The Issue The issue in the case is whether the application of Anne L. Kruppa (Petitioner) for a Florida Educator's Certificate should be denied for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Reasons issued on July 13, 2004, by Jim Horne, Commissioner of Education (Respondent).
Findings Of Fact By an application dated July 7, 2000, Petitioner applied for a teaching position with the Hillsborough County School District. In the application, the Petitioner identified her college degree as "B.S. Zoology" from the University of South Florida (USF). Above Petitioner's signature, the application states that Petitioner certified that the information provided on the application was "true and correct without any falsifications, omissions, or misleading statements of any kind whatsoever." The application contained a space where the date of Petitioner's college graduation was to be provided. Petitioner's application did not include a graduation date. A handwritten question mark appears in the space where the date was to be set forth. Petitioner was employed as a teacher by the Hillsborough County School District for the 2000-2001 school year. At the time of her employment, Petitioner was instructed to obtain her college transcript from USF and provide it to the Hillsborough County School District. The evidence establishes that Petitioner did not have a bachelor's degree in zoology from USF when she completed the employment application. By an application dated July 31, 2000, Petitioner applied for a Florida Educator's Certificate. In the application, Petitioner stated that she had received a bachelor's degree in zoology from USF in 1998. According to the application, by her signature, Petitioner certified that "all information pertaining to this application is true, correct, and complete." At the time of the certification application, Petitioner was directed to obtain her college transcript and provide it to the Florida Department of Education. The evidence establishes that Petitioner did not have a bachelor's degree in zoology from USF when she completed the certification application. By spring of 2001, Petitioner had not provided a transcript to either the Hillsborough County School District or to the Florida Department of Education. At that point, the Hillsborough County School District contacted USF to assist in obtaining Petitioner's transcript, at which time the district learned that Petitioner did not have a bachelor's degree. In April 2001, the Hillsborough County School District terminated Petitioner's employment because she could not obtain a Florida Educator's Certificate without a college degree, and the employment required such certification. After the termination of employment by the Hillsborough County School District, Petitioner worked with the Hillsborough County School District as a substitute teacher and attended Hillsborough Community College in the fall semester 2001. After completing a course at the community college, Petitioner received a bachelor's degree in zoology from USF on December 14, 2001, and returned to teaching full-time for the school district. The evidence establishes that prior to December 14, 2001, Petitioner did not have a bachelor's degree, contrary to the information set forth on her application for employment with the Hillsborough County School District or the application to obtain a Florida Educator's Certificate from the Florida Department of Education. At the hearing, Petitioner testified that at the time she filed the applications she believed that she had received her bachelor's degree from USF in the summer of 1997 after taking a course called Elementary Calculus II during the summer term. The USF summer term included three separate sessions. Session A and Session B were six-week terms. Session C, a ten- week term, is not at issue in this case. The records of the 1997 USF summer term indicate that the Petitioner was enrolled in "MAC 3234 Elem Clclus II" (Elementary Calculus II) during the Summer Session A. According to the transcript, she received an "F" in the course. Petitioner testified that she thought she had enrolled in the course for Summer Session B. Petitioner testified that she paid another person to attend the classes and take notes for Petitioner. Petitioner testified that Petitioner took "a bunch of the tests" and "was figuring I had roughly a B something in the course." The note-taker testified by deposition and recalled taking notes for Petitioner during July and August of 1997 for a fee of ten dollars per hour. There is no evidence that the note-taker took any tests. Classes for the 1997 USF Summer Session B commenced on June 30 and ended on August 8. Classes for the 1997 USF Summer Session A commenced on May 12 and ended on June 20. Petitioner testified that at some point after the summer session was completed, she saw the course instructor and spoke to him about her performance in the class. The instructor did not testify at the hearing. Petitioner testified that she did not receive her grade for Elementary Calculus II, but presumed that she had passed the course and received her degree. Review of Petitioner's USF transcript establishes that at various times Petitioner took courses identified as "MAC 3233 Elem Clclus I" (Elementary Calculus I) and "MAC 3234 Elem Clclus II" (Elementary Calculus II). Petitioner enrolled in Elementary Calculus I in the fall term of 1994, but withdrew. In the fall term of 1995, Petitioner re-enrolled in Elementary Calculus I and received a grade of "A." Petitioner first enrolled in Elementary Calculus II in the spring term of 1996 and received a grade of "F." Petitioner again enrolled in the course in the summer term of 1996 and received a grade of "D." In the fall term of 1996, Petitioner re-took the Elementary Calculus I course and received a grade of "F." Petitioner's testimony regarding her presumed performance in the summer 1997 course lacks credibility based on review of the transcript. Based on the performance in the referenced calculus courses, it is unlikely that Petitioner reasonably presumed without further inquiry that she passed the Elementary Calculus II course and received her degree after the summer term of 1997. Petitioner also testified that she believed her admission to the USF graduate school indicated that she had completed her undergraduate requirements, and that further inquiry was apparently not required. The Official Acceptance that was mailed to Petitioner and was required to be presented to USF officials in order to register for courses clearly states that the admission was "provisional." The Official Acceptance required that Petitioner submit to the graduate school her undergraduate transcript indicating that the degree had been conferred. Nothing provided to Petitioner by the USF graduate school indicated that the undergraduate degree had been awarded. Petitioner was in the USF graduate program for one semester and was enrolled for five classes, four of which were undergraduate-level classes. In the fifth class (identified as "EDF 6432 Fndtns Measrmnt") she received a grade of "F."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Jim Horne, as Commissioner of Education, enter a final order denying Petitioner's pending application for a Florida Educator's Certificate and providing that Petitioner may not reapply for such certification for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 17th day of September, 2004.
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether there exists "just cause" within the meaning of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, to terminate the professional services contract between the School Board of Gadsden County, Florida, and John C. Buckley. The School Board seeks such a termination on the basis of allegations that John C. Buckley engaged in various forms of inappropriate conduct during the course of a science fair trip. Briefly summarized, the allegations are that John C. Buckley (a) permitted students to smoke cigarettes, (b) purchased alcoholic beverages in the presence of a student, (c) consumed alcoholic beverages in the presence of students, (d) provided alcoholic beverages to students and permitted them to consume such beverages, and (e) inappropriately touched one or more female students. At the hearing, the parties presented the testimony of several witnesses, including the testimony of Respondent. Following the hearing, a transcript of the proceedings was filed and all parties thereafter filed timely proposed recommended orders. The parties' proposed recommended orders have been carefully considered during the formulation of this recommended order. All findings of fact prepared by the parties are specifically addressed in the appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the hearing and the admissions of the Respondent, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material, the Respondent, John C. Buckley, was employed as a science teacher at the James A. Shanks High School in Gadsden County, Florida. At all times material, the Respondent was employed under a professional service contract as defined in Section 231.36(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1987). The Respondent accompanied a group of Gadsden County high school students to Jacksonville to attend a science fair on April 13, 1988, through April 16, 1988. There were three other adults present during the trip; Oscar Rogers, a school bus driver employed by the Gadsden County School Board, Cynthia B. Clark, a science teacher from Carter Parramore Middle School, and Betty Williams, a chaperon. On the way to Jacksonville, the following three female students rode with the Respondent in his personal car: Ginger Godwin (10th grade), Twanna Scott (12th grade), and Yvonne Dunson (12th grade). The other students and adults rode in a school bus. During the drive to Jacksonville, two of the students in Respondent's car were smoking cigarettes. The Respondent knew these two students intended to smoke in his car and he did not prohibit either student from smoking in his car. During the evening of April 13, 1988, the Respondent drove in his car to a liquor store in Jacksonville, where he purchased some beer, some bottled wine coolers, and a small bottle of bourbon. Twanna Scott, a student, rode in Respondent's car to and from the liquor store, but she did not get out of the car when the Respondent went into the liquor store. During the evening of April 13, 1988, the Respondent consumed several beers, probably three or four. Some of the Respondent's consumption of beer took place in the presence of some of the students, specifically at a time when the students and the adults on the trip were eating pizza for their evening meal. The Respondent did not, on April 13, 1988, or any other time, provide any alcoholic beverages to any of the students, nor did he permit any of the students to consume alcohol. Later, on the evening of April 13, 1988, the Respondent entered the motel room in which Ginger Godwin, Twanna Scott, Yvonne Dunson, and Precious Anderson were staying. At the time the Respondent entered the room, Godwin, Scott, and Dunson, and several other people were also in the room. During the time the Respondent was in the room a door that connected to the next room was open. The next room was the room in which Cynthia B. Clark, a teacher, was staying with two other female students. While the Respondent was in the room, Twanna Scott complained of a stiff back and the Respondent sat on the edge of the bed and gave Twanna Scott a brief back rub. At the time of the back rub, the only other people in the room were Ginger Godwin and Yvonne Dunson. Following the back rub, the Respondent left the room. The Respondent did not touch any part of Twanna Scott's body other than her back. The Respondent did not touch either of the other female students who were in the room. On the evening of April 14, 1988, while the Respondent was away from the motel with some of the students, Ginger Godwin, Twanna Scott, and Yvonne Dunson told Cynthia B. Clark, one of the teachers, that they wanted to spend some time watching television in the motel room of some insurance salesmen they had recently met at the motel. Mrs. Clark agreed to let them do so, subject to some ground rules which included: the door to the salesmen's motel room had to remain open, the curtains had to remain open, and the girls had to check with Mrs. Clark every 30 minutes or so. At about 9:45 p.m. during the evening of April 14, 1988, Mrs. Clark walked by the salesmen's room and observed Ginger Godwin drinking a beer. Mrs. Clark told Ginger Godwin that she did not approve of such conduct and Ginger Godwin acted indifferent to the disapproval. Mrs. Clark told the girls that they needed to be back in their own rooms by 10:30 p.m. Sometime between 10:30 and 10:45 p.m., Mrs. Clark returned to the salesmen's room and tried to get the three girls to return to their own room. They essentially ignored her and remained in the salesmen's room. The Respondent returned to the motel sometime shortly after 11:00 p.m., at which time Mrs. Clark told him about the three girls in the insurance salesmen's room. Mrs. Clark and the Respondent then went to the salesmen's room and the Respondent told the girls they had to return to their own room. After some argument, the three girls eventually complied. Later in the evening the salesmen were down tapping on the window of the girls' motel room and the girls were talking to the salesmen through an open window. When this was brought to the Respondent's attention, he went to the girls' room, told them they should go to bed and tried to get the salesmen to leave. The three girls and the insurance salesmen all rebuffed the Respondent's efforts, and the Respondent ultimately had to call the motel security guard. At about that time, Ginger Godwin got into a heated argument with the Respondent, during the course of which there was some yelling and shouting back and forth. Apparently there were further heated arguments the next day about the salesmen. At some point in the arguments, Ginger Godwin threatened to retaliate against the Respondent as a result of his interference with the relationship between the three girls and the insurance salesmen. The threats made to the Respondent included statements such as, "I know how to get you," "I'm going to take care of your job Monday," and "I'll get even with you and I'll take care of you Monday when I get back." Upon returning home, Ginger Godwin, Yvonne Dunson, and Twanna Scott reported to school authorities that the Respondent had engaged in improper conduct during the science fair trip. They accused the Respondent of, among other things, improper sexual touching of Dunson and Scott. The allegations of improper sexual touching were false. School rules prohibit the use of tobacco substances at school campuses, activities, or field trips. School rules prohibit the consumption of alcoholic beverages on School Board premises, at school activities, and on school field trips. School rules prohibit the consumption of alcoholic beverages by teachers in the presence of students, during school field trips. When supervising field trips, teachers have 24-hour supervisory responsibility over the students on the field trip. The Respondent had been previously warned to curtail his smoking in front of students by Janey DuPont, an Administrator employed by the Petitioner. Respondent had also been specifically warned by Janey DuPont not to consume alcoholic beverages in the presence of students. The Respondent knew or should have known that he was not supposed to be drinking alcoholic beverages in the presence of students under his supervision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I hereby recommend that the administrative charges against the Respondent Buckley be dismissed and that the Respondent be reinstated as a professional service contract teacher with full back pay. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of November, 1988. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following are my specific rulings on all findings of fact proposed by the parties to this case. