The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Petitioner, St. Petersburg College, should dismiss Respondent from his employment and terminate his continuing contract.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is an instructor in humanities at the College's Clearwater campus. Respondent has been an instructor at the College since 1996. He began as an adjunct professor and has been a full-time instructor since 1998. Respondent works under a continuing contract of employment, which is tantamount to a tenured position, entitling the instructor to maintain his position from year-to-year unless terminated by mutual consent, by the instructor’s resignation, or by the suspension or removal of the instructor for cause pursuant to the statutes and rules of the State Board of Education. Prior to the incidents giving rise to this proceeding, Respondent had never been subject to disciplinary proceedings during his employment with the College. At Respondent's July 2004 annual evaluation meeting, Provost Stan Vittetoe and Program Director Anne Cooper expressed concerns about Respondent's failure to keep office hours and the fact that he did not show up for a class he was scheduled to teach. Respondent attributed these problems to his ongoing divorce proceedings. Dr. Vittetoe lectured Respondent on the importance of not allowing "life issues" to affect his work, but did not otherwise discipline Respondent. In the fall semester of 2003, Respondent taught three humanities courses: Humanities I, Humanities II, and East/West Synthesis. Humanities I and II consist of a chronological study of Western civilization. East/West Synthesis focuses on non- Western cultures, such as those of India, China, Japan, Africa, and the Middle East. Pamela Socorro has been a student at the College since 2002. She enrolled in Respondent's East/West Synthesis class in August 2003. The class was scheduled to meet twice a week, on Monday and Wednesday evenings, for the length of the fall semester. Each class period lasted one hour and 45 minutes. Respondent also played keyboards for a local jazz and rhythm and blues band called Bus Stop. Respondent was not a regular member of the band, but sat in for the band when its regular keyboardist was unavailable. Bus Stop played at nightclubs and bars in the Tampa Bay area. In his humanities classes, Respondent would announce the dates of his engagements with Bus Stop and invite the students to come out and hear the band. In response to one such general invitation in late October 2003, Ms. Socorro and a group of friends went to a bar called the Rare Olive in Ybor City to see Respondent perform with Bus Stop. The Rare Olive did not admit persons under 21 years of age. Ms. Socorro was 19 years old at the time, and her friends were also under 21. Respondent intervened with management, asking if Ms. Socorro could come into the bar provided she did not drink alcoholic beverages. Ms. Socorro was allowed to come into the bar, though at least one of her friends, Rian Salmun, was not admitted. During a break from playing, Respondent spoke with Ms. Socorro for five-to-ten minutes. This was their first one- to-one conversation. During this conversation, Respondent asked Ms. Socorro her age. She told Respondent that she was 19 years old, and he told her that he was 33 years old. In November 2003, Ms. Socorro and Respondent had a conversation on the College campus during which Respondent mentioned that Bus Stop would be playing at the Rare Olive in St. Petersburg on November 21, 2003. Because Respondent was sitting in with the band on short notice, he did not have an opportunity to announce this performance to his humanities classes. On November 21, 2003, Ms. Socorro went to the Rare Olive in St. Petersburg with her mother, her aunt, and a group of friends. Ms. Socorro used a friend's identification card to obtain admittance to the bar. Respondent joined Ms. Socorro and her party during a break. Respondent asked Ms. Socorro if she wanted a drink, and she told him that she liked "fruity drinks" and shots. Respondent walked to the bar and came back with two shots. They downed the shots together.2 After about an hour at the Rare Olive, Ms. Socorro's mother wanted to leave. Respondent did not want Ms. Socorro to leave and asked what she would be doing later, after she took her mother home. Respondent gave Ms. Socorro his cellular telephone number, and she said she would call him later. She entered the number into her mother's cellular telephone directory. Ms. Socorro and her group left the bar. Once outside, Ms. Socorro realized that she had neglected to save Respondent's phone number into her mother's cell phone directory. Maria Albornoz, one of Ms. Socorro's friends, went back into the bar and obtained Respondent's cell phone number again for Ms. Socorro. Ms. Socorro did not call Respondent later on the night of November 21, 2003. She did call him on the afternoon of November 22, 2003, and left a message on his cellular telephone. Respondent returned the call that evening. From this point forward, Respondent's and Ms. Socorro's versions of that evening's events differ in several particulars. According to Ms. Socorro, Respondent asked her if she would like to attend the Fall Dance Concert at the College with him that evening. Respondent testified that he had mentioned the concert in class that week, and asked Ms. Socorro whether she was planning to attend, but did not ask her to go with him. Ms. Socorro testified that they arranged on the telephone to meet outside the theater, met as planned, went in together, and sat together in the back row of the theater. Respondent testified that they happened to arrive at the same time and that they sat together in the back of the theater because the recital had already started when they entered. Ms. Socorro testified that, after the recital, she and Respondent arranged to meet at the Marble Slab, a local ice cream shop. Respondent testified that he mentioned that he was going for ice cream but that he did not ask Ms. Socorro to join him. Before proceeding to the ice cream shop, Respondent spoke to several performers of his acquaintance, while Ms. Socorro went across the street from the College to the residence of her friend, Mr. Salmun, and spoke with him for a few minutes. At the hearing, Mr. Salmun testified that Ms. Socorro told him she was meeting Respondent for ice cream at the Marble Slab. Ms. Socorro recalled walking past Respondent's car in the Marble Slab's parking lot and seeing two child car seats in the back. At the time, she was unaware that Respondent was involved in divorce proceedings or that he was the father of twin three-year-old daughters. Respondent was already seated at a table in the Marble Slab when Ms. Socorro entered. Neither Respondent nor Ms. Socorro ordered ice cream. They sat at the table and talked about their families, their astrological signs, Pilates and dance teachers they had in common, yoga, and Latin dance. They eventually felt self- conscious about sitting at the table in the ice cream shop without making a purchase, and they continued their conversation outside the Marble Slab. Ms. Socorro testified that Respondent told her that she was a good student and was doing very well in his class. He asked Ms. Socorro not to "announce" that she had seen him play at the Rare Olive or had gone with him to the dance recital, "because he could get in trouble." He told her that he should not see her again while she was in his class, but he did not tell her that he was forbidden to see her. Respondent urged Ms. Socorro to complete her class assignments and exams as quickly as possible, the implication being that they could begin dating once she had completed the class and received a final grade. Despite his cautionary statements, Respondent also discussed going out to a Latin club with Ms. Socorro so that she could help him with his dance technique. Respondent testified that he was surprised to see Ms. Socorro arrive at the Marble Slab, especially given that she did not order ice cream. He stated that this was the first clear signal that Ms. Socorro might have a romantic interest in him. Respondent recalled that Ms. Socorro asked him to go out with her to a dance club, but that he told her that was "out of bounds." However, he also told Ms. Socorro that he was interested in pursuing a relationship once she was out of his class. To the extent that Respondent's and Ms. Socorro's versions of events on November 22, 2003, differ, Ms. Socorro's version is credited. Even in his own version of events, Respondent agreed that he returned Ms. Socorro's telephone call. He denied asking Ms. Socorro to go with him to the dance recital. However, Respondent admitted telling Ms. Socorro that he was going to the recital and asking Ms. Socorro if she was going. Similarly, Respondent denied asking Ms. Socorro to go with him to the Marble Slab, but there could be little other reason for him to tell her that he was going there. Finally, Respondent admits that he made it clear to Ms. Socorro that he was very much interested in pursuing a relationship with her, as soon as the formality of having her as a student in his class could be dispensed with. On the evening of November 29, 2003, Ms. Socorro attended a performance of the play "Miss Saigon" at Ruth Eckerd Hall in Clearwater. When she came home after the play, she learned that Respondent had telephoned her. She returned the call the next day, while shopping in Orlando with her mother. Ms. Socorro talked to Respondent about "Miss Saigon," because the play was related to the East/West Synthesis course Respondent was teaching. They discussed the Thanksgiving break, then made plans to see the movie "Gothika" that evening at the AMC Woodlands 20 theater complex in Oldsmar. Respondent and Ms. Socorro attended a late showing of "Gothika," then sat and talked in the theater's parking lot until approximately 5:30 a.m. Respondent testified that this was his first "real talk" with Ms. Socorro and that they began to get to know each other at this time. They also shared their first kiss, described by both principals as a "French kiss." Ms. Socorro was scheduled to report to her job as a nanny at 5:45 a.m. on December 1, 2003. She went straight to work from the movie theater parking lot, but arrived late to her job. Because she was unable to change clothes before work, she ended up reporting to Respondent's class that evening wearing the same clothes she had worn on their date the night before. When she arrived at class, Ms. Socorro noted that Respondent was also wearing the same clothes he had worn the previous evening. While Respondent agreed that he went with Ms. Socorro to see the movie "Gothika," and accepted her version of what happened that night after the movie, Respondent contended that this date occurred on December 9, 