Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate 237129, covering the areas of social studies and work experience coordinator. At all times material hereto, the Respondent was employed as a social studies instructor at Columbia High School in the Columbia County School District. Respondent has been a school teacher since January, 1967 and has taught school in the Columbia County School District since 1968, excluding two (2) years for military service. Respondent has a good record as a teacher in the Columbia County School District and has never been accused of any professional misconduct in the past. Adrianne Lewis (Lewis) was a sixteen (16) year old student at Columbia High School in the first semester of the 1985/86 school year and became acquainted with the Respondent when she was a student in his third and sixth period classes. Lewis did not start in Respondent's sixth period class until two (2) weeks after the beginning of school in August, 1985 and was required to make up work missed during the first two (2) weeks. Respondent has a consistent policy with regard to make-up work which requires all students to make up work either before or after school and not during class. During the first six (6) weeks of school, Lewis made up several tests that she had missed both before and after becoming a student of Respondent. The complaining witness, Adrianne Lewis, testified that on two (2) separate occasions, most probably in September, 1985, the first time during a school pep rally and the second time while she was taking a make-up test after school, the Respondent, among other things, kissed her on the mouth and neck, fondled her breasts, rubbed and fondled her derriere, attempted to put a balloon under her shirt and asked why she was afraid of him and sex. However, the more credible evidence is that: (a) On September 13, 1985, Lewis went to Respondent's classroom during a school pep rally to take a make-up test, arriving around 2:50 p.m. She was given a copy of the test by Respondent and took the test in Respondent's classroom; (b) After Lewis turned in the test, Respondent spent approximately ten (10) minutes with Lewis discussing a problem she was having; (c) During the time Lewis was in the Respondent's classroom and office, Ken Stark was in an adjoining classroom with connecting windows which had only a portion of the view blocked; (d) Later in September, 1985, Lewis stayed after school to take another make-up test, arriving around 3:30 p.m. She was given a copy of the test by Respondent and took the test in Respondent's classroom; (e) During the time Lewis was in Respondent's office turning in the test, Respondent's elder son, John D. Evans, III was present and observed no misconduct on Respondent's part in regard to Lewis and; (f) Respondent, at no time during these two (2) occasions or any other occasion, improperly touched Lewis or engaged in any misconduct with respect to Lewis. During the second six (6) weeks of school, Lewis began missing class regularly. Due to a School Board policy concerning unexcused absences, Respondent consulted with Tom Grubb, Guidance Counselor, and was instructed to contact Lewis' parents. Respondent was unable to contact Lewis' parents or her grandmother, with whom she lived, but did contact her aunt, Denise Lewis. Respondent informed Denise Lewis of Lewis' absences and the need for Lewis to makeup her work or risk failing. Respondent's conversation with Denise Lewis occurred during the week of October 28, 1985 and about one (1) week later Denise Lewis conveyed the message to Lewis. Lewis did not mention the alleged improper touching by Respondent to Denise Lewis at this time but did say that Respondent did not like her and was going to fail her anyway. When Denise Lewis informed Lewis' grandmother of her absences, Lewis became upset because her grandmother had not previously known about Lewis' absences. On or about October 31, 1985, Lewis reported to Sergeant James Rutledge that she had been improperly touched and fondled by a teacher but did not disclose the teacher's name. During the week of November 6, 1985, Lewis again reported to Sergeant Rutledge that she had been improperly touched by a teacher but did not disclose the teacher's name. Rutledge went with Lewis and her girlfriend to the dean's office and notified the dean that Lewis was outside and needed to talk to him. On or about November 6, 1985, Lewis became upset with Respondent about calling her aunt and angrily told him not to call her aunt again. Lewis told Respondent that she was going to inform the administration of his alleged misconduct. Thereafter, the matter was reported and investigated by the administrator. As a result of the alleged misconduct, the Respondent was arrested and charged with battery. Subsequent to the arrest, the State Attorney for the Third Judicial Circuit of Florida filed a No Information and the cause was dismissed. There was no evidence to prove that Respondent's conduct had reduced his effectiveness as a teacher. There was no evidence that Respondent had exploited the teacher/student relationship with the minor female student for his own personal gain, exposing her to harm and unnecessary embarrassment. There was no evidence that Respondent had: (a) accepted or offered any gratuity, gift, or favor to, or from, anyone; (b) used institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage; (c) intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement or; (d) failed to make reasonable effort to protect student from conditions harmful to learning or to health or to safety.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. Respectfully submitted and entered this 15th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 15th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3994 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9 but clarified. Rejected that portion of the finding of fact concerning Lewis requesting Respondent to sign, and Respondent signing, a balloon as immaterial and irrelevant. The balance of the finding of fact is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. The fact that Lewis skipped classes is adopted in Finding of Fact 10 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Lewis took a second test before December, 1985, is adopted in Finding of Fact 9 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 11.-12. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Lewis reported the alleged incidents is adopted in Finding of Fact 15 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Lewis told the Respondent that she had reported the alleged sexual contact to the administration is adopted in Finding of Fact 14 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The first sentence is rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. The second sentence is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. The fact that a No Information was filed and the case dismissed is adopted in Finding of Fact 16 but that the State Attorney dismissed because the contact was consensual is rejected as hearsay that does not supplement or explain any other evidence in the record. 19-21. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. In these findings, the Petitioner relies mainly on the testimony of Lewis, testimony which I did not find credible. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent: Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 7.-15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 16.-19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 20.-23. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11, 12, 13 and 14, respectively. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Education Practice Commission Room 418, Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Carolyn Thompson LeBoeuf, Esquire Brooks, LeBoeuf and LeBoeuf 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas W. Brooks Meyer, Brooks, and Cooper, P.A. 911 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether the teaching certificate of Respondent John Eugene Armstrong should be suspended, revoked or annulled.