The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on December 30, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Veita Jackson-Carter is the assistant principal at Eastside High School (Eastside) which is located in Gainesville, Florida, and is part of the Alachua County School District (school district). In the summer of 2002, Petitioner came to Eastside to talk to Ms. Jackson-Carter about employment there. At that initial meeting, Petitioner and Ms. Jackson-Carter discussed instructional positions at Eastside. While Petitioner gave a resume to Ms. Jackson-Carter, Ms. Jackson-Carter informed Petitioner that he needed to submit an employment application with the school district's personnel office. Ms. Jackson-Carter was very interested in hiring Petitioner. However, she explained to Petitioner that while the individual schools make recommendations regarding hiring, the school district actually hires applicants. Petitioner submitted a completed Application for Instructional Position on June 28, 2002, to the school district.2/ Because of her interest in hiring Petitioner, Ms. Jackson-Carter checked with someone in the school district's personnel office on the status of his application for an instructional position. She learned that there was a problem with his obtaining a teaching certificate. During this same period of time, Petitioner met with Marcia Shelton. At that time, Ms. Shelton was a certification specialist with the school district's department of personnel services. She worked with applicants in assisting them in determining eligibility for certification. However, neither she, nor anyone who works for the school district, has the authority to issue teaching certificates or statements of eligibility for teaching certificates as only the Florida Department of Education has the authority to do that. At the initial meeting between Petitioner and Ms. Shelton, Petitioner informed Ms. Shelton that a particular school was interested in hiring him for an instructional position. She began the process of assisting him to determine his eligibility for certification. Petitioner's application contained his educational achievements. He earned a bachelor's degree from Kentucky State University with a major in criminal justice and a minor in political science, and a master's degree with a major in human resource management and a minor in the area of public administration. Ms. Shelton asked for and received copies of Petitioner's academic transcripts. Ms. Shelton's review of the transcripts revealed that Petitioner had a cumulative undergraduate grade point average (GPA) of 2.322. She informed Petitioner that the minimum GPA required for issuance of an initial teaching certificate was 2.5 and that he would not be eligible for certification because the GPA for the courses needed for certification were not high enough. While Petitioner had the course work to meet specialization requirements for political science, the grades were not what was required. In an effort to help Petitioner, Ms. Shelton contacted Jean Morgan with the Bureau of Educator Certification of the Florida Department of Education (Department), to inquire as to whether public administration courses Petitioner had taken could be counted toward those required for certification in political science or social science. Petitioner's own exhibits establish that Ms. Shelton made numerous attempts to assist Petitioner by making repeated inquiries in August 2002 to Ms. Morgan and Ms. Morgan's supervisor, Kathy Hebda, in an effort to find a way for Petitioner to meet the Department's requirements. Ms. Shelton's efforts included faxing course descriptions to the Department for evaluation in an effort to satisfy the Department's certification requirements. Ms. Shelton's efforts, however, on Petitioner's behalf were unsuccessful. That is, she learned from both Ms. Morgan and Ms. Hebda that the Department would not accept the public administration courses to bring up Petitioner's GPA in political science. On August 5, 2002, Petitioner again went to Eastside to meet with Ms. Jackson-Carter. She informed him of some career service positions at Eastside for which he could apply. Petitioner completed and filed a Career Service Application Form dated August 13, 2002, with Respondent. There is an inconsistency in Petitioner's answers to a question regarding criminal background on each application for employment with Respondent. Each application contains a question regarding whether the applicant had ever been found guilty of, regardless of adjudication, or entered a plea of nolo contendere to offenses listed in three categories. On the Application for Instructional Position, Petitioner checked "no" for all three categories: felony, first degree misdemeanor, and second degree misdemeanor involving a minor child or involving violence. He then answered "yes" to the question, "Have you ever been judicially determined to have committed abuse or neglect against a child." The application instructs the applicant that if any question was answered yes, to explain and attach all pertinent documents. Despite having answered yes to one question, Petitioner wrote "N/A" in the blank provided. However, on the Career Service Application Form, he answered "yes" to the category generally entitled "misdemeanor." The application instructs the applicant that if the answer to any of the criminal background questions was "yes," that the applicant must list charge(s) and disposition. In the blank provided to list charge(s) and disposition, Petitioner put "N/A" in the blank provided, despite having answered "yes" to the category entitled "misdemeanor." The application also instructs the applicant to attach all pertinent documents. On or about August 16, 2002, Petitioner again went to Eastside to meet with Ms. Jackson-Carter. He inquired of Ms. Jackson-Carter when he was to report to work. Ms. Jackson- Carter inquired of Petitioner if the school district had offered him a position as she was not aware of any position having been offered to him. The last correspondence in the record from Ms. Shelton to the Department is dated August 29, 2002, in which she notes that the Bureau Chief of the Department's Bureau of Educator Certification was personally reviewing Petitioner's documents. She also noted that "he still has not applied to DOE." In Ms. Shelton's and Dr. Pratt's experience, it is unusual for the bureau chief to become personally involved in such a review. Ms. Shelton received a call from Ms. Hebda and the bureau chief during which Ms. Shelton learned that the bureau chief personally was going to accept the course work to enable Petitioner to meet specialization requirements for a temporary certificate in political science. Ms. Shelton did not have the authority to make that determination that was ultimately made by the bureau chief of the Bureau of Educator Certification. On August 23, 2002, the school district sent a letter to Petitioner informing him that his application for substitute teaching had been approved for the 2002-2003 school year. The letter informed him about a mandatory new employee orientation. It also specified that state law requires that all new employees be fingerprinted. The letter was signed by Josephine Brown, Coordinator, Personnel Services. Being a substitute teacher requires direct contact with students. The position of substitute teacher is not a permanent position with the school district. It is a conditional offer pending cleared fingerprint processing. Dr. Leila Pratt was Director of Personnel Services for the Alachua County School Board in August 2002. She was Ms. Shelton's and Ms. Brown's supervisor. She has since retired. On August 27, 2002, Dr. Pratt attended the criminal history review committee meeting during which Mr. Price was discussed. Of particular concern to Dr. Pratt were certain entries on Mr. Price's criminal history record received from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation which Ms. Pratt believed reflected violent behavior. She was concerned that these offenses would make Petitioner ineligible for employment because of statutory and school district policy requirements. She was also concerned about the inconsistencies between the answers provided on the two applications. A Criminal Records form was completed regarding Petitioner as a result of the committee meeting which included the following notations: "criminal possession of handgun (87); possession of handgun (93); DUI & suspended license (2000); violation of KY charges (01). Falsification of application." The recommendation of the committee was termination. The school board issued a Separation of Service form to Petitioner dated and signed by Petitioner and Dr. Pratt August 28, 2002. The form identifies the reason for separation as "background check." Petitioner requested and was given the opportunity to explain his criminal history. On August 29, 2002, he went to Dr. Pratt's office to discuss his criminal background and to provide Dr. Pratt with pertinent documentation. However, the information which Petitioner provided to Dr. Pratt did not satisfy her concerns. On August 29, 2002, Dr. Pratt wrote a letter to Petitioner which stated as follows: Dear Mr. Price: In response to the three charges: criminal possession of a weapon, menacing and assault filed in August 1987, your documentation does not indicate your charges were dropped to a misdemeanor. It indicates that you pled guilty and was sentenced to thirty (30) days confinement. [sic] In response to your charge filed on April 6, 1989 for trespassing on property after a warning, you provided no official documentation from the court records. In response to the charge filed on November 12, 1993 for possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, your documentation does not officially state that your charges were dismissed or that the charges were dropped. We are unable to determine what is meant by the statement, "lack of probable cause" on the paperwork you submitted. In response to the charge filed on April 20, 2000 for DUI and suspended license, your documentation stated the case was dismissed, but there was probable cause for the arrest and your case was remanded back to another court for the disposition. You submitted no documentation as to the final disposition. A restraining protection order was issued from 2000 to 2003 for domestic battery. No official court documentation regarding this charge has been provided. In addition to the information you submitted being incomplete, one of the documents you presented was not an official court document, which is what we requested, official court records. To provide further consideration to your request for employment, official court documents will need to be provided for all of the charges that have been filed. Until this information is received and reviewed, you are not eligible to work for the School Board of Alachua County. According to Ms. Price, official court documents are required of everyone under these circumstances. Even if the court documents had been official, Dr. Pratt's concerns would have remained because of the violent nature of some of the offenses in the documents and the statutory and school district policy requirements. Petitioner did not submit further documentation to Respondent clarifying his criminal history. Petitioner completed an Application for Florida Educator Certificate which was mailed to the Department on August 30, 2002. The Department issued an Official Statement of Status of Eligibility to Petitioner dated May 28, 2003, which explained to Petitioner what was required of him to get a temporary certificate and a professional certificate covering political science for grades 6 through 12. The Official Statement of Status of Eligibility also informs Petitioner that issuance of a certificate will be contingent upon a review of any criminal offense as a result of fingerprint processing. Dr. Pratt characterized Ms. Shelton's efforts on Petitioner's behalf as going "beyond the call of duty." She believes that her entire staff acted appropriately in dealing with Petitioner. Petitioner is an African-American male. At the time of the adverse employment action giving rise to this proceeding, Petitioner was 42 years old. Ms. Jackson-Carter and Dr. Pratt are African-American females. Ms. Shelton is a white female. Beyond Petitioner's allegation of discrimination, Petitioner presented no evidence that his race, sex, or age played any role in any action taken by Respondent regarding Petitioner's eligibility for teacher certification or its decision to terminate his probationary employment as a substitute teacher. The Department's ultimate acceptance of coursework and issuance of a Statement of Status of Eligibility some eight months after the adverse employment action taken by Respondent does not establish that Respondent engaged in discriminatory conduct.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 19th day of December, 2003.