2003, the day after he gave out the final grades for Ms. Socorro's East/West Synthesis class. Respondent contended that he did not speak with or see Ms. Socorro on November 30, 2003. He denied any recollection of seeing Ms. Socorro in his class wearing the same clothes she had worn on their date. Ms. Socorro testified that she did go to the movies again with Respondent on December 10, 2003, but that they saw "The Last Samurai." Respondent denied ever having seen "The Last Samurai." Ms. Socorro's version of the chronology of these events is more credible and is accepted. Ms. Socorro's recollection of the events of November 30, 2003, was precise in its detail, belying Respondent's contention that she was somehow confused or mistaken as to when they saw "Gothika" together. On December 8, 2003, Ms. Socorro took her last exam in Respondent's class. The exam was a multiple choice "fill in the bubble" test that Respondent machine graded that evening while the students waited. Respondent was able to tell Ms. Socorro that she had made an "A" in his class before she left his classroom on December 8th. However, Respondent did not officially post the grades for his class until December 16, 2003. The semester officially ended on December 19, 2003. Prior to the end of the fall semester, Ms. Socorro told Respondent that her friends Ms. Albornoz and Mr. Salmun knew that she and Respondent were dating. Ms. Socorro testified that Respondent told her that she should tell Ms. Albornoz and Mr. Salmun not to speak to anyone about their relationship. Ms. Socorro and Mr. Salmun were best friends. They saw or spoke to each other every day, and they prepared their schedules for spring semester together before the end of fall semester. Mr. Salmun told Ms. Socorro that he intended to take a class from Respondent, because he needed one more humanities course and Respondent's class fit into his schedule. Ms. Socorro explained to Mr. Salmun that she had discussed this matter with Respondent, who had told her that they could not socialize with any friends of Ms. Socorro's who were taking classes from Respondent. Mr. Salmun nonetheless signed up for the class, though he dropped it for a humanities class taught by another instructor prior to the close of the fall semester. Ms. Socorro told another friend, Teona Gogoladze, that she should not enroll in Respondent's class for the spring semester, due to Respondent's concerns about his relationship with Ms. Socorro becoming widely known. Ms. Gogoladze registered for Respondent's class anyway, because it fit her schedule better than any other humanities class, and she had done well in a previous class taught by Respondent. Ms. Gogoladze told Ms. Socorro that it would not be "the end of the world" if she had to avoid seeing Ms. Socorro with Respondent for one semester. As it happened, Respondent and Ms. Socorro did socialize with Ms. Gogoladze once during the spring semester, attending a party at her house for the airing of the last episode of the television show "Friends." During the Christmas break between fall and spring semesters, Respondent and Ms. Socorro went out to clubs at least twice. On December 19, 2003, they went with a group of College students to an "end of semester" party at Terra, a Latin club in Ybor City. The next weekend, they went to 10 Beach Drive, a piano bar in St. Petersburg. The couple spoke on the telephone on Christmas Day, exchanged Christmas gifts, and spent New Year's Eve together. Respondent introduced Ms. Socorro to his sister and his father. Respondent and Ms. Socorro continued to see each other during the spring semester of 2004. Ms. Socorro had registered for classes, but withdrew from the College for the semester in order to visit her sick father in Venezuela. Ms. Socorro testified that, although Respondent did not press her to withdraw from the College, their relationship improved when she was not in school because Respondent felt less stress about students seeing him on his dates with Ms. Socorro. Ms. Socorro testified that Respondent "constantly" bought her alcoholic beverages during their relationship, though he knew she had not reached the legal drinking age. Ms. Socorro went to the bars at which Respondent was playing with Bus Stop. Respondent would "hang out" with Ms. Socorro during breaks and buy her drinks. At a bar called J.B.'s in Sarasota, Respondent used his credit card to open a tab for a group of people, including Ms. Socorro. At the end of the evening, Respondent was startled at the amount of the bill. Everyone in the group except Ms. Socorro reimbursed Respondent for their drinks. Ms. Socorro did not register for classes at the College for the 2004 summer semester. She cited her relationship with Respondent as her main reason for staying out of school: I knew that when I went back to school, I knew it was going to be a little difficult, because when we would go out to anywhere around town, restaurants, Gary knew everyone. His students were everywhere. He felt uncomfortable. He always asked if the person knew me. So, I knew it was going to be difficult. * * * At that point, by the summer, we were a couple and we had been together for months. I knew it was going to be stressful again and I was working at-- I believe I was beginning to work at a bank and the bank, if I was there long enough, was going to pay for school. And I decided that, putting all these things together, that I would not go in the summer, either. Respondent taught classes during the 2004 summer semester. Margaret Gunn was a student enrolled in one of his classes. Once while Ms. Gunn was in his office, Respondent asked her to come out to a bar to hear his band play. Ms. Gunn declined the offer. Respondent asked her again in September 2004, and Ms. Gunn again declined. Ms. Gunn testified that Respondent's requests made her somewhat uncomfortable, but that she nonetheless maintained a cordial relationship with him. During the annual fall semester orientation in 2004, College president Dr. Carl Kuttler spoke about sexual harassment during a faculty and staff meeting attended by Respondent. Dr. Kuttler stressed that relationships between instructors and students were not allowed if the instructor could in any way affect the student's grade, academic progress, or academic environment. Ms. Socorro described Respondent's reaction to Dr. Kuttler's presentation: He was upset and that was the first time I heard the name "Dr. Kuttler." I remember him saying that they had emphasized the subject of teacher and student relationships. And it was kind of like, "you see, I told you" kind of thing. He said that now he needed to be very, very careful. He was actually concerned, because me and Rian [Salmun] were having problems in our friendship and he was concerned that now Rian was going to be upset and he might say something to people out of spite. He was just-- he was scared. He was paranoid. He told me about a teacher that was fired. And he said, you know, they don't even know if he did it, they just think he did it and he was fired or he left or something happened and he was just scared. Ms. Socorro, who was planning to return to the College in fall 2004, offered to take her classes at a different campus, or at Hillsborough Community College in Tampa, to assuage Respondent's fears. Despite the offer, she eventually registered to take classes at the College's Clearwater campus. Ms. Socorro also asked Respondent why their being seen together remained a concern, given that she was no longer his student. Ms. Socorro stated, "And he kept saying that it just looked bad, it just looked bad that I was his student at the school, because people would wonder how we met. It would be too much of a coincidence that we met, where we met or how." Respondent and Ms. Socorro agreed to give a false story to anyone curious about how they met. Ms. Socorro testified: He would ask me, please, just tell people that you met me at the bar or we would come up with kind of like a script of what I was going to say to [Respondent's] friends. It was usually I met Gary while he was playing out [with the band]. That's what I told everybody. * * * I was protecting him from anyone at all finding out. I don't know if-- I don't know. I don't know if he felt bad himself about it and he just didn't want people to know. He said people don’t-- he would say people don't know our relationship, they don't know us, they don't know how we are, and it doesn't look good that you're so young, it doesn't look good that I was your teacher and people perceive things differently, so let's not let them do that. Throughout their relationship, Respondent stressed to Ms. Socorro that she should not befriend students enrolled in his classes. Respondent testified that he did so not out of fear for his job but because he wanted to keep his professional and personal life as separate as possible. More credibly, Ms. Socorro testified that Respondent told her that he was "risking everything" to continue his relationship with Ms. Socorro. During the 2004 fall semester, Ms. Socorro met and befriended Ms. Gunn, who had taken a class from Respondent during the summer semester and was taking a second class from Respondent in the fall. When they discussed their classes and teachers, Ms. Socorro pretended she did not know Respondent. Respondent became concerned that Ms. Socorro was seeing too much of Ms. Gunn, because he was afraid Ms. Gunn might "put things together." Respondent asked Ms. Socorro to stay away from Ms. Gunn. Ms. Gunn testified that it took only a few weeks for her to determine that Respondent was the "boyfriend" that Ms. Socorro described in their conversations. Respondent told Ms. Socorro that she should just go to her classes, sit through the lectures, then get in her car and leave the campus. Respondent demanded that Ms. Socorro decide between her relationship with him and the life of a "typical student," because he was "risking too much" to have Ms. Socorro jeopardize it by "hanging out" at school. Ms. Socorro testified that "things got really bad" between Respondent and her during the 2004 fall semester, due to their conflicts concerning Ms. Gunn and the pressure of hiding their relationship. They had "a lot of fights," some so bad that they would decide to "take breaks from each other" for as long as one week. Ms. Socorro recalled three such "breaks" before their final breakup in late November and early December 2004. On November 30, 2004, Respondent and Ms. Socorro went to the AMC Woodlands 20 movie complex to see a movie, but never made it past the parking lot because an argument commenced. Ms. Gunn had told Ms. Socorro that Respondent had quizzed her regarding her whereabouts on certain evenings, with the idea of ascertaining whether Ms. Socorro had lied to him when she promised to stop seeing Ms. Gunn. Ms. Socorro confronted Respondent about