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraph 1: Accepted Paragraphs 2 and 3: Rejected as unnecessary recitation of procedural details. (Findings have been made incorporating the substance of the conduct admitted by the Respondent.) Paragraphs 4 and 5: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10: Accepted. Paragraph 11: Rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17; Accepted. Paragraphs 18 and 19: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 20, 21, 22, and 23: Accepted, with some unnecessary details omitted. Paragraphs 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Covered in preliminary statement. Paragraph 29: Accepted. Paragraphs 30 and 31: Rejected because there is no clear and convincing evidence that any inappropriate touching of female students occurred on this occasion and, absent any inappropriate touching, the proposed details are subordinate and unnecessary. Specifically, there is no persuasive evidence that the Respondent made several attempts to bite Twanna Scott on her ear. Ms. Scott's testimony to that effort is unconvincing. The Respondent's denial is accepted. Paragraphs 32, 33, 34, and 35: Rejected as not supported by credible evidence. I reject as unworthy of belief the testimony that the Respondent provided alcoholic beverages to three students. I accept the Respondent's denial that he provided alcoholic beverages to any student. Paragraph 36: Rejected as irrelevant because the Respondent has not been charged with this conduct and, in any event, there is no evidence that Respondent consumed sufficient alcohol to impair his ability to drive safely. Paragraph 37: First fourteen words rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; I have rejected the testimony that Respondent provided alcoholic beverages to any students. Next seven words rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary because there has been no showing that the Respondent consumed sufficient alcoholic beverages to impair his judgment. The remainder of this paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 38: First sentence rejected as vague and inaccurate; the subject student was wearing a robe and was on the bed watching television. Second sentence accepted in substance with a few clarifying details. Paragraphs 39, 40, and 41: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. In view of all the circumstances, the Respondent's denials and the Respondent's version of what occurred is more believable than the testimony of Yvonne Dunson, Twanna Scott, and Ginger Godwin. Yvonne Dunson, Twanna Scott, and Ginger Godwin are not credible witnesses. Paragraph 42: Rejected as inaccurate; the girls made a report when they returned, but it was a false report. Findings proposed by the Respondent Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 7 and 8: Rejected as constituting summaries of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact. Further, the subject matter of these paragraphs is irrelevant because in the hand holding in the car is not the "inappropriate" touching with which the Respondent has been charged. Paragraph 9: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 10: Accepted. Paragraphs 11, 12, 13, and 14: I have not made any findings on the subject matter addressed by these paragraphs because there is no clear and convincing evidence that any inappropriate touching of female students occurred on this occasion and, absent any inappropriate touching, the proposed details are subordinate and unnecessary. Paragraph 15: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 16: First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 17 and 18: Rejected as constituting summaries of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact. On this subject, I have found that the greater weight of the evidence is consistent with the Respondent's denial. Paragraph 19: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 20, 21, and 22: Rejected as constituting summaries of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact. (The summarized testimony has not been credited.) Paragraph 23: First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as not supported by persuasive evidence; I seriously doubt that Ginger Godwin told the other two girls anything about any "incidents" on Wednesday night. I believe the three girls (Ginger Godwin, Twanna Scott, and Yvonne Dunson) fabricated their stories at a later date. Paragraph 24: Rejected as constituting a summary of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact. I have, however, made findings of fact consistent with the Respondent's version of this incident. Paragraph 25: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 26: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37: Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED TO: CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, ESQUIRE RUDEN, BARNETT, MCCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, P.A. 101 NORTH MONROE STREET MONROE-PARK TOWER, SUITE 1010 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 PHILIP J. PADOVANO, ESQUIRE POST OFFICE BOX 873 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32302 ROBERT H. BRYANT SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS SCHOOL BOARD OF GADSDEN COUNTY POST OFFICE BOX 818 QUINCY, FLORIDA 32351
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is licensed as a psychologist in Argentina, where she was educated. She attended the University of Buenos Aires completing a six-year program in four years. Petitioner received a degree in psychology from the University of Buenos Aires on December 23, 1977, but did not receive her diploma from that institution until June of 1979. She became licensed as a psychologist by the Ministry of Health in 1979. Upon her graduation from the University of Buenos Aires, Petitioner began to practice psychology in Argentina. She worked in a hospital from 1979 to 1983. Petitioner describes this period of work as her "internship." She also worked in a drug abuse program, which she also describes as an "internship." During these work experiences, Petitioner supervised other personnel. During the same period of time, specifically from 1980 to 1982, Petitioner also engaged in private practice. In 1981 Petitioner enrolled in the Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates, where she took a number of courses and wrote a paper which she presented to the faculty there. The Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates is not a degree-granting institution. Upon completion of the four year program, only a certificate is issued. Petitioner did not produce a transcript from the Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates as part of her application for licensure in Florida. She submitted only a syllabus, i.e., a listing of the names of the courses she took at that institution. A syllabus, however, is not a transcript. Subsequently, Petitioner moved to the state of Michigan where she applied for licensure as a psychologist at the master's degree level. Based upon her education and training, she received a limited license to practice psychology in 1989. Michigan recognizes master's degree level psychologists. In Florida, however, master's degree level applicants are not eligible for licensure as psychologists. In 1991 Petitioner was interviewed by the licensure board in Michigan. Subsequent to that interview, Michigan granted her full licensure to practice as a psychologist in that state. In granting Petitioner full licensure, the Michigan licensing board deemed that her education and training were equivalent to education and training at the doctorate level even though between 1989 and 1991, Petitioner had not added to her education credentials. She had merely obtained additional supervised experience. At some point, Petitioner took and passed the Michigan examination for licensure. The Michigan examination is not the same as the examination for licensure developed by Professional Examination Services. Petitioner has never taken the national examination required for licensure in Florida. In 1993, Petitioner applied for licensure as a psychologist in Florida. She maintains that Michigan's determination that her education and training are equivalent to a doctorate level education should be sufficient to qualify her for Florida licensure as well. She admits, however, that she does not have a Ph.D. She also admits that there is "a huge difference" between the training in Argentina and the training in the United States. As part of her application process and in order to demonstrate to Respondent her qualifications for licensure in Florida, Petitioner submitted her education and training credentials to two foreign education credentialing services. One of those services determined that Petitioner has the equivalent of a Bachelor of Science degree in psychology from an institution in the United States that has regional academic accreditation, plus completion of four years of advanced theoretical and clinical training. The other service found that Petitioner has the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in psychology. The second credentialing service was unable to evaluate Petitioner's studies at the Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates because that institution is not recognized as a degree-granting institution of higher education. Neither of those evaluations could verify that Petitioner possesses the equivalent of a doctorate degree as a result of her training and education in Argentina. In 1992, the University of Buenos Aires created a Ph.D. program in psychology; however, that program did not exist at the time that Petitioner attended that institution. The Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates is not a degree granting institution and does not offer a doctorate program in psychology. At the time that Petitioner chose to attend the University of Buenos Aires and the Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates, it was possible to obtain a Ph.D. in psychology in Argentina, but Petitioner chose not to pursue that course of study. Based upon Petitioner's advanced education beyond her bachelor's degree, she has the educational equivalent of a master's level degree without the thesis generally required to obtain such a degree.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a psychologist either by endorsement or by examination. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of June, 1996, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 7th day of June, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 94-4675 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 20- 22, 24, 28 and 46 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 4 and 10 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 6, 13-17, 19, 39, 41- 43, 47, and 50-54 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 8, 12, 18, 25-27, 34- 38, 40 and 49 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 23, 29-33, 44, 45, and 48 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-10, 12 and 15 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 11, 13 and 14 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank P. Rainer, Esquire 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Virginia Daire, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Dr. Kay Howerton, Executive Director Agency for Health Care Administration Board of Psychology 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Admitted Facts 1/ Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 534707. The certificate authorizes Respondent to teach social studies. It is valid through June 30, 1994. Respondent is employed as a Social Studies Teacher at Osceola High School in Osceola County, Florida. He has been so employed at all times material to this proceeding, except for a suspension of five days without pay. The five-day suspension and a letter of reprimand were imposed by the Osceola County School District pursuant to a Disciplinary Agreement between Respondent and the District. The conduct that led to the Disciplinary Agreement is the same conduct that is at issue in this proceeding. In November, 1992, Respondent's classes studied the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Tim Dodson ("Dodson") was a male student in one of those classes. Dodson told Respondent that Dodson's father owned a replica of the rifle used to assassinate President Kennedy. Respondent sent a note to Dodson's father requesting that Dodson bring the rifle to Respondent's class. Dodson brought the rifle to Respondent's class during the week of November 16, 1992. On November 18, 1992, Respondent took his class outside to the football field. Dodson climbed to the top of an observation tower and fired two rounds of live ammunition at a target located on the ground. Purpose The purpose of firing the rifle from the observation tower was to simulate the angle of fire from Lee Harvey Oswald to President Kennedy in 1963. The firing time was not part of the simulation. Out of concern for safety, Respondent did not permit Dodson to fire the rifle in the same time that Oswald fired his rifle. The three story observation tower on the football field was lower than the fifth story of the book depository in Dallas, Texas. However, the distance from the observation tower to the target was also shorter than the distance from the book depository to President Kennedy. Respondent determined that the angle created by the lower tower and shorter distance in the simulation approximated the actual angle of fire in the assassination of President Kennedy. The target was a metal military helmet resting on a two- by-four board. The target was set at approximately the same height that President Kennedy was positioned in 1963. Prior to November 18, 1992, Respondent's students studied the assassination of President Kennedy and watched the "Zapruder" film of the assassination. On November 18, 1992, students witnessed the simulation and inspected the target after the simulation. They then wrote papers on the assassination and the "lone gunman" theory. Procedure The simulation was originally scheduled for November 16, 1992. Respondent cancelled that simulation because of trouble with the bolt action in the rifle and because of rain. On November 18, 1992, Respondent prescribed specific procedures to be followed during the simulation. Dodson carried the rifle. A second student carried the bolt action. A third student carried the ammunition. A fourth student was designated as a "backup shooter" in the event Dodson missed the target. Both Dodson and the backup shooter were excellent shots and had significant experience with firearms. Respondent, the three students carrying the rifle parts and ammunition, and the backup shooter climbed to the top of the tower. The tower platform was approximately 48 square feet. Respondent instructed Dodson to shoot only on Respondent's command. Respondent also instructed Dodson not to shoot if Dodson saw anyone in the vicinity. Respondent descended the observation tower and remained on the ground with the rest of the students in his class. Respondent and the students on the ground stood behind the shooter and the observation tower. The three students who remained on the platform with Dodson stood behind Dodson. Dodson assembled the rifle and loaded it. On Respondent's command from the ground, Dodson fired two shots at the target. One round hit the target; the other hit the ground. Dodson took the bolt action from the rifle and handed it to the designated student. Dodson and the other three students descended the tower. They inspected the target with the students on the ground and returned to class with the other students. Neither Respondent, any other school official, nor any other competent adult was on the tower platform with Dodson and the other three students. Dodson and the other three students on the platform were not supervised immediately before, during, and after Dodson fired the rifle. Vicinity The observation tower was located approximately 400 feet west of the nearest campus building; in a vacant football field-track-and-parking complex (the "complex"). The complex is approximately 500 feet wide, east to west, and approximately 1,200 feet long, north to south. The observation tower was situated approximately 300 feet west of the east boundary, midway between the north and south boundaries, and 200 feet east of the west boundary. The west boundary of the complex is formed by a drainage ditch that runs the entire 1,200 feet between the complex's north and south boundaries. At its closest point, the drainage ditch was approximately 200 feet west of the observation tower. The target was located approximately 250 feet southwest of the observation tower. It was approximately 10 feet in front of the drainage ditch. The drainage ditch is approximately 25 feet deep. On the west side of the drainage ditch, and adjacent to it, is a line of trees, shrubs, and a six foot chain link fence (the "ditch and tree line"). West of the ditch and tree line are athletic fields used only in the Spring. West of the athletic fields are vacant lands owned by the airport. On November 18, 1992, students and maintenance workers had access to the complex where the observation tower was located. Respondent investigated the complex surrounding the observation tower up to the ditch and tree line. Respondent correctly determined that no one was present in the area Respondent inspected. Students and maintenance workers also had access to the athletic fields west of the ditch and tree line. Although Respondent did not inspect that area, no students were in fact present in the uninspected area. Unknown to Respondent and his students, three maintenance workers were present in the uninspected area. The workers parked their trucks on the softball field between first and second base. They were parked approximately 500 feet west of the ditch and tree line. The maintenance workers were not in the line of fire. They parked their trucks approximately 700 feet due west of the observation tower and approximately 600 feet northwest of the target. The target was approximately 250 southwest of the observation tower and east of the ditch and tree line. Approximately two minutes after parking their trucks on the softball field, the three maintenance workers heard a shot. Two of the maintenance workers left their vehicle. They walked over to the ditch and tree line to investigate the shot. One of the workers walked to a clear spot in the tree line. He tried to look over the top of "some pretty good-sized brush" growing in the clear spot. He saw "three or four kids' heads" on top of the observation tower. The workers found nothing else, returned to their trucks, and completed their duties. Embarrassment And Disparagement Petitioner did not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e). 2/ Dodson was proud of his role in the simulation. Students uniformly considered the simulation to be a positive learning experience. Although the simulation received significant notoriety in the community through local media coverage and community attention, no student felt embarrassed or disparaged by either the notoriety or the simulation. The notoriety that did occur and any embarrassment or disparagement that may have occurred, if any, was not intended by Respondent. Learning Experience And Mental Health Or Safety Respondent did not fail to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning or to students' mental health or safety within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code 6B-1.006(3)(a). 3/ The simulation was a positive learning experience. Students described the learning experience as "great" and "interesting." Almost two years after the simulation, students involved in the simulation were excited about their experience and remembered what they had learned about a significant episode in American history. Physical Health Or Safety Respondent failed to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical health or safety in violation of Florida Administrative Code 6B-1.006(3)(a). The effort made by Respondent was not reasonable, and it failed in fact to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical safety and to their physical health. Unreasonable Effort The effort made by Respondent was unreasonable in three respects. First, it was not reasonable for Respondent to conduct the simulation in the absence of prior notice to, and written authority from, the appropriate school and law enforcement officials. Second, it was not reasonable for Respondent to sanction the possession of a rifle and the firing of live ammunition on campus. Finally, it was not reasonable for Respondent to conduct the simulation without appropriate supervision on the tower platform. 