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Professional Practices Council seeks to revoke Respondent John Eugene Armstrong's teaching certificate based on a recommendation filed September 20, 1976, by Hugh Ingram, Administrator of the Council. The Council alleges that the Respondent is guilty of gross immorality and that he failed to perform his duties as educator as required by Section 231.09, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to the raising of the issue of fairness and constitutional guarantees by the hearing panel of the Professional Practices Council and without admitting the validity of the issue, the Council relinquished jurisdiction of the cause and requested that jurisdiction be assumed by a Hearing Officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Petition for the Revocation of Teacher's Certificate filed by the Petitioner on October 7, 1976, contended that Respondent John Eugene Armstrong: "1. On August 16, 1967, at 4:00 p.m. made two threatening phone calls to Mr. Claude O. Hilliard, former principal, using pro- fane language; On or about January 14, 1975, made an obscene gesture with his fingers to Linda Rhodes, a student; On or about June 20, 1975, confronted Mrs. Marilyn H. Bagby, Coordinator EMR, in a classroom and made threatening remarks; On or about November 10, 1975, entered the girls' locker room when the girls were dressing out for class as observed by Coach Ruth Stevens and Coach Geraldine Williams; On or about November 10, 1975, in rela- tion to the incident in Number 4, threatened Ms. Ida L. Shellman, Administrative assistant; On or about December 10, 1975, fondled the upper portion of Gwendolyn Lowe's, a student's, body; On January 29, 1976, in the presence of Mr. R. L. Ballew, Director, Area I, made accusations against Mr. Milton Threadcraft, principal, in a threatening manner; On March 3, 1976, struck Lavern White, a student, on or about his neck causing bruises; On March 12, 1976, struck Johnny Hill, a student lacerating his upper lip; The Respondent Armstrong was first employed by the Board of Education in the public schools of Duval County, Florida, in 1952. He holds valid Florida Teaching Certificate Number 401436. In 1973 he was assigned to Northwestern High School to teach industrial arts and was assigned to teach classes of educable mentally retarded (EMR) students. He taught special education industrial arts classes consisting of seventh and eighth grade students. Respondent stated that he had attempted to obtain a transfer from the Northwestern School on a number of occasions both because of dissatisfaction with the facilities and because of harassment he received from the administration. He stated that discipline was a major problem among EMR students. Various witnesses were called to testify and findings in regard to the aforementioned charges are as follows: The charge that Respondent made threatening phone calls to Mr. Claude O. Hilliard, former principal, using profane language was not proved. The charge that Respondent made an obscene gesture with his fingers to Linda Rhodes, a student, was denied by the Respondent who stated that he did not know what an obscene gesture meant. The student testified that he "shot a bird" at her and demonstrated by position of her fingers. She was a member of Respondent Armstrong's class two years ago and was advised by her counselor, Mrs. Shellman, to write out a complaint against Respondent. Upon observing the demeanor of the witnesses, I find the Respondent did make such a gesture to Linda Rhodes, a sixteen year old student. Considering the testimony of the Respondent and of Mrs. Marilyn H. Bagby, the Hearing Officer finds that Respondent was upset and did in fact make remarks to her concerning a report she made subsequent to her observation of Respondent's teaching and room atmosphere which he had not received and that the witness Bagby was in fact frightened by the presence of the Respondent in her room alone, his close proximity and his tone of voice on or about June 20, 1975. She verbally reported the incident to her supervisors and later made a written report of the incident. Respondent testified that if he threatened her he did not recall it. The Respondent admitted that he did in fact enter the girls locker room when the girls were dressing out for class on or about November 10, 1975. The evidence does not show that the entrance into the girls locker room was for an immoral purpose although he knew or should have known he should not have entered when the girls were in various stages of undress. Considering the testimony of the Respondent and Mrs. Ida L. Shellman, Administrative Assistant, concerning the locker room incident, the Hearing Officer finds that by Respondent's presence with his hands in his pockets, his remarks and his general tone of voice, Mrs. Shellman was in fact threatened and frightened. Respondent testified that he did not recall his conversation relative to the incident as being threatening. The charge that on or about December 10, 1975, Respondent fondled the upper portion of Gwendolyn Lowe's, a student's, body was not proven by the evidence. The charge is that on January 29, 1976, in the presence of R. L. Ballew, Director, Area I, Respondent made accusations against Mr. Milton Threadcraft, the principal, in a threatening manner. The testimony of Mr. Threadcraft is believable when he testified that Respondent accused him of being incompetent and said that he, Respondent, was not going to put up with it. The remarks of Respondent were subsequent to a commotion in the school room in which wood was being thrown about and the Respondent had taken a student by the arms to discipline him. The principal, Threadcraft, was called by other students to witness the actions of Respondent. Respondent was relieved of his duties for the remainder of the day after a later confrontation with the principal and director. The testimony and evidence supports the charge. Charge Number 8 that Respondent struck Lavern White on March 3, 1976, on or about his neck causing bruises was proven by the testimony of the student, Lavern White, and also by a fellow student, Johnnie Hills. Sufficient evidence was not shown that Respondent in fact did strike Johnnie Hills on March 12, 1976, lacerating his lip although the evidence shows that Respondent did use corporal punishment by pushing the student against the wall to discipline him. Respondent attempted to discipline students through physical restraints. The Respondent was dissatisfied with his teaching position in the school to which he was assigned. He had asked to be transferred, he testified, about ten times in three years. The students were a discipline problem. The method of discipline of the students was to use force which, among other things, caused the students to be dissatisfied with their classwork. Order was not kept in the class and objects were thrown about the class from time to time. The Respondent was feared by some of the other teachers and by some of the students. From the general comments of the students of Respondent and the adult staff members, it is evident that the classes of Respondent did not reflect an atmosphere for optimum learning. Respondent appeared resentful of his professional status and uncooperative toward the other members of the educational community. He displayed no interest in the education of his students.
Recommendation Suspend the teaching certificate of the Respondent Armstrong for a period of time not to exceed three (3) years. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of June, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Barrett, Esquire Post Office Box 1501 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Donald Nichols, Esquire 320 East Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment should be terminated, as recommended by the then-Interim Superintendent of Schools, and, if not, whether Respondent (who has been suspended without pay pending the outcome of this dismissal proceeding) should be reinstated with "back salary."
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, including the stipulations of the parties, the following Findings of Fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Broward County, Florida, including Plantation Middle School (Plantation). Jean Jones is now, and has been since the beginning of the 1998-99 school year, the principal of Plantation. The 1998- 99 school year was her first as a principal of any school. She had served as an assistant principal for seven years before becoming Plantation's principal. Thomas Fegers is now, and has been since 1993, an assistant principal at Plantation. Milton Roseburr is now, and has been since August of 1995, an assistant principal at Plantation. At all times material to the instant case, Carol Mendelson has been an assistant principal at Plantation. Respondent is a veteran educator. He has been teaching since 1964. Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a teacher since 1975. He holds a continuing contract of employment, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The Teacher agrees to teach the full period of service for which this contract is made, in no event be absent from duty without leave or to leave his position without first being released from this contract by the School Board, to observe and to enforce faithfully the laws, rules regulations, and policies lawfully prescribed by legally constituted school authorities insofar as such laws, rules, regulations, and policies are applicable to the position held by him. The Teacher agrees that the last salary payment in each academic year may be withheld upon proper notice to the Teacher as to the reasons for said withholding if all duties have not been performed as required by law and regulations of the School Board and the State Board of Education. The services to be performed hereunder shall begin on the beginning date shown above [August 23, 1978] and thereafter as determined by the School Board and are to be performed in the position and school as assigned from time to time by the said School Board. . . . 