The Issue Whether Respondent's educator's certification should be sanctioned for alleged inappropriate conduct with K.M., a female student, from December 1999 through February 2000 in violation of Section 231.2615, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), (e), (h), and (5)(a), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Ginger Dudley, holds Florida Educator Certificate 726210, which was valid through June 2002. Respondent was employed as a mathematics teacher and athletic coach at Frostproof Middle/Senior High School in the Polk County School District during the 1999/2000 school year. Respondent taught mathematics on the middle school campus of Frostproof. Respondent enjoyed a good reputation at Frostproof of being a good teacher, a compassionate and caring person who related well with students and teachers alike. K.M. was a senior student at Frostproof Middle/Senior High School during the 1999/2000 school year and graduated at the end of the year. K.M. turned 18 years of age on January 5, 2000. As a senior at Frostproof during the 1999/2000 school year, K.M. was on the high school campus. K.M enjoyed a good record and reputation as a pupil and athlete of the school. K.M.'s grades were good, and she was not a disciplinary problem. At the times material hereto, K.M. was not in any of Respondent's classes, but had contact with Respondent in regard to athletic, tutoring, and personal matters. The community of Frostproof is a small, closely-knit, rural and somewhat isolated community in Polk County, Florida. Frequently, teachers go out of their way to help the students. A teacher may even be something like a substitute parent. Frostproof Middle/Senior High School (Frostproof) consists of two campuses with one administration. The two campuses share the library, lunchroom, and Physical Education area. There are strict rules at Frostproof regarding the co- mingling of high school and middle school students. Middle school students are not allowed in the high school area unless they either have a pass to be on the high school campus or are designated to be at the high school during that period. The same rules apply to high school students; unless the high school students have a class on the middle school campus or are doing an "executive internship," they are not permitted on the middle school campus. An executive internship is treated as a class at Frostproof. During an executive internship, a student shadows a teacher as an assignment, for one period during the day. In the event that a teacher observes a high school student on the middle school campus without approval, and who is not doing an executive internship, that teacher is expected to immediately notify the administration. This can be accomplished in two ways: (1) the teacher can write the student up on a discipline referral; or (2) the teacher can press the intercom button that is located in the classroom, which is connected to the front office. K.M. first met Respondent while helping out with the Frostproof girls volleyball team, which Respondent coached. After the initial meeting, K.M. began spending time during her lunch period in Respondent's classroom, grading papers and using the computer. Respondent's Inappropriate Conduct with K.M. K.M. and Respondent developed a friendship relationship during the 1999/2000 school year. In December 1999, a couple of months after K.M. first began spending time in Respondent's classroom, their relationship developed beyond mere friendship, and their meetings became more secretive. Despite strict rules at Frostproof that prohibited high school students from being on the middle school campus unless they had permission and/or were doing an executive internship, Respondent allowed K.M. to spend an exorbitant amount of time in her class room on the middle school campus. K.M. was not doing an executive internship with Respondent. Respondent never notified Dean Carter that K.M. was in an unauthorized area. Respondent did not notify anyone in the administration that K.M. was in an unauthorized area. In fact, the administration became aware that K.M. was in an unauthorized area only after Respondent's roommate, Michelle Davis, notified Dean Carter that K.M. was in Respondent's classroom, which was in an unauthorized area for a high school student. After receiving Davis' complaint, Dean Carter spoke with Respondent and warned her that Respondent should not allow K.M. in an unauthorized area. Respondent continued to allow K.M. in her middle school classroom. In addition, Respondent had one of her sixth grade middle school students, K.S., take personal notes from Respondent to K.M. on the high school campus. Most of them were stapled together prior to giving them to K.S. Although, K.S. did read one note that was not stapled, which read: "Meet me . . . by the buses," and had a time for the meeting. It is improper for a teacher to utilize a student in her class to deliver notes to another student for personal reasons. Respondent's Contact with K.M. after School Hours Not only did Respondent and K.M. spend an exorbitant amount of time together at school, but this close relationship also extended beyond school hours. In fact, Respondent repeatedly met with K.M. outside of school hours, for non- academic reasons: Respondent visited K.M. at her sister's, E.M.H., residence on more than one occasion, where they watched television and left to take drives together. Respondent picked K.M. up at a Taco Bell in Lakeland, Florida, and took K.M. to Respondent's apartment. K.M. spent the night at Respondent's home and returned the following morning around six or seven in the morning. Respondent took K.M. to her home on two separate occasions. Respondent and K.M. were together late at night, at 11:05 p.m., on February 18, 2000 when Respondent received a speeding ticket. In an attempt to hide their relationship from Respondent's roommate, Davis, Respondent gave K.M. the ticket and a check to pay the ticket. Respondent did not gain parental approval, or approval from any other family member or guardian, and/or any school official prior to visiting K.M. at her sister's home, driving in vehicles alone with K.M., and/or taking K.M. away from her home. When K.M. spent the night at Respondent's home, K.M.'s parent or guardian had never given permission to Respondent, nor was Respondent's roommate present. It is inappropriate for a teacher to let a student spend the night at their house on a one-on-one basis. Telephone Calls Respondent's frequent and lengthy telephone calls with were inappropriate: Respondent admitted that she had called K.M. on her cellular telephone ("cell phone") approximately 79 times from December 15, 1999, until February 2000. Respondent called K.M. on February 4, 2000, and talked to K.M. on her cell phone for 72 minutes. On February 21, 2000, Respondent also spoke to K.M. on seven separate occasions in one day within a two and one-half- hour time period. Respondent called K.M. on January 29, 2000, at 4:31 a.m. Respondent called K.M. at her mother's house. Respondent called K.M. at Sheila Farrow's house. Respondent called K.M. at the Hoxie's house. Even though Respondent testified that she called K.M. numerous times because she was concerned K.M. was going to fail English, and refused to attend class, there has been no evidence that K.M. was failing a class or refusing to attend her classes. Calling a student at 3:30 or 4:30 in the morning was highly inappropriate. Respondent's Statements Throughout the course of the investigation, into this matter, Respondent made the following statements: Interview with Principal Lewis and Vice Principal Bush: During her first interview with Principal David Lewis and Vice Principal Bush, Respondent indicated she had only had contact with K.M. outside of school on two occasions, one involved a ballgame and the other involved car trouble. This was not a truthful statement by Respondent. March 7, 2000: Mr. McDonald, an investigator for the Department of Education authorized to administer