms. West had told S.B. in front of S.B.’s classmates that S.B. could not run to Ms. Kolosey about things that were said in private because she was saying it in front of the whole class. Ms. West admitted to Ms. Kolosey that she had made the remarks to S.B. Ms. Kolosey agreed to remove S.B. from Ms. West’s class. On May 16, 2002, Ms. Kolosey; Ms. West; Ms. Andrews, the principal at Azalea Middle School; and Mr. McNeil, a union representative, had a conference to discuss more allegations that Ms. West had made belittling remarks to some of her students. It was suggested to Ms. West that if she needed to discuss a student’s performance or behavior that she take the student aside rather than do it in front of other students. Ms. West was warned that her attitude needed to change and that she could not always say the first thing that came to her mind. During the last semester of the 2001-2002 school year, Ms. West’s daughter was seriously ill, and Ms. West missed a great deal of work because of her parenting responsibilities. The first semester of the 2002-2003 school year, Ms. West was absent most of the time because of her daughter’s illness. Ms. West returned to teach at Azalea Middle School in January 2003. After Ms. West’s return, complaints began to be made to the administration about inappropriate comments that Ms. West was alleged to have made during class. Ms. West denied making the comments. Again, Ms. West was cautioned to think about what she says to the students before she says it. Ms. West was under a great deal of stress during the early part of the second semester of the 2002-2003 school year because of her daughter’s illness. Her daughter passed away in March 2003. In March 2003, Ms. West received a written reprimand from the principal at Azalea Middle School for “failing to interact appropriately with students and making inappropriate remarks to students, and for insubordination in failing to follow a previous directive to refrain from such remarks.” Again, Ms. West was directed to refrain from making inappropriate remarks to students. Ms. Kolosey evaluated Ms. West for the 2002-2003 school year. Ms. West was rated ineffective for her instructional and non-instructional performance. It was noted that Ms. West’s judgment was a serious concern and that the numerous complaints which had been received regarding Ms. West’s negative interactions with students overshadowed an otherwise knowledgeable and organized classroom presentation. Ms. West appealed the evaluation, but the evaluation was upheld. Ms. West felt that Ms. Kolosey was being unfair to her and that she was taking the word of students over Ms. West’s denials. Ms. West felt that because Ms. Kolosey believed the allegations of some of the students, the students somehow felt they were empowered and made even more accusations. In order to give Ms. West another fresh start, Ms. West was transferred to sixth-grade classes for the 2003- 2004 school year. Dan Stevens was assigned as her supervisor, and Ms. Kolosey had no further dealings with complaints regarding Ms. West. Because of the evaluation which Ms. West received at the end of the 2002-2003 school year, she was given a performance improvement plan on August 12, 2003. Among other things, the plan called for Ms. West to “[a]void use of inappropriate comments to students that they may find humiliating or demeaning in nature.” Ms. West was told to “[u]se wait time before responding to students[’] inappropriate behavior” and to “[r]emember to always praise student publicly and to correct them privately.” On August 25, 2003, Mr. Stevens received an email from the Azalea Middle School sixth-grade guidance counselor, advising him that there had been a complaint by a student that Ms. West had disclosed his grade in class without his permission and that the parent of another student, E.M., had called to complain that her daughter’s grade had been revealed to the other students. E.M.’s mother also wrote a letter to Mr. Stevens regarding her allegations that Ms. West was disclosing her daughter’s grades to the class. Because E.M.’s mother felt that Ms. West was acting inappropriately, she refused to allow E.M. to attend Ms. West’s class. On October 7, 2003, a conference was held with Ms. West to discuss the allegations made by E.M.’s mother. Ms. West denied disclosing E.M.’s grade. E.M. was transferred from Ms. West’s class to another class. In late August 2005, J.T., a sixth-grader at Azalea Middle School, was transferred to Ms. West’s health class. On September 2, 2005, J.T. called his stepmother during class and handed the telephone to Ms. West so that she could talk to his stepmother. Ms. West discussed with the stepmother that J.T. had failed a test and that he had not returned the test to her with a signature of one of his parents. This conversation was held during class time and in a manner that the other students could hear Ms. West. Ms. West called L.D. about her son, T.D., during class hours to complain that T.D. was making a failing grade. L.D. could hear students in the background. Ms. West made remarks to students which were disparaging and embarrassing. One remark made by Ms. West to T.J. was, “You must have studied in the dark.” Ms. West had been talking to T.J. about his low grade on a test. T.J. said that he had studied for the test, and Ms. West responded that he must have studied in the dark. Ms. West has also made this comment to other students who had made low grades on tests. Ms. West also told T.J. in front of other classmates to “Take your grow-up pill.” T.J. is small in stature and sensitive about his size. Ms. West denied that she was making a reference to his small size and contends that she was just trying to tell him that he was acting immaturely. Although Ms. West did not intend to make fun of T.J.’s small size, she should have known that such comments could embarrass him. Ms. West made the comment, “Dumb boys make dumb babies” during her health class in the fall of 2005. She contends that she was trying to make the students aware that they should think about the consequences of the decisions that they make in life. Although Ms. West was trying to convey an appropriate message, she chose an inappropriate means to do so. At the final hearing, Ms. West stated that she had made the remark to two girls, who were discussing a particular student. In essence, she referred to the young man as being dumb, which was not appropriate. Based on the numerous complaints that the administration received about Ms. West’s behavior, the Pinellas County School Board made investigations and terminated Ms. West’s employment with the Pinellas County School Board. Both administrators and parents found that Ms. West was an ineffective teacher. Based on the numerous complaints from parents and the necessity to transfer students from Ms. West’s classes to other classes, Ms. West was an ineffective teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Ms. West guilty of violating Subsections 1012.795(1)(f), 1012.795(1)(i), and 1012.795(1)(k), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(e), 6B-1.006(3)(g), and 6B-1.006(3)(i) and suspending Ms. West’s educator’s certificate for three years, followed by a two-year probationary period under terms and conditions set by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Board is the agency charged with the responsibility of operating and supervising the free public schools within the Dade County school district. As such, it is responsible for the discipline of instructional personnel employed by the district. The Education Practices Commission is responsible for the discipline of teachers who hold teaching certification from the Department of Education. At all times material to the issues of these cases, Respondent, Terrice Stevens, teaching certificate number 187207, was employed by the Board and assigned to instruct a fifth grade class at Stirrup Elementary School. Respondent is 48 years of age, has been employed by the Board for 17 or 18 years, and has taught fifth grade at Stirrup for at least 6 years. Respondent holds a bachelors degree from Bethune Cookman College and a masters degree from Nova University. During