The Issue Whether Respondent should receive back-pay for the period of time he was suspended without pay by the School Board of Highlands County, Florida (Board) under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent was employed by the Board as a guidance counselor at Sebring High School, Sebring, Highlands County, Florida. Sometime around November 1989, N.S., a student in the Respondent's peer counseling class at Sebring High School notified Rebecca Clark (Clark), Assistant Principal, Sebring High School, that Respondent had engaged in inappropriate behavior with her and other students in the class. Thereafter, in early January 1991, J.N.A., another student in Respondent's peer counseling class, met with Clark to confirm N.S.'s allegations. As a result of the allegations by N.S. and J.N.A., Clark notified Jim Bible, (Bible) Principal, Sebring High School, of the nature of the allegations. Bible contacted John Martin, (Martin) Associate Superintendent for Administration by phone concerning the necessity of discussing the allegations, and both Bible and Clark met with Martin. Bible was instructed by Martin to interview the Respondent about the allegations, and on January 5, 1990 a conference was held which included Bible, Clark and the Respondent wherein the Respondent was confronted with the allegations. With the Respondent's approval, the conference was electronically recorded by a tape recorder. The tape was transcribed, and the transcript received into evidence as Petitioner's exhibit 5. During the conference, the Respondent talked candidly about the allegations, and although he did not deny specific allegations such as, kissing a female student on the lips or whispering to students about being pretty, or sexy or that he or some one loved them, he did not recall any specific incident where he kissed a female student on the lips or just breathed heavily into their ears or licked their ears or kissed them on the ear. Additionally, he did not recall any student pulling away from him or telling him to stop. In fact, it was Respondent's recollection that most of the contact was initiated by the students, and he had had no indication from the students that they were uncomfortable with his mannerisms or behavior. Following the January 5, 1990 conference, Martin was furnished a copy of the tape which he and the Superintendent reviewed. Following this review, the Superintendent asked Martin to talk with the Respondent. During this conference with Martin, Respondent assured Martin that there was nothing beyond what had already transpired, and Martin assured Respondent that if there wasn't then there would probably be only a letter of reprimand, but that PPS and HRS would have to be notified. Following Martin's conference with the Respondent, the Superintendent issued a letter of reprimand to the Respondent. This letter of reprimand was dated January 8, 1990 and advised the Respondent that: (a) his behavior in regards to the allegations was "totally inappropriate and unacceptable" and "enough to indicate a possible violation of Section 6B-1.06(sic), Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida"; (b) he was to "consider this an official reprimand which will be placed in your personnel file upon completion of the investigation"; (c) "any future or similar behavior may result in action to terminate your teaching contract with the Highlands County School Board"; and (d) "the matter must be reported to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and the Professional Practices Services of the Florida Teachers Profession". There was no evidence that Respondent repeated the conduct discussed in the January 5, 1990 conference, or the conduct referred to by the Superintendent in her letter of reprimand on January 8, 1990, or the conduct discussed with Bible in the informal conference referenced in Finding of Fact 29. The Superintendent reported the matter to HRS and PPS, and although Martin was kept abreast of the pending investigations by HRS and PPS, neither the Board nor the Superintendent made any further investigation of the Respondent's conduct which formed the basis for the Superintendent's action set out in her letter of reprimand of January 8, 1990, before the Board's suspension of the Respondent without pay on February 13, 1990. In early February 1990, HRS informed Martin that "a confirmed finding of sexual abuse had been reached by the HRS". On February 5, 1990, solely as a result of the disclosure by HRS that sexual abuse had been "confirmed", the Superintendent suspended the Respondent with pay and recommended to the Board that the Respondent be suspended without pay. In apparent disregard of the confidentiality provided for such records in Section 415.51, Florida Statutes, a copy of the complete entire HRS files in this matter was given to Martin who in turn had the files reproduced, and provided a copy to each Board member and the Board attorney before the Board's February 13, 1990 meeting. No written or other notification was provided to the Respondent that the contents of the confidential files were being provided to the Board. As a result of its receipt and review of the HRS file, the Board on February 13, 1990, acting pursuant to the Superintendent's recommendation, suspended the Respondent from employment without pay effective February 14, 1990, and such suspension to continue "until investigations have been completed by the Professional Practices Services and other agencies". The Board provided that should the Respondent be "exonerated of all charges, he will receive back pay". The Board at its February 13, 1991 meeting did not have before it any of the PPS investigatory file or any other facts found by the PPS in its investigation and, therefore, in that sense, the PPS investigation was not a factor in the Board's decision to suspend the Respondent without pay. Although the Board did have the unlawfully disclosed contents of the HRS file at the time of its decision, there was no evidence presented at the hearing that the file contained any facts evidencing any misconduct by the Respondent other than those facts known by the Superintendent when she issued her official letter of reprimand. In fact, when Martin was asked at the meeting to elaborate on the facts in the HRS file, other than those facts known by the Superintendent at the time she issued her official letter of reprimand, that the Board considered in making its decision to suspend the Respondent without pay, he declined to answer on the basis of the HRS file being confidential. Yet, Martin's testimony was that the information in the HRS file was a "significant factor" in the determination by the Superintendent and the Board to effect the suspension without pay of the Respondent. Apparently, the only additional fact known by the Board at its February 13, 1990 meeting was that HRS had reached "a confirmed finding of sexual abuse" in regards to the Respondent's conduct and that fact was a significant factor in its determination to suspend Respondent. In the late summer of 1990, Martin recommended to the Superintendent that Respondent be reinstated, but assigned to a position that did not involve student contact. The Superintendent made such recommendation to the Board, and the Board, acting on the Superintendent's recommendation, reinstated Respondent at the beginning of the 1990/91 school year but declined to award back pay. The Respondent was assigned to work with an adult school. Subsequently, the Respondent voluntarily resigned his position with the Board, and accepted a position with South Florida Community College. Martin's recommendation to reinstate the Respondent was based on the following: (a) the Respondent being on a continuing contract and nothing being done to terminate this continuing contract; (b) the resolution of the allegations made against Respondent by HRS and PPS were taking longer than anticipated; and (c) the indication that Martin had from the school board attorney that the "confirmed" report of abuse would most likely be reclassified downward, and, as such, would not warrant terminating Respondent's continuing contract. On May 8, 1991, a final order was entered by HRS in the child abuse case involving the Respondent, granting the Respondent's request for expunction, and reclassifying the report from "confirmed" to "unfounded". The final order was the result of HRS adopting a recommended order of the Hearing Officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings who had conducted a formal evidentiary hearing in the child abuse case on February 19, 1991. The PPS commenced its proceedings on June 27, 1990 by filing an administrative complaint against the Respondent, and concluded those proceedings before the Educational Practices Commission with a final order dated May 20, 1991 adopting a settlement agreement dated February 19, 1991. The Respondent chose not to contest the allegation in the administrative complaint, and neither the settlement agreement nor the final order make any findings of wrongdoing against the Respondent. As a result of the PPS action, the Respondent received a reprimand to be placed in his personnel file and his certification file, and upon re- employment in the education profession in Florida, in a position which requires state certification, to be placed on probation for a period of three years under conditions set out in the agreement. Notwithstanding Martin's understanding that Respondent's teaching certificate was suspended for short period (2-3 weeks), the Respondent's teaching certificate was never suspended for any period of time, and no action was taken which deprived the Respondent of his ability to continue teaching in the public school system of Florida. N.S. was a minor female student at Sebring High School, and a member of Respondent's peer counseling class during the 1988/89 school year (S/Y) and the fall semester of 1989/90 S/Y. Often, during the time N.S. was in Respondent's class, Respondent would give her an affectionate hug or squeeze, and would give her a kiss or peck on the cheek, forehead, or the back of the head, and whisper such things in her ear as "love you" or "you're sweet" or "you're pretty" or "you're sexy". There were occasions when Respondent was whispering in N.S.'s ear that his lips brushed against her ear. When Respondent was hugging, whispering or making remarks to N.S. it was always in the presence of staff or students in a public area of the school such as the hallway, classroom or guidance area, but never in private or off campus. Although N.S. testified that Respondent's behavior made her uncomfortable, she did not ever ask Respondent to stop or tell him or anyone else that his behavior made her feel uncomfortable. J.N.A. was a minor female student at Sebring High School, and a member of Respondent's peer counseling class during the 1988/89 S/Y and 1989/90 S/Y. Basically, J.N.A. experienced the same type of behavior from Respondent as did N.S. as set out in Finding of Fact 25, and likewise, did not ever tell the Respondent to stop or that his behavior made her feel uncomfortable. As with N.S., the incidents with J.N.A. always occurred in the presence of staff or other students in the public areas of the school, but never in private or off campus. Y.W. was a female student at Sebring High School, and a member of Respondent's peer counseling class during the fall semester of the 1989/90 S/Y. On one occasion, while Y.W. was standing next to Respondent in the class where other students were present, Respondent asked Y.W. to sit on his knee and talk about a problem, and after some protest N.S. sat on his knee. Although Y.W. considered Respondent as a "father-figure", this made her uncomfortable because it was not usual for her to sit on her father's or grandfather's lap. Y.W. also testified that Respondent probably kissed her on the cheek one time as he did with all his students, but found nothing unusual about this. There was no evidence that Respondent made any sexual overtures to any student or touched any of the females on their breasts, inner thighs, genital areas or buttocks. Clark came to Sebring High School as assistant principal at the beginning of 1988/89 S/Y (having completed three years as assistant principal at the end of the 1990/91 S/Y), and observed the Respondent exhibiting behavior similar to that expressed by N.S. and J.N.A. through late November or early December 1989 (about a year and a half). Although Clark considered Respondent's behavior as being inappropriate, enough so that she counselled her daughter not to go near him, she never told him he should stop or counsel him as to her views on his behavior even though she was his supervisor. In fact, Clark did not report the Respondent's behavior to Bible until after the beginning of the 1989/90 S/Y, sometime around November, and again when N.S. and J.N.A. came to her in late December 1989 and early January 1990. After Clark advised Bible on the first occasion around November 1989, Bible had an informal conference with the Respondent. Although Clark did not sit in on this conference she heard the tail end of the conversation between Bible and Respondent wherein Bible told Respondent "you can't do that" or "it doesn't look right" or "people will misinterpret it". Carolyn Shoemaker, guidance secretary, Sebring High School, observed Respondent exhibiting behavior similar to that expressed by N.S., J.N. and Clark, which she considered inappropriate, for about the same period of time as Clark, but she never expressed to the Respondent that he should stop or that his behavior was inappropriate. However, she did report it to Clark and Bible. Natalie Smith, Chairman, Guidance Department, Sebring High School, observed Respondent exhibiting similar behavior as that expressed by N.S., J.N.A., Clark and Shoemaker, which she considered inappropriate, for about the same period of time as Clark and Shoemaker. Although Smith was head of the department where Respondent worked, and felt this behavior to be inappropriate, she did tell him to stop or express her views on this behavior with Respondent. Smith remembers telling Bible about Respondent's behavior, but doesn't recall when she told Bible. Until Respondent's informal conference with Bible referred to in Finding of Fact 30 and the January 8, 1990 letter of reprimand, the Respondent was never disciplined, counselled or otherwise directed to refrain from his affectionate interaction with students. The Respondent's suspension without pay by the Board in February 13, 1990 was premised on the same facts and conduct which had resulted in the January 8, 1990 letter of reprimand being issued to the Respondent by the Superintendent. While the Respondent may have used poor judgment in his method of establishing rapport with the some 400 students in any given year for which he had counseling responsibilities, and his conduct may have been inappropriate under the circumstances, his conduct as established by the substantial competent evidence in the record does not rise to the level of being so serious as to impair the Respondent's effectiveness in the Highlands County School system, notwithstanding the opinion of both Clark and Smith to the contrary.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Board enter a Final Order rescinding the Respondent's suspension, reimbursing him for any pay lost as a result of the suspension, and restoring any benefits that the Respondent may have lost as a result of the suspension. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1991. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3758 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(4,5); 3(5,6); 4(7); 5(7,8); 6(10,11); 7(12,15); 8(18,19); 9(25,26); 10(27); 11(28); 12(30); 13(31); 14(32); 15(21,22,23,24). Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Each of the following proposed findings of fact and adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The member in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts that proposed finding of fact: 1(2); 2(3); 3(4); 4(5); 5(5); 6(7); 7(8); 8(8); 9(9); 10(10); 11(16,17,34); 13(11); 14(12); 15(13); 16(13); 17(14); 18(15); 19(16); 20(17); 21(17); 22(20); 23(20); 24(21); 25(22); 26(23); 27(24); 28(18,19); 29(18); 30(34); 31(25,27,28); 32(30); 33(30); 34(25, 27); 35(33,9); 36(29). Proposed findings of fact 12 and 37 are unnecessary or subordinate. Copies furnished to: Donald H. Wilson, Esquire P.O. Box 1578 Bartow, FL 33830 Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire P.O. Box 1547 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Ruth E. Handley, Superintendent Highlands County School Board 426 School Street Sebring, FL 33870 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Lissa Nappier, committed the violations alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, whether such allegations are just cause for termination of her employment with the School Board.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a duly constituted entity charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the Miami-Dade County Public School District. As such, it has the authority to regulate all personnel matters for the school district. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent, Lissa Nappier, was an employee of School Board and was subject to the disciplinary rules and regulations pertinent to employees of the school district. The Respondent’s employment relationship with the Petitioner began in 1984 when she was retained as a temporary instructor. In 1988 she was hired as a permanent teacher and was assigned to Homestead Senior High School where she has continued service until the instant issues emerged. From 2004 until the time of her recommended termination, the Respondent was employed as the Student Activities Director at the school. Prior to the instant matter, the Respondent has had no disciplinary issues or actions. As a condition of her employment with the Petitioner, the Respondent is subject to the terms and conditions of a contract between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade (UTD contract). Article XXIV of the UTD contract provides for credential payment to encourage employees of the School Board to pursue further studies and expertise in their respective fields. Such pursuit enhances the quality of education for students in the school district. At all times material to this case, the credential payment increase for a teacher with a doctorate degree was $7000. The effective date for the implementation of the credential payment is computed “after completion of eligibility requirements, as indicated on the transcript by the issuing university.” The UTD contract further provides that: Completion of eligibility requirements shall be defined as: (a)filing an official M- DCPS/UTD application for credential payment with the Office of Human Resources (receipt acknowledged and dated by M-DCPS); and (b) completion of course work/degree requirements prior to the date of the quarter for which payment is requested, as indicated by the date on the transcript, or other appropriate evidence provided by the university. M-DCPS shall notify all new employees of the availability of the credential payment programs and the procedures for making application. Under the heading “Eligibility,” the UTD contract also states: To qualify as graduate level, credit must have been earned after the applicant was granted the Bachelor’s degree and must be clearly identified as such. Pursuant to the UTD contract, Applicants whose applications are disapproved shall be notified that they may appeal the decision to the committee by resubmitting and supplying such additional and germane information and/or documentation as will be helpful in reaching a decision regarding the appeal. The decision of the committee is final and not grievable or arbitrable. On or about April 8, 2004, the Respondent submitted a note to the Petitioner’s Office of Compensation Administration that stated: Enclosed please find my official transcript for my Doctorate Program. Along with the transcript is a verification form. My employee number is 152174. Thank you for your attention in this matter, and with the necessary adjustments with payroll. Attached to the note described above, was a document purportedly from Rochville University. The Rochville document contained the words “Official Transcript” and purported to indicate that the Respondent had completed the noted courses. The document represented the Respondent had obtained a “Doctor of Arts (Major: Education).” Also attached to the note described in paragraph 11 was a form purportedly executed by the Rochville University Registrar and President that stated: This is to verify that Lissa A. Nappier has successfully completed the Doctor’s Program from Rochville University in the year 2004. In order to obtain the “Doctor of Arts” from Rochville University, the Petitioner submitted her transcripts from Brenau College, Nova Southeastern University, the requisite fees required by the school, and a summary of her 18 years of teaching experience to Rochville. Rochville University is an “on line” institution. The Respondent did not complete additional course work, did not write a thesis, and did not attempt to verify that Rochville University was an acceptable, accredited school prior to paying her fees for the degree and submitting the documents to the Petitioner for credential payment. It is unlikely that Rochville is an accredited university. Its academic claims are related to its status as an accredited “on line” institution. For approximately $600.00 the Respondent received a doctorate degree. After reviewing the Respondent’s documentation, the Petitioner denied the credential payment increase. The Respondent did not challenge or seek additional review of that denial. The matter was referred to the Petitioner’s Office of the Inspector General because the Respondent had “submitted a transcript to obtain credential payment for an advanced degree using a transcript from an unaccredited university.” None of the courses depicted on the Rochville University transcript that was appended to the Respondent’s note were actually for course work completed by the Respondent while attending (even online) Rochville classes. None of the hours for the courses depicted on the Rochville University transcript were earned while attending (even online) Rochville classes. The Respondent knew or should have known that a credible doctor of arts degree requires more than the submission of prior coursework, life experience, and the payment of fees. Moreover, the Respondent did not present evidence of any “life experience” that would entitle her to a doctor of arts degree from any accredited university. That Rochville University accepted the Respondent’s experience and prior academic work as sufficient to award a doctorate degree dishonors the hours of work that are, in reality, required of post-graduate students who obtain doctorate degrees from reputable institutions. Although technically truthful in Respondent's representation to the Petitioner, the Respondent’s request for credential payment was clearly not supported by credible academic achievement. The Respondent attempted to obtain credential payment using a non-creditable source. This was a tremendous lapse of good judgment. The Respondent, did not, however represent that Rochville University is an accredited university. She only represented that she had obtained a doctorate degree from that entity. Her lapse of judgment was in attempting to parlay her worthless degree into a credential payment increase. Her effort failed due to the attentive review of her request. At the time the Respondent was going through a divorce and needed additional income. The online approach to obtaining the doctorate degree appeared to be an easy, affordable alternative. The Respondent did not verify that Rochville University was accredited by any national accreditation source or that the university was acceptable to the School Board for purposes of obtaining a post-graduate degree.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a Final Order sustaining the Respondent’s suspension without pay for the amount of time it deems appropriate, but returning the Respondent to full employment thereafter. S DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Rudolph F. Crew, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 John L. Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Carol R. Buxton, Esquire Florida Education Association 140 South University Drive, Suite A Plantation, Florida 33324 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761
Findings Of Fact Respondent David Lee Lockhart, age 14, has been a student at Arvida Junior High School (Arvida), in Dade County, Florida, during the school years 1985-1986 and 1986-1987. Respondent has been enrolled at Arvida in an exceptional student program where he attends mainstream classes with a general student population and classes especially designed for students found to have learning disabilities. Respondent has been diagnosed as a learning disabled child. The academic grades Respondent received the 1985-1986 and 1986-1987 school years and 1986 summer session were mostly "F"s and "D"s. Similarly, his conduct and effort rating for the same period were poor. Mrs. Katheleen L. Belews, a special learning disabilities teacher, had Respondent as a student during the 1986-1987 school year. While enrolled in that class, Respondent would frequently arrive late and without materials. He performed only about 10 percent of his homework assignments. During class time Respondent required much personalized attention from Mrs. Belews before going on task, resulting in his completing only about 50 percent of his assigned class work. In Mrs. Belews' class, Respondent interrupted other students with constant talking, repeatedly refusing to sit in his assigned seat when asked to, and frequently being rude and disrespectful to Mrs. Belews with considerable verbal sparring which could be interpreted as "back talk." Respondent repeatedly refused to serve the detentions assigned by Mrs. Belews for disciplinary purposes. Myra Lowell, a special education teacher, also had Respondent as a student. Respondent repeated the same pattern of behavior in her class as had been experienced by Mrs. Belews. He refused to go on task immediately, remaining idle for as much as 16 minutes, performed very little homework or class work, refused to take his assigned seat, and caused frequent disruptions in class. Respondent acted as if Mrs. Lowell had no right to direct him, insisting always upon having the last word. His verbal sparring with her became argumentative and disrespectful. On one occasion, as a result of his argumentativeness and defiance, Mrs. Lowell had cause to remove him from her classroom. Mrs. Judy Roberts is a varying exceptionality teacher who also taught Respondent. In her class, Respondent turned in only one homework assignment during the 1986-1987 school year. By her estimate, 90 percent of the time he refused to do any class work. Unlike other learning disabled students that regularly come to class on time and behave reasonably well, Respondent was excessively tardy to class, frequently cut class, and engaged in generally disruptive behavior in class. In one instance, Mrs. Roberts intercepted a note written by Respondent indicating that he was urging another student to cause a distraction so that Respondent could take the keys from Mrs. Roberts' desk. Upon investigation, Mrs. Roberts determined that her keys had in fact been taken and found them among Respondent's belongings. Although Respondent defended this action as something akin to horsing around or playing a practical joke, it clearly was of a more serious nature and disrupted the class. At Arvida, student case management referral forms are generally reserved for serious behavior problems. Mrs. Belews, Mrs. Lowell, and Mrs. Roberts each issued one or more student case management referral forms in regard to Respondent. These forms specified, among other causes for referral, Respondent's lack of interest in school, failing grade average, argumentative and disrespectful behavior, and disruptive attitude. Respondent received 25 other student case management referral forms from other teachers. These reports also dealt with Respondent's lack of interest in school and complained of his defiance of reasonable authority, his skipping class, his excessive talking in class, and his refusal to do work respectfully and without argument. As a result, Respondent was frequently involved in conflicts of a disruptive nature which led to his being placed on outdoor suspension 11 times between May 1986 and March 1987, and on indoor suspension 5 times between February and December 1986. However, it is noted that referrals alleging violence or potential violence either were not substantiated or were adequately refuted by Respondent's testimony. As a counselor at Arvida, Mrs. Jeanne Knauber worked very frequently with Respondent. From her testimony, it is apparent that Respondent was disinterested in school and was simply not responding to the various techniques used by teachers, counselors, and administrators to make him more interested, and discourage his misbehavior and thereby improve his academic performance. Mrs. Knauber volunteered that the only technique she knew of that had not been tried with Respondent was the cork Experience Program, a program in which students are placed in part-time employment while still in school. This could not be tried because such a program is not available at Arvida. Mrs. Knauber, who is a psychologist, was careful to protect the essential confidentially of disclosures made by Respondent to her, however, her professional assessment of his situation is threefold: (1) Respondent's learning disability is not the primary cause of his misbehavior; (2) the primary cause of Respondent's misbehavior is his poor self image; (3) it is in the best interest of Respondent both from a learning disability treatment perspective and from a disciplinary perspective that he be assigned to the J.R.E. Lee Center, an opportunity school, because the opportunity school's lower student-to-teacher ratio and more structured program can assist Respondent in directing his energies to successful academic performance. Mrs. Knauber volunteered that if Respondent can achieve a satisfactory academic performance at J.R.E. Lee Center in the next year, he will then become eligible for a senior high school which offers a work experience program and a work experience program will be in Respondent's best interest toward rendering him employable. Mr. Robert Kalinsky, assistant principal, had numerous conversations with Respondent's mother and grandmother concerning his excessive absences, poor behavior, and lack of progress. Further, he counseled with Respondent on a one- to-one basis almost every day during certain periods of the two academic years Respondent has been at Arvida. However, neither the mother nor the grandmother have so far been able to cause a significant change in Respondent's defiant and disinterested attitude at school. Although Respondent has recently (since the administrative reassignment process began) been placed in the custody of his grandmother and she testified that she could control him, he has still received several student case management referrals during her short tenure as guardian. Several of these referrals seem to overlap and seem to be the result of misunderstandings of whether or not detentions were properly given or served. However, due to the time frame involved and the problems of communication between the school administrators and teachers and the grandmother when the Respondent is used as a conduit, there is little realistic hope that Respondent can "shape up" in a regular school system. The criteria used for identifying students with learning disabilities involves an assessment of learning skills such as attention span, coordination, reading ability, etc. From the testimony of Mrs. Belews, Mrs. Roberts, and Mrs. Knauber it was evident that Respondent's current problems are not related in any meaningful way to his learning disability, but rather are related to persistent unacceptable conduct which interferes with his learning, interferes with the learning process of others, and results in frequent conflicts of a disruptive nature during the school day. Indeed, like many learning disabled students, Respondent has a high intelligence quotient (IQ) but is in need of continuous individualized special attention so that he may learn to process information correctly. It appears that he can receive that type of attention in J.R.E. Lee Center. Further, the opinion of Mrs. Knauber was that the Exceptional Student Program at the J.R.E. Lee Center would meet Respondent's learning disability needs and that the more structured disciplinary environment there would provide additional opportunities for his overall improvement, whereas permitting Respondent to remain in a regular school would be counterproductive for him personally and would improperly disrupt the education process of other students.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is, RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter its Final Order assigning Respondent to the school system's opportunity school program at J.R.E. Lee Center with the specific requirement that he be assigned to an appropriate Exceptional Student Program based upon his existing diagnosis and analysis. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of June, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 12th day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1256 The following constitute rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Covered in FOF 1. Covered under Background and Procedure; not necessary to disposition of the issues at bar. Covered in FOF 2. Covered in FOF 3. 5-7. Covered in FOF 4; what is rejected is rejected as not supported by the record as a whole. Covered in FOF 5. Covered in FOF 6. Covered in FOF 7; what is rejected is rejected as not supported by the record as a whole. 11 & 14. Covered in FOF 3 and 10 but modified to reflect the competent substantial evidence as a whole; what is rejected is rejected as not supported by the record as a whole. Covered in FOF 9; what is rejected is rejected as not supported by the record as a whole. Covered in FOF 10. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Britton, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Jaime Claudio Bovell, Esquire 370 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Martha Washington o/b/o David Lee Lockhart 15525 Southwest 140th Terrace Richmond Heights, Florida 33176