8. This continuing contract of employment shall remain in full force and effect from year to year, subject to all the provisions herein set forth, unless modified by mutual consent in writing by the Parties hereto, except the teacher may be suspended or removed for cause as provided by law. The Teacher agrees that he may not be entitled to receive any salary from and after the date of such suspension or removal unless such suspension is revoked and in no event shall the Teacher be entitled to any compensation subsequent to the cancellation of this contract. This contract may also be terminated by the written resignation of the Teacher submitted not later than four (4) weeks before the close of the post-school conference period, to take effect at the end of the school year. Such resignation shall be submitted in substantially the form hereto attached described as Exhibit A, and by reference made a part hereof. . . . Failure of either party to fulfill the obligations under this contract, and to carry out the lawful provisions hereof, unless prevented from so doing by reason of personal illness of the Teacher or as otherwise provided by law, shall constitute sufficient grounds for the termination of this contract by the other party, provided, however, no termination shall be effective without reasonable notice and, if timely requested by the Teacher, hearing. The contract shall at all times be subject to any and all laws and all lawful rules and regulations, and policies of the State Board of Education and the School Board now existing or hereafter enacted. . . . 14. This contract may be changed or modified only by an amendment in writing executed in the same fashion as the original or by a collective bargaining agreement ratified by the School Board and bargaining agent. No person, officer or employee may modify the provisions of this agreement or make any other contract with the Teacher for and on behalf of the School Board without expressed ratification by the School Board. Provided, however, in accordance with paragraph two hereof both parties agree that this contract shall be modified by the adoption of a subsequent salary schedule as provided in paragraph two and that adoption of such amended salary schedule by the School Board shall constitute expressed ratification. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was a classroom teacher at Plantation. For the three school years immediately preceding Ms. Jones' arrival at Plantation (the 1995-96, 1996-97, and 1997-98 school years), Respondent was supervised and evaluated by Mr. Roseburr. During this period of time, Respondent had an extremely difficult and challenging teaching assignment. He taught a "self-contained" class of sixth, seventh, and eight grade "drop out prevention" students. "Drop out prevention" students generally struggle academically, lack motivation and focus, have short attention spans, are easily distracted, come to class ill-prepared, do not complete all of their classwork, and are unruly and disruptive in class. Respondent and these "problem" students remained together in the same classroom the majority of the school day, with Respondent providing the students with instruction in all of their academic subjects. Because conventional teaching and behavior management methods did not always work with these students, Respondent needed to be creative and innovative to effectively discharge his classroom duties. Mr. Roseburr was in Respondent's classroom on a daily basis during the three-year period he supervised Respondent. Impressed with Respondent's performance and his "unique knack of knowing what to say and how to say it to students that are difficult," Mr. Roseburr gave Respondent satisfactory evaluations each of the three school years Respondent was under his supervision. The first quarter of the 1998-99 school year, Respondent had the same teaching assignment he had had the previous three school years, notwithstanding his expressed desire to have his assignment changed. In or around September of 1998, Respondent spoke with Ms. Jones about the possibility of having a parent volunteer (Sybil Moton) assist him in the classroom. Shortly after his discussion with Ms. Jones, Respondent sent her the following letter, dated September 14, 1998: I have been assigned to teach 6th, 7th & 8th grade self-contained D.O.P. for several years. I have been doing this at a great disadvantage. There are many Teachers, Team Leader and Department Heads, at this school who would not accept this assignment or be successful with it. I have accepted this assignment and I'm ready to do the best job I can under the circumstances. I have to plan for three grade levels, while other teachers only plan for one. I have to prepare for five subjects, while other teachers only prepare for one. I have five subject area meetings to attend, while other teachers only have one. I have not read any research that support[s] the notion that a teacher, who has as many duties and responsibilities as have been placed upon me, will be more successful or as successful as a teacher, who teaches one subject area or one grade level. Does the research indicate that children placed in this kind of class situation, will be more successful than in the traditional class situation? Is it possible that the children might be at a disadvantage? Each of the previous times when I requested an assistant, I was denied. It was all about money. Now when I ask a parent to help "FOR FREE," I'm told, "I don't think I'll be able to approve Ms. Moton as a parent volunteer." All I'm saying is that, now that I have been loaded down with all of the above, where is the help that goes with it? As of now, I feel that I have been placed in a situation that is headed for failure, and that's not me. I want to be successful at whatever I do, that's why I keep asking for help. These children need so much help, and I want to help them very badly. My difficulty comes from the situation I've been placed in, more so tha[n] the children I work with. After receiving the letter, Ms. Jones circled the last sentence of the fourth paragraph of the letter, and, on the upper right hand corner of the letter, wrote the following concerning the representation made by Respondent in this sentence: This is blatantly untrue. If you quote people, make sure you quote them correctly. See me please. She then returned the letter (with her handwritten notations on it) to Respondent. Respondent thereafter, as directed, met with Ms. Jones, who cautioned him that he could not "just . . . go out and recruit parents to work in [his] classroom and not have them approved by the School Board." Mr. Roseburr, although he remained an assistant principal at Plantation, did not supervise Respondent during the 1998-99 school year. Respondent's new supervisor was another assistant principal at the school, Carol Mendelson. On October 7, 1998, Ms. Mendelson conducted a classroom observation of Respondent. Following the observation, she sent Respondent the following memorandum, dated October 12, 1998: OBSERVATIONS During my observation of your class, you were introducing personal narratives to your students. You explained the concept of the first draft and the idea that students would choose their own topic for this assignment. Students were walking around the classroom, talking, drawing, had heads down on the desk without consequences from you. A review of your planbook indicates that plans for the day do not coincide with the lesson being taught by you. SUGGESTIONS Please consider the following recommendations to better assist the students: Setting clear, precise, classroom management rules that are reviewed daily with students will help enforce the rules. Consequences must be fair and consistent. Students were walking around the classroom, talking, drawing, had heads down without consequences from you. It is imperative that you establish and implement specific behavioral and procedural expectations, rules, and consequences in order to stop inappropriate behavior before it becomes more serious. Develop plans which match the curriculum you are addressing on each given day. Please make sure that your grade/planbook is in compliance with School Board policy and includes grades, entry dates, transfer dates, absences, interim grades, ESOL strategies, Standards of Service, and all mandated, pertinent information. Please meet me on Monday, October 22 during your planning period with your grade/planbook up- to-date with the abovementioned information. At the end of the first quarter of the 1998-99 school year, in approximately the first week of November of 1998, Respondent was given a new teaching assignment at Plantation, as well as a new classroom (an uncarpeted portable, smaller than his old classroom). He was assigned to a team consisting of four teachers (including himself) responsible for teaching approximately 120 students divided into four separate groups (Groups A through D), one of which (Group D) contained the students who had been in the "self-contained" class of "drop out prevention" students that Respondent had taught during the first quarter of the school year. Although only one of the four groups had students who were in the school's "drop out prevention" program, many of the students in the other three groups were as difficult for the teachers on the team to deal with as were the "drop out prevention" students. Respondent was the team's math and advanced communication skills teacher. The leader of Respondent's team was Ronald Jackson, the team's social studies teacher. Like Respondent, Mr. Jackson joined the team in November of the school year. In addition to Respondent and Mr. Jackson, there was also a language arts teacher, as well as a science teacher, on the team. On November 19, 1998, shortly after he had undertaken his new assignment, Respondent was observed in the classroom by Ms. Jones. Following the observation, Ms. Jones sent Respondent the following memorandum describing what she had observed during the observation: This letter is being written to inform you that on this date, I came to your classroom on two different occasions and found the following: Students not on task (talking, 1/ no materials) Students out of their seats and/or being permitted to sit wherever they wished with no management from you and no consequences for non-compliance. 