7.01(a) Prior Notice And Consent Prior notice to school and law enforcement officials would have given those officials an opportunity to determine if the simulation was appropriate under any circumstances. If those officials determined that the simulation was appropriate, they would then have had the opportunity to determine the level of supervision required to conduct the simulation in a manner that protected students from conditions harmful to their physical health and safety. By unilaterally determining that the simulation and attendant conditions were appropriate, Respondent denied school and law enforcement officials the opportunity make their own decisions and exposed those officials to potential liability for any actual harm to the students that may have occurred. It was unreasonable to expose those officials to such liability without their prior knowledge and consent. 7.01(b) Sanctioned Use Of Firearms The sanctioned use of a rifle and live ammunition on campus was unreasonable. It creates a risk that students will draw an incorrect inference from the simulation. Respondent testified in the formal hearing that he was under the mistaken impression that it was okay to permit firearms on campus. He based his impression on the fact that the principal had previously condoned the presence of a firearm in Respondent's class, that Respondent had seen ROTC members and police liaison officers present on campus with guns, and that Respondent had also previously witnessed civil war reenactments on campus and mistakenly assumed that the participants used live ammunition. Respondent drew an incorrect inference from the sanctioned presence of firearms on campus. If a person of Respondent's education, experience, and intelligence can draw an incorrect inference from the sanctioned presence of firearms on campus, there is at least an equal risk that Respondent's youthful and inexperienced students will draw a similar inference from the use of a firearm that is sanctioned by Respondent. Respondent's failure to consider this factor rendered his effort unreasonable. 4/ 7.01(c) Inadequate Supervision Respondent's effort to protect his students from harmful conditions was also unreasonable because Respondent failed to provide adequate supervision for students on the tower platform. The failure to have, at a minimum, at least one school official, law enforcement official, or other competent adult on the tower platform with Dodson and his companions was not a reasonable effort to protect students on the platform and students on the ground from harmful conditions. Harmful Conditions The effort actually made by Respondent failed, in fact, to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical safety. The effort created unsafe conditions including the possession and discharge of a rifle, loaded with live ammunition, by an unsupervised high school student, positioned on top of a three story tower, accompanied by three other students who were also unsupervised, while Respondent and the other students observed from the ground three stories below. Those conditions were unsafe and, therefore, failed to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical safety. The conditions of the simulation threatened harm to the students physical health by creating a risk of actual harm. The conditions were, therefore, harmful to the students' physical health for purposes of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a). The harm that students were threatened with included serious injury or death. A misfire could have resulted in serious injury or death to any of the students on the ground or on the platform. Similarly, a fall from a height of three stories could have resulted in serious injury or death to any of the four students on the platform. Mitigating Factors The physical health of any one student was not in fact harmed as a result of the simulation. The angle of the rifle to the target, the depth of the ditch, and the density of the tree line made it unlikely that a bullet fired at the target would hit anything except the target, the ground, or the ditch and tree line. Dodson and the "backup shooter" had substantial experience with firearms and were expert marksmen. Those factors diminished the possibility of a misfire and the possibility that bullets fired at the target would hit anything other than the target or the ditch. The bullets, in fact, struck only the target or the ditch. No students other than those involved in the simulation were present in the complex. No students were present in the uninspected area west of the ditch and tree line. No person who was not a student was injured as a result of the simulation. The maintenance workers were not in the line of fire and were not in fact harmed. Respondent did not fail to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical health or safety before and after the simulation. Respondent gave Dodson specific instructions before Dodson brought the rifle to school. Pursuant to Respondent's instructions, Dodson removed the bolt action from the rifle, put the rifle in his car, locked the rifle in his car, and went to class. Respondent and Dodson immediately retrieved the rifle from the car and carried the separate parts of the rifle and the ammunition back to the classroom. Respondent followed adequate safety precautions before and after the simulation. The unloaded rifle, the bolt action that had been removed from the rifle, and the ammunition were kept locked in Respondent's closet in his classroom. The only times that the rifle was not locked in the closet was during the simulation and when Respondent permitted his students to view the rifle when it was first brought to school. The only time that the rifle was harmful was on the platform immediately before, during, and after it was fired. Earlier in the school year, school officials condoned the presence of a World War II rifle brought into Respondent's class without notice to school officials and without their prior consent. The school principal entered Respondent's classroom on other business and saw Respondent and other students inspecting the rifle. The principal did not object to the presence of the rifle and joked about students wanting to get rid of the principal. The school principal encouraged Respondent to use simulations. At a meeting of social studies teachers conducted in the beginning of the school year, the school principal encouraged those teachers to take teaching risks and to use new and unconventional methods for reaching students. Simulations were included in the methods suggested by the principal. 5/ Respondent is highly regarded by students. They give him high marks for bringing his subject matter to life. He frequently uses films, demonstrations, and simulations to capture students' interest through visual history. Students in Respondent's classes learn, enjoy learning, and retain what they learn. Other students try to get into Respondent's classes. Respondent is highly regarded by his employer. The Assistant Principal of Osceola High School testified: He is a very good teacher, very effective. Kids love him. He works very hard. He loves teaching. He is passionate with his subject. When I . . . observe him, I get so involved that I don't want to leave. Respondent's employment assessment for the last two years has been "excellent." The abilities and skills that Respondent brings to the classroom are significant resources for students and provide them with substantial benefits. School officials arranged for Respondent to complete his five-day suspension so that he did not miss any time in the classroom. Respondent is highly respected by the school faculty. Respondent's role in the simulation conducted on November 18, 1992, did not diminish the respect Respondent has earned from his peers. The faculty at Osceola High School voted Respondent teacher of the year for the 1993-94 school year. Respondent was runner-up for teacher of the year in the 1992-93 school year, the year that Respondent conducted the simulation. Respondent is a well educated public school teacher. Respondent received his undergraduate degree from Central Michigan University, a teachers college. He received a master's degree in education, curriculum, and instruction from Michigan State University. Respondent received a specialist degree in leadership (i.e., administration) from the University of Central Florida. A specialist degree is awarded to persons who hold a master's degree and successfully complete all of the requirements for a doctorate except the dissertation. Respondent is presently a doctoral student in leadership at the University of Central Florida. Respondent has significant teaching experience. He has been teaching public school children for over 16 years, including 10 years at Osceola High School, a time at Winter Park Junior High School in Orange County, Florida, and six years in DeWitt, Michigan, a suburb of Lansing, Michigan. Respondent has been an adjunct teacher at Valencia Community College and the University of Central Florida. While Respondent taught public school children, he was also involved in assisting students in their extra curricular activities. Respondent was a head basketball coach for junior varsity and freshman basketball, a high school football coach, and a varsity and junior varsity baseball coach. Respondent coached youth leagues for girls softball and boys baseball. He coached in summer basketball camps put on by Michigan State University and worked for the Milwaukee Bucks in coaching basketball clinics for them. Respondent also teaches religious education and is the head of a youth group. Respondent has no prior disciplinary history against his teaching certificate. The Disciplinary Agreement entered into between Osceola High School and Respondent, as a result of the simulation conducted on November 18, 1992, is the only disciplinary action taken against Respondent during his considerable teaching career. One of the elements of The Disciplinary Agreement involved a period of probation. Respondent was returned to a Needs Improvement status and evaluated by school officials at the end of his probationary period. Respondent successfully completed the probation, was evaluated "excellent," and returned to his regular status.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Educational Practices Commission (the "Commission") enter a Final Order finding Respondent: not guilty of intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e); not guilty of failing to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning or to their mental health or safety within the meaning of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a); and guilty of failing to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical health or safety in violation of Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(a) and Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that the Final Order impose the following penalty: a letter of reprimand filed in Respondent's teaching certificate file; the completion, at Respondent's expense and within one year of the date of the Final Order, of an appropriate course in classroom safety which shall not exceed one, three hour college level class; and suspension of Respondent's teaching certificate for not more than 30 days to be carried out in a manner that will not preclude students at Osceola High School from receiving regular classroom instruction from Respondent, will not preclude the automatic reinstatement of Respondent's teaching certificate at the conclusion of the period of suspension, and will not have an adverse effect for Respondent's current employment status at Osceola High School and any attendant benefits such as medical insurance and retirement benefits; or either at the election of Respondent or in the event it is not feasible to implement suspension subject to the limitations stated herein, an administrative fine not greater than $1,000 to be paid in lieu of suspension of the teaching certificate. The actual term of suspension or the actual amount of the fine, if elected, shall be determined by the Commission subject to the limits established in this Recommended Order. Respondent may elect to pay the fine at any time prior to the first day of the actual suspension determined by the Commission. Subject to the limits established herein, any fine elected by Respondent shall be imposed in accordance with the provisions of Section 231.262(6)(c), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of October, 1994. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1994.
Findings Of Fact Introduction At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Lawrence J. Ferrara, was an instructional employee of petitioner, School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida (School Board or petitioner). When the relevant events herein occurred, Ferrara was a classroom teacher under a continuing contract assigned to John I. Leonard High School (JIL) in Lake Worth, Florida. He has been employed as a classroom teacher with petitioner since August 16, 1965 and received his continuing contract of employment in June, 1969. He holds teaching certificate number 150262 issued by the State Department of Education and is certified in the areas of American Government and social studies for grade levels 7 through 12. Respondent received a bachelor of education degree from the University of Miami. His first assignment with petitioner was in school year 1965-66 at Lantana Junior High School. He remained there through school year 1967-68. At the end of that year, Ferrara was placed on a fourth year annual probationary contract because he had insufficient control of his classes. He transferred to John F. Kennedy High School for school year 1968-69, and received a continuing contract of employment at the end of that school year. Respondent then transferred to Boynton Beach Junior High School for the 1969-70 school year. Ferrara desired to teach at the high school level because he preferred to teach students having greater maturity and interest in learning. He secured an assignment to JIL in September, 1970, where he remained until his suspension in 1986. Ferrara was initially assigned to the social studies department teaching American History to the eleventh grade. He remained in that position until the fall of 1981. During this period of time, Ferrara's evaluations showed steady improvement in his performance, and Ferrara characterized the 1980-81 school year as the happiest and most enjoyable year in his teaching career. In fact, he referred only two students to the dean for disciplinary reasons during the entire year, and both were referred during the final week of school. Prior to the 1981-82 school year, Ferrara had a reputation as a good teacher, and his relationship with other faculty members was favorable. JIL sits on a forty acre campus in Lake Worth, Florida. During the relevant years the school had a student enrollment ranging in size from 2,200 to 2,850 students. Most recently its faculty numbered approximately 145. The principal is the chief administrator at JIL. In dealing with employees, the principal follows guidelines set out in the collective bargaining agreement with the Classroom Teachers Association (CTA), School Board policy, administrator's directives and the JIL Teacher and Student Handbooks. There are several assistant principals, including deans, who have been given authority to counsel with and reprimand employees. Among other things they are responsible for discipline of students. There are also guidance counselors who may counsel with other staff members and students as the need arises. The principal designates department chairmen who have authority to reprimand or evaluate teachers, and to recommend course assignments within the department. In the case at bar, Ferrara was assigned to the social studies department, which had approximately sixteen teachers. Its chairman was responsible for reviewing lesson plans of all teachers to insure that curriculum objectives were being met. This action is mandated by the School Board. At JIL lesson plans were required to be prepared one week in advance. In addition, faculty were required to prepare emergency lesson plans to be used by substitute teachers if the regular teacher was absent. Finally, the department head issued textbooks to each teacher who was obligated to turn in the books (or monies from the student) at the end of the semester or school year. According to the CTA-School Board contract introduced into evidence as petitioner's exhibit 9, and which is applicable to Ferrara's employment, Subsection A1. of Article II provides that "teachers are expected to serve on school committees, self-evaluation and accreditation committees, attend meetings and workshops . . . such service (to be) on a voluntary basis . . " Subsection A2. provides that "employees shall assume reasonable responsibility for the safe return of all school property." Subsection F4. of the same Article requires employees to "assume the responsibility for taking a positive approach to discipline and to maintain constructive classroom control." Subsection B1. of Article III prescribes a duty day for faculty at JIL of seven and one-half consecutive hours per day. Subsection B2. requires that an employee obtain approval from the principal to leave the school premises for personal reasons during the defined duty hours. Subsection E4. of the same Article provides that "the teacher shall be responsible for the preparation of daily lesson plans to be made available to the substitute in the absence of the teacher. Such plans shall be made in advance at all times." The School Board has also promulgated various "local" rules which pertain to suspension and dismissal of employees, as well as the rehabilitation process to be following once a teacher is cited for deficiencies. They apply to Ferrara's employment. School Year 1981-82 In the spring of 1981, Ferrara heard rumors that he was being reassigned the following school year from exclusively teaching eleventh graders to teaching ninth grade American Government classes as well. At the same time he learned that the