his questioning of Ms. Gunn. Respondent called her a "compulsive liar" and said that he was "torn" about their relationship and needed time to decide what to do. Ms. Socorro described this fight as "sad" and "horrible." Respondent testified that, despite her promise not to see Ms. Gunn during the fall semester, Ms. Socorro had surreptitiously gone over to Ms. Gunn's house on at least one occasion of which he was aware. He agreed that the confrontation over Ms. Gunn occurred on November 30, though he placed it at a Ruby Tuesday's restaurant.3 Respondent assured Ms. Socorro that they would talk things over the next day, but testified that he also made it clear to her that the romantic relationship was over. On December 1, 2004, Ms. Socorro repeatedly phoned Respondent, who did not answer her calls.4 She sent several e- mail messages to which Respondent did not respond. Respondent was staying at his father's house because relatives were visiting from out of town. That evening, Ms. Socorro went to Respondent's father's house. Respondent did not want a confrontation with Ms. Socorro because his children were with him. He promised to speak with her the next day. On the morning of December 2, 2004, Ms. Socorro drove over to Respondent's house. She had concluded that her relationship with Respondent was over, and she wanted to retrieve some possessions that she kept at his house. Respondent was not at home, but Ms. Socorro knew that the lock was broken on Respondent's sliding glass back door, and she let herself in the house.5 While looking for some of her jewelry on Respondent's bedroom dresser, Ms. Socorro found a letter from and photographs of one of Respondent's former girlfriends, a former College student named Marianna Csongova. She read the letter, and concluded that Respondent was having a relationship with Ms. Csongova at the same time he was dating Ms. Socorro. Ms. Socorro recalled having seen an e-mail exchange between Respondent and Ms. Csongova earlier in 2004. Respondent had explained away this e-mail, but Ms. Socorro now wondered if there were more e-mails between Respondent and Ms. Csongova. She went into Respondent's computer room and checked his e- mails. She found "tons and tons" of e-mails from Ms. Csongova, and responses from Respondent.6 Ms. Socorro continued searching Respondent's e-mail and found correspondence between Respondent and several other female students at the College. She printed "tons" of the e- mails. Respondent's printer ran out of paper before all of the e-mails printed. Ms. Socorro began forwarding the e-mails to her own e-mail account, but then got worried that Respondent would come home and catch her. She turned off Respondent's computer and left the house, taking a half-inch thick stack of printed e-mails with her. Respondent had spent the night at his father's house. He woke up on the morning of December 2, 2004, and drove to his own house to shower and dress for work. He noticed that the sliding glass door had been opened. He went to check his e-mail and noticed that the printer was out of paper. Respondent surmised that Ms. Socorro had been in his house and on his computer. As he had promised Ms. Socorro the previous evening, Respondent phoned Ms. Socorro and arranged for her to come over to his house early in the afternoon to discuss their relationship. Ms. Socorro had a doctor's appointment that afternoon to which Respondent had planned to accompany her. During their phone conversation, Respondent told Ms. Socorro that he would not accompany her to the appointment because he was driving to Orlando to see his brother, who was down from Atlanta on business. Ms. Socorro arrived at Respondent's house at approximately 12:30 p.m. She went in and they sat down to talk. They talked for nearly an hour about Ms. Gunn and the other issues between them. They did not discuss Ms. Socorro's having gone into Respondent's house that morning and printing his e- mails. Ms. Socorro testified that they both "pretended" not to know what she had done. At about 1:15 p.m., Respondent reminded Ms. Socorro of her doctor's appointment at 1:30 p.m. Respondent was also anxious to begin his trip to Orlando. Ms. Socorro again asked Respondent to accompany her to her doctor's appointment, but Respondent again declined. Ms. Socorro told Respondent that she still wanted things to work out. Respondent said that he did not think it would work, but agreed to talk with her again. Respondent walked Ms. Socorro out of his house and to her car. Respondent was the first to reach Ms. Socorro's car. He looked inside. Ms. Socorro then recalled that she had placed the stack of e-mails on the back seat of her car and that they were plainly visible from outside. Respondent asked Ms. Socorro to unlock the car so that he could retrieve a CD that he claimed to have left in her car. Ms. Socorro used her keyless entry device to open the front door. Before Ms. Socorro could get in the car, Respondent reached in and opened the back door. He grabbed the stack of e- mails. Ms. Socorro threw herself onto Respondent's back, and they struggled over the e-mails on the back seat of the car. The papers were falling to the ground outside the car.7 Ms. Socorro pressed the "panic" button on her keyless entry device, setting off the car's alarm system. Respondent took the keys from her, stopped the alarm, and threw the keys outside the car. They continued to struggle inside the car, until Respondent managed to get out of the car. Neighbors were beginning to notice the struggle. Respondent told Ms. Socorro to calm down, that they both needed to act normal. They stopped fighting and picked up the e-mails. Respondent asked Ms. Socorro to go back into the house and talk about matters.8 They walked to the front door. Respondent opened the door, slipped part way into the house, then tossed his stack of e-mails into the house, with the apparent attempt to deny entry to Ms. Socorro. She ran inside the house before Respondent could close the door. They began yelling at each other again. Respondent demanded to know what Ms. Socorro intended to do with the e- mails and threatened to kill her if she tried to "do anything to destroy everything I've worked for all of my life." Respondent tried to force Ms. Socorro out of the house. He pushed her against the wall near the front door and hurt her arm. As Ms. Socorro held on to the jamb of the open front door, Respondent hit her in the chest with his head and shoulder, shoving her off the front porch and into a bush below.9 Respondent took advantage of Ms. Socorro's fall to lock his front door from the outside. Ms. Socorro became hysterical. She began to laugh, unnerving Respondent, who tried to calm her down. As Ms. Socorro quieted, they discussed the e- mails. Respondent explained that he stayed in touch with Ms. Csongova because he needed to keep his options open. She asked him about the e-mails to the other girls. Respondent replied that the College would not care if he "flirted" with a couple of his students. Ms. Socorro asked Respondent why he went to such lengths to keep their relationship a secret, if the College didn't care. According to Ms. Socorro, the exchange proceeded as follows: He said, why do you want to do this? You're going to hurt my kids. . . . He said, you have to understand that I'm 34 years old. I'm not a child like you. You have your whole life ahead of you and I need to find a role model. I need to find a good woman for my kids to marry. And I knew that you and I were rocky and I had to do this and I was leading more than one life, more than one relationship and if I had to do it, I did it for my kids, that they need a mother. He said, I can't be alone when I'm 44. I remember telling him that he was sick. I said that you're just sick. That's sick. He said, do you want me to tell you the truth. He said, from the moment you told me that you had an eating disorder, I knew that you and I weren't going to work. And I kept yelling at him, if it was that long ago, why didn't you stop the relationship, because you have known that forever. He said, I thought you would change, but you never did. Ms. Socorro got into her car and started to drive away. Believing that Ms. Socorro was in no condition to drive, Respondent tried to talk her into waiting while he called her mother or some other person to come over and help her. Ms. Socorro declined any assistance from Respondent. She told him that she was hurt and needed to get to the hospital. She drove away. From her car, Ms. Socorro phoned her doctor's office, because she had missed her appointment. The doctor's receptionist was so alarmed that she stayed on the phone with Ms. Socorro until she reached her mother's office. Ms. Socorro's mother, Patricia Mills, drove Ms. Socorro to the emergency room of Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater, where she was treated for scrapes, an injured wrist, and a slightly cracked rib. Due to the injured rib, Ms. Socorro had to take time off from her job as a waitress at Applebee's. She also wore a splint on her wrist for a time. The emergency room staff at Morton Plant Hospital notified the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, which dispatched deputies to interview Ms. Socorro while she was still at the hospital. The Sheriff's deputies also interviewed Respondent. No arrests were made and no charges were filed in the matter. The Sheriff's Office reported the incident to the College. Ms. Mills phoned the College's security office to inform the College of the altercation between Respondent and Ms. Socorro. The security office passed the complaint to Clearwater campus Provost Dr. Stan Vittetoe. The College's standard procedure is to lock the computer of any instructor who is the subject of a complaint. Dr. Vittetoe locked Respondent's computer. On December 3, 2004, Dr. Vittetoe and Dr. Cooper met with Respondent to inform him that Ms. Socorro had lodged a complaint against him and to provide Respondent with an opportunity to give his side of the story. Respondent told them that during the physical confrontation with Ms. Socorro, he was merely trying to protect himself. He showed them a scratch on his cheek and stated that he had been trying to retrieve some papers that belonged to him. Respondent admitted that he had been involved in a romantic relationship with Ms. Socorro. This initial meeting with Dr. Vittetoe and Dr. Cooper lasted only about 15 minutes, because Respondent had a class to teach. Also on December 3, 2004, Dr. Vittetoe met with Ms. Socorro and her mother. Ms. Socorro told Dr. Vittetoe that she began dating Respondent during the fall semester of 2003, when she was a student in his class. She told Dr. Vittetoe that she and Respondent often discussed the need to hide their relationship, because of its impropriety. She told Dr. Vittetoe that Respondent often bought