2/ Your plan book was not updated by November 13 as requested. You have been asked to rectify this situation by Friday, November 20. Your plan book reflected no attendance or grades for students. 3/ Your lesson plans are not written appropriately, do not reflect the Sunshine State Standards, and do not reflect acceptable practice for lesson plans as discussed with all teachers during the pre- planning days. Your back is turned to students during your lesson 4/ and you are not aware or monitoring what is happening in your classroom while you are instructing. There is very little instructional organization and no classroom participation from the students. There is no indication that you are doing the daily FCAT warm-ups required for all math students in the school. There is no FCAT folder required for each student to use on a daily basis. Ms. Jones again observed Respondent in the classroom on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, during first period. Respondent had been off from work the previous five days (Thursday, November 27, 1998, Thanksgiving Day, through Monday, November 30, 1998). Upon his arrival at school that morning, before entering his classroom, he was called into an unscheduled student services meeting. Because of the length of the meeting, he arrived at his classroom a "couple [of] minutes" after the first period bell had rung. When he opened the classroom door, he noticed that "the fire extinguisher had been sprayed all over the room." With the students' assistance, he cleaned up as best he could and then started his lesson. When Ms. Jones entered the room, Respondent was in the back of the room taking attendance. The students were "out of control." They had no books and there was no assignment on the blackboard. Following the observation, Ms. Jones sent Respondent the following memorandum, dated December 1, 1998, describing what she had observed during the observation: On this date I visited you classroom and observed the following: It was 9:00 a.m. and the students were totally out of control. There was no assignment on the board, students had no books. You were in the back of the room finishing your attendance, oblivious to what was going on around you. There were absolutely no reprimands from you for their behavior. In fact, it was I who had to quiet the class down. The class was so loud and unruly, that you did not even hear Ms. Milligan call you over the loudspeaker. I also had to inform you that someone was calling you over the public address system. Although your plan book appears to be updated, you were not following the plans as outlined. In fact, no FCAT warm up was on the board, no books were in use and absolutely nothing in terms of teaching and learning was occurring. This was one half hour after class had started. After I quieted the class down, you proceeded to give out paperwork to students apparently to review it. You handed out papers one by one to students who began to be unruly again. At 10:00 a.m. I visited your classroom again, because I wanted to speak with Mr. Roseburr who was outside your door. However, when I went inside the classroom, there was still no work on the board for students, although books were on the desks. Students were talking and looking around and not on task because there was no task to be on. When I questioned what the students were doing, you explained that you had papers to return and that you[] were going to review their work. Once again, you passed out papers one by one, taking away from instructional time and giving students opportunity to misbehave. 5/ It is apparent to me that there is a lack of classroom management in terms of student behavior, and a greater lack of lesson management since there are no clear expectations for students and no method for simple housekeeping chores as attendance and returning papers. You are oblivious to their behavior 6/ and provide no consequences. Most obvious, is the lack of meaningful work for students. There was none provided. Given those circumstances, students will find an easy opportunity to misbehave. Should these conditions, including delivering lessons as outlined in your plan book, not improve immediately, you will be placed in documentation for unsatisfactory performance. On December 7, 1998, Respondent was observed in the classroom by Mr. Fegers. Following the observation, Mr. Fegers sent Respondent the following memorandum, dated December 16, 1998, in which he described and commented on what he had observed during the observation: On Monday, December 7, 1998 I observed you teaching your class from 9:15-9:45 A. M. Based upon my observation the following are suggestions/comments for your consideration. I found the classroom to be orderly; however, your students were talking loudly as you attempted to teach by talking louder. The class continued talking out loud with no consequence or redirection by you. While the entire class was being disruptive you gave one check to a student for talking, even though the entire class was talking. Never once did you get the class under control and, for some unknown reasons, you continued talking with no one listening. Please be advised that this is unacceptable. It does not make sense to try to shout louder than your class. You must first bring the class under control by confronting the misbehavior. This did not occur. Your attendance was neatly done, listing tardies and absences. Grades were virtually non-existent, and the few that were there did not have names to identify who they belong to. Grades must be clearly recorded next to the appropriate student's name. 7/ Lesson plans from 11/9/98-11/30/98 were incomplete. There were no warm up activities. Additionally, you identified the 504 student's strategies as they were to "do 1/2 of the assignment." The strategies need to be based on the student's needs as they related[] to the written 504 plan. 8/ ESOL strategies written were, "Students may sign out a book if requested." This is unacceptable. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. On December 17, 1998, Respondent received a memorandum from Ms. Jones notifying him that his "performance [was] unsatisfactory and that [he was being] placed in the Documentation process of the IPAS System effective December 17, 1998." In the memorandum, Ms. Jones explained that she was "moving [Respondent] from Development to Documentation" because of her "concern" regarding his performance in the areas of "lesson presentation," "classroom management," and "behavior management." The memorandum further advised Respondent that "the 1997 Florida Legislature [had] amended Florida Statu[t]e 231.29 [to] state[] that the School District shall place a teacher on performance probation for 90 calendar days from the receipt of this notice of unsatisfactory performance." Respondent signed the memorandum and dated it (December 17, 1998), acknowledging his receipt of the document. "IPAS" is the acronym for the School Board's "Instructional Personnel Assessment System." Under "IPAS," "lesson presentation," "classroom management," and "behavior management" are three of the ten "performance areas" in which instructional personnel are evaluated. The other seven are "instructional planning," "lesson management," "student performance evaluation," "communication," "records management," "subject matter knowledge," and "professional competencies." 9/ Ratings of either "S" (satisfactory), "N" (needs improvement), or "U" (unsatisfactory) are given in each "performance area." With input from Respondent and Gary Itzkowitz, a Broward Teachers Union field staff representative, Ms. Jones, Mr. Fegers, and Dr. Cathy Kirk, the School Board's coordinator of teacher evaluation, developed Performance Development Plans for Respondent in the "performance areas" of "lesson presentation," "behavior management," and "classroom management." Each plan was dated January 7, 1999, and indicated that Mr. Fegers would be the "assessor" and that the "follow- up/review date" was March 5, 1999. The "lesson presentation" Performance Development Plan read as follows: Identified Deficiencies Fails to create interest through the use of materials and techniques appropriate to the varying abilities and backgrounds of students (6B-5.004). Fails to use different types of questions to obtain desired learner responses. Fails to ask questions which are clear and requires students to reflect before responding. Fails to circulate about the room as students engage in seatwork and assist students as needed. Strategies for Improvement, Corrections, and Assistance Ms. Greifinger [the chairperson of Plantation's math department] will meet and discuss various motivational teaching techniques such as (a) Use of visual aids, manipulatives, and critical thinking activities, etc. by January 14, 1999. Ms. Cranshaw will assist with scripting questions related to the content during lesson planning 2-3 weeks in a row by January 29, 1999. Mr. Jones will observe Ms. Greifinger focusing on questioning techniques and follow-up by discussing implementation in classroom during his planning time by January 