the 1984-85 school year Respondent had a student named Sasha Petersen assigned to his class. On or about November 2, 1984, Sasha's parents filed a complaint with the school principal against Respondent regarding an incident which had occurred between Sasha and the Respondent. At the end of the school day, Sasha, the last student to leave the classroom, was grabbing her personal belongings and vacating the room when Respondent blocked the doorway and wouldn't allow her to leave. Respondent grabbed Sasha by the waist and told her to give him a kiss if she wanted to leave. In order to expedite her departure, Sasha kissed Respondent on the cheek and exited to go home. She subsequently told her mother of the foregoing and they requested that Sasha be removed from Respondent's class. As a result of the incident with Sasha, on February 13, 1985, Respondent received a written reprimand which included the following instructions: Cease and desist from any physical contact with students in the performance of your duties that may give cause for students and/or adults to question your actions. Cease and desist from any action that would intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Deal with all students and adults in a professional and ethical manner. Maintain a positive classroom climate free from threat or embarrassment in which mutual respect develops between students and teacher. Failure to abide with the above directives will be deemed as insubordination. During the 1988-89 school year students Johanna Diaz and Monique Lafuente were assigned to Respondent's class. During this time, a number of incidents occurred in Respondent's classroom wherein Respondent unnecessarily embarrassed students or touched them inappropriately. On one such occasion, Respondent placed his hand in Johanna's front pocket and touched her breast. This touching was not accidental, nor was it prompted by the student's conduct. Other incidents which occurred included: Respondent's constant referral to female students who sat on the front of their chairs as "Bertha Butt" Respondent's statement to the students that their parents had made a big mistake (referring to the night of their conception) which he wished he could have stopped; Respondent repeatedly told the class that one day he would marry Maria Alcazar (a student in the class); Respondent took a female student (Monique) into a rear workroom on two occasions, hugged her, and attempted to touch her breast; Respondent grabbed a female student by the hips to push her back into her chair; and Respondent accused a student of cheating which embarrassed the student in front of the class. When students advised the Stirrup administration of the activities described above, Respondent was relieved of his classroom assignment. Respondent's explanations regarding the acts and his denial of the incidents were not credible. As a result of the foregoing conduct, Respondent's effectiveness to instruct in the Dade County public schools has been significantly impaired. Respondent failed to abide by the terms of the written reprimand and demonstrated an indifference to his students which resulted in repeated incidents of embarrassment and disparagement for them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a final order dismissing the Respondent from his employment with the public school district. That the Department of Education, Education Practices Commission enter a final order revoking the Respondent's teaching certificate. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE NOS. 89-3668 AND 89-6802 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER, SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA: Paragraph 1 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 2, the first three sentences are accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant or unsupported by the record. Paragraph 3 is accepted in substance. Paragraph 4 is accepted. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are accepted. Paragraph 7 is rejected as cumulative to the findings reached regarding students named Sasha, Johanna, and Monique. Except as listed in findings of fact paragraph 6, paragraph 8 is rejected as cumulative or unnecessary. Except as listed in findings of fact paragraph 6, paragraph 9 is rejected as cumulative, repetitive, or unnecessary. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraph 11 is rejected as recitation of testimony. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER, BETTY CASTOR: Paragraphs 1 through 11 are accepted. Paragraph 12 is rejected as cumulative. Paragraphs 13 through 16 are rejected as cumulative. Paragraph 17 is accepted. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraph 19 is accepted. Paragraph 20 is accepted. Paragraph 21 is rejected as cumulative. Paragraphs 22 through 24 are accepted. Paragraph 25 is rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraph 26 is accepted. To the extent that substantively paragraphs 27 through 28 correctly state the community concern regarding this Respondent they are accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or recitation of testimony. Paragraphs 29 through 31 are rejected as recitation of testimony. It is accepted as fact that Respondent has embarrassed and disparaged students and that such conduct reached a level which demonstrates Respondent's effectiveness in the school and in teaching has been significantly impaired. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence, irrelevant, or supposition not supported by the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank Harder Twin Oaks Building, Suite 100 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Mrs. Madelyn P. Schere Assistant School Board Attorney School Board of Dade County Board Administration Building, Suite 301 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 John A. Rudolph, Jr. HUEY, GUILDAY, KUERSTEINER & TUCKER, P.A. Post Office Box 1794 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William DuFresne DuFRESNE AND BRADLEY 2929 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Martin Schaap, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dade County School Board Paul W. Bell, Superintendent 1444 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 215 Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Roosevelt Harvey (Respondent) held Florida teaching certificate numbered 134571, valid through June 30, 1997. He is certified in the areas of mathematics, junior college, and administrative supervision. He has been employed by the Escambia County School Board for approximately 25 years, and scheduled to retire on August 1, 1991. During the 1987-88 and 1988-89 school years, Respondent was assigned to the Judy Andrews Middle School Center. 1/ In May 1989, Respondent was specifically assigned to assist Marc Brown, a classroom teacher, with maintaining discipline in Brown's classroom. The class was comprised of students with learning difficulties related to behavioral problems and lack of self control. The students had difficulty focusing on and completing tasks, and were often disruptive. On May 18, 1989, Brown's class was particularly disruptive. Respondent was first required to escort one sixth grade student, D. S., to the school dean's office to resolve a disciplinary referral submitted to the dean by Brown on the day before. The student was suspended. However, because there was no transportation available, the suspension was effective the following day and D. S. was returned to Brown's classroom. On May 18, 1989, other students in Brown's classroom were involved in altercations and leaving the classroom without approval. Respondent was subsequently directed to remain outside Brown's classroom and prevent students from leaving the area. Respondent was in the habit of using a double edged shaving razor blade to scrape errant marks off of duplicated copies of various written materials. The blade was not attached to any type of handle. On May 18, 1989, he was using the razor blade to remove stray marks from duplicated "National Geographic" articles which were to be used as part of a school project, while he monitored the hallway outside Brown's classroom. As