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be terminated from employment for the reasons stated in the Final Disposition - Notice of Dismissal (Notice), dated October 11, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Background The College is a public institution of higher education charged with the responsibility of providing post-secondary education. Currently, there are approximately 33,000 students enrolled at the College. It has eight campuses, including the Tarpon Springs Campus. Seven of the campuses have Provosts, who report to the Senior Vice President of Student Services. The College is overseen by a five-member Board of Trustees (Board), each Trustee appointed by the Governor. In this contentious dispute, the College seeks to terminate Respondent from his position as Provost of the Tarpon Springs Campus, a position he has held since 2014 under an annual Contract for Employment for Administrative Personnel of Community Colleges. The contract has been renewed three times, most recently for a term beginning on July 1, 2017, and ending June 30, 2018. The College, however, can decline to renew his contract for no cause at the end of each term. The annual contract provides that "the Board may suspend or dismiss the Administrator [Provost] for cause pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Florida Statutes and the Board of Trustees' Rules and Colleges Procedures." Also, under Board Rule 6Hx23-2.2012 (rule 23-2.2012), the College can terminate contractual employees for "immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, drunkenness or conviction of any crime involving moral turpitude." In this case, the College relies upon misconduct in office as the ground for dismissal. The contract requires Respondent to comply with all relevant statutes and rules of the State Board of Education, the State Board of Community Colleges, and the Board of Trustees. He also is required to comply with the terms of any College internal policies and procedures in effect at the time that his first contract became effective, and continuing throughout his term of employment. The position of Provost is a very high-ranking administrative position. The Provost is responsible for overseeing all aspects of student services, which includes student complaints of harassment and discrimination, as well as working in partnership with Academic Deans and the faculty. It is a highly visible position with the College and in the community. The College characterized the position as the "face" of the campus and the Tarpon Springs community. The Provost also serves on various community boards and organizations to represent the views of the College. At the time of Respondent's hire in 2014, the President was Dr. William Law, while Dr. Tonjua Williams served as Senior Vice President, Student Services. Dr. Williams is now the President and the one responsible for making the decision to terminate Respondent's employment, subject to confirmation by a majority of the Trustees. Shortly after his hire in 2014, the College became aware of allegations at his prior employment in Virginia, which involved an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate female employee. Dr. Law directed Dr. Williams to speak with Respondent about the allegations. Respondent acknowledged to her that the allegation was true, and, as a consequence, he was moved from a position on campus to a district office position. Dr. Law decided to give Respondent the opportunity to continue to serve at the College, but the expectations of the College with regard to his personal conduct were made very clear in a memorandum to Respondent from Dr. Williams. It stated in part that "it all boils down to exercising good judgment. Modeling good judgment is highly valued at [the College] and has a significant impact on staff morale, leadership effectiveness and student success." Respondent acknowledged in writing that he received the memorandum. According to the President, this established the expectation that he would always use good judgment in matters concerning the College. During his tenure at the College, Dr. Williams and Respondent had what she characterized as a "great relationship," "a very close working relationship," and one that was "open and transparent." She added "[t]here were no problems with us reaching each other when we needed to speak and talk." The Incident Around 1:30 a.m. on August 21, 2017, a physical altercation between Respondent and a female occurred at her apartment in New Port Richey. Although Respondent is married, the two had been involved in an affair for around two years. The female was not a student or employee of the College. On Thursday, August 31, 2017, Respondent was served with papers requiring him to appear for a hearing in circuit court on a domestic violence injunction involving the female. While attending the hearing on Friday, September 1, 2017, Respondent was arrested by the Pasco County Sheriff's Office and charged with two felonies, one for Burglary - Occupied Dwelling Unarmed (§ 810.02(3)(a), Fla. Stat.), and another for Battery - Commit Domestic Battery by Strangulation (§ 784.041(2)(a), Fla. Stat). Both charges related to the incident that occurred on August 21, 2017. After spending the night in jail, Respondent bonded out on Saturday, September 2, 2017. On October 26, 2017, the charges were dismissed by the State Attorney after he declined to prosecute the matter. Events After the Arrest The College was closed officially for Labor Day weekend on September 2, 3, and 4, 2017. On Tuesday morning, September 5, 2017, Respondent texted Dr. Williams asking, "can we talk privately tomorrow I have a home life situation but I need to converse with you." Respondent knew that Dr. Williams planned to attend a conference at the Tarpon Springs Campus the following day, and he intended to speak with her at that time. Dr. Williams responded "absolutely." Nothing in the text suggests the "home life situation" was related to a legal matter or criminal arrest or that there was any urgency in meeting with her. Nor did it suggest that the subject of the meeting involved something that could potentially affect the College's reputation or his continued employment. In fact, Dr. Williams assumed he wanted to discuss "a personal matter." Due to the threat of Hurricane Irma, then in the Gulf of Mexico and headed towards the state, Dr. Williams did not attend the conference the next day. Also, the College closed officially on September 6, 2017, due to the hurricane and did not reopen officially until September 18, 2017. With the approval of his supervisor, Dr. Rinard, Respondent flew to Maryland, where his wife and children reside. He did not return to Florida until September 13, 2017. During this intervening period, he did not attempt to contact his supervisor or the President regarding his arrest. Even though the College was closed for the hurricane, administrators continued to perform duties and responsibilities related to the safety and security of the College. Dr. Williams conducted at least two conference calls per day via telephone or Skype, where as many as 60 administrators would join in the call to discuss situations on the campuses. Although he was in Maryland much of the time, Respondent joined in the conferences on most, if not all, of those occasions. In fact, on Monday, September 11, 2017, he texted Dr. Williams regarding the situation on the Tarpon Springs campus, which had been conveyed to him by his staff. On September 12, 2017, Respondent texted Dr. Williams and advised he was returning from Maryland. The text stated in part: "I need to speak to you regarding a personal/family matter. I will discuss all in detail with you." Again, it made no reference to his arrest. After he returned to Florida the next day, Respondent and Dr. Williams agreed to meet on September 14, 2017, at a local restaurant. However, the President later informed Respondent that she was unable to make the meeting and needed to reschedule. She attempted to reach him later that day by telephone to reschedule the meeting but was unsuccessful. At that point, she assumed Respondent wished to discuss a personal family matter that did not involve the College. The two exchanged texts again on Sunday, September 17, 2017, but Respondent chose not to mention his arrest. Around noon on September 18, 2017, or 17 days after his arrest, Respondent telephoned Dr. Williams, and, in a 15-minute conversation, he advised her that he had been arrested on September 1, 2017, he was innocent of the charges, and he had retained counsel. He also told Dr. Williams that he was involved in a relationship with a woman that went awry, and the incident was not work-related. Respondent added that he had gone to court on September 1, 2017, to file a restraining order against the female, and he believed he was being scammed.1/ During the call, Dr. Williams told Respondent she needed more details. She specifically asked that he provide a police report with the details of the incident and the name of the victim to verify she was not a student. Dr. Williams also told Respondent that he needed to contact Dr. Rinard, his immediate supervisor, and tell him what had happened. Had Respondent been unable to reach Dr. Williams by telephone on September 18, 2017, his belated efforts to notify the President would be further delayed, as Respondent's first choice was to speak to her one-on-one, or if this was not possible, to discuss the incident by telephone. His actions also raise an inference that he always intended to speak with the President, and not his direct supervisor. Later that same day, September 18, 2017, Respondent spoke with Dr. Rinard by telephone. According to Dr. Rinard, Respondent "informed [him] that he had had an affair, that the woman he had an affair with had pressed charges, he was arrested, that these were all lies, that she was a thief, she had stolen property, [and he] admitted that he was wrong to have had an affair." Dr. Rinard asked Respondent if the incident involved a student or employee or occurred on College property. He was told it did not. He did not provide Dr. Rinard with the name of the victim. The following day, the two again spoke briefly while attending a Board meeting. Respondent asked if he needed anything more in reference to their conversation the previous day and Dr. Rinard answered "no." While at the Board meeting, Respondent spoke privately with a Board member, Trustee Gibbons, and disclosed that he had been arrested. On the evening of September 18, 2017, the President telephoned Respondent and commented that she was looking at the charges on a website. She said she needed more information regarding the incident, but Respondent told her he had no documentation regarding the arrest. During the call, Respondent asked the President to speak with his attorney who could provide any details that she wanted concerning the charges. Although Dr. Williams testified there was no agreement to speak with the attorney, Respondent's criminal attorney, Mr. Theophilopoulos, testified that he understood Dr. Williams had agreed to a conference call around 5:30 p.m. on September 20, 2017, so that he (the attorney) could answer any questions she had. Dr. Williams denies that a conference call was scheduled. Respondent contends otherwise and says he went to his attorney's office and waited for her to call at the scheduled time, and when she did not, they both attempted to call her from his office but were unsuccessful.2/ Whether or not such a call was scheduled, it is undisputed that it never took place. However, Dr. Williams telephoned Respondent around 6:11 p.m. on September 20, 2017, while he was driving home from his attorney's office. The Vice President of Administrative/Business Services & Information Technology, Mr. Miles, participated in the call. Mr. Miles has oversight of the Human Resources Department. During the call, Dr. Williams informed Respondent that he was being placed on administrative leave, with pay and benefits, effective that date. Again, she requested a copy of the police report or details of the incident, as the College needed more information so that it could properly assess the situation. Respondent replied that he had no written reports but his attorney had "new information" regarding the charges. Respondent was told to have his attorney contact the College General Counsel, Ms. Gardner. A few hours after the phone call, Respondent received a memorandum from Dr. Williams via email confirming that he was being placed on administrative leave, with pay and benefits, until further notice. According to Dr. Williams, this would give the College more time to thoroughly review the situation before deciding what action to take. At that time, the College still lacked the name of the victim and detailed information regarding the arrest. On September 20, 2017, Dr. Williams notified three of the five Trustees about the incident and shared with them the information she had gathered up to that point. She also told them she was still "working" on what action to take. Respondent decided to return to Maryland the same evening he was placed on administrative leave. He testified that while driving to Maryland, he received a call from Trustee Gibbons, who told him the Board had voted to not terminate him if he was cleared of the charges. This assertion was not corroborated, and there is no record of any Board meeting at which a vote would have taken place. The Termination Process On September 21, 2017, Dr. Rinard advised Tarpon Springs faculty and staff that Respondent had been placed on administrative leave and that an interim Provost had been appointed. That evening, Dr. Williams and Mr. Miles spoke with Respondent by telephone. They informed him that the College had not yet received information regarding the arrest and instructed Respondent to return his keys. Mr. Miles offered to meet with him to pick up the keys. However, Respondent, who by then was in Maryland, told them he had already mailed his keys to his attorney. The following day, September 22, 2017, through its own investigation, the College was able to obtain a copy of the Pasco County Complaint Affidavit providing additional details regarding the arrest. On Saturday, September 23, 2017, Mr. Miles left a voicemail for Respondent and reminded him that he wanted to meet with him to obtain the keys to College property. Mr. Miles also sent a text, which stated, "Dr. Williams asked me to obtain your work keys so I'm coming today," meaning that he (Mr. Miles) would drive to Respondent's home in Palm Harbor or the campus that day to retrieve the items. In response to Mr. Miles' request, Respondent replied by email that the keys had been sent to his attorney via Federal Express from Maryland. He added that if the College had any further questions, his attorney should be contacted. As of Monday, September 25, 2017, the College had not received any additional information from Respondent or his attorney regarding the arrest, and it had not received Respondent's keys or swipe card. On September 25, 2017, Dr. Williams determined that termination proceedings should begin. The same day, Dr. Rinard issued a memorandum recommending that Respondent be dismissed from employment. The basis for the recommendation was as follows: You have engaged in misconduct by not timely disclosing to the College your arrest and the charges pending against you. You have also engaged in misconduct by not providing the College with documentation related to your arrest and not returning the College's property upon request. You have also engaged in misconduct by not being truthful and forthcoming about the details of your arrest. The memorandum was actually prepared for Dr. Rinard's signature by Mr. Miles, who oversees the Human Resources Department and is also an attorney. According to the memorandum, Respondent's actions violated rule 23-2.2012, which authorizes the College to terminate an administrator for the offense of "misconduct in office." The recommendation also referred to rule 6Hx23-2.19, which outlines the procedure the College must follow when it proposes to terminate an employee. The following day, September 26, 2017, Respondent's attorney emailed the General Counsel asking for directions on where to return the keys and swipe card that were in his possession. She replied that all College property, including any electronic devices or computers, should be delivered to the security desk lobby of the district office in St. Petersburg. On September 28, 2017, five days after Dr. Williams' directive, the keys and swipe card were delivered and secured by the College. The College did not receive Respondent's college- owned laptop and other electronic devices until October 11, 2017. The Predetermination Hearing and Termination After the recommendation