oaths, and Principal Lewis placed Respondent under oath and conducted an investigative interview with Respondent. However, despite being placed under oath, Respondent was not truthful with Mr. McDonald and Principal Lewis. In fact, during the investigative interview, Dale McDonald had to remind Respondent that she was under oath. While under oath, Respondent never admitted to Mr. McDonald and Principal Lewis that K.M. had spent the entire night at Respondent's house. November 8, 2002: During the final hearing, Respondent finally admitted she did not tell Principal Lewis about K.M. spending the night at her house. Moreover, Respondent also admitted that during the course of her interview with McDonald, she denied that K.M. had ever been to Respondent's home. During her testimony at the final hearing, Respondent also admitted that even after McDonald reminded her that she was under oath, she still denied that K.M. had spent the night at her home. During the final hearing, Respondent also added new information that she had not previously disclosed during her interviews with Principal Lewis, Ms. Bush, and Mr. McDonald. Specifically, at the final hearing, Respondent admitted that she had contact with K.M. outside of school hours and called K.M. late at night/early in the morning, talking for extended periods of time. She stated that she had contact and made the calls only because she was concerned that K.M. was being mentally or physically abused. Respondent admitted that she knew that as a teacher she was required by Florida law to report any suspected child abuse. Respondent also admitted that she had actually called in a child abuse report prior to the 1999/2000 school year in reference to another child, but in this case, despite fearing that K.M. was allegedly being both physically and emotionally abused, she did not call the abuse hotline. Frostproof's protocol for reporting abuse is that teachers are asked to make reports in an administrator's or guidance counselor's office to ensure privacy when making the report. Further, teachers are to notify administration of any reports so they can keep a record. Teachers at Frostproof are not only advised of their mandatory obligation to report suspected abuse each year during the preplanning time but there are also posters posted in common areas like the faculty mail room. Respondent's Alleged Sexual Contact with K.M. There were also a number of alleged intimate sexual encounters between Respondent and K.M. during the period of December 1999 and February 2000. The testimony of K.M. and other supporting evidence is not clear and convincing so as to find Respondent guilty of misconduct on this count. The allegations of sexual misconduct cannot stand up to the clear and convincing evidence test because K.M. was characterized as not always being honest and truthful. K.M. repeatedly and materially contradicted herself in statements to friends, officials, and in prior proceedings. She even initially denied, under oath, any impropriety. K.M.'s allegations were not corroborated in regard to significant or material events. The accusations are essentially based on K.M.'s credibility. Respondent has denied the accusations and is sufficiently credible. Although Respondent was not entirely forthcoming in her initial interview as to the full extent of her contact with K.M., by the end of the interview, she made corrections, and clear and convincing evidence is lacking that she was, finally, dishonest or less than truthful.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding that Respondent did violate the provisions of Section 231.2615(1)(f) and (i), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), (e), and (5)(a), Florida Administrative Code, but did not violate Section 231.2615(1)(c), Florida Statutes or Rule 6B-1.006(3), Florida Administrative Code. It is further RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued suspending Respondent's teaching certificate for one year, a $1,000 fine for the above violations, and that the suspension be followed by a two-year period of probation subject to such conditions as the Commission may specify. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kelly B. Holbrook, Esquire Broad and Cassel 100 North Tampa Street Suite 3500 Tampa, Florida 33602 John Liguori, Esquire 345 West Davidson Street Suite 201 Bartow, Florida 33830 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mary Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 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
Findings Of Fact The School Board is charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise free public schools within the School District of Duval County, Florida, pursuant to article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1012.22, Florida Statutes.1/ Respondent was a teacher at Kernan Middle School during the 2017-2018 school year. He had been employed with Duval County Schools for six years and had never been disciplined regarding his employment with the School Board. As an instructional employee, Respondent’s employment is governed by the 2017-2020 collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the Duval Teachers United (Collective Bargaining Agreement). Respondent taught pre-algebra during the 2017-2018 school year for students who had not performed well on the state standardized test. In order to improve those scores, the students were placed in two math classes with Respondent, instead of just one. On October 11, 2017, a member of the School Board advised the principal of Kernan Middle School, Julie Hemphill, that a parent of one of Respondent’s students had made a complaint against Respondent. Prior to receiving word of the complaint, Ms. Hemphill had never heard any complaints about Respondent from any parent, student, or other school staff. There is no evidence that any other administrator at Kernan Middle School had received a complaint about Respondent prior to October 11, 2017. Shortly after hearing about it, Ms. Hemphill reached out to the parent who had made the complaint. The parent told Ms. Hemphill that Respondent had yelled and waved his hands in students’ faces, told his students that they were in his class because they had failed the standardized tests, called his students idiots, and used racial slurs in his classroom in front of students. Ms. Hemphill’s understanding after speaking with the parent was that the alleged racial slurs were made sometime at the end of August 2017. Ms. Hemphill reported the allegations to the School Board’s Office of Equity and Inclusion. An investigator for the School Board, Reginald Johnson, was assigned the case. Mr. Johnson came to Kernan Middle School and spoke with some of Respondent’s students. Mr. Johnson first contacted Respondent in the second week of October 2017, and advised Respondent that there were allegations against him. After that, during the investigation, Respondent continued teaching his same classes and students at Kernan Middle School for approximately five months until his suspension was approved by the School Board on March 6, 2018. After his suspension was over, Respondent was not allowed to return to his classroom for the remainder of the year. He was not reappointed for another teaching position. In support of its case against Respondent, the School Board presented the testimony of two former students2/ of Respondent who were in Respondent’s classroom at the time that he allegedly made the derogatory and racial statements. The testimony from those two students presented different accounts of the allegations and were not persuasive in proving the allegations against Respondent. The first student called as a witness by the School Board, E.C., had gotten into trouble, and did not receive good grades while in Respondent’s class. According to E.C., Respondent had used racial slurs against a particular student and used the n-word in front of the whole class many times during the school year. When confronted with his written statement, which stated that