Respondent stood outside Brown's classroom, the already suspended D. S. approached. Upon Respondent's inquiry, D. S.'s stated that he was on his way to the restroom. D. S. had no written restroom pass and Respondent instructed D. S. to return to the classroom. D. S. approached a second time and inquired about Respondent's razor blade. Respondent held the blade so that D. S. could see it, moved his hand holding the blade up and down vertically and stated, "Do you know what blood is? I'll show you blood." Respondent did not attempt any physical contact with D. S. and did not move towards the student. D. S. reentered the classroom. Some time thereafter, Respondent entered Brown's classroom to ascertain the whereabouts of another student. Upon Respondent's entry into the room, student J. C. approached and inquired about the razor blade. Respondent, otherwise occupied, ignored J. C., who persisted in his efforts to see the blade. Respondent eventually held the blade toward J. C. and stated, "I'm want to see some blood. Do you want to show me some of yours?" J. C. walked away from Respondent. Brown's classroom was in such a disorderly state, that Brown was distracted during the razor blade incidents. He did see student J. C. near the Respondent, and partially overheard Respondent's comment to J. C., but saw nothing that would suggest that the students were threatened by Respondent's behavior. Respondent believed that the students were "playing games" with him during the razor blade incidents. The razor blade was visible while he worked on the articles. He did not intend to harm or embarrass the students. Other than to encourage D. S. to return to the classroom, there is no behavior which directly involved an attempt to discipline a student. Although D. S. testified that he was "starting to get scared", neither D. S. nor J. C. yelled or attempted to run from Respondent. However, Respondent acknowledges that the actions were inappropriate and ill-advised. In 1986, Respondent received a three day suspension without pay from the Escambia County School Board for striking a student. In 1988, Respondent received A ten day suspension without pay from the Escambia County School Board for absences without authorization. Prior to the May, 1989 incident, the Respondent had sought transfer into a regular teaching position. Following the incident, he was suspended with pay from the Judy Andrews Center and then transferred to Pine Forest High School where he returned to classroom teaching. Other than the timing of the transfer, there is no evidence that the reassignment as directly related to the razor blade incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order suspending the teaching certificate of Roosevelt Harvey for a period of one year during which time Mr. Harvey shall be required to complete college-level course work on the subjects of assertive discipline and classroom management, followed by a one year probationary period. It is further recommended that, prior to employment in a classroom situation, Respondent submit to a psychological evaluation, to be supervised by the Education Practices Commission, in order to determine that the Respondent poses no threat of harm to students. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 28th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1991.
The Issue This is a license discipline proceeding in which the Petitioner seeks to have disciplinary action taken against the Respondent on the basis of alleged acts of misconduct set forth in an Administrative Complaint. In the six-count Administrative Complaint it is charged that the Respondent violated three specific statutory provisions and three specific rule provisions.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 355910, covering the areas of Spanish, Supervision, and Social Science, which is valid through June 30, 2002. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed as a Social Studies teacher at Hammocks Middle School in the Miami-Dade County School District. The Respondent first became employed as a teacher at the Hammocks Middle School on or about 1984. At Hammocks Middle School the Respondent taught sixth, seventh, and eighth grade American History. He also taught Geography to sixth graders as part of the Bilingual Content Curriculum Program. As of April 1999, the Respondent had been employed by Miami-Dade County Public Schools for approximately twenty-five years. The Respondent had never been the subject of any disciplinary action by his employer or by the Education Practices Commission at any time prior to April 1999. The Respondent has been a naturist since approximately 1971. The Respondent belongs to a local naturist organization and subscribes to naturist publications. On April 26, 1999, between 7:00 a.m. and 7:30 a.m., before the start of the school day and while there were no students in his classroom, the Respondent executed an Internet search by typing the word "naturism" into the search engine on his school-provided computer. Of the several "hits" resulting from the search, a website entitled Forste side af ialt 6 Naturistsider, caught the Respondent's attention because it appeared to have the word "naturist" in its foreign title. The Respondent "clicked" on and accessed the Forste side af ialt 6 Naturistsider website. On April 26, 1999, the Respondent viewed the website for about one minute and "bookmarked" the site. The Respondent did not access the website again on April 26, 1999, at any time. On April 27, 1999, before the start of the school day and while there were no students in his classroom, the Respondent accessed the site Forste side af ialt 6 Naturistsider via the "bookmark" he had created on April 26, 1999. On that day, the Respondent exited the website before any students arrived at his classroom for his first period class. On the same day, during his third period planning period, while no students were present in the classroom and while the door to his classroom was closed, the Respondent again accessed the Forste side af ialt 6 Naturistsider website. The Respondent left the accessed naturist site on his computer at the end of the planning period but he covered the site by opening his electric gradebook over it. The Respondent did not view the website during the fourth period. During the last ten minutes of the fifth period on April 27, 1999, the Respondent entered student grades into his electronic gradebook while clicking on and viewing some of the photographs from the Forste side af ialt 6 Naturistsider website. Students were present in the classroom but there is no evidence that any student saw naturist photographs on the Respondent's computer monitor during the fifth period. During his sixth period class on April 27, 1999, the Respondent viewed some more naturist photographs on the Forste side af ialt 6 Naturistsider site while grading geography projects at his desk. The Respondent's geography students were working on an in-class vocabulary assignment. The Respondent's computer monitor was facing away from his students and images on the monitor could not be seen by the students while they were at their desks. However, during the course of the Respondent's sixth period class on April 27, 1999, several of the students had occasion to approach the Respondent's desk or to otherwise be in a position to see the monitor on the Respondent's computer. Several of those students were able to see photographic images of nude people on the monitor, even though the Respondent made efforts to cover the monitor when students approached his desk. Shortly after the end of the sixth period on April 27, 1999, several of the students reported to the school administration that they had seen photographs of nude people on the Respondent's computer. An investigation was promptly initiated; written statements were obtained from the students, and the Respondent's classroom computer was removed and locked in a secure place until it could be examined. The photographs of nude people that were seen on the Respondent's computer monitor during his sixth period class on April 27, 1999, were all photographs from the Forste side af ialt 6 Naturistsider website.3 The photographs