teacher of an advanced history class was leaving JIL at the end of the school term. Ferrara approached the social studies de- partment head, Catherine Thornton, concerning the vacancy but was told the vacant slot had been promised to a new teacher named Martin. Ferrara then met with the JIL principal, Dr. Munroe, in June, 1981 and asked that his teaching assignment not be changed. During that meeting he criticized Munroe's selection of athletic coaches to teach in the social studies department. Ferrara considered the department as a dumping ground for coaches and other unqualified teachers. Ferrara's request was turned down and he was reassigned to teach three periods of ninth grade American Government classes and two periods of eleventh grade American History the following year. Moreover, JIL was on double sessions at that time, and Ferrara was switched from the early session (6:45 a.m. to 2:15 p.m.) to what he considered to be the less desirable second session that ran from 9:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. He was also required to teach during the last three periods of the second session. Ferrara was extremely displeased, and felt that he was being treated as the new teacher who was typically given the lower grade assignment and the afternoon shift. In an effort to get the new assignment changed, Ferrara met with the department head and later with Dr. Munroe. After having no success, he met with the area superintendent and finally the school superintendent. Their advice was to take the assignment, be evaluated and then see what happens. Ferrara thereafter approached five of the seven members of the school board seeking their assistance in overriding the reassignment decision. This too was unsuccessful. At one of the meetings in Dr. Munroe's office on September 4, one administrator said that if Ferrara was unhappy with the new assignment then maybe he should quit. By this time Ferrara had engaged the services of an attorney, and after he and his attorney were unsuccessful in persuading the administration to change the assignment, he instructed the attorney to file a civil rights action in federal court. This was done on July 29, 1982. The lawsuit sought, among other things, the reassignment of Ferrara to his former teaching assignment in the eleventh grade. That suit has remained pending since then, and at time of final hearing, was on rehearing of an order of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court's earlier dis- missal of the action. Charles L. Thornton (no relation to the department chairman) replaced Dr. Munce as principal at JIL in October, 1981. He had previously served as dean of boys at JIL in 1970-71 and recalled that he frequently visited Ferrara's eleventh grade class that year because Ferrara was having a "hard time" with his students. Before he left JIL in September, 1971, Thornton told the then principal of JIL that they had "problems" with Ferrara because of his inability to control his students. This was borne out by Ferrara's 1970-71 evaluation which cited Ferrara for deficiencies in no less than five areas, most of which were attributable to the fact that Ferrara was then an inexperienced high school teacher. When Thornton returned to JIL in October, 1981, he learned that Ferrara had hired an attorney to challenge the school's decision to reassign Ferrara to the ninth grade classroom. Even so, when Ferrara approached Thornton about changing his assignment, Thornton told Ferrara that no teacher assignments would be made mid-stream in the semester, but he would "revisit" the matter at the end of the semester. His denial was confirmed in a written memorandum to Ferrara. He also told Ferrara the change was not to be considered a demotion and that he would keep the same title, salary and number of work hours. At the end of the first semester, Thornton did not change respondent's course assignment because it would have disrupted the master schedule and he had some concern about respondent's performance. Unquestionably, ninth grade students are less mature and more difficult to control from a disciplinary standpoint than other students, but the subject matter of their coursework is easier than the subjects taught to higher grade levels. Although Ferrara considered his new assignment as being the most undesirable of all assignments in the social studies department, other teachers stated that it made no difference to them as to which group of students they were assigned to teach. During the batter part of the first semester, Ferrara was absent due to illness on several occasions. In the second semester he took a leave of absence for the entire semester due to illness apparently brought on by job stress. According to Ferrara, teachers assigned to the first session, which he preferred, were allowed to leave the school around 2:15 p.m. each day. Ferrara's classroom faced the parking lot and he could see them through his windows departing the school while he was required to remain there teaching until 5:15 p.m. He also acknowledged having "problems" with students during the last three periods of each day, and when coupled with the aggravation of seeing his colleagues leaving early, it induced a physical ailment which led to his taking the lengthy sick leave. During his second semester absence, Ferrara prepared no regular or emergency lesson plans for his substitute, although he was responsible for doing so for the entire year. His substitute contacted him for assistance, but Ferrara declined to offer any, saying it was the substitute's responsibility to do the work. It is noteworthy that Ferrara's substitute had some disciplinary problems when she took over his class, but after receiving assistance from the deans, she had only "minor" problems the remainder of the semester. Thornton prepared an annual evaluation of Ferrara in June, 1982, and gave him an overall rating of satisfactory. However, he found Ferrara deficient in the following areas: discipline of students, attending required extracurricular activities, teaching in a manner in which all students in the class could comprehend and relating in a more positive manner with his peers. Other than Ferrara's use of "various methods and materials," Thornton made no comments concerning Ferrara's areas of strength. The first deficiency was based upon Ferrara's inability to control the classroom environment. More specifically, Ferrara referred more students to the dean than any other classroom teacher at JIL, and for what appeared to be minor infractions. These included talking out of turn, squeaking a chair, going to the pencil sharpener without permission and leaving one's desk without permission. On some occasions Ferrara would refer entire groups of students. In all, Ferrara's referrals constituted around 25 percent of all referrals made by the 145 JIL faculty members. The dean of students was asked by Ferrara on at least three occasions to visit his classroom because his class was out of control. The dean observed that Ferrara had very little control over his students, managed the class "poorly," and concluded that very little learning was taking place. The dean discussed with Ferrara how to handle minor classroom infractions and advised Ferrara to review the JIL Handbook provisions regarding discipline. However, Ferrara was not responsive to these suggestions. Ferrara was also criticized because his students had difficulty in understanding "his approach to teaching." This was apparent from the fact that Ferrara had an extremely high rate of failure for his students. Ferrara himself conceded that his teaching performance began deteriorating in the 1981-82 school year and never again reached the level of performance achieved by him prior to that year. The evaluation noted that Ferrara did "not have an effective relationship with associates." This was confirmed through testimony that after his reassignment became effective, Ferrara would not speak to most of the members of the department, and no longer socialized with staff at the department's workroom. Even Ferrara acknowledged that after September, 1981 he became "reserved," did not talk to colleagues arid appeared unhappy and upset. Thornton required mandatory attendance by faculty at only two school functions each year: open house when parents, students and faculty met at the school, and graduation. Ferrara attended neither saying graduation was "too sentimental" and that he was always ill whenever open houses were held. Ferrara was given a copy of the above evaluation by Thornton, reviewed it and signed it on June 8, 1982. However, he told Thornton he disagreed with the contents of the evaluation. At their meeting, Thornton acknowledged to Ferrara that he had sufficient knowledge of the subject matter, and found Ferrara to be well-versed in his subjects. School Year 1982-83 Because of problems with Ferrara in 1981-82, the department chairman recommended that Ferrara be assigned to teach five ninth grade American Government classes in school year 1982-82. This recommendation was approved by the assistant principal for curriculum who draws up the semester schedule, and later by Thornton. While teaching a class in November 1982, respondent caught a student, K. B., mimicking him in class, grabbed the student by his arm and escorted him to his seat. He did so with such force that it left bruise marks on the student's arm. Ferrara was counseled by Thornton following this incident. In January, 1982, respondent gave a student an F in her coursework for disciplinary reasons. This is contrary to school board policy and resulted in the issuance of a memorandum by Thornton to Ferrara on January 21, 1983. Various former students of Ferrara during the 1982-83 school year testified concerning their impression of his teaching style and manner. Their comments included statements that he "wasn't normal" and was "different" from other teachers. It was established that he would not answer questions from many students, either ignoring them or telling them the answer was in the textbook. He called them "stupid," "immature" and "jackasses" on a number of occasions, that he `hated" teaching them, and told them he should be teaching a higher grade level but was being punished by the administration. It was further established that Ferrara frequently yelled in class, and that his efforts to discipline students were unsuccessful. After awhile, some students would make deliberate efforts to provoke Ferrara by beginning coughing, spells or squeaking their chairs, knowing that his efforts at discipline were merely a "show" and that they need not obey him. Ferrara would also frequently discuss in class his lawsuit against the school board without relating it to the subject matter. His most common teaching technique was to give students a reading assignment from the textbook and have the students answer the review questions at the end of the chapter. Only occasionally did he give a lecture. Most students indicated they did not learn a great deal in his class, and found the instruction boring. It was established that cheating frequently occurred when tests were given, and answer sheets were passed around while Ferrara was in the room. Many believed he was punishing them by keeping the windows shut and the air-conditioner turned off on hot days. Indeed, on one day in late April, Thornton went to Ferrara's class and found it extremely "hot" with the air-conditioner off and the windows closed. Ferrara was teaching the class wearing a sweater. Thornton ordered that the windows be opened to avoid having a student pass out from the heat. Ferrara justified his actions by contending the air-conditioner was frequently inoperative and that the windows often times stuck. This was disputed by the building maintenance chief. He also stated that he kept the windows closed because of traffic noises emanating from a nearby street. However, he conceded that he kept the students in a hot room on at least one occasion as punishment. Because of complaints made by parents and students to Thornton during the first semester, a conference was called by Thornton with respondent on January 28, 1983. At that time he gave Ferrara written notice that his behavior was "inappropriate," and that he must regain control of his classroom. On April 20, 1983, Thornton had a conference with Ferrara concerning an allegation that he had called a student an "ass." After Ferrara admitted this was true, Thornton told him not to call students such names again, that it would not be tolerated and that he should refer to the teacher's Code of Ethics which proscribed such conduct. On May 23, 1983, Thornton found two of Ferrara's students wandering in the hallway without a hall pass. They had been told to leave Ferrara's class, and that he did not care where they went. During the school year, Ferrara continued to disregard the requirement to complete lesson plans. On occasions when Ferrara was absent, the substitutes found no regular or emergency lesson plans available. Instead, the substitutes had to write their own plans and give assignments, without having any idea when Ferrara would return. The assignments completed by the students for the substitute teacher were thrown in the waste basket when Ferrara returned because he found them ungraded. However, substitute teachers do not normally grade papers. During the school year the dean of students continued to receive numerous discipline referrals from respondent. The reasons for referral were generally minor, which indicated Ferrara did not have proper control of his classes. In contrast, his substitute teachers did not experience this type of problem when they substituted for Ferrara. Some of the referred students were those who had no other disciplinary problems with other teachers. On some occasions, entire groups were once again referred to the dean. In short, there was no improvement in respondent's classroom management from the prior year. At the same time, the guidance counselors continued to receive numerous requests from students to transfer out of his classes. At the end of school year 1982-83, the department chairman wrote Thornton a memorandum which listed by teacher the number of textbooks missing or not returned to the teacher. Ferrara had sixty-three textbooks missing, which was far in excess of other department staff. In addition, although he returned twenty-three of forty-eight new textbooks assigned to him at the beginning of the semester for one course, seventeen were so defaced with obscenities that they were unusable. Ferrara did not deny that he lost the textbooks, but stated that some books were smaller than normal classroom size, and could be easily carried out of class in a concealed fashion by a student. He feared that if he began searching students, he would suffer possible repercussions from doing so. Despite these losses, Ferrara refused assistance from the area director of secondary education in creating a system of inventory and control for textbooks. In his annual evaluation prepared on May 26, 1983, Ferrara was cited for deficiencies in the following areas: teaching techniques, classroom environment, teacher attitudes and professional standards and work habits. In addition, Thornton attached to the evaluation a typed sheet containing specific recommendations for improvement in each of the four areas. The sheet noted that Thornton was "willing to provide (Ferrara) whatever assistance necessary in each of the . . . cited areas." Thornton also noted that Ferrara has strength in the areas of knowledge and understanding of the subject matter, appearance, educational qualifications and in adherence to the defined duty day. Thornton and Ferrara held several meetings concerning the annual evaluation. Each deficiency was discussed, and Thornton made suggestions on how to improve in those areas. However, Ferrara was not receptive to these suggestions, and complained of unfair treatment in his course assignments. He also repeatedly discussed his lawsuit. He continued to maintain he was better suited to teach the eleventh grade even though he was certified to teach both the ninth and eleventh grades. Thornton advised Ferrara he was responsible to his students no matter what other problems he believed he had, and that he should work to improve his performance. School Year 1983-84 In school year 1983-84, Ferrara's teaching assignment did not change. In fact, unlike the prior two years, Ferrara did not request a change in his teaching assignment. He also did not request a transfer to another school although these were procedures for doing so. 1/ Ferrara's failure to control his classroom continued into the new school year. During the year the assistant principal (dean) in charge of discipline visited Ferrara's classroom at least ten to fifteen times after Ferrara requested his assistance in regaining control of the classroom. On his visits the dean found a "hostile" atmosphere, and verbal exchanges taking place between Ferrara and his students. He concluded that no learning could take place in this atmosphere. The dean noted that no other regular teacher or substitute had such classroom management problems. Ferrara's referrals to the dean represented a larger number than all other faculty members combined. The dean also observed Ferrara telling his students that he did not like teaching immature ninth graders. Similar observations were made by another JIL dean. Ferrara was counseled by the dean who told him that students felt Ferrara did not like them, and that his discipline techniques were unfair. Testimony by Ferrara's students confirmed that his teaching style did not change. He continued to call them names such as "stupid" and "immature" and told them he did not enjoy teaching ninth graders. His lawsuit was also a frequent subject of class discussion. The students also complained that Ferrara refused to open the windows on hot days when the air-conditioning was inoperative because of outside noise. The latter complaint was noteworthy since Thornton had previously given written instructions to Ferrara on September 16 and 26, 1983 concerning complaints about Ferrara keeping the room too hot. During the year, a parent requested that she and her daughter meet with Ferrara and a school counselor concerning a problem the daughter was having in Ferrara's class. At the conference, Ferrara dwelled primarily on his