he “thought” he heard Respondent use the n-word, E.C. said, “It might have been, but I’m pretty sure that’s what I heard because everybody around me was saying the same thing, and we wouldn’t all be hearing different things.” E.C.’s testimony did not support the allegation that Respondent called his students “dumb.” E.C. did not recall that Respondent called him “dumb,” but rather testified that Respondent would not tell him that he did a good job. The other student presented as a witness by the School Board was J.B. According to J.B., he heard Respondent say the n-word in November or December, near the Christmas break, during an alleged discussion in class by Respondent about interracial dating, Respondent’s daughter, and religion. J.B. testified that he only heard Respondent say the n-word one time, and that he believed that Respondent said it “on accident.” As J.B. explained in his testimony: Like I guess he was like--I don’t think he like knew he said it, but he said it-- I guess he was just going off, and in between those words he said the n-word. * * * He didn’t--he didn’t realize he said the n-word, but the class heard he said the n-word. So after he said it, I guess the conversation, like the whole conversation ended, and we just went back to doing work. Regarding the allegation that Respondent told students that they were “dumb,” J.B. testified: When we’re not getting a question right and like, let’s say if we didn’t get the question right, he would tell the whole class stop acting dumb and get the question right. And it would just frustrate me exactly. I don’t know about the entire class, but it would frustrate me because, of course, I’m in intense math and I don’t know what I’m doing and I’m here to figure out how I can improve and be good at mathematics. Respondent gave credible testimony refuting the allegations. He testified that he never referred to a student as “dumb,” and understood that many of the students had low self-esteems. He would often encourage them and say “guys, look, you’re not dumb. You can achieve and you’re going to do great and amazing things if you work at it.” The students in Respondent’s class had discipline issues involving the use of profanity. There was a specific incident during the pertinent time frame during the 2017-2018 school year when two students in Respondent’s class were speaking to each other aggressively using the n-word. Respondent intervened and told the students, by spelling out the words, that they were not to use the terms “n-i-g-g-a or n-i-g- g-e-r.” As soon as Respondent spelled g-e-r, a student yelled out, “Did you hear what he said?” After that, the students in the class began to act with exuberance, smiling and laughing. Respondent had been trying to give a quiz and the class came off task. At the time, a student asked Respondent whether he had said the n-word. Although Respondent told the class that he did not say that word, the off-task behavior continued. Respondent then told the class, “I didn’t say it, but for those you who think I did, I deeply apologize, but we need to get things going.” Respondent described another incident that happened when coming back from lunch one day and hearing a student using the f-word towards his girlfriend several times. Upon returning to the classroom, Respondent said, “Girls, upon no circumstances should you allow a young man to disrespect you like that.” Respondent further told the class that if he “had a daughter and a young man spoke to her like that he would tell her to break up with him because he is not worth your time.” Mr. Swinyar does not have a daughter. In addition to his own testimony refuting the allegations, Respondent presented testimony of three of his former students who were in his classroom during the time that he allegedly made the derogatory and racial statements. All three of those students testified that they had never heard Respondent use the n-word and did not hear Respondent say anything inappropriate. S.B, one of the three students who testified on Respondent’s behalf, related the incident where a fellow student in Respondent’s class had said the n-word. When Respondent told the student not to use that term, most of the students in the room thought that Respondent, himself, said the n-word. However, according to S.B., who assured that he had been listening, testified that Respondent did not say it. Regarding Respondent’s alleged comment about his students’ test scores, S.B. testified that Respondent told his class that their scores were just a little low so they were in his class to improve them. S.B.’s testimony is credited. C.A., another student giving testimony for Respondent who was in Respondent’s class during the 2017-2018 school year, testified that he was concerned because he was not very good at math, but that he improved with Respondent’s help. C.A. never heard Respondent use bad words or say anything inappropriate. The third student testifying on behalf of Respondent, C.M., testified that she never heard Respondent say anything rude, never heard him say curse words, and never heard him say anything racist. Sonita Young, the School Board’s assistant superintendent for Human Resources Services, is responsible for making recommendations to the superintendent as to disciplinary matters, investigates complaints against teachers, and was responsible for the recommendations set forth in the Step III Discipline against Respondent in this case. Article V, section C, of the Collective Bargaining Agreement provides for progressive discipline for teachers. Pursuant to that policy, the progressive discipline policy starts at verbal reprimand and escalates up through termination. The Collective Bargaining Agreement allows for the steps to be skipped for acts of severe misconduct. In addition, there must be just cause to suspend a teacher without pay. Ms. Young stated that her decision to skip lower level disciplinary steps, and instead to suspend Respondent without pay, was based on the severity of the alleged inappropriate term, the alleged multiple times the term was used, that it was allegedly used in front of a classroom full of students, and that the students were allegedly very troubled by the comments. She also stated that other comments attributed to Respondent regarding the reason for the students being in the class, their lack of academic performance, and comments regarding whom students should date, justified her recommendation for Respondent’s suspension. However, based on the insufficiency of the evidence, it is found that the School Board did not prove the allegations against Respondent, and that the Step III Discipline was unwarranted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Duval County School Board: Dismissing the allegations against Respondent set forth in the Step III Discipline and rescinding any discipline imposed thereby; and Reimbursing Respondent for any pay or benefits that he did not receive as a result of the School Board’s actions in this case, plus interest from the date that any such pay or benefit was withheld, as appropriate under applicable law. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 7th day of December, 2018.