alcoholic drinks for her when they went out to bars. Ms. Socorro admitted that she had printed e- mails from Respondent's computer and that it was Respondent's seeing those e-mails that triggered their physical altercation. Dr. Vittetoe requested a formal written statement detailing the facts of her relationship with Respondent. Ms. Socorro furnished a written statement to the College on December 8, 2004. On December 7, 2004, Dr. Vittetoe and Dr. Cooper met with Respondent again. At the outset of the meeting, Dr. Vittetoe made clear the gravity of the situation, letting Respondent know that his job was in jeopardy. Dr. Vittetoe questioned Respondent about his involvement with female College students other than Ms. Socorro. Respondent admitted that he had been involved with Ms. Csongova. Dr. Cooper, as Respondent's immediate supervisor, expressed concern at what appeared to be a pattern of romantic involvement with students.10 Dr. Cooper noted that Respondent was not following college procedures and appeared to view the female student population as potential candidates for relationships. Dr. Cooper recounted the meeting as follows: I raised questions with him in regards to his ability to maintain his professional boundaries and expressed great concern over the fact that he didn't seem to recognize that, in his position as an instructor, he had a position of authority and power and could easily use that to influence students' decisions. I remember that he said that, well, they weren't students in my class at the time that he had become involved with them. My concern was that if you say to a young, impressionable individual, well, I don't date students if they're in my class, well, then what you're saying is, well, just get out of my class and then we can have a relationship. And I tried to express that concern over the fact that he was not maintaining his professional boundaries. And then he shared that, well, he didn't want students to dislike him and, you know, he didn't know how to respond when a student came on to him. Dr. Cooper attempted to explain that the student/teacher relationship should not be a matter of "liking" or "disliking," but a matter of respect based on the teacher's knowledge of his subject matter and ability to foster the student's quest for knowledge in the teacher's field of expertise. Dr. Cooper was extremely concerned that Respondent seemed unable to understand or respect basic professional boundaries established between students and teachers. Dr. Cooper was also concerned that Respondent issued invitations to students to come watch his band play in bars that served alcoholic beverages, when most of those students were underage. She did not agree with Respondent's contention that a band playing in an Ybor City bar constituted a "cultural event." She suggested that, if Respondent wanted to share his music with his classes, then he should have the band come to the class and play. During the meeting, Respondent attempted to defend his relationship with Ms. Socorro, first by denying that it commenced prior to the end of the 2003 fall semester, then by pointing out how careful he had been to instruct Ms. Socorro not to discuss their relationship with other students and not to make friends with students on the Clearwater campus. At the conclusion of this meeting, both Dr. Vittetoe and Dr. Cooper concluded that Respondent had breached College rules and could not be trusted with the safety of College students. Dr. Vittetoe gave Respondent the option of resigning before completion of the investigation and a possible recommendation for termination. Respondent declined the offer of resignation. On December 14, 2004, Ms. Socorro met with associate provost Maria Edmonds. Because she was also an Hispanic female, Ms. Edmonds believed that Ms. Socorro might be more comfortable discussing the issues with her than she had been with Dr. Vittetoe. After the meeting, Ms. Edmonds drafted a memorandum summarizing her conversation with Ms. Socorro, the substance of which was consistent with the findings of fact above. Ms. Socorro executed a sworn affidavit attesting to the accuracy of Ms. Edmonds' memorandum, which was forwarded to Dr. Vittetoe. Dr. Vittetoe investigated Respondent's relationships with Socorro and other female College students. Associate Provost Jeff Davis interviewed students at the Clearwater campus to determine their knowledge of Respondent's relationships with various female College students. The investigation disclosed that Respondent had been involved with College students other than Ms. Socorro and Ms. Csongova. Respondent admitted to a relationship with Harmony Holt, who had been a student in his class during the 1999 fall semester. However, Respondent's romantic relationship with Ms. Holt did not commence until 2002, after she had graduated. Respondent admitted to a relationship with Kimberly Kimball. Ms. Kimball was in Respondent's class twice, first in the 2004 spring semester, then in the 2004 summer session. The summer session ended in July 2004, then Respondent dated her for a short time in September 2004, during one of his periodic breakups with Ms. Socorro. Respondent testified that he stopped dating Ms. Kimball because he was not over Ms. Socorro. Respondent admitted to a "friendly, casual" dating relationship with his former student Kelly McGill in 2003. Respondent testified that, although there was a mutual attraction, no sexual relationship occurred with Ms. McGill. On December 13, 2004, Respondent submitted to Dr. Vittetoe his written statement concerning his relationship with Ms. Socorro. This document is a remarkable mixture of rationalization, self-pitying emotional immaturity, and self- centered moral obtuseness.11 Respondent commences with an irrelevant narrative of his divorce proceedings. He next describes his first contacts with Ms. Socorro. Respondent states that there was a "decision to meet and get to know each other on a more personal level." Though he "can't remember exactly how or when it happened," he is absolutely certain that it occurred after the conclusion of the 2003 fall semester. Respondent notes that he stopped dating other women after he had sexual intercourse with Ms. Socorro, on "about the 5th date." Respondent writes that he was concerned about the age difference, but that such differences are the norm in Ms. Socorro's Latin American culture. Respondent states, "Ultimately I was able to handle it because she seemed mature for her age." Respondent devotes a long passage to a discussion of Ms. Socorro's bulimia, notable for its emphasis on the impact her disease was having on its real victim, Respondent: "She could tell the bulimia was putting a strain on me to know what she was doing to herself everyday and that it was hurting me." Respondent writes that he accompanied Ms. Socorro to a therapist whose name he could not recall. This therapist, whom Ms. Socorro never saw again, apparently introduced the concept of "borderline personality disorder" to Respondent. The therapist also commended Respondent on how well he was dealing with Ms. Socorro. Respondent now realized that the borderline personality disorder was responsible for Ms. Socorro's "pathological lying," the fact that she could not hold a job, and the fact that she spent all her money on "binge foods and/or shopping." Respondent described the impetus for the final breakup as follows: The relationship problems came to a head this past month when she continued to socialize in the student population instead of with friends outside the school which was a boundary we set in the relationship and it made it uncomfortable for us to go out. I was too worried someone would see the two of us together. Eventually she met someone in a class that was in one of my classes and I asked her not to pursue the friendship until after the class was over so that there would be no possible problems. She continued to pursue a close relationship with the woman and lied about it on at least a couple of occasions. I wanted to look beyond it and even began to question why I asked her to do it and felt guilty that I might be negatively affecting her college experience and knew it needed to end quickly. Once again I was being manipulated and didn't realize it. I also was having difficulty because although this would only be an issue until she graduated in May of '05, I still felt it was something she knew was important to me but she didn't see it and just ignored it and lied to me about it. I couldn't see being in a relationship where a set boundary was ignored. Respondent concludes by alleging that Ms. Socorro "is retaliating against me for ending our eleven month long relationship and this retaliation is a form of sexual harassment." From the beginning to the end of the relationship, Respondent claims he was victimized, manipulated, and finally smeared by Ms. Socorro. Respondent claimed his only failing was being too nice for his own good. On December 16, 2004, Dr. Vittetoe issued a memorandum to Dr. Kuttler, the College president, stating as follows, in relevant part: The evidence, which we have received to date, causes us to have great and immediate concerns for our female students' safety and freedom from sexual harassment and inappropriate relationships. We have evidence that he has been assisting under age students with unlawful drinking, which is a serious violation of the law. With the evidence presented thus far, I have no choice but to recommend his suspension, effective immediately. Because of the above matters, I further recommend he not be allowed to come on campus or have any contact or conversations with students. Any retaliation by Mr. Rodriguez should be a separate cause for disciplinary action. I further recommend his dismissal be presented to the Board of Trustees. On December 17, 2004, Dr. Kuttler issued a memorandum adopting Dr. Vittetoe's recommendations. Respondent was suspended with pay, effective immediately. Dr. Kuttler anticipated that he would petition the College's Board of Trustees for the suspension without pay and dismissal of Respondent at the Board's next meeting, on January 18, 2005. Dr. Kuttler filed the Petition for Dismissal on January 12, 2005. By Order dated January 18, 2005, the Board of Trustees voted to suspend Respondent without pay and to forward the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings, should Respondent request a hearing. Through counsel, Respondent filed an Answer on January 20, 2005, asserting his right to a hearing. As noted above, the matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 24, 2005. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent did aid and abet at least one student under the age of 21, Ms. Socorro, in the unlawful drinking of alcoholic beverages. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent did improperly use his position and abuse his power to encourage and induce female students to come to a nightclub in an attempt to establish a personal relationship, by giving female students inappropriate attention, which Respondent knew could lead to romantic and/or sexual relationships. The evidence established that Respondent would make blanket invitations to his entire class, male and female. However, Respondent would also select individual females, such as Ms. Socorro and Ms. Gunn, for personal invitations. The evidence established that Respondent knew, or should have known, that he was using his position as an instructor to manipulate impressionable young female students into attending his performances, whereby he hoped to impress them sufficiently to make them susceptible to his romantic overtures. As Dr. Cooper said to Respondent at one of their meetings, "[I]t seems like what's more important is for you to organize a set of groupies to follow your band," than to maintain the proper professional relationship with students. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent did cause a female student, Ms. Socorro, with whom he had a romantic and sexual relationship, to stop her academic progress by inducing her not to continue her schooling at this College, adversely affecting the student's academic progress for Respondent's sole benefit. The evidence did not establish that Respondent made a direct demand that Ms. Socorro quit school. By her own testimony, Ms. Socorro did not attend classes during the 2004 spring semester because she wanted to visit her father in Venezuela. However, she also testified that her relationship with Respondent was much improved when she was not in school, because Respondent felt less pressure about students seeing him on dates with her. Ms. Socorro also testified that her relationship with Respondent was her main reason for not enrolling during the 2004 summer session. Respondent testified that he encouraged Ms. Socorro to complete her education, but only on his terms: that she stay on the campus only long enough to attend classes and that she socialize with none of her classmates. The unreasonable pressure placed on her by Respondent was unquestionably the cause of Ms. Socorro's decision not to attend classes for at least one semester during their relationship. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent did have a sexual and/or romantic relationship with a female student, Ms. Socorro, during a time when the student was enrolled in Respondent's class or when Respondent was in a position to determine the student's grade or otherwise affect the student's academic progress or environment. The weight of the evidence leads to the finding that the romantic relationship between Ms. Socorro and Respondent commenced prior to the end of the 2003 fall semester, when Ms. Socorro was a student in Respondent's class. By the time the semester ended, Respondent and Ms. Socorro had attended a dance recital and a movie together. Their romantic relationship was well underway while Ms. Socorro was still a student in Respondent's class. Even if Respondent's testimony were fully credited, the couple went on their first "date" (not counting the dance recital and the Rare Olive meeting) on the night after Ms. Socorro took her final exam in his class. This fact, coupled with Respondent's admission that on November 22, 2003, the night of the dance recital, he told Ms. Socorro that he was very interested in pursuing a relationship with her, indicates that the romantic relationship between Respondent and Ms. Socorro did not blossom suddenly after she completed Respondent's class. Respondent's rationalization appears to be that it was perfectly acceptable for him to use his classes as a dating service, planning romantic relationships with his female students while they were in his class, so long as the actual dating did not begin until the semester ended. The College naturally and reasonably disagreed with Respondent's reading of the applicable rule, discussed in the conclusions of law below. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed an assault and battery upon Ms. Socorro. While their testimony about the events of December 2, 2004, differed in many particulars, both Ms. Socorro and Respondent agreed that she initiated the physical confrontation by jumping on Respondent's back as he attempted to get the e-mails out of the back seat of her car. It could be reasonably contended that matters then cooled off and that the second physical altercation at the front door of the house was initiated by Respondent and did constitute assault and battery. In any event, the facts of the situation were ambiguous enough that the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office did not charge either party after completing its investigation. Though Respondent's conduct during the events of December 2, 2004, was an embarrassment to himself and the College, the specific allegation of assault and battery was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Based upon the findings of fact set forth above, the College has not demonstrated that Respondent made untruthful or deceitful statements to College representatives during the investigation. At worst, Respondent appeared to suffer convenient lapses during which his memory became "fuzzy" or "foggy" when the thrust of his testimony varied from that of other witnesses. The evidence established that Respondent was deceitful to the various women in his life, but failed to establish that he said anything to College officials that he did not believe was true. The College's allegation that Respondent was married while some of the alleged misconduct occurred was technically proven but should have no bearing on the discipline imposed. Respondent had been separated from his wife for well over a year at the time he met Ms. Socorro and was in the process of finalizing his divorce and custody arrangements. For all the good reasons Respondent had to avoid a romantic relationship with Ms. Socorro, remaining faithful to his wife was not one of them.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Board enter a final order dismissing Respondent from any and all employment by the Board and/or the College and canceling his contract status retroactive to January 12, 2005. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 8th day of February, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Jean-Baptiste Guerrier (Guerrier), holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 59692 covering the area of English which is valid through June 30, 1995. Guerrier was employed as a teacher at Miami Edison Middle School during the 1992-93 school year. On September 20, 1993, the following disciplinary action was taken by the Dade County School System against Guerrier for conduct unbecoming a school employee: Directives were issued to Respondent to refrain from making inappropriate remarks. Respondent was issued a letter of reprimand. Respondent was placed on prescription. Respondent received an unacceptable rating for Category VII and an overall summary rating of unacceptable on his 1992-93 TADS Annual Evaluation. On November 29, 1994, the Commissioner of Education issued an Administrative Complaint against Guerrier alleging that he made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to three eighth grade female students during the 1992-1993 school year. Based on the evidence presented Guerrier did not make such comments. The Administrative Complaint alleged that Guerrier engaged in inappropriate behavior of a sexual nature with two eighth female students during the 1992-1993 school year. Based on the evidence presented Guerrier did not engage in such behavior. A teacher at Miami Edison Middle School observed Guerrier putting his arm around female students during the changing of classes. He did not identify the students. During these occasions, Guerrier's back was turned towards the teacher. The teacher characterized Guerrier as a gregarious teacher. During the 1992-1993 school year, Guerrier had three female cousins who were attending Miami Edison Middle School. Guerrier would put his arm around his cousins' shoulders when he would see them at school. Guerrier did not put his arm around any other female students.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against Jean-Baptiste Guerrier be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-649 Neither Petitioner nor Respondent filed proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ronald G. Stowers, Esquire Department of Education Suite 1701, the Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 William Du Fresne, Esquire 2929 Southwest 3rd Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Fla. Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent Ivory Scott, held Teaching Certificate Number 460227, issued by the Department of Education for the State of Florida. The Respondent was employed with the School Board of Lee County Florida, and was assigned to Mariner High School. In addition to his duties as a health teacher and drivers' education instructor during the 1987-1988 school year, the Respondent coached the boy's varsity basketball team. M. C., a fifteen-year old female minor student at Mariner High School, participated in after school sports activities as the head statistician for the boy's varsity basketball team and as a player for the girl's basketball team. The Respondent first became acquainted with M.C. when she attended his health class during the first semester of the school year. Before the basketball season began, the student approached the Respondent and told him that she kept statistics for the boy's basketball team at her former high school the year before. The student volunteered to be one of the statisticians for the Respondent's team. She was interviewed by Respondent regarding her recordkeeping abilities and knowledge of the game. Based upon the interview and the student's display of knowledge, she was made the team's head statistician. Prior to granting permission to allow M.C. to participate in the boy's basketball program as a student athletic assistant, her mother voiced concern to the Respondent about transportation problems which could occur when a family member was occasionally unable to meet the student at the school after a game. The Respondent solved this problem with an offer to provide the student with a ride home whenever the family was unable to pick up the student. This potential solution to the problem was accepted by the mother, and the Respondent did give the student a ride home after a few games during the basketball season. On February 9, 1988, the student M.C. wanted to go home before she played in a basketball game at school at 4:00 p.m. The student asked the Respondent for a ride, and he agreed to give her a ride after school ended at 2:20 p.m. When