to terminate was issued, Respondent requested a predetermination hearing, which is afforded an employee before a decision is made regarding termination. On October 5, 2017, a hearing was conducted by the Senior Vice President of Instructional & Academic Programs, Dr. Anne Cooper, who had the authority to affirm, modify, or reject Dr. Rinard's recommendation. Respondent was accompanied by his attorney at the hearing. At the hearing, Respondent was provided a timeline of events. In response, Respondent presented his own timeline for reporting the arrest, as well as a written statement from the alleged victim in the incident which resulted in his arrest. On October 9, 2017, Dr. Cooper issued a recommendation to the President that Dr. Rinard's decision to terminate Respondent's employment be upheld. The recommendation is found in Petitioner's Exhibit 11. By letter dated October 11, 2017, the President advised Respondent that she was upholding the recommendation for dismissal because Respondent: Failed to timely advise supervisor and college administration of the arrest and nature of the charges; Failed to provide the college with information and requested documentation regarding the arrest and allegations; and Failed to immediately return college property as requested. These grounds differed slightly from those in the memorandum signed by Dr. Rinard on September 25, 2017. Whereas Dr. Rinard's memorandum stated that Respondent had failed to timely inform the College of his arrest and pending charges, Dr. Williams' Notice stated that Respondent had "[f]ailed to timely advise supervisor and college administration of the arrest and nature of the charges." Whereas the memorandum stated that Respondent had failed to provide the college with "documentation related to [his] arrest," the Notice stated that he had "[f]ailed to provide the college with information and requested documentation regarding the arrest and allegations." Finally, whereas the memorandum stated that Respondent had not returned the College's property upon request, the Notice stated that Respondent had "[f]ailed to immediately return college property as requested." Although Respondent contends he is prejudiced because the original charges were modified, the allegations in the memorandum and Notice are substantially the same, and Respondent did not demonstrate how he was prejudiced by the minor changes. No matter which set of charges apply, the College has established that the allegations are true. The College Regulations and Policies Both parties agree there is no specific College regulation that requires employees to immediately notify their supervisor or other College officials after they are arrested and charged with a crime. However, Dr. Williams stated there is an expectation that a high-ranking employee, such as a Provost, should immediately notify his supervisor, within one or two working days, given the repercussions to the College that might arise if and when the charges became public.3/ The College relies on rule 23-2.2012 as the "principal ground for prosecution in this case." That rule allows the College to dismiss an employee under written contract for "misconduct in office." The term is not further defined by rule or statute that is applicable to the College. Because Respondent is not a career service employee, the College cannot rely on procedures applicable to that category of employees. Analysis of Respondent's Conduct At hearing, Respondent characterized the incident as "a personal and private matter" that was unrelated to the College. However, he agreed he had an obligation to tell the President and Dr. Rinard about the incident so that the College would not be blind-sided if the incident became public. He contends he made good-faith efforts to contact Dr. Williams by texting her on several occasions to request a meeting. But none of the texts stated, or even suggested, that he needed to speak with her about a work-related matter or that he had been arrested for two felony charges. Moreover, these efforts evidence the fact that he knew he had an obligation to timely, completely, and candidly report anything that could impact his effectiveness as a Provost or the reputation of the College. He failed to fulfill this obligation. Respondent does not dispute the fact that he made no effort to notify his immediate supervisor, Dr. Rinard, regarding his arrest until Dr. Williams instructed him to do so on September 18, 2017. More than likely, this was because he had very little contact with Dr. Rinard, who had assumed his position in July 2017. On the other hand, he had a much closer relationship with the President, and she is the individual who makes the final decision. According to Respondent, it was important that he discuss the matter one-on-one with the President due to the "nature of the sensitivity of the situation itself, my accuracy of understanding the accusations and the false accusations, which were also racially motivated." After Respondent was unsuccessful in personally speaking with the President on September 6, 2017, he should have immediately disclosed his arrest by telephone. The record shows that he had ample opportunity to report the incident to the President by telephone beginning on the day after he was arrested. His failure to do so exhibits a lack of good judgment and trustworthiness. The delay in reporting the arrest from September 1 until September 18, 2017, was unreasonable in light of all circumstances. As Dr. Williams noted, "there is an expectation of good judgment for Provost and campus leaders, Deans, and others in that role. And you always expect your leaders, you know, [to] protect the Institution and make sure they are aware of what is going on." In the same vein, Mr. Miles pointed out that the College ended up having "to get the information ourselves" after Respondent failed to provide additional information regarding the arrest. This led him to ask whether he could "trust Dr. Bright to give me what I need to do the job that I need to do." He added that it was imperative that the College know "what exposure" it might have and how to "react to the situation" should the incident become public. Dr. Cooper, who conducted the predetermination meeting and is the chief academic officer of the College, testified that the Provost is a high-profile position and the face of the campus in the community. She noted that even though the College was closed for a hurricane, "there were multiple opportunities to report the incident to his direct supervisor, Dr. Rinard, and he failed to do so." She also testified that the incident could have blind-sided the President and Board of Trustees and put "the College in a very poor light in regard to the community." She added that "there was potential for multiple issues associated with not reporting it sooner," and "someone in that high-profile leadership position would know that." She summed it up by saying that even if there was not a specific written policy requiring Respondent to promptly report the incident to his superiors, an obligation to do so "is leadership 101." Besides failing to report the incident for 17 days, the evidence as a whole shows that, once the incident was reported, Respondent was non-responsive, uncooperative, and somewhat evasive in responding to Dr. Williams' direction to provide her additional information regarding the arrest and the name of the victim. The President had legitimate reasons for requesting additional information. Without this information, the College was at risk of having its reputation and credibility damaged. As the President pointed out, she asked for information, and when she did not receive it, this forced her to "go dig [herself] to find information" from another source. This should not be the job of the President. Finally, as previously found, Respondent did not promptly turn in all College keys and equipment, despite being told to do so on numerous occasions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that St. Petersburg College enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment as Provost at the Tarpon Springs Campus. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 4th day of April, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Uceda School of Orlando, Inc. (Uceda Orlando), discriminated against Petitioner, Matalyn Johnson (Ms. Johnson), based on her race and disability when it failed to hire her. The specific issue to be determined is whether Uceda Orlando was an “employer” under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2020) (FCRA).1
Findings Of Fact Ms. Johnson is an African-American female who has a speech impediment caused by a stroke and/or cancer. She applied for an ESL teaching position at a school located on Kirkman Road in Orlando, Florida.3 Uceda Orlando operates a school located at 5425 South Semoran Boulevard in Orlando, Florida. Uceda Orlando was incorporated in 2003. Juan Uceda (Mr. Uceda) is the registered agent and at all relevant times was the president and director of Uceda Orlando. Uceda OBT operates at least two schools located in Orlando, Florida: (1) at 12934 Deertrace Avenue, Suite B; and (2) at 4586 South Kirkman Road (Uceda Kirkman). Uceda OBT was incorporated in 2010. Charo Uceda (Ms. Uceda) is the registered agent and president of Uceda OBT. ESL TEACHER POSITION Angel Rodriguez was a teacher who worked at Uceda Kirkman from April 2019 to February 2020. For the time relevant to these proceedings, Mr. Rodriguez was supervised by Ricardo Sanchez. According to Mr. Sanchez's W-2 forms, he was paid by "Uceda School of Orlando – OBT, Inc." Mr. Sanchez, who interviewed Ms. Johnson and made the decision not to hire her, was employed by Uceda OBT. In November 2019, Mr. Rodriguez submitted his resignation letter to Uceda Kirkman.4 Mr. Sanchez asked Mr. Rodriguez if he knew of anyone who could teach ESL in his place. Mr. Rodriguez suggested Ms. Johnson for the position. 3 "ESL" stands for "English as a second language." 4 Mr. Rodriguez continued to work as a substitute teacher at Uceda Kirkman after he resigned. Mr. Rodriguez worked with Ms. Johnson at an Orange County public middle school. He told Ms. Johnson about the ESL position he was vacating at Uceda Kirkman and encouraged her to apply. Ms. Johnson applied for the ESL position. Based on the overwhelming evidence at the hearing, it is clear that Ms. Johnson applied for Mr. Rodriguez's vacant position with Uceda Kirkman (operated by Uceda OBT) and not for a position with a school operated by Uceda Orlando. Ms. Johnson is a public middle school teacher in Orange County. She has a bachelor's degree in English with a minor in Spanish. She is certified to teach ESL classes to students in sixth through twelfth grades. Although Ms. Johnson's application was not entered into evidence, her unrebutted testimony and the testimony from Mr. Rodriguez established that she was qualified for the ESL position. Ms. Johnson interviewed for the position with Mr. Sanchez. She later heard from Mr. Sanchez that she did not get the position. On January 13, 2020, Ms. Johnson received an official notification that she had not been selected for the ESL position. The email was from "Uceda School of Orlando-Kirkman," and stated in relevant part: Subject: Application for ESL Teacher at Uceda School of Orlando-Kirkman Thank you for applying to the ESL Teacher position at Uceda School of Orlando-Kirkman. Unfortunately, Uceda School of Orlando-Kirkman has moved to the next step in their hiring process, and your application was not selected at this time. INTERRELATION OF INDIVIDUAL UCEDA SCHOOLS Mr. Uceda is the father of Ms. Uceda and Doris Uceda. Together the three co-founded the Uceda English Institute (UEI) in the 1980s, which is a chain of federally-accredited ESL schools. There are numerous locations or branches of UEI in Florida, Nevada, New Jersey, and New York. Each UEI school is separately owned and incorporated, and each is overseen by different administrators. The schools that were discussed at the hearing were owned by Mr. Uceda's family members, including his daughters and grandchildren. Ms. Uceda testified that she currently owns and operates Uceda OBT, which has two campuses: the Deertrace campus and Uceda Kirkman. Ms. Uceda also either has a financial interest or is on the board of UEI schools located in Boca Raton, Florida; Westin, Florida; and Elizabeth, New Jersey. Ms. Uceda has 100% ownership interest in Uceda OBT and is the only officer of Uceda OBT. She does not have any ownership interest nor does she serve in any capacity with Uceda Orlando. Mr. Uceda has no ownership interest in and does not serve in any capacity with Uceda OBT. Although Mr. Rodriguez believed that all "Uceda schools" were owned "by the same people," there was no evidence of this at the hearing. When asked what entity paid his salary, Mr. Rodriguez did not know. He testified that he thought all "Uceda schools" shared employees and students. However, he could not provide any examples and admitted that he only worked at Uceda Kirkman. Ms. Uceda convincingly testified that employees who work at one Uceda school can apply to work at another Uceda school, but they are paid separately and not allowed to just move back and forth. She also explained that Uceda OBT and Uceda Orlando have separate accounting records, bank accounts, lines of credit, payroll preparation, telephones, and offices. They do not share employees or administrators. According to the corporate documents introduced at the hearing, Uceda OBT and Uceda Orlando have different operating addresses, different registered agents, and different officers and directors. Although Ms. Uceda was listed as an officer of Uceda Orlando in the past, she has not served in any capacity at Uceda Orlando since 2013.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Ka'Juel Washington, Esquire The Washington Trial Group, PLLC 37 North Orange Avenue, Suite 500 Orlando, Florida 32801 For Respondent: Chris Kleppin, Esquire The Kleppin Law Firm 8751 West Broward Boulevard, Suite 105 Plantation, Florida 33324
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Matalyn Johnson against Uceda School of Orlando, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S HETAL DESAI Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 2021. Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Ka'Juel Washington, Esquire The Washington Trial Group, PLLC 37 North Orange Avenue, Suite 500 Orlando, Florida 32801 Chris Kleppin, Esquire The Kleppin Law Firm 8751 West Broward Boulevard, Suite 105 Plantation, Florida 33324 Stanley Gorsica, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020