22, 1999. Mr. Jones will read the FPMS Domain document (domain 3) on circulating and assisting and discuss with Mr. Fegers. Follow-up assistance will be provided by Mr. Fegers and/or Mrs. Jones via observation and follow-up conferencing. Expected Outcomes and Timeline Teacher Will: Create interest through use of material and techniques appropriate to the varying abilities and backgrounds of students (6B- 5.004) by April 13, 1999. Use different types of questions to obtain desired learner responses by April 13, 1999. Ask questions which are clear and require students to reflect before responding by April 13, 1999. Circulate about the room as students engage in seatwork and assist students as needed by April 13, 1999. Consequences for failure or refusal to remediate all areas identified as deficiencies: Will result in an unsatisfactory IPAS evaluation and termination of contract. Respondent received a copy of this document on January 7, 1999, but refused to sign it. The "behavior management" Performance Development Plan read as follows: Identified Deficiencies Fails to maintain consistency in the application of policy and practice by: Establishing routines and procedures for the use of materials and the physical movement of students. Formulating appropriate standards for student behavior. Identifying inappropriate behavior and employing appropriate techniques for correction (6B-5.007). -Fails to demonstrate an awareness of what all students are doing. Strategies for Improvement, Corrections, and Assistance Mr. Jones will observe Ms. Greifinger's class to witness her technique in behavior management. Discussion to follow by January 21, 1999. Mr. Jones will observe Mr. Lyons' class to witness his techniques in behavior management by January 28, 1999. Discussion with Mr. Fegers and Mr. Lyons to follow. Mr. Jones will observe Mr. Watkins' class to witness his techniques in behavior management by January 28, 1999. Mr. Jones will receive assistance from Ms. Mendelson, Mr. Fegers, Mr. Roseburr and selected teacher(s) to develop a behavior management plan including rules, rewards and including consequences by January 14, 1999. Mr. Jones will develop a phone log system which will indicate conversations, conferences with parents, specific student infractions, and disposition of all of the above with the assistance of Ms. Mendelson by January 21, 1999. Mr. Fegers will observe classroom to help identify inappropriate behaviors and follow-up with discussion to include appropriate ways to desist inappropriate behavior by January 28, 1999. Expected Outcomes and Timeline Maintain consistency in the application of policy and practice. Establish routines and procedures for the use of materials and the physical movement of students by April 13, 1999. Formulate appropriate standards for student behavior by April 13, 1999. Identify inappropriate behavior and employ appropriate techniques for correction (6B-5.007) by April 13, 1999. Demonstrate an awareness of what all students are doing by April 13, 1999. Consequences for failure or refusal to remediate all areas identified as deficiencies: Will result in an unsatisfactory IPAS evaluation and termination of contract. Respondent received a copy of this document on January 7, 1999, but refused to sign it. The "classroom management" Performance Development Plan read as follows: Identified Deficiencies Fails to create and maintain an organized and pleasant working environment in the classroom. Fails to encourage students to participate and contribute to class activities. Fails to establish an environment conducive to positive peer interaction. Fails to identify individual social, emotional and/or physical needs that might affect school success. Strategies for Improvement, Corrections, and Assistance Mr. Watkins will assist in the setting-up and organizing of the classroom to include aesthetically appealing academic and social environment by January 14, 1999. Ms. Greifinger will discuss different student activities that will foster participation and interaction 2-3 times by February 11, 1999. Should a 504 student be assigned to your team, Ms. Hogan will review 504 plans and discuss ways to modify curriculum and implement in classroom (Date to be determined). Expected Outcomes and Timeline Create and maintain an organized and pleasant working environment in the classroom by April 13, 1999. Encourage students to participate and contribute to class activities by April 13, 1999. Establish an environment conducive to positive peer interaction by April 13, 1999. Identify individual social, emotional and/or physical needs that might affect school success by April 13, 1999. Consequences for failure or refusal to remediate all areas identified as deficiencies: Will result in an unsatisfactory IPAS evaluation and termination of contract. Respondent received a copy of this document on January 7, 1999, but refused to sign it. The "[s]trategies" set forth in the Performance Development Plans were reasonably designed to enable Respondent to improve his performance in the areas of "lesson presentation," "classroom management," and "behavior management." These "[s]trategies" were implemented. Those at the school asked to assist Respondent provided him the requested assistance (with Respondent's cooperation). 10/ On January 27, 1999, Respondent was observed in the classroom by Mr. Fegers. On February 1, 1999, Mr. Fegers and Ms. Jones met with Respondent to discuss Mr. Feger's January 27, 1999, observation. In addition, Mr. Fegers sent Respondent the following memorandum, dated February 9, 1999, in which he described and commented on what he had observed during the observation: This is a follow up to our conference on Monday, February 1, 1999. On Monday, February 1, 1999, we met to discuss my observation of your teaching that occurred on Thursday, January 27, 1999 from 1:38-2:13 P.M. Ms. Jeanie Jones, our Principal, was also present at the follow up conference. Based on my observation we discussed the following suggestions/comments for your consideration: All students were seated when I arrived. Your rules were not posted. 11/ You were working on F-CAT testing exercises. At 1:55 A.M. I observed eight students not doing any work. I stated my concerns that the students should not be given 30 minutes to do an assignment without you following up to see if they are on task. I recommend that additional assignments be given so that students do not sit and do nothing. The class is becoming increasingly noisy with no redirection from you. This is unacceptable. Finally, you stated to the class, "Alright people listen up!" Nothing followed that comment so the class continued talking. The talking continued because of down time, with students having nothing to do. You then started passing out papers one- by-one to students randomly which took a great deal of time. By this time most of the class was off task. This is unacceptable. Varied instructional activities as well as pacing of assignments would eliminate the majority of the misbehavior. This did not occur. We agreed that I would come back this week for another observation. Mr. Fegers next observed Respondent in the classroom on February 5, 1999. Following the observation, Mr. Fegers sent Respondent the following memorandum, dated February 9, 1999, in which he described and commented on what he had observed during his February 5, 1999, observation: On Friday, February 5, 1999, I observed you teaching your class from 8:50-9:20 A.M. Based on my observation are the following suggestions/comments for your consideration. I found the classroom to be orderly with all students seated at t[]he beginning of my observation. You reviewed the rules and expectations with your class. Your rules were also posted. One student was seated with a washcloth on top of his head. He was not asked to remove it. This is unacceptable and you will need to redirect inappropriate behavior that does not follow the code of conduct. I observed you passing out six writing assignments to students for talking. I observed you circulating and assisting students on division, simplifying fractions and multiplication. I observed you redirecting inappropriate behavior back to the assignment. Some students were requesting pencils at 9:15. Please make sure all students have something to write with at the beginning of the class. This should also be part of your discipline plan, that students come to class with paper and pencil prepared to work. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Respondent provided Mr. Fegers with the following written response to Mr. Feger's memorandum concerning the February 5, 1999, observation: #1. Thanks for the positive observation. #2. Yes this is true. I will follow your suggestion. #3. Thanks for the positive observation. #4. Thanks for the positive observation. #5. I have tried your suggestion, it doesn't work. They don't care and they don't want to work. That's why they don't come prepared. On February 17, 1999, Respondent was observed in the classroom by Ms. Jones. Following the observation, Ms. Jones sent Respondent the following memorandum, dated February 17, 1999, regarding her "observation [of] February 17, 1999." It read as follows: On this date I observed your C group in a math class. You were teaching least common denominators for fractions and had several examples on the board. Students came into the room noisily and it took about 7 minutes to get them quieted down and settled for work. You reminded them of the behavior rules. Some students were unprepared for work and had no notebook paper or pencils. Although there were stated consequences for students who misbehaved, there were no consequences for unprepared students. At the beginning of the lesson, you had a student hand out SAT review packets to each student and told them it was due on Friday and that the packet would be their homework for the next two days. You said that anybody could help them with the answers. I am questioning why you would give such a large body of work to these students and then ask them to complete it on their own. These students would benefit far better from you working out each problem with them, and/or allowing them to work in cooperative groups on a small number of problems at a time. This assignment is a concern to me, because I feel that it is a frustrating assignment to these students. Additionally, and most importantly, this is review for the SAT and they need your direct instruction and supervision. They will give up on this assignment because it is too much for them to "bite off" at one time. Students need to be taught to their instructional level, not their frustration level. Again, I feel that teacher directed instruction and cooperative learning activities would be more successful with these students, especially for the SAT review which is critical. I did not feel the answers to the examples should have already been up on the board; however, you did go over each problem thoroughly and had the students figure out how you arrived at the answer. You stopped disruptive behavior and gave two writing assignments out to disruptive students. You helped them learn how to use their calculators properly. You got students to raise their hands for answers and had students contributing to the lesson. You told the students you were going to give them examples of similar math problems to work out themselves, but the four problems you gave them were not exactly the same as the examples i.e., you did not provide a problem with mixed numbers. I see that you are making an effort to work with your students and that you are preparing lessons for them. Your classroom discipline appears to be improving, but still needs some work as students are still coming unprepared for classwork. Please continue to pay attention to the needs of your students, particularly when it comes to assignments that you request they do on their own. On March 3, 1999, Respondent was observed in the classroom by Mr. Fegers. Following the observation, Mr. Fegers sent Respondent the following memorandum, dated March 5, 1999, in which he described and commented on what he had observed during the observation: On Wednesday, March 3, 1999, I observed you teaching your class from 1:35-2:05 P.M. Based on my observation the following are suggestions/comments for your consideration: The students were extremely noisy. You were seated on a stool in the front corner of the room. 12/ You were not redirecting student misbehavior. No attempt to stop the misbehavior occurred. I did not observe you reviewing the rules and expectations that students were to follow. I strongly recommend that you follow the discipline plan as [you] indicated you would. You had three math problems on the overhead for students to do. One of which was the following, "5 is what % of 20?" The students were confused with not only this problem but also the other two. You went over the problem, but not step by step so that the students could follow along. They were confused. It would have been much more beneficial if the exercise or problems were broken down into simpler forms so that your class could understand. You did not take into consideration the appropriate levels or activities of classwork that meet the students' needs. Also the directions should have been clear, brief, and explicit for student understanding. This did not occur. 13/ Two students were reading a magazine, 14/ five were sleeping (literally), right under your nose, one was working with your attendance sheet while class was supposedly going on. This is unacceptable and you will need to redirect inappropriate behavior that does not follow the code of conduct. Additionally, I question why a student was working with a confidential document. 15/ I observed an atmosphere of animosity within the class, as evidenced by your voice inflection and you telling several students to shut up. You also asked me to speak to a student who you claimed had a beeper. I removed the student after the observation was finished and escorted him to the office. The student did not have a beeper. You accused the wrong student. You had claimed that the beeper went off in class, which it may have, but it was not the fault of the young man you requested I remove. Based on the observation done to date your performance in the areas identified in your Performance Development Plan are unsatisfactory. Ms. Jones, on March 5, 1999, filled out an "IPAS" evaluation form rating Respondent "unsatisfactory" in "overall performance" and in the "performance areas" of "lesson presentation," "classroom management," and "behavior management" and rating him "satisfactory" in the remaining seven "performance areas." That same day, she and Mr. Fegers met with Respondent and Mr. Itzkowitz to discuss this "mid-point evaluation," which Ms. Jones showed to Respondent during the meeting. Respondent was advised that he ”needed to utilize appropriate instructional techniques to engage his students, encourage his students to participate and contribute to class activities, demonstrate an awareness of what his students are doing and stop all inappropriate behavior before it spreads or becomes more serious." In addition, he was reminded that "the 90th day [of his probationary period] was April 13 per Florida Statutes 231.29 and the documentation process of the IPAS system." Pursuant to a request made by Mr. Itzkowitz, on Respondent's behalf, at the "mid point evaluation" meeting, the following additional "strategy" was added, effective March 5, 1999, to the "Strategies for Improvement, Corrections, and Assistance" portion of the "lesson presentation" Performance Development Plan: Mr. Fegers, Ms. Greifinger and Mr. Jones will meet to plan a lesson, modeled by Ms. Greifinger and implemented by Jones & observed by Fegers by 3/17/99. On or about March 17, 1999, in accordance with the "model[ing]" requirement added to the "lesson presentation" Performance Development Plan, Ms. Greifinger, in Respondent's presence, taught a lesson to Respondent's students. Mr. Fegers was present for approximately five to ten minutes of the lesson. During the lesson the students behaved, by and large, as they did when Respondent was teaching them. There were students off task and walking around the classroom to whom Ms. Greifinger "had to speak." Respondent noticed that there was one student who had his head on the desk and was listening to a Sony Walkman. Ms. Greifinger said nothing to this student. Mr. Fegers was supposed to observe Respondent teach the lesson that Ms. Greifinger had "modeled." He had initially planned to conduct such an observation the week before spring break, but upon reconsideration (without consulting with Respondent or Mr. Itzkowitz) he determined that, in fairness to Respondent, such an observation should be conducted after spring break. The last school day before spring break was March 26, 1999. Respondent worked that day. It was the last day he reported to work. Sometime after the beginning of spring break, Respondent determined that, because of job-related stress and anxiety (resulting, in part, from his belief that he was being treated unfairly by school administrators), he was not able to perform his assigned duties at Plantation. Accordingly, he did not return to work on April 5, 1999, after the end of spring break, and he remained out of work thereafter. In accordance with School Board policy, each week that he was out (prior to the initiation of disciplinary action against him), he provided advance notice that he would be absent by telephoning "sub- central" and advising of his anticipated absence and the resultant need for the School Board to hire a substitute teacher to teach his classes. On occasion, Respondent also telephoned Ms. Jones' secretary (at the secretary's home) to let the secretary know that he would be absent. Respondent, however, did not initiate any direct contact with Ms. Jones. On or about April 12, 1999, Ms. Jones sent to Respondent, by certified mail, a letter, which read as follows: Please be informed that your 90th day according to Florida Statute 231.29 and as indicated on your Performance Development Plan is April 13. Due to your absenteeism, we were unable to meet for a final evaluation. We will meet in my office on Monday, April 19 at 12:15 P.M. Please call this office as soon as possible to inform us if you will be attending this meeting. Respondent neither telephoned Ms. Jones, nor attended a meeting with her on April 19, 1999. On that date (April 19, 1999), Ms. Jones filled out an "IPAS" evaluation form rating Respondent "unsatisfactory" in "overall performance" and in the "performance areas" of "lesson presentation," "classroom management," and "behavior management" and rating him "satisfactory" in the remaining seven "performance areas." In Ms. Jones' view, although at certain times