the Respondent left the school grounds with the student, no one else was in the vehicle. The Respondent drove in a direction away from the student's home. Once an isolated area was located, the Respondent engaged in sexual intercourse with M.C. The Respondent then drove M.C. home, and told her not to tell anyone about the incident. During the following week, but before February 19, 1988, the Respondent again left the school grounds alone with the student M.C. They traveled to another isolated area and the Respondent again had sexual intercourse with the student. When the student was driven home, she was instructed not to tell anyone about the incident. On February 19, 1988, the student M.C. was crying in an hysterical manner in the courtyard area of the school grounds. The child's schoolfriend, A.F., tried to comfort the child, but was unable to calm her. The assistant principal who observed the scene, took the girls to the guidance area so that they could deal with M.C.'s loss of control in a more private area. A female guidance counselor was asked to keep an eye on the students because of M.C.'s unusual behavior. In an attempt to assist the student, the guidance counselor asked M.C. if she would like to go to the counselor's private office. The student accepted the offer, but did not discuss why she was upset. On Monday, February 22, 1988, M.C. returned to the guidance counselor's office. She implied that her problem was of a sexual nature, but was unwilling to discuss the matter further. A few days later, the counselor gave the student the Abuse Counseling Center telephone number. On Friday, February 26, 1988, the child M.C. contacted the guidance counselor and revealed that she had seen the man involved in her problems the evening before. The police officer on campus was contacted. The student revealed to the counselor and the officer that she was in a relationship with a man who was twenty-five years old, married, and the father of a child. Although the Respondent was married and had a child, he was older than twenty-five years of age. The evening before the limited revelations to the counselor and officer occurred, M.C. had attended the school district's boy's basketball tournament. The Respondent was present at the tournament. The following week, the counselor and the police officer urged M.C. to tell her parents about her relationship with the man. When the student did not tell her parents, the police officer called the student's mother and told her what the student had told him. The student was taken for a medical examination by her mother on March 3, 1988, and it was determined that her hymen was no longer intact. The student would not tell her mother the name of the man involved, but she agreed to tell the guidance counselor on Friday, March 4, 1988. On the appointed date, the student told the counselor the man involved was the Respondent, Ivory Scott. The guidance counselor informed the assistant principal who brought the student into the guidance office on February 19, 1988, about the allegations. The assistant principal advised the principal. When the principal was informed of the student's accusations, he sent for the Respondent immediately to prevent him from hearing the news from less reliable sources. After the principal notified the Respondent of the student's accusations, the Respondent admitted to having the student M.C. alone with him in his vehicle on several occasions. The Respondent denied that any sexual activity took place during these times, and he was unable to speculate why the child might be motivated to make the accusations against him. During the hearing, the Respondent denied that the student M.C. had ever been alone in his vehicle with him, or that the events testified to by the student regarding sexual intercourse had ever occurred. It was his testimony that M.C. had once confided to him that her stepbrother had intercourse with her. The Respondent did not report this purported confidence to the authorities, and there was no evidence in the record to substantiate that the student had a stepbrother. A number of students from the high school testified at hearing. Members of the basketball team and a student athletic assistant testified that on Thursday, February 25, 1988, M.C. was behaving in a flirtatious, sexually aggressive manner with a member of the boy's basketball team in the back of the bus. The basketball player and his mother testified as to M.C.'s persistent need to seek attention from the player. A former boyfriend of M.C.'s testified that, contrary to her statements that she had not kissed with boys prior to the sexual incidents with Respondent, he had engaged in kissing activity with her. The former boyfriend also testified that M.C. told him that nothing has happened between her and the Respondent. She told him this after a newspaper article related her accusations and the Respondent's arrest. The former boyfriend had telephoned her to discuss the matter after his grandparents mentioned that they read about the accusations in the newspaper. Diane Goldberg, a licensed clinical social worker who was accepted as an expert in the area of child sexual abuse counseling, opined that M.C.'s behavior after the alleged incidents of sexual intercourse with the Respondent was congruent, and consistent with behavioral indicators which reflect that sexual molestation has occurred.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's Florida teaching certificate be revoked for violating Section 231.28(1)(c) and (h), Florida Statutes and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (h), Florida Administrative Code, of the State Board of Education. That the allegation that Respondent violated Section 231.28(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-4544 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1 and #2. Accepted. See HO #3. Rejected as to the finding that the student relied on Respondent for rides home after her basketball practices prior to the alleged incidents. Accept that she occasionally relied on Respondent for rides home after games. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #6. Reject as to two week time period. See HO #7. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. See HO #11. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. See HO #16. Accepted. See HO #17. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #17. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #17. Rejected. Witness incompetent to render legal conclusion. Rejected. Improper summary, Accepted. See HO #21. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Accepted. See HO #2. 2. Accepted. See HO #8-#10, #11, #13 and #15. Reject the first sentence. Contrary to fact. M.C. referred only to rides home, not rides home after games. See HO #6 and #7. Reject the second sentence as contrary to fact. See HO #6 and #7. The rest of paragraph 3 is rejected as contrary to fact. See HO #6 and #7. Accept first sentence. See HO #6. All but the last sentence in the first paragraph are accepted as facts presented. Although probative, these facts were not determinative. See Conclusions of Law. The last sentence is rejected as contrary to fact. See HO #6 and #7. The first two sentences in the second paragraph of proposed finding of fact number 4 is accepted. See HO #6 and #7. The third sentence is accepted as testimony. The finding of fact based on the evidence is found in HO #7. The last paragraph in proposed finding of fact number 4 is rejected as it is argument as opposed to a proposed factual finding. See Conclusions of Law. Rejected. Improper summary. See HO #19 and Conclusions of Law. Accept the first paragraph of proposed finding of fact number 6. See HO #14 and #15. The second paragraph is rejected as it is argument as opposed to a proposed finding of fact. See Conclusions of Law. Accept the first sentence. See HO #13 and #15. The rest of proposed finding of fact number 7 is rejected as irrelevant to these proceedings. Rejected. Dr. Seitz's testimony was not filed in Case NO. 88-4544. COPIES FURNISHED: Wilbur C. Smith, III, Esquire Post Office Drawer 8 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0008 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 1201 U.S. Highway One, Suite 315 North Palm Beach, Florida 33408-3581 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent's employment as an educational paraprofessional, based upon the conduct alleged in the Petition for Termination of Employment.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the facts stipulated by the parties, the following findings are made: The School Board is the governing body of the local school district in and for Lee County, Florida. The School Board is located at 2055 Central Avenue, Fort Myers, Florida 33901. The School Board's Florida Administrative Code identification code is 6GX-36. The School Board has the authority to terminate and/or suspend educational support personnel without pay and benefits pursuant to Subsections 1012.22(1)(f) and 1012.40(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2005).1 Respondent has been employed by the School Board since August 27, 1998, with the exception of a break in service during the period from February 24, 1999, through September 27, 2000. Currently, Respondent is employed as an educational paraprofessional at Alternative Learning Center ("ALC") High School. He was previously employed as a bus attendant. Respondent has always received satisfactory performance assessments and has never before been the subject of discipline by the School Board. Respondent's current home address is 3971 Wheaton Court, Fort Myers, Florida 33905. Respondent is an "educational support employee," as defined by Subsection 1012.40(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and is a member of the support personnel bargaining unit ("SPALC") that is covered by a collective bargaining agreement between SPALC and the School Board. The standard for discipline of support personnel is "just cause" pursuant to Article 7 of the SPALC Agreement. On or about August 12, 2005, David LaRosa, the principal of ALC High School, contacted Gregory Adkins, executive director of Human Resources and Employee Relations, to report two recent conversations regarding Respondent. Both conversations concerned alleged inappropriate interaction by Respondent with two female students. On the basis of the information reported to Mr. LaRosa, an investigation into the matter was conducted. During the course of the investigation, the District became aware that Respondent had fathered a child and that the child's mother was a senior at Cypress Lake High School at the time the child was conceived. The child was born on December 10, 2002. Respondent denied knowing that the mother was a student when they met at a Dr. Martin Luther King celebration in January 2002, or