The Issue Whether just cause exists to suspend Respondent, a teacher, for ten days without pay for putting hand sanitizer in a student’s mouth.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Board is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the District. Pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes, the District has the authority to discipline employees pursuant to section 1012.22(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Respondent began her employment with the District in 2007. In October 2019, she was teaching at PPMS as a science teacher. Prior to the incident involved in this case, Respondent received no discipline from the Board. Respondent is an experienced teacher who has been trained on the proper method of interacting with students, exercising best professional judgment, and following policies, rules, and directives. Respondent received training concerning ethics relative to her position with the District as a teacher. Respondent has been through the orientation process for new employees of the District three times. The Incident Giving Rise to Discipline On October 14, 2019, Respondent was teaching a science class of approximately 30 sixth and seventh grade students. In this class was sixth grade student X.S., who was being verbally disruptive. Although X.S. was not cussing, Respondent told him that he needed to have his “mouth washed out with soap.” Respondent reached behind herself to grab a bottle on her desk which was either hand soap or hand sanitizer. X.S. and Respondent walked towards each other. X.S. challenged Respondent to “Do it!” Respondent raised the bottle to X.S.’s mouth and pumped in a substance from the bottle. X.S. bent over and spit on the floor. Respondent asked X.S. what he was doing, and he stated that he got hand sanitizer in his mouth. As X.S. stood up, X.S. was observed wiping his mouth and Respondent told him not to spit on the floor. X.S. left the classroom to go to the bathroom and rinse his mouth. His fellow students immediately began talking about the incident while Respondent returned to her desk. The Investigation X.S. did not immediately report the incident because he did not want to anger his foster mother. However, on the day after the incident, October 15, 2019, three students approached PPMS Principal Aronson and Officer Michaels and reported that Respondent had squirted hand sanitizer into X.S.’s mouth. Officer Michaels spoke to the students and X.S. individually and asked them to provide written statements regarding what they observed.1 Principal Aronson and Officer Michaels questioned Respondent regarding the incident. When approached by Officer Michaels, Respondent asked, “What is this about?” He responded that, “this is about squirting hand sanitizer into a student’s mouth.” Respondent said, “It wasn’t hand sanitizer. It was soap.” Respondent did not deny squirting something into X.S.’s mouth to either Principal Aronson or Officer Michaels. Principal Aronson asked Respondent to leave campus. He accompanied her to her classroom and observed a bottle of hand sanitizer on her desk. Principal Aronson also contacted Human Resources to report the incident and spoke to Human Resources Manager Jose Fred who handled overseeing the investigation from that point forward. 1 These written statements, Exhibits 11 through 16, were admitted over Respondent’s objection that they contain impermissible hearsay and are unduly prejudicial because these students refused to attend their scheduled depositions or appear for final hearing. However, their general descriptions of the incident were corroborated by the deposition of student J.C., as well as in part by Respondent. As discussed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.213(3), hearsay evidence may be used to supplement or explain other evidence, but shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless the evidence falls within an exception to the hearsay rule as found in sections 90.801-.805, Florida Statutes. On October 15, 2019, Respondent was issued the one-day stay at home letter from Mr. Aronson titled “Assignment to Your Residence with Pay for October 15, 2019.” On October 15, 2019, Respondent was also issued a letter advising her that she was assigned to her residence for October 16 and October 17, 2019. Mr. Fred, under the supervision of Vicki Evans-Paré, Director of Employee and Labor Relations, compiled written statement of six students, took a written statement of Respondent on October 17, 2019, and drafted an Investigative Report dated October 18, 2019, which substantiated violations of applicable rules and Board policies. In her statement to Mr. Perez, Respondent claims it was X.S. who put his hand on hers and pulled the bottle to his own mouth and that she did not squirt anything. However, the remainder of her statement is consistent with the students’ reports of the incident.2 Post-Investigation Due Process On October 30, 2019, Respondent was provided with a Notice of Pre- Determination Meeting, which provided her with the allegations of misconduct. Respondent was provided with a copy of the entire investigative file and time to review it with the representative of her choice. Respondent attended a Pre-Determination Meeting on November 9, 2019, to give her the opportunity to provide any additional information, dispute, and explain or elaborate on any information contained in the Investigative Report. The Employee and Labor Relations (“ELR”) Department enlists the Employee Investigatory Committee (“EIC”) which reviews all of ELR’s case 2 At final hearing, Respondent testified that the bottle was never near the student’s mouth. This is wholly inconsistent with her prior written statement to Mr. Perez, her deposition testimony, and the statements of the students. This conflict negatively impacted Respondent’s credibility. files, inclusive of all documents maintained by ELR, of anything that might lead to suspension or termination, to make a suggestion to the Superintendent, if the allegations are substantiated. Once the EIC decides that the allegations are substantiated and recommends discipline, Ms. Evans-Paré takes the entire employee investigative file, inclusive of the EIC’s recommendations, to the Superintendent who then makes the ultimate recommendation for employee discipline. On November 22, 2019, Respondent was provided with supplemental information to the investigative file and provided an opportunity to respond to the documents by December 6, 2019. On December 9, 2019, Respondent requested that her response be placed in her file. She wrote “in response to the copies of the information from the District that is being used as evidence against me …” after reviewing the case file, complained that only six of 22 students were interviewed or provided statements and it was not an ethical, random sample of the class. Respondent also alleged that the documents had been altered; however, she did not provide any evidence of such during the final hearing or within the response. On December 6, 2019, Respondent again provided a response to the student witness statements to ELR wherein she stated “I have 22 students in my class, only 6 students filled out statements? You have 3 black children submitted in reporting, of which one is not accurate. Yet, they are the minority in this class, of which, 2 out of the 6 statements were from Hispanic students. It is surprising that not a single white student in my class noticed the incident.” On January 24, 2020, Respondent was notified that the Superintendent would recommend her a ten-day suspension without pay to the Board at its February 19, 2020, meeting. On February 19, 2020, the School Board adopted the Superintendent’s recommendations to suspend Respondent without pay for ten days. Respondent’s Post-Suspension Status Respondent’s suspension by the Board was picked up by the Associated Press and reported across social media and traditional media platforms locally and nationwide. Ms. Evans-Paré testified that typically, when a teacher is alleged to have done something inappropriate with students, the District cannot have the teacher in a classroom around students, so the teacher is reassigned to another location. Respondent was reassigned to adult and community education, so she was in a no-student contact position. Respondent was then moved into Human Resources Funding 9920 status due to the press and comments from the parents received by Principal Aronson and her inability to be returned to PPMS. This allowed Principal Aronson to hire another teacher to take her place. Respondent has not been back in the classroom as a teacher for the District since October 15, 2019.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board uphold the ten-day suspension without pay and return Respondent to the classroom. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2021. V. Danielle Williams, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Nicholas Anthony Caggia, Esquire Johnson and Caggia Law Group 867 West Bloomingdale Avenue, Suite 6325 Brandon, Florida 33508 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Donald E. Fennoy, II, Ed.D. Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Michael Fort, at times pertinent to the charges in the Administrative Complaints, held teacher's certificate number 514033, issued by the State of Florida Department of Education (Department). That certificate authorized practice as a teacher in the area of music education. The Respondent was employed as a teacher at Lake Weir Middle School in the Marion County School District. The Respondent was under an annual contract with that school system from November 23, 1983, through the 1984-85 school year. The Respondent's last annual contract expired on June 7, 1985. The Respondent's teacher's certificate expired on June 30, 1985. Some time prior to the expiration of his teacher's certificate, the Respondent applied to the Department for its renewal. That application still pends before the Department. In October 1983, the Respondent had a minor student spend the night at his apartment. The minor student had previously been a close friend of the Respondent and had socialized with him in the past, including spending the night at his residence on other occasions. The Respondent had entered into a close, friendly relationship with the minor, Darien Houston, by frequently letting him stay at his residence during periods of time when Darien Houston's parents were fighting or otherwise engaging in domestic discord, which apparently was very disturbing to the student. Darien Houston, although a student in the Marion County School System, was not a student of the Respondent. Indeed, the Respondent was not yet employed by that school district. In any event, during the course of the evening in question, while they were sitting near each other watching television, the Respondent placed his hand on the student's leg and the student requested that he remove his hand. The student at the time thought Fort was joking or had no serious intent by this action. Fort then went to bed and the student went to bed, sleeping on the floor in his jeans in a sleeping bag. Some time later that night, the student was awakened and realized that the Respondent had undressed himself and undressed the student and had proceeded to place his hand on and fondle the student's penis. He thereafter attempted to roll Houston over onto his stomach in spite of Houston's objections. In response to the student's objections, the Respondent made a statement to the effect, "Do you want to do it with me?" The student continued to object and to retreat from the Respondent's advances. He retreated to the bathroom where he locked himself in and remained for the remainder of the night. The student was embarrassed because of the incident and elected not to report it to school officials or others for approximately a year and a half. However, Houston did tell his best friend what had happened, who in turn informed Houston's mother of the incident. Eventually, Houston's brother informed another individual of the occurrence, who then informed Mr. Springer, the principal at Lake Weir Middle School, of the incident. Darien Houston, a student there, was then called before Mr. Springer, who investigated the matter. Houston related the information about the subject occurrence to him, in approximately May 1985. Thereafter, the criminal proceeding against the Respondent related to this incident and the instant administrative Prosecutions ensued. The matter became public knowledge among students at Lake Weir Middle School, who teased Houston about the incident, causing him great embarrassment and humiliation. The occurrence was widely reported in local newspapers. Sometime in May 1985, while a teacher at Lake Weir Middle School, during the course of a puppet show being Presented in a sixth grade classroom, Respondent stuck his hand down the back of a minor male student's pants between his underwear and his trousers. This action by the Respondent shocked and embarrassed the student, although it was not established that any bystanders, of which there were a number present, observed the incident. The student, Patrick Hammer, was embarrassed to tell anyone of the occurrence, but ultimately informed his teacher of the incident by writing a note to the teacher concerning it. Other students at the school ultimately became aware of this and teased Patrick Hammer about it, causing him embarrassment and humiliation. In approximately May 1985, the Respondent attended a party at a local hospital. The Respondent was in the company of three minor male students who were then enrolled at Lake Weir Middle School. The students, Steve Hall, Richard Slaughter and Eddie Ericson, or some of them, were drinking beer from a keg or draft dispenser at the party. Steve Hall's mother, who was employed at the hospital, was present at the party and was aware that her son was drinking beer. All three of the boys later left the party and went with Mr. Fort to his apartment. While en route, the Respondent stopped at an ABC Liquor Store and purchased approximately two six-packs of beer. After purchasing the beer, the Respondent took the three students to his apartment where the students swam in the swimming pool and, in his presence and with his knowledge, drank the beer that the Respondent had purchased. It was not established that the Respondent bought the beer with the specific intent of giving it to the students but, by his own admission, he offered no objection to the students' consumption of the beer in his presence at his residence. On May 12, 1986, the Respondent pled nolo contendere to one count of attempted sexual battery and one count of lewd and lascivious behavior. He was sentenced to ten years probation, fined $200, ordered to undergo mental health counseling, to complete 100 hours of community service and to refrain from any custodial or supervisory contact with any person under the age of 16 years. Respondent's arrest, the circumstances surrounding the charges and his plea regarding the above incidents received widespread publicity in the local media and was known to students, faculty and other School Board personnel and the public at large. On or about April 10, 1985, the Respondent received a letter from Nick Marcos, Assistant Superintendent of Administrative Services with the School Board of Marion County, informing him that he would be reappointed to a position as an annual contract teacher with the Marion County School System as soon as he had been issued a regular or temporary teaching certificate for the 1985-86 school year. On or about May 16, 1985, the Respondent submitted a reapplication for a temporary certificate to the Florida Department of Education. On or about August 9, 1955, Respondent received a letter from R. S. Archibald, District School Superintendent, advising him that he had been suspended as an instructional employee of the Marion County School System, pending a meeting of the School Board. Thereafter, on or about August 19, 1985, the Respondent received a letter from Jim Ergle, as Chairman of the School Board, advising him of the Board's decision to suspend him without pay based upon the above-described arrest and charges. In the April 10, 1985 letter, the Assistant Superintendent had informed him that he had been recommended for reappointment for the 1985-86 school year, but reminded him that he would have to renew his teaching certificate to be eligible for reappointment. Upon his application for renewal of his teaching certificate, the application demonstrated that all requirements for renewal had been met. His teaching certificate expired on June 30, 1985. The renewal application was never acted upon by the Department, although it informed Mr. Fort, sometime prior to August 1985, that his application was in order and the certificate would be forthcoming. His suspension without pay was predicated upon the charges pending before the Circuit Court for Marion County concerning the alleged sexual battery and lewd and lascivious conduct, and the letter informing Mr. Fort of it did not indicate that it was at all based on his failure to renew his teaching certificate. The School Board employed the formal suspension process against the Respondent, although his express annual contract had already expired, in an abundance of caution because a grace period is normally allowed teachers to re- apply for renewal of their certificates after expiration and because the Board allows a grace period for reappointment of a contract teacher after the expiration of a teaching certificate, provided the teacher provides evidence that the certificate has been properly renewed. The Respondent was paid for all services rendered by him to the Marion County School Board through the last day of the 1984-85 school year, which was also the last day of his employment pursuant to his last express annual contract. He has never taught in the district since that time.