from that website depict nude men, women, and children of various ages engaged in a variety of outdoor recreational activities such as sunbathing, walking on the beach, sitting or standing by a swimming pool, swimming, boating, and water skiing. The photographs from that website do not depict any acts of sexual intercourse, any acts of sexual touching, or any acts suggestive of sexual conduct. None of the photographs from that website include any sexual innuendo, nor could any of them be fairly described as provocative. Specifically, none of the photographs from that website were obscene or pornographic. But all of the photographs from that website were distinctly inappropriate for display to sixth grade students in a geography class. Examination of the computer that was removed from the Respondent's classroom revealed that the computer had been used to gain access to the Forste side af ialt 6 Naturistsider website. During the course of the investigation, the Respondent admitted that he had viewed that website during his sixth-grade class on April 27, 1999. Examination of the computer also revealed that it had been used to gain access to other websites that contained images of a sexually suggestive or sexually explicit nature. However, there is no clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent was the person who gained access to the websites that contained sexually suggestive or sexually explicit images.4 There is no clear and convincing evidence that, in the words of the statute, the Respondent "has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces that person's effectiveness as an employee of the district school board."5 The Respondent's act of having photographs of nude people displayed on his computer monitor on April 27, 1999, created a condition harmful to learning, as well as potentially harmful to the mental health of the students. That act also exposed students to unnecessary embarrassment. That act was also a use of institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage. On or about August 25, 1999, the Respondent was terminated from his position with the Miami-Dade County School Board.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered to the following effect: (a) dismissing the charges in Counts 1 and 2 of the Administrative Complaint; (b) finding the Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts 3, 4, 5, and 6; and (c) imposing as a penalty an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00), and a suspension of the Respondent's certificate for a period of six (6) months. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 2001.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner was a duly constituted school board. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a continuing contract teacher. Respondent was assigned as a math teacher to Miami Senior High School, one of the schools in the school District of Dade County, Florida. On March 20, 1989, Respondent and J.R., a 14 year old male who was one of Respondent's math students, entered into a discussion in Respondent's classroom regarding two musical keyboards that Respondent was trying to sell. J.R. Was interested in purchasing a musical keyboard and had been told by Respondent that he had at his home two musical keyboards that he wanted to sell. J.R. wanted to inspect the two keyboards to determine whether he might be interested in purchasing one of them, but he wanted to wait until the weekend to look at the keyboards so that his father could accompany him when he went to Respondent's house. Respondent had other commitments and advised the student on March 21, 1989, that he would have to look at the keyboards that afternoon. On March 21, 1989, Respondent drove J.R. to Respondent's home for the stated purpose of allowing J.R. to examine the two keyboards. No one else was present at Respondent's home. Respondent showed J.R. the keyboards and quoted J.R. a price for each. When J.R. inquired as to terms of payment, Respondent asked J.R. if he wanted to watch a video with him and stated that he wanted to watch a video so that he could think. Respondent then led J.R. into a darkened bedroom that had, in addition to video equipment, only a chair and a bed. Respondent lay down on the bed and J.R. sat in the chair. Respondent then asked J.R. if he talked a lot or whether he could keep a secret. After J.R. said he did not talk a lot, Respondent showed J.R. a pornographic movie that depicted nudity and sexual intercourse. While watching the movie, Respondent told J.R. that he had seen with a "hard on" during his math class. Respondent then asked J.R. if he had ever measured the size of his penis. When J.R. replied in the negative, Respondent told him that he should. Respondent then asked J.R. whether he "jerked off" often. J.R. replied in the negative and left the room because he was uncomfortable being with Respondent under those circumstances. During the course of the foregoing conversation, Respondent was lying on a bed in this darkened bedroom watching the pornographic movie with this 14 year old student. Respondent then drove J.R. to J.R.'s home after he asked to leave. J.R. immediately reported the incident to his parents when he returned to his home. J.R.'s parents notified the police that evening and reported the incident to the appropriate school officials the next day. This incident caused notoriety which has impaired Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher. Respondent testified that nothing inappropriate occurred when J.R. inspected the keyboards at his home on March 21, 1989. Respondent testified that he and J.R. drove to his house after school so that J.R. could inspect the keyboards, that while at the house he and J.R. drank a soft drink, looked at the keyboards, and discussed watching a video of a popular movie. Respondent contended that he drove J.R. to J.R.'s home and that nothing else occurred. Respondent denied that he showed J.R. a pornographic video or that he engaged in sexually explicit conversations with J.R. Respondent contended that J.R. fabricated part of his testimony and offered two motives for J.R. to lie. First, Respondent contended that J.R. may have seen this situation as a means to get one of the keyboards from Respondent without having to pay for it. Respondent did not explain how J.R. expected to accomplish this. Second, Respondent contended that J.R. may have fabricated the story to avoid getting into trouble with his parents because they did not know J.R.'s whereabouts during the time he was at Respondent's house on March 21, 1989. These proffered motives as to why J.R. would lie lack credibility and are rejected. J.R. is a good student who had no motive to fabricate his testimony as to the events that occurred at Respondent's house. Respondent's version of the events of March 21, 1989, insofar as that version conflicts with J.R.'s testimony, lacks credibility and is rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a final order which finds Jimmie D. Harris guilty of immorality and of misconduct in office, which affirms the suspension of Jimmie D. Harris without pay, and which terminates the continuing contract of Jimmie D. Harris. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Jimmie D. Harris 13336 S.W. 112 Place Miami, Florida 33176 Frank R. Harder, Esquire Suite 100 - Twin Oaks Building 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools 1444 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 215 Miami, Florida 33132 APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE 89-3691 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 3-5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4-6 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made and to the conclusions reached. There is no paragraph numbered in Petitioner's post-hearing submittal. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in the second sentence of paragraph 1 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 2 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in the second sentence of paragraph 1 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 4 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The remaining proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are rejected as being unclear and as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 7-9 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are rejected as being conclusion of law.