when they met again on February 14, 2002. The mother of the child turned 18 on February 14, 2002. Respondent was 23 years old at the time.2 On September 7, 2005, the School Board determined that probable cause existed to impose disciplinary action against Respondent for engaging in a sexual relationship with a student. Also, on September 7, 2005, a certified letter was sent to Respondent, advising him of the probable cause determination and that a recommendation would be made to the superintendent that Respondent be terminated. The School Board did not, during the time in question, have a policy or regulation specifically prohibiting a sexual relationship between an employee and a student. The School Board provided no notice to employees that a sexual relationship with a student could result in disciplinary action. No evidence was presented that Respondent's alleged misconduct had any adverse impact on the School Board or on Respondent's work performance. Respondent continued to work for the School Board for more than two and a half years after his child's birth without incident and with satisfactory performance evaluations. Respondent's child was born ten months after the mother's eighteenth birthday, meaning there is no evidence that Respondent engaged in sexual relations with the mother when she was a minor. No evidence was presented to contradict Respondent's claim that he was unaware that the woman was a high school student at the time they had sexual relations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Lee County School Board, issue a final order dismissing the Petition, reinstating the employment of Respondent, and awarding him back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 2006.
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of immorality and unprofessional conduct as is more specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated February 25, 1991.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered permanently revoking the Florida teaching certificate of Robert M. Dodd, Jr. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1991. Copies furnished: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0400 Robert M. Dodd 38124 Townview Avenue #106 Zephyrhills, Florida 33540 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 325 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0400 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0400
The Issue The issue is whether the Seminole County School Board has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment or to otherwise discipline him based upon the conduct alleged in the Petition for Termination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing and the parties' stipulations, the following findings are made: Parties The School Board is the governing body of the local school district in and for Seminole County, Florida. Respondent is a 48-year-old male. He has been employed as an educational support employee of the School Board for approximately five years. During the 2001-02 school year, Respondent worked at Seminole High School (SHS) as a computer specialist. Collective Bargaining Agreement and SHS Handbook Respondent's employment with the School Board is governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the Seminole Educational Clerical Association, Inc., and the School Board (SECA Agreement). Article VII, Section 5 of the SECA Agreement provides in pertinent part: Regular employees who have been hired for a minimum of three (3) continuous years . . . shall not be disciplined (which shall include reprimands), suspended, or terminated except for just cause. * * * C. An employee may be suspended without pay or discharged for reasons including, but not limited to, the following providing just cause is present: Violation of School Board Policy. Violation of work rules. * * * Article VIII, Section 1 of the SECA Agreement provides in relevant part that "[e]mployees may be immediately disciplined including termination for serious violation of the following: misconduct; " Respondent's employment is also governed by the SHS Faculty Handbook (SHS Handbook). The SHS Handbook is provided to SHS employees at an orientation session prior to the beginning of each school year. Respondent acknowledged receipt of the SHS Handbook prior to the 2001-02 school year. The SHS Handbook includes a sexual harassment policy which states that the School Board "will not tolerate sexual/racial harassment activity by any of its employees." As it relates to the circumstances of this case, the policy defines sexual harassment as follows: Sexual harassment consists of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other inappropriate verbal, nonverbal, graphic, written or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: * * * (c) such conduct substantially interferes with . . . [a] student’s academic performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive . . . school environment. Sexual harassment, as defined above, may include but is not limited to the following: verbal, nonverbal, graphic, and written harassment or abuse; * * * (c) repeated remarks to a person with sexual or demeaning implications; * * * In determining whether alleged conduct constitutes sexual[] harassment, the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the conduct, and the context in which the alleged conduct occurred will be investigated. . . . . The sexual harassment policy in the SHS Handbook is virtually identical to the School Board's district-wide sexual harassment policy. Thus, a violation of the policy in the SHS Handbook is a violation of School Board policy. Alleged Inappropriate Comments/Conduct by Respondent During the 2001-02 School Year Respondent had four "peer counselors" assigned to him during the 2001-02 school year, including eleventh-grader Nichole Combee. A peer counselor is a student who assists a teacher or other school staff member with designated tasks, such as filing or running errands on campus. The student provides that assistance for one class period per day. Nichole had approached Respondent at some point during the first semester of the 2001-02 school year and asked whether she could be a peer counselor for him. The record does not reflect the process by which that request was processed or approved by the administration at SHS, or even whether such approval is required. Nichole started as a peer counselor for Respondent in January 2002, which is the beginning of the second semester of the 2001-02 school year. Nichole continued in that position through May 23, 2002, when the regular school year ended. Nichole was Respondent's peer counselor during seventh period, which is the last period of the school day. Nichole's primary duty as Respondent's peer counselor was filing computer permission slips. During the time that Nichole was Respondent's peer counselor, she discussed her family troubles and school attendance problems with Respondent and his assistant, Mark Williams. Respondent tried to help Nichole with those problems. On several occasions, he talked to Nichole's mother on the phone in an attempt to help work things out between Nichole and her mother with respect to the "trouble" created at home by Nichole's academic and attendance problems. Nichole also discussed problems that she was having with male students and some male teachers at SHS looking at her large breasts rather than her eyes when they were speaking to her. She told Respondent at the time that he and Mr. Williams always looked her in the eye, and she reaffirmed that statement in her testimony at the hearing. Nichole discussed matters related to her breasts with Respondent on other occasions as well. On at least one occasion, she told Respondent that her breasts caused her back to hurt because of their size. On subsequent occasions when Nichole complained about her back hurting, Respondent replied by saying, "Well, you know why." That comment was intended by Respondent and understood by Nichole to be a reference to Nichole's prior comments that her large breasts were the cause of her back pain. Respondent never told Nichole that she should not discuss her breasts or other personal matters with him. Respondent acknowledged at the hearing that it would have been inappropriate for him to initiate a conversation with Nichole about her breasts (as a source of her back pain or otherwise), but that he did not see anything wrong with the discussions that he had with Nichole on that subject because she brought it up and because there was nothing sexual being implied. After classes had ended on the last day of the 2001-02 school year, a number of students engaged in a "water fight" using water balloons and "water bazookas." This conduct is apparently a "tradition" at SHS. The SHS administration had directed the school staff to try to prevent this conduct and/or to get the students off campus and onto their busses as quickly as possible. Respondent observed a group of students involved in a water fight near his office in the media center, and he went outside to break up the students. The group included Nichole and her friend Natalie Cotto-Caraballo, who was a tenth-grader at SHS. Nichole and Natalie were wearing white tank-top shirts that they had made for the last day of school. The shirts had gotten wet during the water fight and, as a result, the girls' bras were visible through the shirts. Respondent commented to Nichole and Natalie that he could see their bras through their shirts and that they needed to cover themselves up. He then directed the girls and the other students in the group to their buses. Nichole testified that the comment made her feel somewhat uncomfortable because "it's our bras and, you know, even though people see them, usually they don't say anything, you know." Respondent's comment regarding his ability to see the girls' bras was not inappropriate under the circumstances; it was a statement of fact and justified Respondent's direction to the girls to cover themselves up. Nichole did not immediately report the bra comment, either to her parent(s) or the SHS administration. Indeed, the comment did not even come to light until Nichole's second interview with the School Board's investigator in August 2002. Respondent gave Nichole a hug as she was leaving for her bus on the last day of school and told her to have a nice summer. Despite its close proximity in time to the bra comment, Nichole testified that the hug did not make her uncomfortable. She just considered it to be friendly "good bye" hug, which was all that was intended by Respondent. Nichole did not complain about Respondent to her parent(s) or anyone in the SHS administration during the time that she was his peer counselor. Lunch Invitations During Summer School Nichole attended the first session of summer school, which began on June 3, 2002, less than two