Findings Of Fact During the 1985-86 school year Respondent Alfred B. Torres was a student in the sixth grade at Redland Junior High School. On October 31, 1985, a Student Case Management Referral Form was processed by Respondent's homeroom teacher because of Respondent's continuous disrespectful and derogatory comments to the teacher, his constant talking during that time period, his persistent antagonizing of other students, and his persistent late arrival to homeroom. Respondent's mother had been contacted regarding that behavior only ten days previous. On January 15, 1986, Respondent's homeroom teacher again processed a Student Case Management Referral Form since Respondent was being disrespectful to the teacher, was refusing to sit in his seat, was fighting with another student, and continued to talk throughout the homeroom period. This time Respondent was suspended. On March 11, 1986, Respondent's homeroom teacher again referred Respondent to the Assistant Principal for the same kind of behavior, i.e., being disruptive throughout the homeroom period. Respondent was suspended for one day, and his mother was contacted. On May 7, 1986, Respondent was again suspended, this time for three days, for being disruptive and disrespectful in homeroom. His mother was again contacted. On September 15, 1986, Respondent's social studies teacher referred him to a counselor for refusing to work and refusing to bring books to class. She reported that such refusals were a daily occurrence as was Respondent's daily disruption of the class and constant talking. Respondent was given a warning. On December 10, 1986, Respondent's vocational education teacher processed a Student Case Management Referral Form regarding Respondent. That referral was based upon Respondent's constant talking in manufacturing class, his horseplay and running around the room during that class, his continual disruption of the class, and his refusal to do the work assigned to him. Additionally, Respondent was instructed by that teacher to take the referral form to the Assistant Principal and report to the office. Respondent refused to report to the office and to give the referral form to the Assistant Principal but rather went to the physical education field instead. He was brought back to his classroom by another teacher but continued to refuse to go to the office. Respondent's vocational education teacher reported that in addition to the Respondent causing problems within the class by his failure to follow either class or school rules and his disrespectful conduct toward his instructor, Respondent had also attempted to have another student's project graded as Respondent's own project. That teacher had requested Respondent's mother to come to the school to confer regarding her son on several occasions, but the mother refused to do so. Respondent was suspended for one day. On February 23, 1987, Respondent was again referred to the Principal's office for being quite noisy during his first period class, for refusing to remain in his seat, and for failing to respond to the teacher. Respondent was given "work detail" during the first period class time. On May 5, 1987, Respondent's brother started a fight with another student. Respondent rushed over and kicked the boy his brother was fighting with extremely hard in the head. When the Assistant Principal tried to intervene, Respondent told him to "fuck off." Respondent was suspended for ten days for the battery he committed. During the 1986-87 school year Respondent was absent 51 days out of the 180-day school year. He received passing grades in two of his classes and failed five classes. His effort grades in those classes primarily reflect no effort being exerted by Respondent in most of his classes most of the time. Respondent was evaluated on November 9, 1987, by the school psychologist as part of a multi-disciplinary team report. The psychologist's conclusion is that Respondent is unwilling to accept any responsibility for his behavior and that Respondent suffers from an attention deficit disorder. The school psychologist's opinion, as well as the opinion of Respondent's Assistant Principal, is that Respondent would be better served by the opportunity school's increased structure. The visiting teacher's report indicates that Respondent's mother admits that she has trouble controlling Respondent's behavior, and it was recommended that she obtain professional assistance in learning to control Respondent's behavior at home.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assigning Respondent Alfred B. Torres to the opportunity school program at J.R.E. Lee until such time as his performance reveals that he can be returned to the regular school program. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 28th day of January, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 28th day of January, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: DR. JOSEPH A. FERNANDEZ SCHOOL BOARD ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1450 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132 FRANK R. HARDER, ESQUIRE 175 FONTAINEBLEAU BOULEVARD SUITE 2A-3 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33172 DAGMAR TORRES 15276 S.W. 104TH STREET, APT. 828 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33186 MADELYN P. SCHERE, ESQUIRE SCHOOL BOARD ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1450 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132 PHYLLIS O. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE SCHOOL BOARD ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1450 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132
Findings Of Fact Background Respondent is a teacher certified in English, which he has taught while employed by Petitioner. He was first employed by Petitioner during the 1984-85 school year. In 1987, he was awarded a professional service contract. He has six years' teaching experience outside Highlands County. Principals or assistant principals routinely conduct annual teacher evaluations. The evaluation form contains two sections. Section 1 contains 14 categories that are marked based on one or more classroom observations. Section 2 contains 15 categories that are marked based on classroom observations and experience with the teacher. The back of the evaluation form explains the marks as follows: Mark Description Commendable (C) Indicates exceptional performance of the identified behavior(s). Satisfactory (S) Indicates satisfactory performance of the identified behavior(s) Needs Improvement (NI) Indicates a need for the employee to strengthen/improve performance of the identified behavior(s). Must Improve (MI) Indicates a need for the employee to remediate deficient behavior(s). If the deficiency is not corrected, the employee's contract status could be affected. The back of the evaluation form explains the "NEAT Procedure/Due Process": When an employee is evaluated as Must Improve, remediation procedures must be implemented as follows: Notice--The employee has the right to receive full written notification of the identified deficient behaviors. Explanation--The employee has the right to receive a full explanation for the reason behaviors are considered deficient. Assistance--The employee has the right to receive assistance in remediating the deficient behavior. Time--The employee has the right to a reasonable amount of time to achieve remediation. Various documents exist to normalize the evaluations of teachers. However, a degree of subjectivity necessarily remains in the evaluation process. Petitioner has prepared a booklet entitled, "Performance Appraisal System for Instructional Personnel" (Appraisal Booklet). The Appraisal Booklet introduced into evidence is dated October 5, 1992, but, judging from the cover letter from the superintendent, was in effect for the entire 1992-93 school year. The Appraisal Booklet contains, at page 12, a section describing the assessment process. The booklet states in part: When a competency or behavior is marked "NI-Needs Improvement," the appraiser shall provide counseling and/or resources whereby improvement may occur. For each competency or behavior which is marked "MI--Must Improve," a remediation procedure must be designed and implemented. The procedures will be described in a Professional Development Plan, as called for in the NEAT procedures. Each deficient item shall be addressed in a separate [Professional Development Plan]. The plan shall include the following: Area to be improved: specify the identified problem. Specific desired improvement: write as a measurable goal or objective. Action to be taken: describe action the involved parties will complete to achieve desired improvement. Assistance plan: List and describe who will provide assistance, showing role of each participant. Time line: specify dates for each activity to be completed and evaluated. Evaluation: describe how and when evaluation of progress or success will occur. Consequences: specify consequences if improvement is not achieved satisfactorily. The Appraisal Booklet contains, at page 15, a section entitled, "Use of Assessment Data for Personnel Decisions." This section requires written comments for every C, NI, or MI. Under a subsection entitled, "Unsatisfactory Ratings," the Appraisal Booklet states in its entirety: For every MI assigned, the assessor will conduct a follow-up of the Professional Development Plan to determine if the appraisee accomplished the required improvement and/or when that competency will be reassessed. Failure to improve within the expected time may be grounds for returning to annual contract for an employee holding a Professional Service Contract or a Continuing Contract. If the deficiency is not corrected during the second year, it may be grounds for non-renewal. (See NEAT) If the appraisee receives two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations, the superintendent shall notify the Department of Education as required by statute. On [the evaluation form] three or more ratings of MI . . . will constitute an "unsatisfactory annual evaluation" for purposes of reporting to the DOE. The Appraisal Booklet discusses C's. Nothing in this section of the booklet explicitly addresses NI's except, as noted above, that comments must accompany each NI. The contract between Petitioner and the teachers discusses evaluations, but not in such detail as to address the meaning of NI's and MI's. Concerning remediation, the contract states: Where deficiencies are brought to the teacher's attention by his/her supervisor, the teacher shall be responsible for taking the necessary steps for improving his/her skills to an acceptable level as determined by the principal. Assistance shall be offered the employee and such assistance for improvement shall be noted in writing and a signed copy be retained by the appropriate supervisor and the employee. Following remediation, reassessment shall be accorded the employee in compliance with the procedures of Article XI. If the final assessment report fails to note specific deficiency, it shall be interpreted to mean adequate improvement has taken place. The professional judgment of the evaluator shall not be subject to the grievance procedure. The contract acknowledges that it shall not be interpreted to abridge or in any way usurp the authority or power of [Petitioner] as established by constitutional provisions or state Board of Education regulations or statutes existing at the time of the [contract]. And further, [Petitioner] shall be relieved of compliance with any term or condition of this [contract] if such compliance is contrary to any constitutional provision or state Board of Education regulation or statute in effect or enacted subsequent to the signing of this [contract]. Petitioner has no clear written or unwritten policy regarding whether a performance deficiency evidenced by an MI is corrected by an NI, rather than a C or an S. The determination whether a teacher has corrected performance deficiencies depends on the circumstances. The Lake Placid Teacher Handbook for the 1992-93 school year, a copy of which was given to Respondent at the beginning of the year, notes that teachers are to administer their assertive discipline plan and enforce all school rules. Regarding student control, "teachers must not argue with students, use profanity or sarcasm, and must keep hands off students." Petitioner's Code of Student Conduct for the 1992-93 school year describes the teacher's role in the maintenance of discipline as starting with the preparation of a classroom assertive discipline plan, which outlines a series of increasing consequences for disciplinary problems. Under the first step, the teacher will follow his or her plan, which may contain consequences such as withholding a privilege, isolation, counseling, detention, extra work, task assignment, or a parent conference. Under the second step, if the misconduct is repeated, the teacher shall try to contact the parent and record the result. Under the third step, the teacher will refer the matter to the social worker, school nurse, Guidance Committee, or School Attendance Review Committee for positive intervention. Under the fourth step, if the problem persists or the misconduct becomes a major disruption, the teacher will complete a student disciplinary referral form and a school administrator will determine the appropriate punishment. Evaluations Prior to 1991-92 School Year Respondent's evaluation dated November 13, 1985, contains all S's with the exception of an NI for circulating and assisting students. The evaluation was prepared by Donn Goodwin, an assistant principal at Sebring High School where Respondent was then teaching. Respondent's evaluation dated March 5, 1986, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating friendly, positive attitude toward all students; maintaining academic focus; using effective questioning techniques; providing for practice; dependability; and punctuality/attendance. The evaluation contains one NI for parent/community relations. The comment accompanying the NI is obscured, but suggests that Respondent did not schedule enough parent conferences, although he did a good job with those that he conducted. The evaluation was prepared by James Bible, the principal of Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated September 4, 1986, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, presenting subject matter effectively, maintaining academic focus, arranging physical features of the classroom for a safe learning environment, dependability, work attitude, and commitment. A note at the bottom of the evaluation states that Respondent maintained an "excellent class." The evaluation was prepared by Michael Agner, an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated February 25, 1987, contains all S's except for C's in maintaining academic focus and maintaining effective classroom control and an NI in using specific academic praise. The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated April 6, 1988, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, having materials ready, maintaining academic focus, using effective questioning techniques, punctuality/attendance, quantity/quality of work, commitment, and professional behavior/ethics. The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated February 28, 1989, contains all S's. A comment under parent/community relations notes: "Need to continue working in this area. Parental support helps your teaching." A comment under student/staff relations adds: "Need to be mindful of backing students in corners with no alternatives." The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated October 17, 1989, was obscured in the copying process. It appears to contain all S's with some C's in Section 1. The evaluation was prepared by Thomas Knowles, an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated October 3, 1990, contains all S's. The evaluation was prepared by Ruth Hatfield, then an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated February 20, 1991, contains all S's except for C's in having materials ready and circulating and assisting students and NI's in punctuality/attendance, student/staff relations, personal appearance, and receptiveness. Among the comments under Section 1 is that the observer did not see Respondent's assertive discipline rules posted. Section 2 comments are that Respondent was often late and "very defensive--refuses criticism." Under student/staff relations, the comment is: "Alienates students. Backs up kids in corners. Need to be aware of this." Another comment suggests a need to dress more professionally. The final comment states: "Need to work on areas that deal with students and parents." The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. A letter dated May 13, 1991, memorializes a conference that took place on May 9, 1991, between Respondent and Rebecca Clark, another assistant principal at Sebring High School. The letter states that Ms. Clark had noticed Respondent leaving his class while two guest speakers were making a presentation. Upon questioning, Respondent said that he had to run a quick errand and would be right back. Ms. Clark remained in the classroom until the end of the period, at which time Respondent returned. The letter warns Respondent that he must remain with his class and may not leave campus without prior authorization from an administrator. Evaluations During 1991-92 School Year A new principal, Calvin Smith, replaced Mr. Bible at Sebring High School for the 1991-92 school year. Mr. Smith conducted Respondent's next evaluation, which was dated December 2, 1991. Based on an observation taking place during a 50- minute period on November 26, 1991, Respondent received all S's in Section 1 except for a C in presenting the subject matter effectively and an NI in using specific academic praise. In Section 2, Respondent received S's in only five categories: keeping accurate records, punctuality and attendance, initiative, student evaluation, and professional growth. Receiving no C's in Section 2, Respondent received three NI's in personal appearance, receptiveness, and commitment and seven MI's in dependability, work attitude, parent/community relations, student/staff relations, quantity/quality of work, planning, and professional behavior/ethics. The comments for the NI's are brief and in handwriting. Under receptiveness, the comment is: "seem[s] to be afraid of dealing with a problem. I am only trying to make you a better teacher." The comment under commitment states: "dedicate yourself to your job. You have too much talent to waste." Each MI is treated in a separate Professional Development Plan. The Professional Development Plans, which are attached to the December 2 evaluation, consist of several parts: "area to be improved," "desired improvement," "action to be taken," "who will provide assistance," "time line for achieving objectives/goal/improvement," "evaluation process to determine improvement," and "consequences if improvement is not satisfactorily achieved." Under parent/community relations, the desired improvement is: "When dealing with parents you must exhibit an air of professionalism but be understanding." The action to be taken is: "Schedule parent conferences as needed to resolve situations with students. Apologize for your actions if need be and start over with the situation." Under dependability, the desired improvement is: "Should show he is able to be counted on without constant badgering." The action to be taken is: "Submit lesson plans on time. Supply I[n] S[chool] S[uspension] students with work when requested. Meet with parents without being directed to do so. Learn to deal with students as an adult rather