lawsuit against the school board and did not seem concerned with the real purpose of the conference. This prompted a complaint by the parent against Ferrara. Students continued to request transfers out of Ferrara's classroom at an increasing rate. Although two guidance counselors advised Ferrara of these complaints, they observed no change in his behavior. Based upon student and parent complaints about a high failure rate, Ferrara was instructed by Thornton in October, 1983 to furnish each student with a mid-marking report (progress reports) advising them they were not performing to expectations. This report would alert students and parents that a student was in danger of failing. Although such reports are required by school board policy, Ferrara frequently did not prepare these reports. In fact, he advised Thornton he felt they were unnecessary and would not prepare them unless Thornton allowed teachers to complete them during class time. There were thirty-six weeks during school year 1983-84. All teachers were required to prepare lesson plans for each of those weeks, and to turn them in prior to the beginning of each school week. The plans were then filed, and in the event a teacher was absent, the substitute teacher would use the plans and instruct the class without a break in continuity. Ferrara was absent for three weeks in the spring of 1984. However, he left no regular or emergency lesson plans for his substitute. During his absence, the substitute had no disciplinary problems. When he unexpectedly returned to class after this absence, the students booed him, and then, according to the substitute, the "entire class went out of control." Ferrara thereafter required his students to repeat the work previously done for the substitute. Ferrara continued to ignore repeated requests by the department chairman to make lesson plans available. These requests were in the form of memoranda to all department personnel on August 25, October 5, November 17 and December 7, 1983 and January 17, 1984. As of February, 1984 he had turned in only three weeks' plans for the preceding twenty-week period. The department chairman wrote him a memorandum on February 10 requesting that such plans be filed. Even so, in June, 1984 the department chairman reviewed the lesson plans filed by department staff for the prior year. She found that Ferrara had completed plans for only five of the thirty-six weeks during the just completed school year. Of those completed most were generally unsatisfactory. Ferrara did not deny this, but pointed to the fact that two or three other department teachers were also continually tardy in filing their plans. This was confirmed by the department chairman. Ferrara began to come to work late and leave early during the school year although he was warned several times to adhere to the defined duty days. He also had the second highest rate of textbook losses for the social studies department. Because of Ferrara's continuing performance problems, Thornton placed Ferrara on a remedial program known as the Notice, Explanation, Assistance and Time (NEAT) procedure effective April 25, 1984. This procedure is designed to provide assistance to teachers having performance problems. Basically, it provides the teacher with an explanation of any deficiencies, assistance and guidance in the cited areas, and an "adequate" period of time in which to correct them. Its main purpose is to salvage an employee's career. In his letter, Thornton told Ferrara he was being placed on the NEAT procedure because of deficiencies in the following areas: inability to use acceptable teaching techniques; inability to maintain a positive classroom environment; inability to establish and maintain a professional and effective working relationship with parents, students and colleagues; and failure to submit proper records, including, but not limited to, progress reports and lesson plans, as required by the school center, the School Board and state law. Ferrara was given until October 16, 1984 to "fully correct these deficiencies." The two met in a conference May 4, 1984 to discuss the procedure and Ferrara's responsibility to correct the deficiencies by the established date. It was pointed out to Ferrara that he would be given time off to visit other personnel while seeking assistance, and that three individuals on the county staff were available for consultation on his noted deficiencies. Ferrara viewed the NEAT procedure as a "charade" and a way for the School Board to fire him. Although he admitted he resented being placed on NEAT, Ferrara stated he respected the system and did not intend to ignore it because he knew that to do so would give grounds to the Board to dismiss him. On May 30, 1984, Thornton prepared an annual evaluation reflecting the same deficiencies as were used to place Ferrara on the NEAT procedure. It also noted that Ferrara's areas of strength were his educational qualifications and his use of good oral and written language. Ferrara was given a copy of the evaluation and, although he disagreed with its contents, signed it on May 30, 1984. School Year 1984-85 On August 21, 1984, Ferrara met with Thornton and the assistant principal and discussed various types of assistance that were available to him which had not yet been provided. Ferrara told Thornton he was not interested in any assistance and walked out of Thornton's office. On October 22, 1984, Thornton advised Ferrara by letter that the following deficiencies required corrective action: continued failure to submit timely lesson plans; continued inability to establish positive rapport with staff, parents and students; continued failure to maintain a positive classroom atmosphere; and a continued deficiency in his teaching techniques. Ferrara was also told that there had been "some improvement in (his) performance," and that Thornton believed he was "making an effort to improve (his) performance, and because of this, the time for correcting his deficiencies under the NEAT procedure was being extended until the end of the school year. During the school year Ferrara's classroom management problems continued. For example, one guidance counselor observed that most of the students visiting her were students in Ferrara's classes. In fact, over half of the students she gave counseling to desired to transfer out of Ferrara's class and sought her assistance in doing so. The dean of students observed that some 35 percent to 40 percent of total disciplinary referrals by all teachers came from Ferrara, including six students at one time. This dean found most of the referrals unnecessary, and ones that could have been handled by Ferrara. In addition, she was called to Ferrara's classroom about four times each semester to calm down the class. It was established that the students deliberately "egged" Ferrara on, particularly when he made personal comments about them. Other credible testimony established that Ferrara's class was out of control on many occasions, and that this disruption affected the amount of learning that took place in the classroom. One dean suggested to Ferrara that he observe other teachers so that he might improve his classroom performance. In teacher-parent conferences, Ferrara preferred to discuss his personal problems with the school board administration rather than the problems that the student was experiencing. In other instances, Ferrara would not respond to requests by parents to contact them. On September 19, 1984, at Thornton's request, the area administrator, H. W. Berryman, visited Ferrara's classroom to observe and monitor Ferrara. This was the only teacher observation that Berryman had performed as an area administrator. On that particular day Ferrara needed some ten minutes to get the class started. Berryman noted that during Ferrara's lecture, only a few students were attentive, and that most were note-passing, carrying on conversations and creating mild disruptions which Ferrara failed to stop. However, Berryman complemented Ferrara on his knowledge of the subject matter and said his overall delivery was reasonably good. He suggested Ferrara take less time to "start-up the class, and to take steps to insure that his class was more attentive during the lecture. On October 4, 1984, Ferrara was observed by another administrator, Dr. Mona Jensen, for the purpose of assessing his teacher performance. This was also done at Thornton's request. Jensen is a consultant certified by the Florida Performance Measurement System (FPMS) and a trainer of other administrators in the use of FPMS. The FPMS utilizes a form for evaluating teacher performance by recording the types of effective and ineffective behaviors observed in four areas: management of student conduct, instructional organization, presentation of subject matter and communication skills. Dr. Jensen monitored Ferrara in these four areas and provided Thornton and Ferrara with a copy of her written report. Among other things, she observed a negative interaction between Ferrara and his students, and that there was a lack of positive reinforcement on the part of Ferrara. Some of his comments were caustic in nature, and he never smiled in class. Like Berryman, she observed students talking to one another and not participating in the activity. She recommended that improvements be made in all areas which her report addressed. On October 29, 1984, Ferrara was observed by Lois Biddix, who is also a FPMS certified state trainer. Biddix used the same type of form as did Jensen in evaluating Ferrara. On her visit, Biddix observed students talking to one another, and participating in activities unrelated to the lesson. She described the class as sedentary and lethargic, with students suffering from boredom and frustration. She attributed this to Ferrara's lack of enthusiasm and failure to introduce new content into the lesson. These observations were consistent with those made by Berryman and Jensen, and her recommendations for improvement were in the same areas as those of Jensen. Dr. Jensen returned to Ferrara's class for a second observation on January 31, 1985. While Ferrara spoke clearly and directly on that day, and had good communicative skills, Dr. Jensen found most students did not participate in the discussion. She also found a lack of positive reinforcement on the part of Ferrara. During the lecture, Ferrara demonstrated anger at a remark made by a student, and told the student that if she wanted a confrontation, he would gladly accept her challenge. Dr. Jensen's evaluation and notes were given to Ferrara after the visit. The recommendations for improvement were basically the same as those proposed by her in October, 1984. A number of Ferrara's 1984-85 students testified at final hearing. Their testimony painted a picture of continued class management problems. For example, it was confirmed that groups of students would collectively begin coughing at one time or squeaking their chairs in harmony to antagonize Ferrara or test his mettle. It was also confirmed that he continued to call freshmen "stupid" and "immature," that he told his students he hated teaching ninth graders and that the school administration was wrong in making him teach that level of students. He also discussed his pending lawsuit during class hours and referred to the school administration in a negative manner. On at least one occasion he discussed the qualifications or lack thereof of another department teacher. It was further pointed out that Ferrara refused to give credit for assignments given by his substitute teacher. There were complaints that Ferrara punished the students for talking by making them sit in a hot classroom without opening the windows or running the air-conditioning. There was also a "lot" of cheating during class even though Ferrara was present in the room. The general consensus of most students was that the class was boring, and that they did not learn a great deal in this type of environment. Ferrara was required to spend 7 1/2 hours each day on campus. 2/ During the year, he did not always arrive at school on a punctual basis or spend the required number of duty hours at school. On April 11, 1985, the department head wrote Thornton a memorandum criticizing Ferrara for his repeated tardiness, and leaving before 2:15 p.m. After Thornton notified Ferrara about this complaint, there was an improvement on his part. During the second semester of the school year, a guidance counselor, Elizabeth Konen, approached Ferrara and told him that the parents of one of his students desired a parent-teacher conference to discuss their child. Ferrara told Konen he did not have time to meet with parents. Konen found this to be the usual response of Ferrara whenever such a request was made. On another occasion, he wrote a note to Konen stating he had no time to meet with parents, but after Thornton intervened and ordered a conference, Ferrara attended. In December 1984, Thornton requested that Ferrara produce proof that he gave his students progress reports as required by Board policy. Ferrara could produce only two such reports, although he claimed four others had also been given reports. This was after Ferrara had been previously criticized on October 21, 1984 for the same deficiency. On January 8, 1985, Thornton again gave written notice to Ferrara that he give timely progress reports to all students who were failing or working below expectation. Even after this second warning, a student, S. Z., complained to Konen in February, 1985 that she had not been given a progress report by Ferrara. This was brought to Thornton's attention in a letter written by S. Z.'s mother. On March 25, 1985, Thornton wrote respondent a letter outlining his continued areas of "serious deficiencies," and his lack of improvement in those areas since being placed on the NEAT procedure. He was warned that unless there was "significant improvement," Thornton would have no choice except to recommend he be terminated. Ferrara was urged to implement the suggestions outlined in the letter, and was told that "any reasonable assistance" requested by him would be given. Despite receiving numerous criticisms for failing to turn in lesson plans, respondent did not turn in any lesson plans during the entire school year 1984-85. However, he did turn in a complete set of plans at the end of the year, but they did not indicate what part of the unified curriculum objectives had been met. On June 10, 1985, Ferrara was given his annual evaluation for the school year. It noted numerous continued deficiencies in three broad areas: classroom environment, teacher attitudes and professional standards and work habits. The only noted areas of strength were knowledge of the subject matter and use of proper grammar and written language. In his meeting with Thornton, Ferrara was told, among other things, that he should not make unprofessional remarks to his students, that he must adhere to defined duty days, that he must file lesson plans and progress reports on a timely basis, and his attitude with peers should improve. School Year 1985-86 Despite Ferrara's failure to correct all deficiencies by the end of school year 1984-85, Thornton made a decision to give Ferrara one last chance to rehabilitate himself under the NEAT procedure. On August 19, 1985 Thornton advised Ferrara by letter that the NEAT procedure was being extended until November 1, 1985 and that he must correct all deficiencies by that date. This gave, Ferrara a total of sixteen academic months under the remedial program. The letter also stated that if the deficiencies were not corrected by November 1, Thornton would make a recommendation to the Superintendent of Schools concerning Ferrara's employment status. Respondent had been criticized for giving an unusually high rate of failing grades to his students during prior years. It was established that his failure rate was substantially higher than for other teachers in school years 1981-82 and 1982-83. For example, his failure rates in 1981-82 and 1982-83 were 24 percent and 33 percent, respectively. In 1983-84, it was a little more in line (18 percent) with that of the other teachers to whom he was compared. After the first semester of school year 1985-86 had ended, Thornton reviewed Ferrara's grades and found the failure rate had been substantially reduced. Indeed, it was then slightly over 10 percent, thereby supporting Ferrara's contention that he had improved in this cited area of deficiency. On November 18, 1985, a thirty minute evaluation of Ferrara's class was conducted by Sandra Cowne, an assistant principal at JIL. Among other things, Cowne found that Ferrara still had no up-to-date lesson plan book. She noted that Ferrara was in need of improvement in four areas of performance. All other areas indicated satisfactory performance. On December 2, 1985, D:. Jensen visited Ferrara's classroom to monitor and evaluate his performance. The purpose of the visit was to determine if Ferrara had implemented the recommendations for improving instruction previously made after her earlier visits. Dr. Jensen asked to meet with Ferrara just prior to the hour of observation but he refused saying he didn't want to discuss anything. She then asked for his lesson plan and was given a plan that was too brief and had insufficient detail. During the actual observation, she found that Ferrara had not added any positive teaching behaviors to his technique although she had suggested this to him after her earlier observations. According to Dr. Jensen, Ferrara's main deficiency was that he failed to provide motivational or positive reinforcement to his students. She concluded that Ferrara was an ineffective teacher, ranking below average due to his lack of positive behaviors. A copy of her evaluation and notes was given to respondent. H. W. Berryman made a second visit to Ferrara's classroom on December 10, 1985 for a repeat evaluation. Berryman initially noted that Ferrara had heeded his prior advice from September, 1984, and had speeded up the start-up time for beginning his instruction. However, Berryman continued to be concerned with the lack of involvement by a large majority of the students in the classroom. Although he found that Ferrara had "in-depth content knowledge" of the subject matter, he concluded that Ferrara had "serious negative attitudinal problems in reacting to all of the students assigned to his classes." Several