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Respondent, Lloyd Wright, was a teacher employed by the St. Lucie County School District at Westwood High School. Tenecia Poitier was, during the 1986-1987 school year, a student of Respondent in his world history class. In early February, 1987, she filed a complaint against him with school officials because, she says, she got tired of his repeated comments to her of a sexual nature. Reportedly, on one occasion, Respondent indicated to her that he was going to "... fuck her brains out." This comment was overheard by another student in the class, Tony Lee, who believed Respondent was only joking with her. No follow-up action was taken by Respondent on this threat. Ms. Poitier also alleges that on one occasion, while in the school library, Respondent came over and sat down next to her and touched her on the leg. This was observed by Felicia Newton who was sitting across the library table from Ms. Poitier and who, because she was sitting out somewhat from the table, could see Respondent touch her on the outside of the leg. The hug Respondent also gave Ms. Poitier was more of a friendly hug than one with sexual overtones as was the touch. When Ms. Poitier told him to stop, he did and immediately thereafter left the table. Respondent has never hugged or touched Ms. Newton and she has never heard any other girl say Respondent has hugged or touched them except Ms. Poitier, who had told her prior to the library incident that she didn't like the way Respondent was always touching her. On one other occasion, according to Ms. Poitier, when she got chocolate on her pants in class, she asked to go to the rest room to wash it off. In response, she claims, Respondent grabbed her "butt" and commented, "Girl, I want that thing" or words to that effect. Ms. Poitier claims that when he did that, she "cussed him out." Ms. Poitier filed her complaint with school officials after reporting the incident to her father. It would appear, however, that the complaint was motivated by fear of punishment herself, as Respondent contends that on the day prior to the complaint, he observed her doing her math homework in his history class and confiscated and destroyed it. When he did this, she became irate and indicated she was going to tell her father. With that, Respondent summoned a representative of the administration and had her ejected from class. He also wrote a letter to her counselor complaining that she refused to follow class rules and was disruptive and requested she be taken out of his class because she was not doing the required work. There is ample independent testimony from others, including Ms. Poitier herself; that she curses frequently in class and her reputation for telling the truth is not good. In addition, Respondent had notified Ms. Poitier that she had been denied membership in the Millionaire's Club which he sponsored, because she would not follow club rules. She was also dismissed from membership in the Pep Club because of her forgery of Respondent's name to hall passes. Neither these latter actions nor the allegations of her removal from class, testified to only by Respondent, were corroborated by independent evidence. Ms. Poitier denies being put out of the Pep Club and claims she quit the Millionaire's club to join another one. Ms. Poitier indicates, on the other hand, that she was written up because she had threatened to tell her father what Respondent had said and done to her. Her veracity being successfully attacked, however, it is found that Respondent's story is more believable. Respondent, Ms. Poitier claims, also hugged other girls and touched at least one, Ms. McGee, on the leg when she came up to his desk on one occasion. In fact, she claims, he will touch any girl who will put up with it. McGee, on the other hand, denied that Respondent touched her on the leg as alleged by Poitier, but contends he did hug her around the shoulder from the side on one occasion. More significant, however, is the fact, admitted by the Respondent, that early one morning, while driving his mother to the grocery store, he saw Ms. McGee walking with two boys, one of whom was her brother. Respondent drove up beside them, waved and blew his horn to get their attention, and then told her he was going to take her to the woods. He claims he did not mean the comment to be taken literally but more as a joke like the kids would make. He did not believe that McGee took the comment seriously but, in fact she did, and the comment was totally inappropriate for a teacher to make to a female student under any circumstances. Other students, such as Eugenia Lunsford, report improper comments by Respondent to them or others. Ms. Lunsford claims she heard him tell girls, in the classroom, that he liked them and ask them if he could have a chance with them. She contends she heard him state that he'd like to "fuck" Cochina Hall and Tenecia Poitier. Ms. McGee remembers Respondent stating he would like to do something sexual to her, and on one occasions, when she asked him to stop peeling a grapefruit in class, he asked her if he could touch her. He never did, however, except to give her a hug. She considers the term "touch" to mean a sexually oriented touching of a girl's private parts. She also recalls an incident where she saw Respondent pull Ms. Foster's shirt away from her body by the pocket and look down the front. She thinks he was looking at her breasts. Ms. Foster, however, denies this incident happened. In light of this, Ms. McGee's testimony is suspect and, like Ms. Poitier, her credibility is slight. There is no evidence that by any of the hugs that he gave the various girls he in any way committed any inappropriate touching of the breasts or any place else or that though unwelcome, they were sexual in nature. The report by Ms. Lunsford of Respondent's touching Ms. Foster's "butt" was denied by Ms. Foster. In substance, Ms. Lunsford's testimony is not credible and Ms. Foster considers Respondent a good teacher. She would not fear going back into his class. Tony Lee, who heard Respondent make the inappropriate comment to Ms. Poitier, also heard him say to a female student, "Pull your pants down and let me touch you." At the time, Respondent and a group of female students were laughing and joking together and he does not feel that Respondent's comment was seriously made. In fact, Respondent frequently joked with his students, both male and female, making suggestive comments, and everyone knew they were jokes. Lee knows of no incident where Respondent ever attempted to follow up on these comments. He denies ever hearing that Respondent attempted to touch Ms. McGee. To the contrary, she allegedly told Lee she had attempted to touch Respondent and Lee told her she was crazy to do that. Only one parent had direct knowledge of Respondent's relationship with his students. At one parent/teacher night, Mrs. Johnson was attending Respondent's presentation to a group of students and parents when he reportedly stopped in mid- sentence and ogled one or more female students who came into the room. Mrs. Johnson felt his stare, which, she claimed, constituted a visual undressing of the girls, was inappropriate and embarrassing. Her comments were endorsed by her daughter Josephine, who would not want to go back into Respondent's class. In this incidents however, Respondent neither said anything to or about these girls nor did he attempt to touch them. Petitioner presented testimony to establish that at one time, Respondent humiliated a male student in his class by implying he was a homosexual. Both the student and his mother were permitted to testify to this incident without objection by Respondent. This is, however, irrelevant to the issues framed by the Notice of Charges and in any case, the student admits that he and another student were smirking at allegedly inaccurate statements made by Respondent during his lecture, misconduct