during the probationary period Respondent had shown some improvement in his performance, "[t]here was nothing [in the way of improvement] on a consistent basis." At no time, however, did Ms. Jones believe that Respondent's performance was so deficient as to warrant his immediate removal from the classroom. Although Mr. Roseburr was not charged with the responsibility of supervising Respondent, he did have occasion to go to Respondent's classroom and see Respondent interact with his students. During these visits, it appeared to Mr. Roseburr that Respondent was discharging his teaching duties in the same satisfactory manner he had during the three previous school years. Respondent was "always in control and working with the students." Mr. Jackson, the leader of Respondent's team, also had a favorable view of Respondent's performance during the 1998-99 school year. According to Mr. Jackson, Respondent "always showed professionalism, spoke to the students in a positive light, . . . [and] would go out of his way to try to get them interested to do their work," employing "[v]ery creative" tactics to accomplish his objective. Another teacher at the school who had the opportunity to see Respondent perform in the classroom during the 1998-99 school year was Claire Peterson. Ms. Peterson provided special instruction to low performing students in the school's "pull out" program. She had occasion to visit Respondent's classroom about every other day to "pull out" students in the program. During these visits, she noted that Respondent's students "seemed to be on task" and "doing what he asked of them," for the most part, and that "education was taking place." 16/ She thought that Respondent was doing a "great job." On or about April 19, 1999, Ms. Jones began her efforts to make telephone contact with Respondent. Her efforts were unsuccessful. She left messages on Respondent's answering machine asking that he inform her when he intended to return to work. Respondent did not return Ms. Jones' telephone calls. By memorandum dated April 22, 1999, Ms. Jones recommended to Dr. Dorothy Or, the then-Interim Superintendent of Schools, that Respondent's employment be terminated. The memorandum read as follows: Pursuant to Florida Statute 231.29, I am writing to inform you that Eugene Jones, teacher, has completed his 90 calendar day performance probation and has failed to correct his performance deficiencies. I do not believe that Mr. Jones can correct said deficiencies and his employment should be immediately terminated. I have complied with all applicable provisions of Florida Statutes 231.29 and have appropriate documentation (see attached). Please inform me of your final decision in this matter. By letter dated April 30, 1999, Ms. Orr advised Respondent that she was recommending that the School Board formally suspend him, without pay, from his teaching position for "unsatisfactory job performance." On or about May 3, 1999, Mr. Itzkowitz, on behalf of Respondent, sent Ms. Jones the following letter: I have recently spoken with Eugene Jones. As you are aware, Mr. Jones has been ill and is currently under a doctor's care. He has informed me that you have tried to contact him by mail but that he is not in receipt of said correspondences. As a result, on behalf of Mr. Jones I request copies of any letters sent to him by your office in the past ninety days. Upon receipt, I shall forward them to Mr. Jones. Additionally, I request that a meeting be scheduled for the purpose of discussing Mr. Jones' annual assessment for the current school year. Both Mr. Jones and I would like to meet with you. I look forward to hearing from you on each of these matters. The meeting that Mr. Itzkowitz had requested in his May 3, 1999, letter was held in "the middle of May." At the meeting, Ms. Jones did not ask any questions regarding Respondent's absence from school. After seeing a physician about the stress and anxiety he was experiencing, Respondent applied for social security and long-term disability benefits. In applying for long-term disability benefits, Respondent submitted a completed Long Term Disability Claim Employee's Statement form, dated May 14, 1999, to the School Board's carrier, UNUM. The following are questions that were on the form concerning his "disability" and "the condition causing [his] disability" and the entries Respondent made in response to these questions: Why are you unable to work?-- c[h]ronic anxiety state/job stress. Does your current condition prevent you from caring for yourself?-- No. Before you stopped working, did your condition require you to change your job or the way you did your job?-- Yes. I could not perform my job d[ue] to my condition. Is your condition related to your occupation?-- Yes. Last day you worked before the disability-- 3-26-99 Did you work a full day?-- Yes. Date you were first unable to work?-- 4-5- 99. Have you returned to work?-- No. If you have not returned to work, do you expect to-- Yes, if I'm allowed, full time, (date) unknown. As part of the application process, Respondent also had his treating physician, Edwin Hamilton, M.D., complete and submit to UNUM a Long Term Disability Claim Physician's Statement. On the form, dated June 3, 1999, Dr. Hamilton stated, among other things, the following: Respondent's primary diagnosis was "chronic anxiety state"; Respondent's symptoms were "inability to sleep, stress, [and] nervousness"; Respondent's symptoms had first appeared "prior to 4/99"; Respondent had first been unable to work "prior to 4/99"; Respondent's first visit to his office had been April 1, 1999, and his last visit had been April 20, 1999; Respondent's condition was work related 17/ ; Respondent had been referred to a medical social worker and advised to see a psychiatrist 18/ ; Respondent should not and could not "work in the present school classroom environment"; Respondent's prognosis was "guarded at this point"; Respondent had not "achieved maximum medical improvement"; he "expect[ed] fundamental changes in [Respondent's] medical condition" in "more than 6 months"; Respondent "should remain out of the school classroom environment for the time being"; and Respondent "may be able to improve on medical/psychiatric consults." By letter to Ms. Orr, dated May 17, 1999, Mr. Itzkowitz "request[ed] a formal 120 hearing on [Respondent's] behalf." On May 18, 1999, the School Board took action to suspend Respondent, without pay, pending the outcome of the "formal 120 hearing" Respondent had requested.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order immediately reinstating Respondent and paying him his "back salary." DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 2001.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(3)(a) and 6A-10.081(5)(d), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke, suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes. § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. (2016). Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. (2016). Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 829054, covering the areas of Education, Leadership, Physical Education, Social Science, and Exceptional Student Education, which is valid through June 30, 2018. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as an Exceptional Student Education Teacher at Holly Hill School in the Volusia County School District. Holly Hill School is a combined K-8 school. During the time in question, Respondent shared a small office with Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards. The office was formerly a teachers’ lounge/lunchroom. It still had a counter, sink, and refrigerator, and had bathrooms that continued to be used on occasion by other teachers. Each of the three teachers who shared the office had their own desk. The office also included two smaller tables at which the teachers could provide service to their ESE students when necessary. At the start of the 2013-2014 school year, Ms. Pollok knew Mr. Edwards, who had been in the ESE program, but did not know Respondent. The incidents described herein occurred between the start of the 2013-2014 school year on August 13, 2013, through late November, 2013, when Respondent was removed from the classroom. Racial Comments Over the period of time in question, Respondent made numerous statements of a racial nature. While on hall duty between classes, Respondent would occasionally call African-American children “Bebe’s kids.” The reference was to an animated television show in which “Bebe’s kids” were unruly and ill-mannered African-American children. Mr. Edwards understood the comment to be derogatory, and noted that the children hearing the comment would occasionally react, even to the point of commenting that they did not want to be referred to as such. Respondent’s statements were also heard by Ms. Burnam-Hoyt, who likewise understood the term to be derogatory, and observed that the children at the receiving end of the comment looked shocked. She advised Respondent that he should not call them that name. Ms. Pollok testified that Respondent routinely called children “nappy” during hall duty when students transition from one period to the next. The comments were directed to middle school students, whose reactions were perceived by her as being ones of humiliation or embarrassment.1/ Mr. Edwards testified that he heard Respondent refer to African-American children as “nappy,” though