of Ferrara's students testified about their experiences in Ferrara's classroom during the first semester. They confirmed that respondent's teaching techniques had not changed from prior years. For example, it was established that the usual disruptions occurred during his class, such as students sleeping, passing notes, talking and generally being inattentive. Ferrara again called his freshmen students "immature" and "childish," and told them that he had been demoted to the freshman class because the school board could not fire him. It was pointed out that once he told the students that they were immature, Ferrara would lose control over the class. There were continuing complaints that the classroom was too hot, and that Ferrara told the students if they were unhappy about the room temperature to complain to the administration. On one occasion, he refused to move his classroom to an adjacent empty room even though a student had vomited on the floor and the stench remained after the area was cleaned. It was also established that Ferrara continued to talk in class about his pending lawsuit and the problems he was having with the school administration. During the first semester, Ferrara continued to send large numbers of students to the dean for minor infractions. He also sent as many as six at a time. Ferrara was now disciplining his students before referral by making them write repetitious sentences. However, this is considered to be an inappropriate form of discipline. This form of discipline prompted complaints from both students and parents to the administration. It was confirmed through testimony of an assistant principal that respondent's classroom control had not improved over a three- year period. This observation was concurred in by various guidance counselors who received visits from Ferrara's students. During the first semester of the school year, there was no improvement in respondent's professional relationship with his peers. He refused to speak to most colleagues, and openly expressed his disdain for the department chairman. When respondent was in the department workroom, the atmosphere was hostile and uncomfortable. Similarly, like in other years Ferrara did not attend open house. He also failed to provide adequate lesson plans as previously ordered on a number of occasions. At the end of the first semester, Thornton concluded that sixteen academic months was a sufficient time to allow Ferrara to correct his deficiencies. Finding that respondent was "damaging" his students, that no improvement in Ferrara's performance or attitude had occurred, that he was making no contribution to the school program, and that he was still besieged with student and parent complaints, Thornton concluded that disciplinary action was justified. Thornton did acknowledge that Ferrara had improved in the areas of adhering to duty hours, issuing progress reports, taking roll call and reducing the number of failures. Even so, he concluded that this was insufficient to satisfy his overall teaching performance deficiencies. Moreover, he found that Ferrara's effectiveness as a teacher had been impaired. Thornton accordingly recommended that Ferrara be terminated. Ferrara's suspension without pay became effective on February 19, 1986 and he has remained in that status since that time. Respondent's Case Ferrara traced all of his problems to what he perceived to be an uncalled for demotion to the ninth grade classroom in school year 1981-82. He felt it to be unjust, and an action which ignored the seniority he had attained over the years. He acknowledged that once the reassignment occurred he became demoralized and bitter and was never the same teacher again. Ferrara did not deny that he called students names. He also conceded that he had problems maintaining classroom discipline, but suggested he was being paid to teach, not to discipline. Ferrara further admitted he yelled at students, and sent a great many to the dean's office, but blamed much of this on a small group of students who always instigated trouble in his classroom. Ferrara asserted his classroom discipline would actually improve at times during this period, but that each time Thornton sent a note criticizing him, he became demoralized and would again lapse into his prior ways. Although Ferrara considered the NEAT procedure a means by which petitioner could fire him, he contended he attempted to correct his deficiencies. However, it was Ferrara's contention that only through reassignment to the eleventh grade could he actually improve and correct his deficiencies. He believes Thornton to be biased since Thornton is a defendant in Ferrara's lawsuit. However, independent administrators confirmed that the deficiencies cited in Thornton's memoranda were real, and that Ferrara had made no visible effort to correct most of them. Moreover, contrary to his assertions, Ferrara was accorded adequate notice, sufficient means and ample time to correct his cited deficiencies. In this regard, the School Board satisfied all regulations pertaining to the rehabilitation and dismissal of an employee. Ferrara also pointed out that Thornton prepared a special file called the "Larry Ferrara Drawer" in November, 1982 so that Ferrara's actions and performance could be documented. However, Ferrara's teaching performance was in issue by this time, and Thornton was simply conforming with various state, local and union requirements that potential disciplinary action have a well-defined paper trail. Ferrara did not deny he missed all graduations and open houses from 1981 through 1985. He justified his absence from graduation ceremonies on the ground they were too "sentimental," and stated he was always ill whenever open houses were scheduled. Ferrara denied that students were punished by keeping the room hot. He blamed the heat on an often inoperative and inadequate window air- conditioning unit in his classroom, and windows that were difficult to open. This was denied by the school maintenance chief. Various students corroborated Ferrara's claim that the air-conditioner did not always work, but it is found that Ferrara sometimes punished his students in this manner. Ferrara attempted to repudiate the testimony of former students who testified for petitioner at final hearing by offering favorable testimony of other former students. However, the latter testimony either pertained to time periods too remote to be relevant to this proceeding, or was discredited by more persuasive and credible testimony from petitioner's witnesses. Ferrara contended he prepared all required lesson plans but waited until the end of the school year to turn them in. However, even it this were true, this was contrary to school policy since such plans were required to be turned in the week before they were to be used. Ferrara suggested that most of his difficulties were caused by his creating "waves" at JIL. As noted above, he believed Thornton and the administration were biased against him because he had sued them, and because he had publicly criticized various school policies and individuals in the news media. But it was never established that such animosity existed, or if it did, that it played a role in the dismissal process. Finally, Ferrara professed a sincere desire to continue in the teaching profession, albeit at a more mature grade level. He does not wish to be terminated after a twenty-one year career. He desires to be reinstated at JIL and allowed to teach the eleventh grade as he did during the years 1970- 1981.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of incompetency (inefficiency), misconduct in office, gross insubordination and willful neglect of duties as set forth in the Conclusions of Law, and that he be dismissed as-an employee of the Palm Beach County School Board. DONE and 0RDERED this 11th day of August, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 11th day of August, 1986.
The Issue Whether there is "just cause" to terminate Respondent, Edward Starcher, from employment as a teacher in the Collier County School District.
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: Respondent is a teacher certified by the State of Florida in the areas of physical education, recreational dance, and driver's education. On August 18, 1986, the School Board hired Respondent as a teacher. Since being hired in 1986, Respondent taught continually in the Collier County public school system, except for a one-year leave of absence. Respondent began his career at Highland Elementary School and taught there for approximately two to three years. He then taught for nine years at Village Oaks Elementary School. Respondent, subsequently, taught at Gulf Coast High School, where he also served as a basketball coach. In the 2000-2001 school year, Respondent was employed at NHS as a physical education teacher, driver's education teacher, and head basketball coach for the boys' varsity basketball team. At all times relevant herein, Respondent was a driver's education teacher and head coach of the boys' basketball team at NHS. Throughout his teaching career with the School Board, Respondent received positive evaluations and was recognized for having a passion for coaching. Prior to the disciplinary action at issue in this proceeding, there is no evidence that Respondent has been previously disciplined by the School Board. At all times relevant herein, A.K., a female, was a high school student in her senior year at NHS. In January 2003, A.K. was enrolled as a peer tutor under the direction of Respondent, along with two other students--A.D., a female, and A.F., a male. A.K., A.D., and A.F. were enrolled as peer tutors during the fourth block, which commenced at 12:45 p.m. As peer tutors, they assisted Respondent with doing the laundry, folding towels and T-shirts, and delivering them to the storage closet. At the beginning of fourth block, the peer tutors would typically meet Respondent in his coaching office or outside of it, and he would give them their assignment for the day. On Monday, February 10, 2003 (February 10), A.K. reported to Respondent's office during fourth block for her peer tutor responsibilities. A.D., another peer tutor, was absent that day, but A.F. and K.C. were present. K.C., an NHS student, was not assigned as Respondent's peer tutor, but he sometimes assisted Respondent and his peer tutors during the fourth block. On February 10, as Respondent and the peer tutors were exiting Respondent's office to walk to the laundry room, Respondent "put [A.K.] in a little bit of a headlock," in a playful manner. After arriving at the laundry room, Respondent and the peer tutor folded laundry. At some point, Respondent handed A.K. a pile of towels and told her to take it to the storage closet. Respondent also took a pile of towels or jerseys and both A.K. and Respondent proceeded from the laundry area across the gym to the boys' locker room. On this trip to the storage closet, only A.K. went with Respondent across the gym to the storage closet area. A.F. remained in the laundry room because Respondent told only A.K. to come with him. The storage closet was located in the boys' football locker room on the opposite side of the auxiliary gym from the laundry room. On February 10, there was a physical education class with at least 20 students and an instructor on the gym floor playing volleyball. The physical education class was divided into two groups at the opposite ends of the gym so that when the peer tutors and Respondent took the laundry across the gym floor to the storage closet, they would pass between the two groups. Respondent and A.K. entered the boys' locker room area and proceeded to the storage closet to drop off the towels and/or jerseys. A.K. entered the storage closet area first followed by Respondent. After A.K. put the towels down, she noticed Respondent shutting the door quickly, turning the lights off and on, and then opening the door. A.K. asked Respondent what he was doing, and he replied that he was just joking around. During the first trip to the storage closet, as A.K. was walking through the locker room, she saw J.C., a NHS student, near his locker. Some time after Respondent and A.K. walked through the locker room, J.C. walked around to the bench near the storage closet doorway to put on a knee brace. Thereafter, J.C. saw Respondent in the doorway of the storage closet, and Respondent introduced him to A.K. J.C.'s locker was adjacent to the storage closet wall, and he had to walk to the end of the wall and around the corner to get to the doorway of the storage closet. Due to the location of his locker, there was a period of time when J.C. was not near the doorway of the storage closet and could not see that doorway. At some point while A.K. and Respondent were in the storage closet, Corporal Ronald Byington (Coach Byington), the NHS youth relations deputy and an assistant football coach at the school, walked through the locker room from the adjacent coaches' room. Coach Byington stopped and talked to Respondent about a minute and a half. During his very brief conversation with Respondent, Coach Byington did not observe anything out of the ordinary. After briefly talking with J.C., Respondent and A.K. returned to the laundry room. After a short period of time, Respondent handed A.K. a bag of jerseys to take with her to the storage closet and proceeded alone with her back across the gym to the boys' locker room. J.C. was not in the locker room when Respondent and A.K. returned to the storage closet. When A.K. and Respondent returned to the storage closet with laundry a second time, Respondent again followed her into the storage closet, closed the door, and turned off the lights. Respondent then kissed A.K. on her neck and lips, grabbed her leg, and pushed it up against his side. A.K. pushed Respondent away from her, after which he turned on the lights, grabbed himself and remarked, "This is what you do to me." As A.K. approached the door to walk out, he placed A.K.'s hand on his groin. A.K. described the manner in which Respondent kissed her on the neck as "more of a sucking" than a kiss. After the incident described in paragraph 16, A.K. returned to the laundry room followed by Respondent. Upon returning, A.F. and K.C. noticed that A.K.'s neck was red and told her so. When A.F. and K.C. commented about the red mark on her neck, Respondent stated that it was because he had put her in a headlock. After the brief discussion about the red mark on A.K.'s neck, A.K. returned to the boys' locker room a third time, this time with A.F. and Respondent. A.K. had to wait outside the locker room since there were football players in there changing for weight training. Because A.K. could not enter the locker room, she handed the laundry she was carrying to A.F. and/or Respondent. Upon returning to the laundry room from the third trip to the storage closet, Respondent "kind of stopped [A.K.]" as they were walking across the gym floor. He then had A.K. hold her hand up while he did the same and intertwined his little finger with hers while he asked her to "pinkie swear" (promise) she would not tell anybody, and she agreed to do so. However, Respondent then told A.K. that he could not promise that it would not happen again. This brief exchange took place out of A.F.'s earshot. Moreover, given the considerable activity in the gym, it is reasonable that A.F. did not hear this conversation. A.K. returned a fourth time to the locker room to get her book bag and left school. She was in a state of shock, drove home, changed, and left for work. That evening A.K. did not tell her parents about the incident with Respondent because she was embarrassed and uncertain as to how they would react. The next morning, Tuesday, February 11, 2003 (February 11), A.K. was sitting in her car in the NHS parking lot waiting for the first-block bell to ring when her friend, E.W., a senior at NHS, approached her. E.W. noticed that there was something wrong and asked A.K. what was the matter. A.K. started to cry and told E.W. that Respondent had kissed her. As they walked to class, A.K. told E.W. more of what happened. A.K. told E.W. that on the first visit to the storage closet Respondent shut the lights off. A.K. asked him what he was doing and he turned them on. A.K. also told E.W. that on the second visit, Respondent shut the lights off and imposed himself on her, including kissing her on the neck and lips and grabbing her leg. Sometime during the course of the day, A.K. told E.W. about Respondent's having her touch his penis area. On the morning of February 11, soon after A.K. told E.W. about the incident, E.W. asked A.K. whether she had told anyone. A.K. replied that she had not. E.W. then told A.K. that she needed to report the incident to Mary Ellen Bergsma, the school guidance counselor. Although A.K. agreed to do so, she was hesitant and embarrassed to discuss the incident with Ms. Bergsma or anyone. At the beginning of the first block, E.W. accompanied A.K. to Ms. Bergsma's office. Ms. Bergsma invited both girls into her office and shut the door. Initially, when she went into Ms. Bergsma's office, A.K. was visibly upset, choked up, and unable to speak. After being encouraged by E.W., A.K. told Ms. Bergsma about the incident with Respondent. A.K. told Ms. Bergsma that Respondent had "hit on her," meaning that he had kissed her. In response to her question, A.K. told Ms. Bergsma that the event occurred in the storage closet area and then explained what happened in more detail. During this time, A.K. continued crying and had a hard time talking. After A.K. told Ms. Bergsma about the incident, Ms. Bergsma informed A.K. that she would have to talk with Gary Brown, the principal of NHS, about the incident. Later that morning, Ms. Bergsma accompanied A.K. to Mr. Brown's office. Although A.K. appeared uncomfortable and nervous and was crying, she told Mr. Brown basically what she had told Ms. Bergsma. At the end of the day, E.W. went to Ms. Bergsma to report some of the additional details that A.K. was too embarrassed to tell Ms. Bergsma, including Respondent's putting her hand on his genital and saying, "This is what you do to me." Over the next few weeks, Ms. Bergsma had follow-up conversations with A.K. to see how she was doing. She found that A.K. was having difficulty concentrating at school, not sleeping well, and, overall, was "having a tough