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the EPC permanently revoking the certificate of the Respondent, Michael Fort, and that he be finally dismissed by the Marion County School District and forfeit any back pay. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of July 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: William E. Williams, Esquire Rex D. Ware, Esquire 111 North Calhoun Street Post Office Box 1739 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Philip J. Padovano, Esquire Post Office Box 873 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Karen B. Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission 215 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of July 1987.
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether Respondent’s Florida Educator’s Certificate should be revoked or otherwise disciplined for misconduct as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, FRANK T. BROGAN, as Florida Commissioner of Education, is statutorily responsible for maintaining teaching certification standards, and is authorized to enforce the provisions of Chapter 231, Florida Statutes. Respondent, JOEL M. BURKI, at all material times hereto, was a certified teacher in the State of Florida. STIPULATED FACTS Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 686763, covering the area of Art Education, which is valid through June 30, 1997. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as an alternative education teacher at St. Pete Challenge School in the Pinellas County School District. During 1992, Respondent was reported to Professional Practices Services for allegedly using excessive force with students. On or about September 22, 1992, the Department of Education and Respondent entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement extending through the end of the first semester of the 1992-1993 school year. Respondent satisfactorily completed the agreement, and on or about April 9, 1993, the Commissioner issued a finding of no probable cause to take disciplinary action concerning his educator’s ceritficate. On or about January 30, 1996, the Pinellas County School District investigated Respondent for allegedly engaging in inappropriate conduct with students. The district subsequently reported Respondent to Professional Practices Services. On or about March 20, 1996, Respondent resigned his teaching position effective March 22, 1996. THE ALLEGED INCIDENT OF MISCONDUCT An incident occurred at the St. Pete Challenge School at some time shortly after January 26, 1996, in which five male students, aged nine-to-ten years old, fell down at the door outside Respondent’s art and music classroom. As a result of this incident one student suffered a cut lip, and one other complained of a headache. The students involved in this incident initially had been disrupting Respondent’s class prior to roll call. Respondent had instructed these students to wait outside the classroom door until Respondent attended to the remaining students in the classroom. Respondent then intended to address this disciplinary situation. The five misbehaving students were outside for a very short period of time when they observed another teacher approaching. Upon seeing the teacher approaching, the five students attempted to re-enter Respondent’s classroom; however, Respondent at this time was also opening the door from the other side. The force of Respondent opening the door caused a chain reaction resulting in the fall of the five students on the outside of the door. The injured students were taken to the front office for treatment. None of the injuries sustained was serious. Respondent did not intend to cause any physical contact with the five students, nor to cause any physical harm to the students. Respondent was not physically abusive to the five students involved in this incident. It is the policy of the Pinellas County School District that a teacher shall not use physical force upon a student absent extraordinary circumstances which require physical intervention for the protection of other students or school personnel. Respondent in this incident did not use physical force in a manner inconsistent with the policy of the Pinellas County School District. Respondent is considered mild-mannered, cordial, and friendly in both his professional and personal capacities. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT The Administrative Complaint filed in this matter alleged in paragraph 4 that "Respondent grabbed minor student J.M. and pushed him," and "Respondent also pushed minor student,” A.H. into other students causing A.H. and the other students to fall." No evidence was presented at final hearing to support these allegations; however, there was testimony from minor student, K.D., that Respondent pushed another of these students, B.W., which then caused the chain reaction fall. Petitioner, accordingly, made an ore tenus motion for leave to amend the administrative complaint to conform to the evidence. The student in question, B.W., testified at final hearing and did not state that Respondent pushed him. On cross- examination, B.W. testified that Respondent pushed some other unidentified student during the incident. There was no clear and consistent evidence that Respondent pushed any identified student including B.W. or A.H. during this incident. Another student involved in the incident, C.G., who also testified at final hearing, on cross-examination confirmed Respondent's account of this occurrence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed in this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. RICHARD HIXSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire 501 First Avenue, Suite 600 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Mark Herdman, Esquire HERDMAN and SAKELLARIDES, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether the respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Frank T. Brogan, as the Commissioner of Education, is the state official charged with investigating complaints against teachers and, upon a finding of probable cause, with filing formal administrative complaints against teachers' certificates. Section 231.262, Fla. Stat. The Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the responsibility for issuing final orders and imposing penalties. Id. At all times material to this case, Loretta L. Young held Florida Educator's Certificate 591375, covering the area of biology. Ms. Young currently holds this certificate, which is valid through June 30, 1999. During the 1993-1994 school year, Ms. Young was employed as a science teacher at North Dade Middle School in Dade County, Florida. During that school year, she taught a seventh-grade science class which consisted mostly of African-American children. A male student named C. M. was a member of this class. This seventh-grade science class was large, and the students were very