not with the frequency with which he called them “Bebe’s kids.” Respondent testified that he only called one child “nappy” at the request of the child, an ESE student -- though not one of his students -- who wanted to be called “napster” or “nappy.” There was no competent, substantial evidence to support that claim. No other teacher substantiated such a request, and Mr. Edwards and Ms. Burnam-Hoyt testified credibly that the term was used more broadly. In any event, as stated by Ms. Fisher, there would be no reason to address any student by that type of obviously inappropriate term, even if requested. Mr. Edwards perceived Respondent’s comments as inappropriate, and they made him uncomfortable. He believed, rightfully, that the comments made Ms. Pollok uncomfortable as well. There was no evidence that any student’s learning ability or mental health was actually adversely affected by Respondent’s racially-demeaning statements. Nonetheless, under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner proved that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect students at Holly Hill School from humiliation and embarrassment, conditions reasonably understood to be harmful to their learning environment and their mental health. Sexual Comments Over the period of time in question, Respondent repeatedly made statements of a sexual nature. On occasion, when Ms. Pollok arrived to work in less than a cheerful mood, Respondent would state to the effect of “What's the matter, Pollo[]k, why are you grumpy? Am I going to have to go downstairs and talk to your husband about how to wake you up properly?” The first time he made the comment, he accompanied it with hip thrusts and grunts, i.e., sounds that people make when they're having sex, thus accentuating the sexual nature of the comment. The first time Respondent made the statement, Ms. Pollok felt awkward, left the office, and went to her husband’s classroom (he was also a teacher at Holly Hill School) where she stayed until the school day started. When he continued to make such statements on a more regular basis, it made her uncomfortable. Mr. Edwards heard Respondent make the statement to Ms. Pollok on one or two occasions. Respondent denied having ever made the comments, attributing them to Mr. Anderson, who laughingly took credit. Regardless of whether Mr. Anderson may have also made comparable statements, the testimony of Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards that Respondent made the statements at issue is more credible, and is accepted. Ms. Burnam-Hoyt, who enjoys a well-known and long-term relationship with her wife, would occasionally visit the office. On one occasion, while in the presence of Mr. Edwards, Respondent told Ms. Burnam-Hoyt that she looked nice that day and said “I wish you would switch teams.” Though she gave an off-hand reply, Ms. Burnam-Hoyt did not discuss her sexuality, especially in the workplace, and was offended by the comment. On several other occasions, when Ms. Burnam-Hoyt was not in the room, Respondent commented in the presence of both Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards that he wished “she didn’t bat for the other team.” On one occasion, when Ms. Pollok had returned from ESE training and asked Respondent about his day, he replied that “it was pretty boring until your old boss, what's her name, Mandy [Elzy], bent over and showed me her boobs.” Respondent commented, with regard to Anna Garces, that “she was spicy and he'd like to make her his consuela.” When Donna Mounts, a P.E. instructor, would come to the office, Respondent’s favorite phrase was that he “would like to mount Coach Mounts.” Respondent did not make the statement directly to Ms. Mounts, but he made it in the office on a routine basis. Respondent commented regarding Marcie Lockamy, an African-American assistant principal, that “I don’t normally do black ladies, but she’s pretty hot . . . I’d get at that.” Respondent’s denial that he made the statement, or that he even knew who Ms. Lockamy was, was not convincing. Respondent’s comments were repetitive, and he would make some statement every day. Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards told Respondent that he should “tone it down.” In particular, Mr. Edwards testified credibly that he advised Respondent “at different points” that his comments about women were not appropriate, not only because of his own view of the matter, but because he believed them to be disturbing to Ms. Pollok. The requests and recommendations had no identifiable effect. Mr. Anderson’s testimony in this case, apparently designed to exonerate Respondent and transfer responsibility for many of the statements to himself, was not persuasive, and in several instances, conflicted with the more credible testimony of other witnesses.2/ Respondent’s general defense to his sexual comments was that he was just “joking around,” that they occurred when he and the target of his comments “were talking and laughing and having a good time in between classes,” that they were a “jovial gesture,” and the like. He denied that they were perceived as offensive by any the persons within earshot, a statement denied by the persons exposed to his comments. Individually, Respondent’s comments could be categorized as puerile. Collectively, and over time, they rose to the degree that they created a hostile, abusive, offensive, and oppressive environment in the small office that constituted the workplace for the three teachers. Threatening Comments The Administrative Complaint alleges that, over the period of time in question, Respondent made “threatening comments to or around [Ms. Pollok].” As to comments regarding Respondent’s prior work- history as a police officer, Mr. Edwards testified credibly that they were nothing more than “experiences that people have or wanted to share.” Mr. Edwards did not take those statements as threatening. When Respondent discovered that he was being investigated by Holly Hill School, he was understandably upset. He made some comments that expressed his frustration. However, Mr. Edwards testified that Respondent did not threaten him or Ms. Pollok. Respondent admitted to being upset and frustrated, but denied either expressing, or having the intent to harm anyone. The comments, under the circumstances, were not so out of line as to objectively constitute a threat to one’s safety or welfare. Under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent’s allegedly threatening statements created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment in violation of rule 6A-10.081(5)(d). Holly Hill School’s Response Ms. Pollok complained of Respondent’s behavior to various administrators at Holly Hill School, including Mr. Strother, and went so far as to request a reassignment of her duties so as to avoid Respondent. On November 1, 2013, Mr. Strother spoke with Respondent. The conversation was “short and brief,” and non-specific, with Mr. Strother generally advising Respondent to “be cognizant of conversations you're having and what you're saying around other people.” On or about November 4, 2013, Ms. Pollok renewed her complaint to Mr. Strother about Respondent’s comments about “the ladies,” and their looks and sexual preferences. Mr. Strother could tell that the comments made Ms. Pollok uncomfortable. Mr. Edwards had also spoken to Mr. Strother regarding Respondent’s comments. As a result of those complaints, Mr. Strother sent out an email directing all teachers to have “professional conversations,” and to lead “by example with appropriate conversation.” Though the email was not specific, included other topics, and was sent to a number of Holly Hill School employees, it nonetheless should have placed Respondent on notice to heed not only Mr. Strother’s earlier advice, but also the earlier admonitions from Mr. Edwards and Ms. Pollok to “tone it down.” It did not have the intended effect. On November 20, 2013, Ms. Pollok reported Respondent’s unabated comments about women and those made towards students to Ms. Fisher. Ms. Pollok was upset and crying during their discussion. Ms. Fisher then spoke with Mr. Strother to confirm Ms. Pollok’s earlier complaints. Ms. Fisher reported the allegations to the school district, and on November 21, 2013, an investigation of Respondent’s conduct was initiated. The investigation delved into the sexually-inappropriate comments, and extended into areas that are not the subject of this proceeding, for which Respondent received a reprimand. As to the comments directed to students, which were determined to be violative of principles of professional conduct and school board policy for failing to protect students or exposing them to excessive embarrassment or disparagement, Respondent was suspended without pay for five days, and transferred from Holly Hill School.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j) and rules 6A-10.081(3)(a) and 6A-10.081(5)(d). It is further recommended that the Education Practices Commission impose a suspension of the Respondent's educator certificate for a period of one year, and a probationary period of one year upon his return to teaching in any public or private school in Florida on such reasonable terms and conditions as the Educational Practices Commission determines are necessary to prevent recurrences of the conduct proven in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 23rd day of January, 2017.