and out-of-line behavior in and of itself. Assuming, arguendo, that Respondent's reaction to the student was inappropriate, it has no relevance to the conduct complained of in the Notice of Charges. Other present and former students of Respondent indicated that he had a good rapport with his students and is a good teacher. None of these individuals including, Ms. Shaw, Ms. Donovan, Ms. Fuller, Ms. Frazier, and Ms. Diaz have ever seen him be improper or sexual in orientation with students notwithstanding numerous observations. He is not known by these people to flirt with or improperly touch students or to make suggestive comments to them though he would hug from time to time. The extent of his familiarity would be comments like, "Hey, baby. How ya doin'?," or words to that effect, comments readily admitted by Respondent. According to Ms. Frazier, a student in Respondent's class with Ms. Poitier, some students would speak improperly to Respondent by cussing at him. Usually, he would warn them but if they got out of hands he would write them up. Respondent is described by some, and by himself, as a friendly, outgoing, caring person who tries to get his students to achieve their potential. He is a tough taskmaster who expects his students to do their best. By his own admission, he tries to relate to his students by speaking their language and using their phrases. He tries to get his students to relate to him by relating to them and in 9 1/2 years as a teacher he has never before been told this was improper. He admits to hugging his students from the side and to touching them on the arm or head in encouragement while teaching. He rides up and down the aisles in his classroom on a rolling chair so he can sit next to students who are having trouble to help them. He uses flattery, even personal comments such as "You are beautiful" in an effort to motivate his students and denies that any of his comments or touchings were salacious or sexually oriented. From an evaluation of the evidence, it becomes clear that Respondent did not touch or handle his female students in a lewd, lascivious, or indecent manner. It is equally clear, however, that on several occasions he did make lewd, lascivious, or indecent comments to female students which could be construed as advances though it is doubtful he would have followed through on them. These comments, however, in the expert opinion of Ms. Bretherick, an experienced teacher, are never appropriate for a teacher to make to a student. A teacher who made such comments would be ineffective as a teacher. Exposure to such a teacher adversely effects the students' capacity to learn the subject matter and clouds or distorts the concept of the teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore; RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Lloyd Wright, be discharged from employment with the St. Lucie School District because of misconduct in office. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of July, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 27th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1366 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. By Petitioner Petitioner, by letter, specifically declined to submit proposed findings of fact. By Respondent Accepted and incorporated Finding of Fact. Irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated Finding of Fact. Accepted as to the ultimate fact that the comment was made. Motivation is irrelevant. Irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. First sentence is. Accepted and incorporated in the Finding of Fact. Second Sentence is irrelevant to the issues. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: George R. Hill, Superintendent School Board of St. Lucie County 2909 Delaware Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Jack Gale, Esquire The Boston House 239 South Indian River Drive Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Lorene C. Powell, Esquire Asst. Gen. Counsel FEA/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Daniel B. Harrell, Esquire First Citizens Federal Building 1600 South Federal Highway, Suite 200 Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 1988 LLOYD WRIGHT, Appellant, DOAH CASE NO: 87-1366 CASE NO. 87-2723 v. SCHOOL BOARD OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, Appellee. / Decision filed December 28, 1988 Appeal from the School Board of St. Lucie County. Lloyd Wright, Fort Pierce, pro se appellant. Daniel B. Harrell of Gonano, Harrell & Sherrard, Fort Pierce, for appellee. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. HERSEY, C.J., DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. MANDATE from DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT This cause having been brought to this Court by appeal, and after due consideration the Court having issued its opinion; YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED that such further proceedings be had in said cause in accordance with the opinion of this Court, and with the rules of procedure and laws of the State of Florida. WITNESS the Honorable George W. Hersey, Chief Judge of the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, and seal of the said Court at West Palm Beach, Florida on this day DATE: January 13, 1989 CASE NO.: 87-2723 COUNTY OF ORIGIN: School Board of St. Lucie Co. T.C. CASE NO.: 87-1366 STYLE: Wright v. School Board of St. Lucie Clyde Heath Clerk of the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District ORIGINAL TO: School Board of St. Lucie county cc: Lloyd Wright, pro se Daniel B. Harrell, Esquire
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause, within the meaning of Section 231.36(1), Florida Statutes (1997), to terminate Respondent's employment as a classroom teacher. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner employed Respondent as a member of the instructional staff at Beaumont Middle School, now known as Kissimmee Middle School ("Kissimmee"), pursuant to a written annual contract as required in Section 231.36(1). Respondent first taught at Kissimmee in the 1995-96 school year. Prior to that, Respondent taught school in Virginia. On November 29, 1996, Respondent was in his second year at Kissimmee. However, he had not yet signed his annual contract for the 1996-97 school year. On November 29, 1996, Respondent was arrested in the Florida Mall in Orange County, Florida. He was charged with indecent exposure of sexual organs. The charging affidavit alleges that Respondent masturbated while standing at a urinal in the men's room of a Sears department store in the Florida Mall. The affidavit also alleges that a male at an adjacent urinal also masturbated. Petitioner proceeded with disciplinary action against Respondent in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the contract between Petitioner and the Osceola Classroom Teachers Association. In a letter dated December 3, 1996, from Dr. Thomas McCraley, Superintendent, Osceola County School District, Petitioner suspended Respondent with pay. By letter dated December 16, 1996, Respondent requested an administrative hearing. On December 17, 1996, the Board voted unanimously to suspend Respondent without pay ". . . because the employee is requesting an administrative hearing." The Board referred the matter to DOAH to conduct an administrative hearing. The ultimate issue is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment. Just cause is defined in Section 231.36(1) to include misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. In the letter from Dr. McCraley, Petitioner expands the statutory definition of just cause to include immorality and misconduct other than misconduct in office. Dr. McCraley's letter is the only charging document in this case. The charging document is the instrument by which the Board provides Respondent with notice of the charges against him. The charging document states that there is just cause to terminate Respondent's employment based solely on: the alleged sexual acts, including masturbation; and the subsequent arrest. In relevant part, the charging document provides Respondent with notice of the following charges against him: This letter will