unruly. Ms. Young had a very difficult time controlling the class, and she often became irritated with the students. In addition, the students used to ignore her when she told them to be quiet, and they would "pick at her" and make derogatory comments about her to one another in voices pitched loud enough for her to hear. On March 14, 1994, C. M. was in the back of the classroom playing cards and gambling with several other students. Ms. Young told C. M. to stop gambling. C. M., who was described as a bad student who was consistently disrespectful to Ms. Young and generally disruptive in her classroom, reacted to this order with anger. He walked to the front of the classroom and tapped her on the shoulder. She turned around quickly and struck C. M. in the stomach with her elbow. C. M. loudly accused her of hitting him and threatened to go to the office and tell what she had done. Ms. Young sent a student to summon security, and C. M. was removed from the classroom. Ms. Young consistently referred to the students in her class as "niggers." One of the students who testified at the hearing gave the following as an example of the remarks Ms. Young often made: "Ya'll niggers, ya'll niggers don't know how to act, ya'll don't have no home training." Although children sometimes refer to each other as "niggers," the use of such an epithet by a teacher when addressing students is unprofessional; it causes students to feel uncomfortable in the teacher's classroom, thereby diminishing the teacher's effectiveness. Even Ms. Young admitted that the term "nigger" is derogatory and degrading. It is not acceptable for a teacher to hit a student. Not only does such an act expose the student to physical harm, it diminishes the teacher's effectiveness in the classroom and is in violation of school board policy. There is, however, no violation of school board policy when a teacher inadvertently touches or bumps into a student. The evidence presented by the Commissioner is sufficient to establish that Ms. Young often addressed the students in the seventh-grade science class identified herein as "niggers." The evidence presented by the Commissioner is not, however, sufficient to establish that Ms. Young intentionally hit C. M. in the stomach with her elbow. The greater weight of the evidence presented by eyewitnesses to the event involving C. M. establishes that C. M. startled Ms. Young when he approached her from behind and tapped her on the shoulder, causing her to turn quickly and inadvertently strike him in the stomach.1
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a Final Order finding that Loretta L. Young violated section 231.28((1)(i), Florida Statutes, and rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, and placing Ms. Young on probation for a period of three years, subject to such conditions as the Commission deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 1997.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(d), 1012.795(1)(g), and 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2007),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(d), 6B-1.006(3)(e), 6B-1.006(3)(f), 6B-1.006(4)(b), 6B-1.006(5)(a), 6B-1.006(5)(d), and 6B-1.006(5)(f), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating public school teachers in Florida. Ms. Mackroy is licensed to teach in the fields of emotionally handicapped and sociology pursuant to Florida Educator’s Certificate No. 385206, which is valid through June 30, 2011. At all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint, Ms. Mackroy was employed as the lead teacher at the Exceptional Student Education Countywide McLaughlin Center (McLaughlin Center) in the Polk County School District. On September 6, 2007, Officer Tiffany Holden, a school resource officer employed with the Lake Wales Police Department, was dispatched to McLaughlin Center to investigate a report of a disruptive student, A.H. When Officer Holden arrived at McLaughlin Center, she observed A.H. sitting quietly in a chair with his arms inside his shirt, looking as if he was napping. Officer Holden also observed that the front office area was in disarray, with papers and a doughnut box on the floor and several chairs that had been overturned. Ms. Mackroy told Officer Holden that A.H. had been disruptive and was responsible for overturning the chairs and throwing the papers and doughnut box on the floor. Ms. Mackroy told Officer Holden to arrest A.H. because the school staff could do nothing with him. Based on Ms. Mackroy’s statement that A.H. was responsible for the trashing of the front office, Officer Holden handcuffed and arrested A.H., who began to cry. A.H. was transported to the police station. He told Officer Holden that he did not throw the items on the floor and did not overturn the chairs. A.H. stated that, while he was seated outside the office door, he had observed Ms. Mackroy throw the papers on the floor and overturn the chairs. Because of the conflicting evidence, Officer Holden did not charge A.H. with disorderly conduct, but took A.H. home and spoke to his mother. On October 25, 2007, during an unrelated, subsequent investigation, Officer Rodney Fowler interviewed Terry Benton (Ms. Benton), who at that time was a teacher at McLaughlin Center. Ms. Benton had witnessed the incident involving A.H. and advised Officer Fowler that A.H. had not put the front office in disarray, but Ms. Mackroy had knocked over the chairs and put the papers and other items on the floor. She knew that Ms. Mackroy had falsely accused A.H., but she was intimidated by Ms. Mackroy and was afraid that Ms. Mackroy would lie in order to get her fired. Ms. Benton was told by Ms. Mackroy that she had contacts with the police department and would know if Ms. Benton said anything against her. The information received from Ms. Benton concerning A.H. was relayed to Officer Holden, who filed a complaint affidavit with the State Attorney’s Office charging Ms. Mackroy with filing a false police report. Officer Fowler had been dispatched to McLaughlin Center on October 25, 2007, to investigate allegations that Ms. Mackroy had hit D.C., a student, on the head. During the investigation, he learned that, approximately two or three weeks before the investigation, D.C. had gotten upset during class. Ms. Mackroy came into the classroom and took D.C. out of the classroom and told him to go to the end of the hallway. D.C. got to the end of the hallway and got on the floor, lying on his stomach. While D.C. was lying on the floor, Ms. Mackroy bent down and hit him on his head with her hand. D.C. was not trying to harm Ms. Mackroy at the time of the incident; he was crying and asking her to stop hitting him. As a result of Officer Fowler’s investigation, he charged Ms. Mackroy with simple battery. The Polk County School District began an investigation into the incidents involving Ms. Mackroy and the two students, A.H. and D.C. At the conclusion of the investigation, it was recommended that Ms. Mackroy be terminated from her position with the Polk County School District. Ms. Mackroy resigned in lieu of termination on December 19, 2007.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Ms. Mackroy violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(d), 1012.795(1)(g), and 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes; finding that Ms. Mackroy violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(d), 6B-1.006(3)(e), 6B-1.006(3)(f), 6B-1.006(4)(b), 6B-1.006(5)(a), and 6B-1.006(5)(d); and permanently revoking Ms. Mackroy’s educator certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2010, 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 31st day of March, 2010.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed the act alleged in the Administrative Complaint; whether the alleged conduct constitutes violations of Subsection 1012.795(1)(c) and (i), Florida Statutes (2003), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e); and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed on Respondent's teaching certificate.