than getting into shouting matches, etc." Under student/staff relations, the desired improvement is: "Show you understand students by working with them in correcting deficiencies." The action to be taken is: "Don't get in students['] faces and yell at them. Don't allow things to go on and then establish a rule of the next one goes to the office. Learn to deal with student problems rather than expecting the office to handle the problem." Under work attitude, the desired improvement is: "Show that you like what you do. Turn students on to your subject. Work on faculty relations." The action to be taken is: "Be cooperative in dealing with parents, students, and faculty members. Present an atmosphere of enthusiasm that is contagious and infectious to those around you." Each Professional Development Plan states that assistance or training would be provided if requested by Respondent. For student/staff relations, the plan states: "Inservice will be provided by administrators as requested and a workshop may be recommended." Similar language is contained in the plan for work attitude. Under time line for achieving objectives/goal, improvement, each Professional Development Plan states: "Should show some immediate improvement but enough improvement must be shown prior to evaluation in 92/93 school year to remove the MI." Each Professional Development Plan describes the evaluation process to determine improvement as: "List kept of ineffective behaviors. [Respondent] will be given a copy of each item placed in folder." Each Professional Development Plan warns that, "if improvement is not satisfactorily achieved," there will be a "recommendation to place [Respondent] back on annual contract." By letter dated December 16, 1991, Mr. Smith refers to the evaluation and the evaluation conference that took place on December 5, 1991. The letter notes that one of the Professional Development Plans required Respondent to supply in-school suspension students with work when requested. The letter acknowledges that Respondent had said at the conference that he would take care of all of the MI's. The December 16 letter notes that Respondent had already failed to provide make-up work for five named students who had been sent to in-school suspension. Students punished by in-school suspension are prohibited from attending their classes, but are sent to another part of the school. It is important for their teachers to provide their assignments, so the students can study the same materials that the teacher is presenting to their classes. The December 16 letter concludes: "Repeated cases of this problem will lead to my recommendation to the superintendent that you be suspended without pay for five (5) days for gross insubordination." Respondent received a second evaluation from Mr. Smith during the 1991-92 school year. Dated March 3, 1992, the second evaluation is slightly worse than the first. Section 1 contains the same C for the presentation of the subject matter and NI for using specific academic praise. A new NI appears in Section 1 for demonstrating friendly attitude toward all students, and a new MI appears for maintaining effective classroom control. The new MI rating appears to be based in part on Respondent's allowing several students to have food and drink in the classroom after telling one student to dispose of his food or drink. In Section 2, Respondent received five S's, as he did in the first evaluation, as planning went from MI to S and punctuality/attendance went from S to NI. Work attitude improved from MI to NI, but personal appearance and receptiveness went from NI to MI. A written comment states that dependability improved some, but not enough to remove the MI. The MI's on the March 3 evaluation are again the subject of attached Professional Development Plans. Under dependability, the desired improvement is: "Show you are able to be counted on without constant badgering." The action to be taken is: "Learn to deal with students without being sarcastic or getting into shouting matches. Student and parent complaints are numerous." Under parent/community relations, the desired improvement is: "Exhibit an air of professionalism in meetings with parents." The action to be taken is: "Schedule parent conferences as needed to resolve situations with students. Apologize for your actions if need be and start over. Show parents you care about their child." Under student/staff relations, the desired improvement is: "Work with students in correcting deficiencies." The action to be taken is: "Learn to deal with student problems. Be more friendly. Be consistent in your discipline but be fair." Under receptiveness, the desired improvement is: "Be able to listen to constructive criticism and follow suggestions made by administration." the action to be taken is: "Follow rules and regulations established for personnel and students at Sebring High School rather than defying directions given by an administrator." Each of the Professional Development Plans states that the administration will provide assistance or training if requested to do so by Respondent. The time line for achieving objectives/goal/improvement is now "immediate" for the cited areas. There is no longer any mention of the removal of MI's, except that the Professional Development Plan for student/staff relations requires: "Immediate improvement--MI must be removed prior to October 92 visitation." The consequence of Respondent's failure to remove the MI's remains returning him to annual contract. The March 3 evaluation is followed by a letter dated March 9, 1992, from Mr. Smith to the superintendent. Mr. Smith writes that Respondent has not improved since the December 2 evaluation and recommends that Respondent be placed on annual contract for the following school year. The Grievance Process On March 13, 1992, Respondent filed a grievance seeking a list of specific remedies for each MI in the March 3 evaluation, adherence to the NEAT procedure, a reconfirmation of the deadline stated in the December 2 evaluation of 1992-93 "for remediation," withdrawal of the recommendation that Respondent be returned to annual contract, and transfer of Respondent to another position where he could be evaluated by someone not part of the current Sebring High School administration. Mr. Smith responded to the grievance with two documents, both dated April 7, 1992. In a three-page memorandum, Mr. Smith recounted the December 2 evaluation, noting that Respondent's "statement to all of this (as he signed the assessment and the PDP's) was, 'You mean all I have to do is correct these and I will get satisfactories?'" The April 7 memorandum notes that the March 3 evaluation was worse than the December 2 evaluation. Despite the fact that, with one exception, the March 3 evaluation did not equate correction with the removal of MI's, the April 7 memorandum states: "[Respondent] still has until the 1992-93 assessment to remove the MI's from his assessment. However, if he does not, he will be notified of non-renewal of a contract for 1993-94." Attached to the April 7 memorandum are "Specific Remedies for Must Improve." These remedies track the areas receiving MI's in the evaluations and discussion in the Professional Development Plans. Under maintaining effective classroom control, the April 7 attachment informs Respondent that he is to ensure that his students follow the rules. Under dependability, the April 7 attachment gives 12 examples of assignments that Respondent must perform. These include timely providing grades for meetings of the School Attendance Review Committee, remaining current with printed attendance sheets, submitting in-school suspension assignments when requested, arriving and leaving on time, not leaving the classroom unattended, and not allowing the students to break the rules. Under parent/community relations, the April 7 attachment states that Respondent should meet with parents at his initiative rather than waiting until irate parents demand a conference after hearing their child's complaints. Also, the attachment advises Respondent to be "gentle" with parents and not be negative. The attachment suggests that Respondent return parents' telephone calls. Under student/staff relations, the April 7 attachment warns Respondent not to back students into a corner. The attachment notes that many reports indicate that Respondent uses sarcasm with students and then disciplines them when they reciprocate with sarcasm. The attachment recommends, "Work on your personality to be more accepting and understanding of students." Under quantity/quality of work, the April 7 attachment suggests that Respondent spend more time on grammar rather than literature alone. The attachment suggests that Respondent should become involved with students' activities so that they know that he cares about them, as well as about what they learn. Under receptiveness, the April 7 attachment notes a lack of desire by Respondent to change his attitude about the providing in-school suspension assignments. Under professional behavior/ethics, the April 7 attachment recommends that Respondent not retaliate against students. It is unclear exactly what Mr. Smith means by "retaliate"; it may mean confront the students in class or respond to the students' sarcasm with sarcasm. By letter dated May 13, 1992, Deputy Superintendent John Martin decided the grievance by determining that Petitioner would grant Respondent a subsequent year of employment, under a subsequent year or annual contract, to correct the indicated deficiencies, and, if Respondent "corrects the indicated deficiencies," he would be given a new professional service contract. The May 13 letter also states that Respondent would be transferred, as he had requested. Respondent chose not to pursue additional grievance procedures available to him, so the grievance was resolved at this point. On May 15, 1992, Petitioner informed Respondent that he had been appointed for a "subsequent year of employment . . . on annual contract pursuant to Florida Statute 231.26(3)(e)." On June 23, 1992, Petitioner and Respondent executed a contract for a "'subsequent year of employment,' as that term is used in 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes . . .," for the 1992-93 school year. The 1991-92 School Year During the 1991-92 school year at Sebring High School, Respondent experienced problems in his relationship with the students and parents and in his inability to fulfill certain important responsibilities imposed on each teacher. With students, Respondent was often sarcastic. When the students returned in like kind, Respondent took offense and disciplined them, often with a disciplinary referral to the office. Mr. Smith witnessed a half dozen confrontations between Respondent and students in the main office where Respondent made derogatory remarks to the students. With parents, Respondent often failed to behave professionally in parent/teacher conferences. He walked out on one conference involving a parent who was also a teacher at Sebring High School. He often responded negatively to parents and sometimes failed to follow through on conferences or even return parents' telephone calls. Respondent was often late in fulfilling his duties. He was frequently late in getting his grades or attendance sheets to the Student Attendance Review Committee, which consisted of a guidance counsellor, an administrator, student's teachers, and student's parents who met periodically to discuss a student's attendance problems. Respondent consistently failed to submit assignments for students who had been assigned to in-school suspension. Each of the deficiencies described in the preceding paragraph interfered materially with Respondent's performance as a teacher. With respect to each of these deficiencies, Respondent was materially worse than his fellow teachers at Sebring High School. The resulting evaluations were the worst ever given by Mr. Smith, who describes himself as a hard evaluator. Evaluations During the 1992-93 School Year As Respondent demanded in the grievance, Petitioner transferred Respondent to Lake Placid High School for the 1992- 93 school year. He was assigned to teach English to all of the ninth grade students except those in honors and dropout prevention. On November 3, 1992, Respondent received his first evaluation at Lake Placid High School. He received all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, and student evaluations and NI's in maintaining academic focus and maintaining effective classroom control. The evaluation was prepared by David Robinson, who was an assistant principal. On February 25, 1993, Respondent received a second evaluation for the 1992-93 school year. This evaluation, which was prepared by the principal, Roger Goddard, was worse than the first. There were no C's, and there were NI's in demonstrating friendly attitude toward all students, maintaining academic focus, parent/community relations, student/staff relations, receptiveness, and professional behavior/ethics. Under the comments in Section 1 of the February 25 evaluation, a note reads: "Needs skills in [knowing] when to use in-class discipline or office referral." The handwritten comments under Section 2 note that Respondent "had difficulty dealing with parents in conferences an/or returning phone calls" and "lack[s] rapport with students, staff, and administration." The handwritten comments state that Respondent is "many times defensive during conferences with administrators" and "needs a better procedure with make-up work utilizing school policy." By letter dated March 19, 1993, Dr. Goddard informed Respondent that he would be unable to reappoint Respondent for employment at Lake Placid High School for the following school year. Respondent asked Dr. Goddard to perform another evaluation, and Dr. Goddard did so on April 23, 1993. There were fewer NI's than in the February 25 evaluation, but the evaluation was not much better. Under Section 1, Respondent received all S's except for an NI in demonstrating a friendly attitude toward all students. An anecdotal comment adds: "There have been over 70 referrals for discipline during the year. This is as many as 20 other teachers combined." Under Section 2, Respondent received all S's except for three NI's in parent/community relations, student/staff relations, and receptiveness. Accompanying handwritten notes state that Respondent "still shows difficulty in dealing with parent conferences," "still lacks understanding of role of assistant principal [and] staff," and "many times still defensive regarding suggestions from administration." By letter dated April 26, 1993, Dr. Goddard advised Respondent that he could not change his original recommendation given on March 19. The letter states that the recommendation is based on the need for a change in the ability to handle discipline effectively within the classroom, handle parent conferences without conflict, and be receptive to administrative suggestions without a defensive attitude. By letter dated April 30, 1993, to Dr. Goddard, Respondent states, in part: . . . Some administrators are possessed by a sort of spectral indifference, and look at their fellow beings as ghosts. For them, teachers and other staff members are often merely vague shadowy forms, hardly distinct from the nebulous background of such a life, and easily blended with the invisible. But you, Dr. Goddard, are an honorable man and I believe, from our conversations, that you really care about the parents, staff, and students of our school. . . . Respondent's letter to Dr. Goddard discusses the preceding evaluation and asks for an opportunity to continue teaching. By letter dated May 25, 1993, Superintendent Richard Farmer states that Dr. Goddard had informed Mr. Farmer that Respondent had not successfully removed all deficiencies from his evaluation. The letter advises Respondent that his annual contract was expiring, Dr. Goddard had decided not to issue Respondent another annual contract, and, according to Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes, Petitioner would not issue him a new professional service contract. By notice to the Florida Department of Education dated June 2, 1993, Dr. Goddard advised that, after two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations, Respondent's employment with Petitioner was being terminated or not renewed. The 1992-93 School Year Despite the absence of MI's on the 1992-93 evaluations, the problems Respondent had experienced with students, parents, and administrators in 1991-92 worsened in 1992-93. With respect to relations with students, the basic problem is that Respondent reverted to sarcasm at Lake Placid High School, and his students reciprocated, just as his students at Sebring High School had done the prior year. Sarcasm bred sarcasm, which bred disciplinary referrals--125 of them in fact. Respondent outdistanced his nearest competitor in disciplinary referrals by 2.5 times. On two separate days, Respondent submitted more than 10 disciplinary referrals--more than most teachers submitted all year. As Dr. Goddard's comment notes, Respondent issued more disciplinary referrals than a score of his colleagues. The huge number of disciplinary