serve to formally advise you that you are hereby suspended with pay from your position . . . effective immediately. Also, please be advised that I will recommend to the . . . . Board at the December 17, 1996 Board meeting that your contract with the School District be terminated. Please be advised that in the event you timely request a hearing, I will be recommending to the . . . Board that you be suspended without pay until this matter is fully adjudicated. Your recommended termination is based on the following information: On or about November 29, 1996 while you were on or about the Sears restroom in the Florida Mall . . . you were observed and did perform inappropriate and improper sexual acts in the presence of a minor person. These acts include . . . masturbation. You were thereafter arrested by law enforcement for those acts. The above-described acts and subsequent arrest constitute grounds under Section 231.36 . . . for your termination, including . . . misconduct in office, immorality, misconduct, and, if convicted of this offense, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. . . . The charging document does not charge that Respondent's teaching ability is impaired. However, Petitioner did disclose in its responses to interrogatories that it intended to present evidence relevant to this additional charge. Petitioner provided Respondent with adequate notice of the additional charge of impaired teaching ability. Evidence relevant to this additional charge did not exist when Petitioner issued the charging document. When Petitioner discovered such evidence, Petitioner properly disclosed the additional charge to Respondent during discovery. This proceeding is not penal in nature. It does not propose disciplinary action against Respondent's license. The original charges in the charging document are based solely on the alleged sexual acts in the men's room. The charges disclosed in the responses to discovery are based on alleged adverse publicity and its effect on the school environment. Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed any sexual acts in the men's room. Without proof of the underlying facts, Petitioner lacks just cause to terminate Respondent's employment on the grounds stated in the charging document. Just cause is statutorily defined to include the conviction of a crime of moral turpitude. Respondent was not convicted in criminal court of a crime involving moral turpitude within the meaning of Section 231.36(1). On August 4, 1997, the judge in the criminal case granted a motion for judgment of acquittal and excused the jury. The charge that Respondent engaged in sexual acts in the men's room is based solely on the observations of Deputy Steven Franklin of the Orange County Sheriff's Office. Deputy Franklin and Deputy Tina Durden were at the Florida Mall on November 29, 1996, to investigate complaints of homosexual acts committed in bathrooms at the mall. Deputy Franklin went into a men's room to urinate. He used a urinal adjacent to the urinal used by Respondent at the same time. Another male was adjacent to Respondent but on the opposite side of Respondent from Deputy Franklin. Deputy Franklin observed Respondent and the other male for less than two seconds. While he was waiting for a urinal, Deputy Franklin also observed Respondent from behind for a few minutes. However, Deputy Franklin could not observe Respondent's hands before he stood beside Respondent at the urinal. The observations by Deputy Franklin for less than two seconds are insufficient to determine whether Respondent was masturbating or voiding Respondent's urinary tract. Respondent has a medical history that makes it difficult for Respondent to determine whether his urinary tract is empty after he urinates. On November 29, 1996, Respondent went to the Florida Mall to obtain a fresh supply of a cleaning solution he used to avoid scratching reflective lenses in eyeglasses that Respondent purchased from Sears Optical in August 1996. The Sears Optical at the Florida Mall was the store location closest to Respondent's residence. However, it was approximately a 45- minute drive from Respondent's house. During the drive, Respondent drank a large bottle of water. He drank the water as part of the treatment for a kidney infection that developed after Respondent passed a kidney stone approximately two days prior to November 29, 1996. Respondent had a long medical history of kidney stones. Since 1972, Respondent had passed numerous kidney stones. After locating a parking place at the Florida Mall, Respondent needed to urinate. He went to the men's room adjacent to Sears Optical. Respondent had to wait for a urinal to become available. November 29, 1996, was the day after Thanksgiving, and the men's room was crowded. Respondent went to the first urinal that became available. He was at the urinal for no more than two minutes. When Respondent first attempted to urinate, he felt some pain in the kidney area. Respondent leaned forward to reduce the pain. He placed his left hand against the wall to avoid touching the urinal. Respondent was not sure he had voided all of the urine from his urinary tract. Respondent has no feeling in his penis due to an automobile accident that occurred in 1988. The automobile accident caused nerve damage. The loss of feeling makes it difficult for Respondent to determine whether or not he has emptied all of the urine from his urinary tract. To be sure all of the urine was eliminated from his urinary tract on November 29, 1996, Respondent shook and stroked his penis several times. Respondent's penis was not erect. Respondent can not have an erection without injection of a specific medication. Respondent has not had an injection since 1991 because the injections are painful and last for only a brief period. Deputy Franklin observed Respondent's hands and penis for less than two seconds and incorrectly concluded that Respondent was masturbating. In fact, Respondent was making sure there was no urine remaining in his urinary tract. While Respondent was at the urinal, he neither spoke to anyone nor touched anyone else. He was not aware of those around him other than a man standing behind him at the electric hand dryer who later identified himself as Deputy Franklin. After Respondent finished urinating, he washed his hands and left the men's room. He was arrested outside the men's room. Deputies Franklin and Durden also arrested the male who had used the urinal next to Respondent. The deputies escorted Respondent to a hearing aid store across from the waiting room of Sears Optical and told him to sit down. The deputies brought the other man to the area where Respondent was sitting. They asked Respondent and the other man if they knew each other. Both men stated that they did not know each other. The deputies searched and hand cuffed both men. The deputies detained both men for approximately 15 minutes. During that time, Respondent asked why he had been arrested but received no answer. The deputies then took both men in handcuffs through the mall to a security office near the hotel in the mall. Respondent remained at the security office for approximately three to four hours. While Respondent was in the security office, the deputies informed Respondent of the charges against him. Respondent repeatedly denied the charges. Respondent was taken to the 33rd Street jail at about 4:00 p.m. He was booked, photographed, finger printed, and placed in a holding cell. He was allowed to make a telephone call at about 5:00 p.m. Respondent telephoned one of his two sons and asked his son to provide bail. Respondent was allowed to leave the jail at about 8:00 p.m. As soon as Respondent reached his son's house, Respondent attempted to report the incident to Principal John Beall. Principal Beall was not available. Respondent telephoned Assistant Principal Karen Turner, who subsequently reported the incident to the principal. The decision to suspend Respondent with pay was made by Petitioner after a meeting on December 3, 1996, between Respondent, his representatives, and representatives for Petitioner. Petitioner did not undertake an independent investigation of the matter but relied solely on the police report, the arrest, statements by Petitioner's director of human resources, and the attorney for the Board. At the meeting, Respondent disclosed his medical condition and offered to provide documentation. He subsequently signed a medical authorization to release those records. At a meeting of the Board on December 17, 1996, Petitioner suspended Respondent without pay. Respondent did not have an opportunity to discuss his case with the Board. The Board relied on the advice of its counsel who in turn relied solely on the criminal arrest and underlying documents. Two local newspapers covered the arrest and suspension of Respondent. The articles were first published after the Board voted to suspend Respondent without pay on December 17, 1996. Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher is not impaired. A copy of a newspaper article was gratuitously distributed at Kissimmee in early January 1997. The publicity has not impaired Respondent's effectiveness with students, faculty, or parents. Approximately a dozen students, out of a student body of approximately 400, referred to the incident in class. The discussions were brief and dissipated after four or five days. Many of the students who discussed the matter in class have moved on to high school and are no longer at Kissimmee. Respondent has a very good rapport with students, even though he is strict and does not play or horse around with them. Teachers have not observed inappropriate behavior between Respondent and his students. Fellow teachers would like for Respondent to return to Kissimmee. Parents have not expressed any concern to Respondent's fellow teachers. One parent did complain to Assistant Principal Turner about Respondent. Respondent is a very competent and very dynamic teacher who exceeds the minimum requirements as a teacher at Kissimmee. He goes to great lengths to help students learn and communicate effectively. He assists parents and fellow teachers. Prior to Respondent's arrest, Respondent received excellent job evaluations. Principal Beall considered Respondent to be an excellent teacher who was creative, effective with students, a good manager of the classroom, and demonstrated independent initiative. Principal Beall chose Respondent to serve as a temporary dean and encouraged Respondent to attend a program designed to qualify Respondent as an assistant principal. Principal Beall and several other witnesses for Petitioner would not hesitate to reinstate Respondent at Kissimmee if the charges against him are not proven. Respondent has obtained an education that significantly exceeds the minimum educational qualifications prescribed in Section 231.17(1)(c) for an elementary or secondary teacher. Respondent earned a bachelor's degree and master's degree in education and geography, respectively, and also earned a PhD. degree in Christian counseling. Respondent has over 20 years of teaching experience in Virginia and Florida. Prior to this case, Respondent has never been disciplined by a school district in which he taught. Respondent has never been arrested prior to this case. Respondent is certified to teach in Virginia. He has met all of the requirements for renewal of his teaching certificate in Florida. He is awaiting the outcome of this proceeding before submitting the necessary paperwork for the renewal of his Florida teaching certificate. At the hearing, Petitioner charged for the first time that Respondent violated school regulations and policies contained in the faculty handbook. Petitioner argued that Respondent violated regulations and policies that prohibit faculty contact with students outside of the school by providing care and instruction to students after school. Respondent objected to the admission of evidence relevant to this charge on several grounds, including the ground that such evidence was not relevant to any charges in the charging document or in the responses to discovery and the ground that allowing such a charge to be made for the first time during the hearing violated essential due process requirements. The undersigned reserved ruling on the objection and heard evidence from both parties. Petitioner did not provide prior notice of the charge that Respondent violated regulations and policies in the faculty handbook. The failure to comply with essential requirements of due process precludes Petitioner from submitting evidence to support such charges. Even if Petitioner had complied with due process requirements, the evidence would not affect the outcome of this proceeding. Petitioner either failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated relevant regulations and policies in the faculty handbook, or Petitioner condoned the violations committed by Respondent. Respondent had previously been selected by his team of teachers to visit a student named Josh Harweger and Josh's mother in their home to address learning and behavioral problems experienced by Josh. Respondent conferred with Josh's mother at her home, on the telephone, and at school in conjunction with other members of the teaching team. One evening at about 11:00 p.m., Josh's mother came to Respondent's residence without notice and asked Respondent to care for her son overnight while she took care of a family emergency. Respondent agreed to allow Josh to spend the night in his home, which Respondent shared with his son and daughter-in- law and Respondent's other son. The next morning, Respondent informed three members of the Kissimmee staff, including Assistant Principal Turner, of the situation. Josh's mother did not return the next day as promised. In fact, she did not return until approximately five days had passed. Each day, Respondent informed Assistant Principal Turner of the situation. Petitioner condoned each stay. No other student ever spent the night at Respondent's house. Augustine Rivera is the other student for whom Petitioner asserts a violation of regulations and policies in the faculty handbook. Respondent's relationship with Augustine was strictly professional and conducted with the knowledge and consent of Augustine's mother. Augustine has a learning disability and was a student in Respondent's classes for three years. Respondent tutored Augustine after class, even after Augustine's mother was informed of the arrest on November 29, 1996. Augustine's mother drove Augustine to Respondent's house after school for tutoring. Augustine is now in high school. Respondent continues to tutor Augustine once or twice a week after school in Respondent's house with the approval of Augustine's mother. Respondent's tutoring after school has significantly improved Augustine's academic performance and ameliorated Augustine's behavioral problems. Out of gratitude for Respondent's assistance, Augustine has performed various home maintenance tasks for Respondent, including mowing the yard. Respondent and other members of his teaching team created a study jam-session after school for students who wanted academic assistance. The study jam-program had the prior approval of the principal. The study jam-sessions were in addition to Respondent's regular duties and did not relieve Respondent of this regular teaching responsibilities. Approximately eight to ten students went to Respondent's home for a cookout as a reward for exceeding their goals in the study jams. The students came with their parents or had parental permission. Petitioner condoned the cookouts. Respondent obtained the prior approval of the principal for the cookouts.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of the underlying factual allegations, finding that there is not just cause to terminate Respondent's employment, and reinstating Respondent with back pay from December 17, 1996. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick General Counsel The Capitol, Plaza 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Thomas L. McCraley, Superintendent Osceola County School Board 817 Bill Beck Boulevard Kissimmee, Florida 34744-4495 G. Russell Petersen, Esquire 3339 Cardinal Drive, Suite 200 Vero Beach, Florida 32963 Joseph Egan, Jr., Esquire Egan, Lev and Siwica, P.A. Post Office Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802