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent held a Florida Educator's Certificate No. 891417. Respondent was first employed as a teacher at River Ridge Middle School ("River Ridge") in the Pasco County School District in August 2003, under a ten-month contract. During the 2003-2004 school year, Respondent taught sixth-grade geography at River Ridge. On April 15, 2004, during the five-minute period while classes were changing and before the fourth-period class started, Respondent left his classroom to go to the faculty bathroom. Prior to leaving the classroom, Respondent announced to the class that there would be a "pop quiz" that day and told them to sit down, study their notes, and/or read the book. Respondent was gone no longer than five minutes. When Respondent returned to the classroom, M.M. and one of his friends, another student, were standing up "play fighting." This "play fighting" involved the two students pushing each other. Upon observing the two students pushing each other, Respondent reasonably, but mistakenly, believed the two students were fighting and took immediate action consistent with that belief. Respondent approached M.M. and the other student and yelled at them, "Break it up!" Respondent then pushed or grabbed M.M.'s shoulder, pivoting him around Respondent, in an attempt to separate him from the other student. Immediately thereafter, while Respondent was turning toward the other student, he heard a commotion, which presumably was M.M. falling on the floor.2/ Immediately after Respondent grabbed or pushed M.M., he (M.M.) fell on the floor. Prior to landing on the floor, M.M.'s back hit the corner of a nearby table.3/ As a result of hitting the table, M.M. testified that he had a bruise on his back. However, there was no evidence to substantiate this claim, including evidence as to the severity of that alleged injury or whether it required medical attention. When M.M. got up from the floor, Respondent walked M.M. over to his seat. At first, M.M. sat in his assigned seat, but then he got up from his seat and "got in Respondent's face." During this confrontation, Respondent told M.M. that he was tired of dealing with him and to go to the principal's office. Initially, M.M. didn't move, but just stood there facing Respondent. Eventually, M.M. left the classroom and went to the principal's office. However, before he left the classroom, M.M. told Respondent, "I'll get you." M.M. was embarrassed by the incident. When M.M. arrived at the principal's office, he told John Joens, the school principal, that Respondent had pushed him down. In addition to M.M.'s verbal account of the incident, he also gave Principal Joens a written statement concerning the incident.4/ After Principal Joens listened to M.M.'s account of the incident, he also discussed the incident with Respondent. Respondent told Principal Joens that he was trying to break up a confrontation between M.M. and another student. To do so, Respondent explained that he grabbed M.M. by the shoulders, pivoted the student around behind him [Respondent] to move M.M. behind him, and then turned back to the other student. In discussing the incident with Principal Joens, Respondent also reported that after M.M. fell to the floor, he told M.M., "I know you're embarrassed but you have to go sit down." Finally, with regard to students who may have seen the incident, Respondent told Principal Joens that given the seating arrangement in the classroom, most of the students could not have had a clear vision of what happened. After listening to Respondent's explanation about the incident, Principal Joens' primary question to Respondent was how the student ended up on the floor. However, Respondent was unable to answer that question, because he was not sure how M.M. ended up on the floor. After listening to Respondent's explanation, Principal Joens could not understand or determine how M.M. had ended up on the floor. Therefore, in an effort to ascertain what had actually happened, Principal Joens decided to identify and interview as many students as possible who were eyewitnesses to the incident. As part of his investigation of the subject incident, Principal Joens interviewed 16 or 17 students who were in Respondent's fourth-period class on April 15, 2004. He also had the students to prepare and give him written statements about what, if anything, they observed relative to the incident. After Principal Joens completed his investigation, which consisted of input from M.M., information provided in student interviews, and Respondent's explanation and responses, he still could not determine how M.M. landed on the floor. On the day of the incident, except for two student desks and two tables, where a total of four students sat, the front of all of the student desks faced south; the backs of those desks faced north, which was the area of the classroom where the incident occurred. Therefore, in order to observe the incident, the students sitting at their desks would have had to get up from their seats or turn around in their seats. Two of the students who were in Respondent's fourth- period class on April 15, 2004, testified at this proceeding. Both students were credible witnesses. However, given the lapse of time since the incident (almost four years) and the proximity of their desks to the area where the incident occurred, it is understandable that there were details that they could not clearly recall, if they ever knew those details, or the sequence of the events. J.W., a student in Respondent's fourth-period class on April 15, 2004, recalled that when Respondent entered the classroom that day, he approached M.M. and two other students who were pushing each other around and told them, "Break it up!" J.W. also testified that "they [presumably Respondent and M.M.] were arguing and Respondent pushed M.M. down and M.M. fell on the floor." When J.W. observed the incident, he was sitting at his desk, which was three rows from the area of the classroom where the incident occurred. J.W. testified that in order to see the incident, he had to turn around in his seat or look over his left shoulder, since the back of his desk faced the area where the incident occurred. D.L., a student in Respondent's fourth-period class on April 15, 2004, testified that she recalled that Respondent pushed M.M. on the shoulder area and then M.M. hit the table and then fell to the chair. She did not recall M.M. falling or ending up on the floor. Furthermore, D.L. did not know the reason Respondent pushed M.M. or even if there was a reason for pushing him. When D.L. observed the incident, she was sitting at her desk, which was in the last of five rows of desks in Respondent's classroom and the row farthest from the area in the classroom where the incident occurred. The back of D.L.'s desk faced the area where the incident occurred, and in order to see the incident, she had to turn around. According to Principal Joens, the only reason an adult "gets between two students is to provide . . . [for] the safety of that student or the other student's [safety]." In this case, Principal Joens testified that he does not believe that any student's safety was in danger and, thus, there was no need for Respondent to touch M.M. and "use that force." Two days after the incident, Respondent resigned from his teaching position at River Ridge. During the eight months that Respondent was teaching at River Ridge, Principal Joens observed Respondent while he was teaching and interacting with the students. Principal Joens described Respondent's interactions with students during those observations as positive. Moreover, two former students who were in Respondent's fourth-period class on April 15, 2004, testified that Respondent was a good teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered that finds Respondent not guilty of the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint and dismisses the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 30th day of April, 2008.