time." On February 11, after A.K. reported the incident to Ms. Bergsma, she decided to remove A.K. from Respondent's peer tutor class. At 9:02 a.m. that morning, Ms. Bergsma e-mailed Respondent advising the following: "FYI – A.K. is out of your class 4th block." The e-mail was opened by Respondent at 9:05 a.m. and deleted by him at 9:05 a.m. Five minutes later, at 9:10 a.m., Respondent prepared a separate E-mail stating, "Thanks for the info. Have a great day." Respondent never contacted Ms. Bergsma to find out why A.K. was no longer in his fourth-block class. Respondent testified that the e-mail was no big deal to him and that it might have meant A.K. was out just that day since the e-mail from Ms. Bergsma did not have the word "permanently" contained in it. Between approximately 12:00 to 12:30 p.m., on February 11, Mr. Brown told Respondent in person that he wanted to meet with him in Mr. Brown's office at about 2:00 p.m. When Respondent met with Mr. Brown in his office that afternoon, Mr. Brown asked Respondent if he knew why he had been called to his office. Respondent seemed to think about the question and replied that it must be a parent complaining about his basketball program. He thought up several possibilities until Mr. Brown told him it had nothing to do with basketball. Mr. Brown then told Respondent that the meeting pertained to a complaint from a female student who had peer counseling with him and related to inappropriate physical contact that Respondent had with the student. After progressing through each of his classes and being informed by Mr. Brown that it regarded a complaint from the fourth block the preceding day, Respondent stated that the complainant had to be A.K. because she was the only female present that period on February 10. After Mr. Brown informed Respondent of the allegations, Respondent's head dropped down. He had tears in his eyes and stated that he could not believe this was happening to him. Mr. Brown then asked Respondent if he could think of any reason why A.K. would make such an accusation against him. Respondent told Mr. Brown about an incident at the NHS basketball game on January 31, 2003, which involved A.K. Respondent stated that he had spoken with A.K. on February 3, 2003, about her conduct at the game. Respondent then retrieved a letter from his brief case and presented it to Mr. Brown. The letter was dated February 3, 2003, and was addressed to Coach Byington. Respondent had authored the letter and typed it on a computer. The letter stated that during half-time of the January 31, 2003, basketball game, while Respondent was outside for "a breath of fresh air," he saw A.K. and two other NHS students, K.S. and S.W., and a former NHS student, J.W., outside. In the letter, Respondent indicated that the students appeared to be intoxicated and under the influence of drugs or alcohol; that two of the students approached him; and that A.K. then began making derogatory comments about two NHS assistant football coaches, one of whom was Coach Byington. Also, the letter indicated that on February 3, 2003, Respondent spoke to A.K., during fourth block about her being intoxicated. According to the letter, Respondent told A.K. that she and those with her on January 31, 2003, were "lucky that [Respondent] was in the middle of a game and [they] had not been caught." In addition to information about A.K.'s being intoxicated at the game, Respondent included statements in the letter which were unrelated to the January 31, 2003, incident. Apparently, referring to his February 3, 2003, conversation with A.K., Respondent wrote in the letter: It was during this conversation that I figured out [A.K.] was extremely bitter about coaches at NHS. After further research, it was determined that [A.K.] need not be trusted. [A.K.] on several occasions accused Byington and the football staff of starting rumors about her . . . and she claimed people had given her a hard time about being a senior dating a freshman. I had never heard of such rumors and felt that she was overplaying this to an extreme. After refusing to discuss any more of these matters with her, she became very irate and said that I [Respondent] was just like the others. In quotes "jerks". [sic] Just wanted you to have this information on file. Respondent told Mr. Brown that he had never given the letter to Coach Byington because he did not want to get A.K. in trouble. Coach Byington never received Respondent's letter dated February 3, 2003, nor did Respondent speak to Coach Byington about its contents. If a letter with allegations like the ones made in the letter dated February 3, 2003, were brought to his attention, Coach Byington would look into the matter or take some action. The letter dated February 3, 2003, accurately states and it is undisputed that (1) Respondent saw NHS students, A.K., K.S., and S.W., and a former NHS student, J.W., on January 31, 2003, during half-time at the basketball game that evening; (2) the students, including A.K., were intoxicated; and (3) on February 3, 2003, Respondent talked to A.K. about being intoxicated at the basketball game. The letter dated February 3, 2003, falsely and inaccurately states when Respondent saw A.K. on January 31, 2003, she talked to him about her dislike for two of NHS football coaches and said derogatory things about them. Rather, after exiting the gym at half-time, A.K. and K.S. spoke to Respondent only briefly, about a minute. During that conversation, A.K. asked Respondent about his daughter, Callie, and how the basketball game was going; she also wished him luck in the second half. A.K. and K.S., along with S.W. and J.W., continued to walk to A.K.'s friend's car to have a few shots of alcohol during half-time. On the evening of January 31, 2003, A.K. never said anything to Respondent about Coach Byington or any other coach at NHS. In light of the purpose for which Respondent claimed he wrote the letter dated February 3, 2003, there is no reasonable explanation for Respondent's inclusion in the letter of the statement that "[a]fter further research, it was determined that [A.K.] need not be trusted and that A.K. said that Respondent was jerk [sic], just like the other coaches. Since becoming a peer tutor for Respondent and prior to January 31, 2003, A.K. had talked to Respondent on several occasions and told him that she did not like Coach Byington. The reason A.K. did not like Coach Byington was that she believed that he gave preferential treatment to football players and had made A.K. the butt of jokes because she was dating a freshman football player. A.K. made no secret that she "did not care" for Coach Byington and candidly admitted her feelings about Coach Byington at hearing. There were no other coaches at NHS who A.K. disliked or told Respondent that she disliked. The letter dated February 3, 2003, also inaccurately and falsely stated that when Respondent talked to A.K. at school on February 3, 2003, about being intoxicated at the January 31, 2003, basketball game, she became irate. Respondent's testimony at hearing regarding this conversation is not credible. Contrary to Respondent's account, the conversation took place in the gym and not in Respondent's office. Moreover, during the conversation, Respondent seemed to be joking with A.K. about her being intoxicated at the January 31, 2003, basketball game. At no time during that conversation did Respondent talk to A.K. about the kind of people she should hang out with. Respondent also never indicated to A.K., during that conversation or at any other time, that he would report her to school officials or tell her parents that she was intoxicated. Respondent provided confusing and contradictory testimony in connection with the letter dated February 3, 2003. First, despite the date on the letter, it is not clear when Respondent wrote the letter. Respondent testified that he prepared the letter on Monday, February 3, 2003, but also testified that he could have finished it later that week. This testimony is consistent with a letter Respondent wrote in March 2003, in response to the report of the School Board's investigator. Respondent also testified that even if he did not finish the letter on February 3, 2003, he would not have changed the date because he did not consider the letter an official document. During the investigation of A.K.'s complaint against Respondent, the School Board's computer system technicians checked the school's computers and found no record of the letter in the system. If, as Respondent testified, he made changes to the letter over a period of time, the letter would have been saved on the system and the computer technicians would have been able to retrieve it. Respondent's testimony and representations regarding the preparation of the letter dated February 3, 2003, are confusing and not reasonable. In his March 2003 letter to the School Board in response to the investigator's report, Respondent stated that after initially writing the February 3, 2003, letter, he waited to review it before delivering it to Coach Byington. Despite all the time Respondent indicated he took to write, review, and edit the letter, Respondent never gave the letter to Coach Byington, even though Coach Byington's office was only a 20- to 30-second walk from Respondent's office. According to Respondent, the reason was that he had a busy basketball schedule. Respondent testified that the reason he prepared the letter dated February 3, 2003, was to give Coach Byington a "heads up." Yet, Respondent provided no explanation as to why Coach Byington needed a "heads up." Respondent's testimony regarding the reason he wrote the letter dated February 3, 2003, is not credible. Respondent did not prepare the letter dated February 3, 2003, to give to Coach Byington and did not deliver it to him or discuss it with him. The letter was instead prepared to give to Mr. Brown to undermine the credibility of A.K. At all times relevant to this proceeding, E.M., a male, was a student at NHS. E.M. and Respondent had a close relationship and have known each other for about five years, having first met when E.M. was in the sixth grade and was coached by Respondent. While a coach at NHS, Respondent sometimes gave E.M. lunch money and also hired E.M. to work in summer basketball camps. During the investigation of Respondent, E.M. voluntarily came forward to provide information supportive of Respondent. E.M. told Mr. Brown and testified at hearing that when he was in the boys' locker room on February 3, 2003, he overheard Respondent tell A.K. that she should hang out with better people; that he then saw Respondent leave his office; that he saw A.K. leave the office soon after Respondent left the office; and that he noticed that as she was leaving, A.K. was on a cell phone saying to someone that she hated the coaches at NHS and was going to get back at them. A.K. did not make a cell phone call from school on February 3, 2003. In fact, she does not bring her cell phone to school. Moreover, A.K.'s cell phone records show that no call was made at the time E.M. claimed the call was made. Finally, as noted in paragraph 45, the February 3, 2003, conversation between Respondent and A.K. took place in the gym, not in Respondent's office. The testimony of E.M. was not credible and was refuted by competent and substantial evidence. There is no reasonable explanation for A.K. to file false charges against Respondent. As even Respondent admitted, A.K.'s animus was directed to Coach Byington, not toward Respondent. Prior to the February 10 incident in the storage closet, A.K. liked Respondent and considered him a good friend. She had been a student in Respondent's aerobics class during her sophomore year at NHS. During the first semester of her senior year, A.K. had been an office assistant at NHS and in that capacity, she was required to hand out passes to designated or assigned teachers. Respondent was one of the teachers A.K. had to deliver passes to on an almost daily basis. When A.K. delivered the passes to Respondent, they often had conversations. The second semester of her senior year, A.K. specifically requested to be a peer tutor for Respondent because she thought he was a "cool teacher." As a consequence of the February 10, 2003, incident, A.K., in a consultation with her parents, began seeing Dr. Marta Gallego, a clinical psychologist in Naples, to help her address her fears and concerns. The counseling sessions began on or about February 19, 2003, with the initial intake session involving A.K. and her family, and continued until early May 2003. The therapy sessions with Dr. Gallego focused on A.K.'s reactions to the incident, helping her deal with her reactions, and processing the incident. During the counseling sessions, A.K. exhibited symptoms related to the trauma, was anxious at times, and was depressed. Also, after the February 10 incident, A.K. withdrew from friends and family, had difficulty concentrating at school, and felt pain over the impact that the incident had on her family. Finally, A.K. expressed to Dr. Gallego that she could not understand how a teacher that she trusted could violate her trust.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent from his position as a teacher with the Collier County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 2004, 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 4th day of June, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Coleman, Esquire Coleman & Coleman 2300 McGregor Boulevard Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2089 Jon D. Fishbane, Esquire Roetzel & Andress 850 Park Shore Drive, Third Floor Naples, Florida 34103 Dr. H. Benjamin Marlin Superintendent of Collier County School Board 5775 Osceola Trail Naples, Florida 34109-0919 Honorable Jim Horne Commissioner of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent Gadsden County School Board (the School Board or Respondent) discriminated against Petitioner Ronald D. Jones by terminating him on the basis of his gender in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01–760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a male, who, in the past, has held a professional teaching certificate from the Florida Department of Education. Petitioner held a professional teaching certificate from July 1, 1994, until June 30, 1999, with a certification to teach social science to students in grades five through nine. Petitioner's professional teaching certificate expired on June 30, 1999, and, as a result, Petitioner was no longer deemed eligible to teach by the Florida Department of Education. Petitioner, however, was still eligible to be employed as a substitute teacher. The School Board is the governing body responsible for the administration of public schools in Gadsden County, Florida. The Discrimination Complaint filed by Petitioner alleges: I believe I was terminated because of my sex (male). I was initially hired as a substitute teacher in March 2007 and received an appointment to an instructional position on February 26, 2008. I received a letter from Superintendent Reginald James dated July 29, 2008 informing me that I would not be reappointed for the 2008-2009 school term. I was replaced by a female employee. Petitioner's Discrimination Complaint is based upon the fact that he was not reappointed at George Munroe Elementary School (George Monroe) for the 2008-2009 school year. Petitioner initially worked at George Monroe beginning March 2007, as a substitute teacher. For the 2007-2008 school year, Petitioner continued to work as a substitute for George Monroe until he was hired on January 14, 2008, to an instructional position, left vacant by the resignation of another teacher. In this position, Petitioner taught fourth grade from February 28, 2008, until the end of the school year. At the time he was hired to the instructional position, Petitioner did not hold either a temporary certificate or a professional certificate to teach in Florida. Rather, Petitioner had applied to obtain another certificate to teach social science for grades 5 through 9 and held an Official Statement of Status of Eligibility (Official Statement) from the Florida Department of Education dated August 1, 2007. According to the Official Statement, in order to obtain a three-year nonrenewable Temporary Certificate covering Social Science (grades 5-9), Respondent needed to submit: a) verification of employment and request for issuance of certificate on the appropriate form from a Florida public, state-supported, or nonpublic school with an approved Professional Education Competence Program; and b) the results of his fingerprint processing from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and FBI. In addition to the submissions required for a temporary certificate, the Official Statement advised that in order for Petitioner to receive a Professional Educator Certificate valid for five years covering Social Science (Grades 5-9), Petitioner must also submit: a) a completed CG-10 Application Form; b) a $56 fee; c) a passing score on the Professional Education Test; d) a passing score on the social science (grades 5-9) subject area examination; e) evidence of completion of an approved competence program; and f) evidence of additional semester hours or teaching experience in specified areas. At the time that Petitioner was hired to the instructional position in January 2008, because George Monroe was experiencing a shortage of teachers, it was possible for individuals with an application pending with the Florida Department of Education to be placed in an instructional position where there was an immediate need, pending completion of all requirements. Therefore, even though Petitioner did not have either a temporary certificate or professional certificate, Petitioner was hired to the instructional position because there was an immediate need and he had a pending application. His hiring, however, was also considered an "out-of-field" placement because he did not hold either a current or a pending certificate to teach the fourth grade. Near the end of the 2007-2008 school year, George Monroe began preliminary classroom and grade assignments in preparation for the 2008-2009 school year. Petitioner was preliminarily assigned to a fifth-grade position pending appointment by the Superintendent. This preliminary assignment was reflected in the agenda and supporting materials