referrals did not mean that Respondent was maintaining firm control of his classes. To the contrary, he was not able to maintain firm control of his classes, partly due to the atmosphere of mutual disrespect that his sarcasm engendered. The number of disciplinary referrals indicated that Respondent had lost control of the situation and tried to shift to the administrators the job of regaining control of his classroom. A major part of the problem, in addition to Respondent's sarcasm, was his inability to adhere to his own assertive discipline plan. Respondent's assertive discipline plan, which was duly posted in his classroom, contains the following consequences in increasing order of severity: warning, contact parents, detention, and office referral. Sometime during the school year, Respondent switched the second and third consequences, so that he would place a student on detention before he would contact the parents. This change was duly posted in the classroom. Respondent's assertive discipline plan is satisfactory, but he never adhered to it. Sometimes he gave detentions, but then failed to appear at the location where the students were to serve the detentions. Sometimes Respondent simply placed the offending students in the hall where they remained, unsupervised, in violation of school rules. Sometimes Respondent gave warnings, and often he gave disciplinary referrals. But he displayed an aversion to parent/teacher conferences by almost invariably omitting the step that required him to contact a parent. Nearly all disciplinary referrals were made prior to this step taking place, and many were made prior to giving the student a detention. Respondent clung doggedly to his sarcasm despite all efforts to free him from this habitual behavior. Dr. Goddard intervened at one point during a parent/teacher conference and prevailed upon Respondent to stop using sarcasm against the student who was the subject of the conference. Respondent's response was to post a sign in his room indicating a "moratorium" in the use of sarcasm--intentionally implying that the cessation in sarcasm would be temporary. At times, Respondent lashed out at students with hurtful remarks lacking even the thin veneer of humor. He told one student that he would be a serial killer. He told another student that he would never be rich and successful. He repeatedly referred publicly to one student as a witch and asked if she had taken her Midol. In front of another student's mother, as well as other teachers and Mr. Robinson during a parent/teacher conference, Respondent referred to a girl as "bitchy." Respondent refused to accommodate valid student needs, such as the unusual demands placed on one child by a disabled brother. The regressive effect on students of Respondent's embittered and embittering classroom presence was unwittingly reflected in another student's class journal. His early entries demonstrated an emotional vulnerability as he depicted his simple, rural lifestyle; his later entries were defiantly copied out of textbooks, magazines, or encyclopedias. As a result of Respondent's poor relations with students, more than one student quit Respondent's class, even if it meant taking English in summer school or another school or dropping out of high school altogether. One parent checked her son out of school just long enough that he would not have to attend Respondent's class. By the end of the 1992-93 school year, morale among Respondent's students and their parents was a very serious problem. Respondent's relationship with parents was, if possible, even worse than his relationship with students, although his contact with parents was less frequent. During one meeting with a father in the main office, the parent and Respondent had a heated exchange. Mr. Robinson intervened and diplomatically tried to end the conference. After the parent had started to walk away, Respondent restarted the argument and approached the parent until their noses were touching. Mr. Robinson again broke up what had transformed from a conference into a confrontation, and again Respondent reinitiated the engagement. Again, Mr. Robinson had to break up the argument. Mr. Robinson attended another parent/teacher conference in which the mother, according to Respondent, looked at him with "eyes . . . like daggers." (Tr 541) The mother observed that her daughter had no problems in any other classes but Respondent's class. The parent charged that Respondent's class was out of control. Respondent saw that Mr. Robinson was not "going to fulfil his role as mediator," so Respondent got up, announced that "I'm not going to take this damn stuff anymore," and walked out of the conference. (Tr 542) At first glance, Respondent's relationship with the administrators seems better than his relationships with the students and parents, but this is due to the professionalism of Dr. Goddard, inexperience of Mr. Robertson, and uninvolvement of Ms. Hatfield. For different reasons, each administrator at the school responded differently to Respondent's increasingly bizarre behavior and in no case did any administrator at the school ever lose his or her composure in dealing with Respondent. Respondent believes that he has been unfairly treated by every administrator at Lake Placid High School, and at least two at Sebring High School. Interestingly, Ms. Hatfield had given Respondent his last evaluation-- in October, 1990--without an NI or MI. However, without any evident provocation, Respondent demanded that the other assistant principal, Mr. Robinson, handle Respondent's evaluations and disciplinary referrals. Respondent was apprehensive that Ms. Hatfield might be biased due to her past service at Sebring High School. In November, 1992, Ms. Hatfield had a conference with Respondent and cautioned him that she was receiving a number of student complaints about his use of sarcasm. Respondent's reaction was to request that he be evaluated by Mr. Robinson, who was in his first year of service as an assistant principal. In retrospect, Respondent's demand proved unwise. As evidenced by his treatment of another teacher, Mr. Robinson displayed a heightened sensitivity toward humor directed at students, even if the humor did not seem sarcastic at all. Thus, Mr. Robinson's concern about Respondent's sarcasm was not due to bias against Respondent, but was due to Mr. Robinson's concern that students be treated with dignity and respect. But, as noted above, even without Mr. Robinson's heightened concern about humor, Respondent's sarcasm exceeded the wildest imaginable limits. Dr. Goddard intervened after the first evaluation. Respondent's concern about bias defies reason and logic when applied to Dr. Goddard, who counselled Respondent and gave him an opportunity to discover for himself the shortcomings of his defensive style of dealing with students, parents, and administrators. To imply that Dr. Goddard's evaluations were orchestrated by individuals at Sebring High School or the district office is to ignore reality. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the very lack of coordination presents legal problems that could have easily been avoided with the smallest amount of coordination. Respondent had trouble with nearly every administrator. And Respondent consistently found himself the blameless target of unwarranted persecution. His paranoia interfered with his ability to do his job. This fact is best illustrated by the time that Dr. Goddard instructed the teachers to clean up their rooms in preparation for a visit that night by the school board. Respondent wrote the following on his chalkboard to be read by the school board members: "The fact that you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to get you." In addition to problems with students, parents, and administrators, Respondent continued to display an inability to fulfill his important responsibilities. He failed to appear at ninth grade orientation at the beginning of the school year, despite the fact that he was a new teacher at the school and taught most of the ninth graders. Respondent routinely failed to supply grades to students for whom guidance counsellors were trying to prepare weekly progress reports in order to monitor the students' progress more closely than is possible with report cards. Respondent was routinely resistant to assigning make- up work. Students would have to pursue him for days to get assignments, until finally Respondent decided to write these up on the chalkboard. On more than one occasion, Respondent's solution--when pushed by parents or administrators--was to avoid the extra work imposed upon him by grading additional materials; rather than assign make-up work or tests, Respondent would simply not penalize the student for the missed assignment, such as by doubling the weight of the next grade. There is no evidence that the administration at Lake Placid High School learned of Respondent's 1991-92 evaluations at Sebring High School until Respondent mentioned them when he received his first evaluation at Lake Placid High School. There is no evidence that the actions taken by the administration at Lake Placid High School were influenced by anything except the Respondent's performance during the 1992-93 school year. Respondent was warned about his problems in evaluations going as far back as the 1980's when Respondent was evaluated by Mr. Bible. The March, 1986 evaluation identifies Respondent's reluctance to deal with parents. The February, 1989 evaluation suggests that Respondent lacked the support of parents and was placing students on the defensive. In the February, 1991 evaluation, Mr. Bible warned Respondent that he needed to improve in several areas, including student/staff relations and receptiveness to criticism from administrators. Again, Mr. Bible pointed out that Respondent was alienating students. Respondent's problems, which culminated in the exceptionally bad evaluations during the 1991-92 school year, largely represented a continuation of problems that had been identified in one manner or another for the preceding five years. But instead of correcting the problems, Respondent had allowed them to get worse. These problems were described in greater detail in the 1991-92 and 1992-93 evaluations due to the deterioration of Respondent's behavior. Petitioner provided Respondent with reasonable assistance in remediating his performance deficiencies. Dr. Goddard made numerous additional visits to Respondent's classroom, and he and other administrators routinely talked to Respondent. After the first evaluation in November, 1992, Mr. Robinson twice recommended to Respondent that he rely on his assertive discipline plan because he was referring too many students to the office. After discovering how poorly Respondent handled parent conferences, administrators ensured that appropriate persons participated in Respondent's conferences to model suitable behavior. In early February, 1993, Mr. Robinson gave Respondent a set of assertive discipline tapes to view to assist in imposing proper discipline in his class. This intervention preceded the February 25 evaluation by almost three weeks. About one week prior to the February 25 evaluation, Mr. Robinson suggested that Respondent attend a workshop on parent/teacher conferences. Respondent attended the workshop. Evidently arranged prior to the February 25 evaluation, Respondent went to a high school in another district to observe a ninth-grade English teacher. The practical effect of this assistance is attenuated by the fact that the February 25 evaluation preceded the visit, although the visit preceded the March 19 non-appointment letter, April 23 follow-up evaluation, and April 26 follow-up letter. The extent of the assistance effectively offered Respondent must be evaluated in the context of Respondent's problems. He was not an ineffective teacher due to an inadequate grasp of the course material or inability to present material imaginatively. To the contrary, Respondent is a highly intelligent, literate individual who is intellectual capable of being an outstanding teacher. If his problems were in his understanding of the material or an inability to find the methods to convey the material to his students, a program of assistance and inservice workshops probably could be designed to provide meaningful help. Instead, Respondent needed to stop disparaging students. He needed to stop confronting parents. He needed to stop ignoring administrators who were trying to stop Respondent from disparaging students and confronting parents. But Respondent simply refused to change his ways, and no amount of videotapes, inservice workshops, school visits, evaluation follow-ups, and informal discussions were going to help. Respondent was given a second chance when he was transferred to Lake Placid High School. But instead of addressing the source of the problem-- himself--he attacked students, parents, and administrators. He avoided performing rigorously all of his teaching duties, such as enforcing his assertive disciplinary plan and its graduated response to misbehavior, promptly providing make-up work, and sending interim grades when needed. Instead, he inexplicably continued to bicker with the students, provoke the parents, and defy the legitimate demands of the administrators.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Highlands County enter a final order not issuing Respondent a new professional service contract. ENTERED on January 13, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 13, 1993. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-6: adopted or adopted in substance. 7-8: rejected as irrelevant. 9-18: adopted or adopted in substance. 19: rejected as irrelevant. 20-35: adopted or adopted in substance. 36: rejected as irrelevant. 37-39: adopted or adopted in substance. 40: rejected as irrelevant. Nothing requires that Petitioner make "every effort" to help Respondent through the means cited. 41: adopted or adopted in substance. 42: rejected as subordinate. 43-44: adopted or adopted in substance. 45: rejected as irrelevant. 46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47-48 (first three sentences): rejected as irrelevant. 48 (last sentence)-53: adopted or adopted in substance. 54-56: rejected as irrelevant. 57-59: adopted or adopted in substance. 60-61: rejected as irrelevant. 62: adopted or adopted in substance. 63: rejected as irrelevant. 64-65: adopted or adopted in substance. 66: rejected as subordinate. 67-69: adopted or adopted in substance. 70: rejected as subordinate. 71-74: adopted or adopted in substance. 75-76: rejected as subordinate. 77-78: adopted or adopted in substance. 79: rejected as hearsay. 80-85: adopted or adopted in substance. 86: rejected as irrelevant. 87-92: adopted or adopted in substance. 93: rejected as subordinate. 94: rejected as irrelevant. 95-100: adopted or adopted in substance. 101: rejected as irrelevant. In fact, to permit either student to leave the classroom would violate Paragraph 11 of the Classroom Management section of the Teacher Handbook. 102: rejected as irrelevant. Mr. Smith wore sunglasses indoors during part of the hearing. 103-04: rejected as irrelevant. 105: rejected as subordinate. 106-17 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 117 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 118: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 119: rejected as hearsay. 120-34: adopted or adopted in substance. 135-37: rejected as irrelevant. 138: adopted or adopted in substance. 139: rejected as irrelevant. 140: adopted or adopted in substance. 141: rejected as irrelevant. 142-43: adopted or adopted in substance. 144: rejected as subordinate. 145-46: adopted or adopted in substance. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8-10: rejected as irrelevant. 11-14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15-17 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 18-19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21-22: rejected as subordinate. 23-24: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 25-26: rejected as subordinate. 27-28 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 28 (second sentence)-29: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 30: adopted or adopted in substance. 31: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32: rejected as subordinate. 33: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 34: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. This provision governs only when Petitioner must refer matters to the Department of Education. 35: rejected as subordinate. 36: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 37-39: adopted or adopted in substance except as to meaningful follow-up conferences. 40-41: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 42: rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Superintendent Richard Farmer Highlands County School District 426 School St. Sebring, FL 33870-4048 Commissioner Doug Jamerson Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 James F. McCollum James F. McCollum, P.A. 129 S. Commerce Ave. Sebring, FL 33870-3698 Anthony D. Demma Meyer and Brooks, P.A. P.O. Box 1547 Tallahassee, FL 32302