for a faculty meeting held May 28, 2008, at George Monroe to discuss the upcoming year. The grade and room assignments showed Petitioner as tentatively transferring from teaching fourth grade in B3 room 6 to teaching fifth grade in room P 99-08. In addition to Petitioner's tentative assignments, there were a number of other preliminary grade and tentative room assignments reflected in the agenda and supporting materials for the May 28, 2008, faculty meeting. In addition to Petitioner being preliminarily assigned to fifth grade, Ms. Avila and Mr. Clum were tentatively transferred to fourth grade, and Ms. Sylvester was moved from fourth grade to fifth grade. The agenda and supporting materials also reflect new room assignments for those teachers. Being given a preliminary grade or tentative room assignment as reflected on the agenda and supporting materials was not a guarantee of continued employment. Because of budget constraints for the upcoming 2008- 2009 school year, George Monroe's school district (School District) instructed its school principals to reduce staff. Staff reduction strategies from the School District included the suggestion that principals recommend to the Superintendent for termination those teachers who were not certified or were teaching out-of-field. Teaching "out-of-field" occurs when a teacher, although holding a temporary or professional teaching certificate, is not certified to teach the particular subject area or grade level to which they have been assigned. In Florida, teachers are not considered highly qualified if they are teaching out of field. The strategy of recommending for termination those teachers who are uncertified or teaching out-of-field was designed to meet budget constraints by first reducing teachers who were not highly qualified. Ida Walker, who at the time was the principal of George Monroe, met with Petitioner at the end of the 2007-2008 school year, but prior to June 30, 2008,1/ to discuss the status of his teaching certificate. During that meeting, Petitioner acknowledged that he was having problems obtaining his temporary certificate, and Ms. Walker reminded him that in order to teach, he had to have the paperwork to show that he was qualified to teach. Ms. Walker, together with School District staff, recommended to School Board Superintendent Reginald James (Superintendent) that he not reappoint six teachers at George Monroe, including Petitioner, who had not provided evidence of a valid teaching certificate or who otherwise did not meet the requirements for certification set forth in their individual statements of eligibility received from the Department of Education. Consistent with that recommendation, in a letter dated July 10, 2008, the Superintendent informed Petitioner that Petitioner would not be re-appointed for an instructional position for the 2008-2009 school year.2/ Unknown to Ms. Walker or the Superintendent, on July 7, 2008, prior to the date of the July 10, 2008, letter from the Superintendent, the Florida Department of Education (Department) issued Petitioner a temporary certificate certifying Petitioner to teach social science for grades five through nine. There is no evidence, however, that Ms. Walker, the School District, the School Board, or the Superintendent received notice that the temporary certificate had been issued. The Department, as a matter of course, does not provide such notification. Rather, it is the responsibility of the applicant, in this case, Petitioner, to provide such notification. In a letter to the School Board dated July 29, 2008, the Superintendent listed the names of various teachers and other personnel employed by the School Board that he recommended for termination. Petitioner's name, as well as the names of five other teachers at George Monroe that had been earlier identified by Ms. Walker and District staff for non- reappointment, was included on the Superintendent's list of recommended terminations. The other five teachers from George Monroe on the Superintendent's termination list were all female. At the School Board meeting held July 29, 2008, the School Board approved the Superintendent's recommended terminations. Of the six teachers from George Monroe who were not initially reappointed, two, not including Petitioner, were subsequently rehired by the School Board after they provided proof of proper certification, reapplied to a particular school, and were accepted by a receiving principal. Prior to the final hearing in this matter, Petitioner never provided a copy of his temporary certificate that was issued by the Department on July 7, 2008, to anyone in an effort to be reappointed to teach at George Monroe. In fact, November 15, 2010, the date of the final hearing in this case, was the first time that either Ms. Walker or the School Board was made aware of the fact that Petitioner had been issued a temporary certificate on July 7, 2008.3/ Even if Petitioner had provided George Monroe or the School Board with a copy of his temporary certificate, he still would not have been reappointed to George Monroe for the 2008- 2009 school year. That is, because Petitioner's certification is in social science, not elementary education, and his continued teaching at George Monroe would have been considered out-of-field. In addition, the evidence does not support Petitioner's allegation that he was replaced by a female employee. Although Petitioner was teaching fourth grade at the end of the 2007-2008 school year and was preliminarily assigned to the fifth grade, Petitioner was not guaranteed a position teaching fourth or fifth grade at George Monroe for the next school year. The evidence shows that there were two teachers, one male and one female, moved from the third grade to teach fourth grade, and one new female teacher from another school hired to teach fifth grade at George Monroe. All three teachers had valid professional teaching certificates in elementary education and were qualified to teach in the grades they were assigned at George Monroe. In contrast, Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was qualified to teach elementary school at George Monroe for the 2008-2009 school year prior to his termination. There was otherwise no evidence submitted by Petitioner indicating that his termination was based on anything other than his failure to submit proof of his qualifications.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner’s Discrimination Complaint and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of January, 2011, 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 19th day of January, 2011.
The Issue Whether there was “just cause” for the termination of Respondent’s employment, as that term is referred to in section of the Policies and Procedures Manual of the School Board of Manatee County, Florida, by: Respondent’s using school district property for personal gain, by working on tasks related to a student-based educational European trip through Education First (EF) during her district duty hours in the spring of 2009. Respondent’s consuming excessive alcoholic beverages in the presence of students and parents of Buffalo Creek Middle School (BCMS) during an EF trip in the summer of 2009. Respondent’s reporting to BCMS on August 14, 2009, in order to collect her personal belongings, and appearing to be inebriated Respondent’s contacting witnesses to the investigation to discuss details of the investigation. Respondent’s coming on school grounds on December 7, 2009, while under the influence of alcoholic beverages.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Manatee County, Florida, is the duly-authorized entity responsible for providing public education in Manatee County, Florida. Respondent, Tammy M. Johnson, has been employed with the School District of Manatee County since February 8, 2000. She was most recently employed as the senior secretary at BCMS. As the senior secretary to the principal of BCMS, Respondent served as the point person for the principal of the school, working hand-in-hand with the principal. Her duties included screening the principal’s mail and phone calls, handling substitute teachers, performing payroll duties, handling leave forms, coordinating clerical office staff, and handling emergency situations as they arose within the school. Respondent was exposed to confidential school information on a regular basis, such as complaints regarding faculty and staff and policy changes being considered within the district. Respondent was employed on an annual contract basis, which was renewed from year to year. Her employment contract was for a term of 11 months and lasted typically from early August to June of the following year. While employed full-time as the senior secretary, in the fall of 2008 and the spring of 2009, Respondent organized a trip to Europe through the student-based educational travel company EF. Respondent sought to recruit BCMS students and their family members to sign up for the trip by placing fliers on campus, posting a sign-up board at the incoming students’ open house, and placing a notice about the trip in the school newsletter. Respondent routinely included a signature line in her school-assigned email address that identified her not only as a Senior Secretary but as an EF tour guide in every email that she sent from her school account. Announcements about informational meetings related to the EF trip were made over the school intercom and these meetings occurred on school property in the evenings. Respondent made fliers at BCMS advertising the EF trip on at least two occasions using school equipment. On one occasion, she made 750 fliers using school paper. During the time Respondent was conducting these activities, her principal was Scott Cooper. Cooper knew of Respondent’s activities in promoting the trip, and that she was using school resources to accomplish it. He did not object or tell Respondent to stop doing so; in fact, he encouraged such trips. Respondent ultimately recruited 10 student participants for the EF trip, all of whom were students at BCMS. The trip also included 15 adult participants, all of whom were family members of BCMS students. In exchange for her work organizing, promoting and chaperoning the EF European trip, Respondent was to receive, and did receive a free spot on the trip to Europe. Respondent served as the group leader for the EF group of BCMS students and parents. Three other BCMS teachers became involved in the EF trip as chaperones: Joseph Baker, Malissa Baker and Jessica Vieira. They also used school resources to promote the trip. The EF trip to Europe took place from June 22, 2009, to July 1, 2009. On June 17, 2009, the Office of Professional Standards (OPS) received a complaint that Respondent was misusing school resources for personal gain. OPS opened an investigation into these allegations. Shortly before Respondent left for Europe, Scott Cooper was replaced as principal. The newly-appointed BCMS Principal Matt Gruhl, met with Respondent to discuss his concern that she included an EF tagline in the signature block of all of her school emails. Gruhl asked Respondent to remove the EF tagline from her email, take the EF poster off of her door, make any necessary copies at a non-school location, and pay standard rates in the future for any advertising done in the school newsletter. Respondent complied with the directive. On June 22, 2009, the flight for the EF trip left from Tampa. Prior to the flight’s departure, Respondent purchased several small bottles of vodka in the airport duty-free shop. Several students observed Respondent doing so. Respondent drank two vodka-and-cranberry drinks on the flight to Europe in the presence of BCMS students and parents. Upon arrival in London, Respondent went with several other parents to a pub across the street from the hotel. While there, Respondent had too much to drink that evening and became intoxicated. Several BCMS students said that Respondent was speaking so loudly that they were able to hear her all the way across the street and up to the fifth story of the hotel. These students were upset by Respondent’s behavior. Respondent was very loud when she returned from the pub. BCMS parents had to help Respondent into the lobby, as she was falling over and laughing loudly. The adults tried to persuade Respondent to go to bed, but she insisted on ordering another drink in the lobby. Respondent was finally coaxed to go upstairs to bed, and she began banging on all the doors to the hotel rooms in the hallway. Respondent had to be physically restrained from banging on the doors. On more than four occasions Respondent was observed mixing vodka-and-cranberry juice drinks in a Styrofoam to-go cup before leaving the hotel with students for the day. The BCMS students on the EF trip commented on multiple occasions about Respondent’s drinking on the trip. The students did not want to go off alone with Respondent because they did not feel safe with her. The students also made observations that Respondent was drunk and stumbling around. On the return plane ride from Europe to Tampa, Respondent again was drinking alcoholic beverages to excess and exhibiting loud and boisterous behavior. While Respondent was in Europe with the EF trip, she had received a text message notifying her that she may be under an OPS investigation. Shortly after Respondent returned, she approached Gruhl and asked him whether there was an investigation concerning her being conducted by OPS. When Gruhl declined to comment on any pending OPS investigations, Respondent then called Debra Horne, specialist in the Office of Professional Standards, and asked whether there was an investigation being conducted. Horne confirmed that there was an open investigation and told Respondent that it might not be resolved until after school started because it involved students and parents. After speaking to Horne, on or about July 20, 2009, and being made aware that she was involved in an open investigation, Respondent called Vieira and told her that they needed to get their stories straight. Respondent also left messages for Joe and Malissa Baker stating that she heard that there was an OPS investigation and wanted to know if they had any information or had heard anything about the investigation. Respondent was only partially aware of a School Board rule which prohibited contacting potential witnesses during an investigation, although she was aware that she was expected to abide by all School Board rules. Gruhl spoke to Horne and reported Vieira and Malissa Baker’s concerns. Horne expanded her open investigation to include the allegations about Respondent’s behavior on the trip. Effective August 3, 2009, Respondent was removed from her position and placed on administrative leave with pay pending the completion of an investigation of her conduct by the Petitioner’s Office of Professional Standards. During the time of paid leave she was required to report daily to her principal and could not travel outside the country without permission. After Respondent was placed on paid administrative leave, she came to the BCMS campus on August 14, 2009, to pick up her belongings from her office. She met Gruhl and Assistant Principal Nancy Breiding at the school. Gruhl observed that Respondent smelled strongly of alcohol. She had difficulty keeping her balance and ran into walls, ran into doorways and almost fell when she tried to adjust her flip-flop. Respondent also had great difficulty following the line of conversation when she was speaking with Gruhl and repeated herself numerous times. Concerned, Gruhl permitted Respondent to leave campus after observing that her husband was driving her. He did not seek to send her for drug or alcohol testing, as provided in school board rules. Respondent testified that she had “just one” vodka and grapefruit drink at lunch earlier that day. She denied that Gruhl’s observations were accurate, but also alleged that she was on a prescription medication, Cymbalta, and stated that it caused her to be increasingly emotional and somewhat dizzy. However, she testified that she was completely unaware that combining the medication with alcoholic beverages would have an adverse effect on her. Respondent’s testimony in this regard is not credible. Gruhl’s observations of Respondent’s behavior on August 14, 2009, were incorporated into the OPS investigation. Horne interviewed Respondent on August 20, 2009, regarding the allegations made prior to the trip and the allegations made concerning her behavior on the EF trip. On September 1, 2009, the results of the OPS investigation was presented within the chain-of-command, who recommended to Superintendant Tim McGonegal that Respondent’s employment be terminated. The Superintendant concurred with their recommendation, and on September 21, 2009, the Superintendant notified Respondent that he intended to seek termination of her employment, or, should she request an administrative hearing, suspension without pay pending the outcome of that hearing. Respondent requested an administrative hearing. At their meeting on October 13, 2009, the School Board suspended Respondent without pay. While on unpaid suspension, Respondent had no duties, was not required to report to anyone, and was not limited in her ability to travel. However, she was still a School District employee. On December 7, 2009, while on suspension without pay, Respondent returned by car to the BCMS campus while school was in session to check her son out early for a doctor’s appointment. Aware that she was under investigation for excessive drinking, Respondent admitted that she nonetheless had a drink at lunchtime before going to pick up her son from school around 2 p.m. While on campus, Respondent’s eyes were glassy, she smelled of alcohol, and she was unkempt, which was out of keeping with her usual appearance. When Gruhl learned of the incident on December 7, 2009, he recommended to the Superintendant that Johnson not be permitted to return to the BCMS campus On December 7, 2009, the OPS opened an addendum investigatory file on Respondent concerning the events of December 7, 2009. The addendum OPS investigation alleged that, on December 7, 2009, Johnson entered the BCMS campus while under the influence of alcohol. The testimony of Horne, Keefer, Vieira, Hosier and Gruhl is credible. Respondent’s testimony is found to be unreliable.