weeks after the end of the regular school year. The only class that Nichole took during summer school was an English class taught by "Ms. Morris." Nichole was not Respondent's peer counselor during summer school, nor was she working on any school-related project with Respondent during that time. On June 3, 2002, while Respondent and Mr. Williams were in Ms. Morris' class fixing a computer, Respondent asked Nichole if she wanted to go to lunch with him off-campus. Nichole declined the invitation because she was "grounded" and had to pick up her brother from school. Respondent was again in Ms. Morris' class on June 5, 2002, and he again invited Nichole to lunch. Nichole again declined. Respondent did not have permission from Nichole's parent(s) or the SHS administration to take Nichole off-campus. The reason that Respondent invited Nichole to lunch was to thank her for doing a good job as his peer counselor and to congratulate her on deciding to stay in school and attend summer school, which Respondent and Mr. Williams had both counseled her to do. Respondent had taken a former male student off-campus to lunch for the same reasons in the past. Respondent and Nichole were not alone at the time of either invitation. Both invitations occurred in Ms. Morris' classroom, and Ms. Morris and other students were "milling around" in the classroom at the time. At the hearing, Nichole testified that she didn't think anything of the lunch invitations at first since she considered Respondent a "friend." However, she also testified that it "it was a little uncomfortable because he is a teacher." Nichole did not report the lunch invitations to Ms. Morris or to anyone in the SHS administration. Nichole did, however, tell her mother about Respondent's lunch invitations because "she thought she should know." On June 5, 2003, Nichole's mother called the SHS principal, Karen Coleman, and complained about the lunch invitations. Ms. Coleman told Nichole’s mother that she would look into the matter, which she did. The resulting investigation led to this proceeding. Investigation and Preliminary Disciplinary Recommendation Ms. Coleman began the investigation by speaking to Nichole on June 5, 2002. That discussion focused only on the lunch invitations. Nichole provided Ms. Colemen an unsworn written statement regarding the lunch invitations on June 5, 2002. That statement did not include any reference to the "lingerie incident" discussed below or the incidents described above involving the bra comment or the hug that Respondent gave to Nichole on the last day of school. Nichole provided Ms. Coleman another unsworn written statement on June 6, 2002. That statement referenced Respondent's comments about the source of Nichole's back pain, but it did not mention the lingerie incident or the other incidents described above. After speaking with Nichole, Ms. Coleman spoke with Respondent. Respondent admitted that he had invited Nichole to lunch off-campus. He further admitted that he did not have permission from Nichole’s parent(s) to take her off-campus and that he did not obtain permission from the SHS administration. Respondent told Ms. Coleman that he did not realize that such permission was necessary. Respondent had taken a male peer counselor to lunch off-campus in the past without receiving approval from the student's parents or the SHS. After Ms. Coleman's conversations with Nichole and Respondent, she contacted John Reichert, the School Board's director of human resources. Mr. Reichert directed John Byerly, the School Board’s internal affairs investigator, to conduct a formal investigation. Mr. Byerly interviewed Nichole on June 10, 2002, at SHS. Nichole did not mention the lingerie incident, the bra comment, or the hug to Mr. Byerly during that interview. Mr. Byerly also interviewed Respondent and Mr. Williams as part of his investigation. The results of Mr. Byerly's investigation were presented to the Executive Professional Standards Review Committee (Review Committee) on June 27, 2002. Among other functions, the Review Committee is used to make disciplinary recommendations to Mr. Reichert. The Review Committee’s recommendation was characterized at the hearing as "preliminary," and it is apparently not binding on Mr. Reichert when he formulates his recommendations to the Superintendent regarding employee disciplinary actions. The Review Committee recommended that Respondent be suspended for three days and/or be reassigned or transferred to another school. That recommendation was based only upon Respondent’s lunch invitations to Nichole and comments regarding the source of her back pain; it did not take into account the lingerie incident, the bra comment, or the hug because those incidents had not been disclosed by Nichole or Natalie at that point. Mr. Reichert and/or the Superintendent apparently did not accept the Review Committee’s recommendation because the Superintendent's July 26, 2002, letter recommended termination of Respondent's employment. At the hearing, Mr. Reichert testified that the reason for the change in the recommended discipline was the subsequent discovery of the lingerie incident, which he characterized as the "major driving factor" behind the termination recommendation. However, the preponderance of the credible evidence demonstrates that the lingerie incident was not disclosed to School Board staff until after the July 26, 2002, letter. Alleged Gift of Lingerie The lingerie incident was first disclosed by Natalie on August 2, 2002, when she was interviewed by Mr. Byerly.1 Natalie had given an unsworn written statement to Ms. Coleman on that same date, but that statement did not mention the lingerie incident. Based upon the "new information" from Natalie, Mr. Byerly interviewed Nichole again on August 15, 2002. The interview occurred at Lyman High School (LHS), where Nichole had transferred for her senior year.2 After the interview, Mr. Byerly had Nichole prepare a sworn written statement. The statement included the following account of the lingerie incident, which was consistent with Nichole's testimony at the hearing: When I was a peer counselor for Mr. Reeder, I had walked into class on[e] afternoon in 7th period and we were talking and he said ["]oh here I got something for you.["] He handed me a white plastic bag and through the bag I could see a black thing and I knew it was the langera [sic]. I then just put it on the floor and went on with my work. When the bell rang I picked up my belongings including the white plastic bag. When I got on the bus I showed Natalie it. It was a black see[-]through spagatie [sic] strap shirt and black thongs. When I got off the bus I walked home and through [sic] it away. That was the last time anything was ever said about it. Mr. Byerly interviewed Natalie again on August 16, 2002. Natalie's told Mr. Byerly that the lingerie incident occurred "a couple months before the end of the regular school year" and that Nichole showed her the lingerie on the bus. However, the sworn written statement she prepared after the interview indicated that the incident occurred "[a]bout the day before school was over" and that she learned of it "on the bus/car." Nichole told Natalie that the lingerie was from Respondent. Natalie had no independent personal knowledge that it was from him. There were some inconsistencies in Natalie's and Nichole's descriptions of the lingerie, but those inconsistencies were not material. They consistently described the lingerie as having a black see-through top and black panties. Nichole did not report the incident to the SHS administration around the time that it allegedly occurred. Nor did she tell her mother about the incident, even though she considered the lingerie gift to be more inappropriate than the lunch invitations which she did immediately tell her mother about. Nichole testified that she was somewhat embarrassed by the gift and she did not want her mother to think she "led into it." Respondent unequivocally denied that he gave Nichole any lingerie or other clothing, and Nichole's and Natalie's testimony relating to the lingerie incident was not credible. Thus, the School Board failed to prove that Respondent gave Nichole the lingerie. It is undisputed that Respondent never engaged in any type of sexual contact (e.g., kissing, inappropriate touching) with Nichole. Nichole made that point clear in both of her interviews with Mr. Byerly and in her testimony at the hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Seminole County School Board issue a final order which dismisses the Petition for Termination and provides Respondent the remedial relief that he is entitled under the collective bargaining agreement. DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Clarence Dixon received a Bachelor of Science degree with academic honors from Bethune-Cookman College. He was active in athletics and was rated "All-American" in football. He was employed by Piper High School for the 1980- 81 school year in his first teaching position. He was hired to teach physical education, and was encouraged by the principal of Piper High School to take an active part in the black community. Sandra Brown is employed at Piper High School as a security specialist. She met Dixon through their work association and asked Dixon to counsel her son, as she knew he respected Dixon. Mrs. Brown related several conversations wherein Dixon made sexual advances to her. Mrs. Brown was also involved in the initial school investigation of Dixon's alleged sexual improprieties with Piper High School students; Sharon Cooper is a 15-year-old female student at Piper High School. She had been upset over rumors that involved her reputation, and was considering leaving school over the matter. Dixon became aware of her problem end counseled her to remain in school and ignore the rumors. Carl Nadler, a 16-year-old student at Piper High School, overheard Cooper tell Dixon that, "All the guys say I suck dicks and fuck." This was the statement attributed to Dixon in Count 2 of the Petition. However, it appears that Dixon did not use these words, or at least did not use them in a sexually suggestive context. Lesia McGee is a 17-year-old student at Piper High School. She did not testify at the hearing due to illness, but the parties agreed to allow her deposition to be admitted as evidence associated with Count 5 of the Petition. Her testimony establishes that Dixon told her, "If you wear those purple pants again, I'm going to tongue you to death." Any doubt regarding the sexual implication of this statement was removed by remarks Dixon made to McGee on other occasions to the effect that she had a good figure and would she be enough of a lady not to tell anyone if she and Dixon were to make love. McGee readily admitted that Sandra Brown wanted her to exaggerate her complaint, but she refused. Her testimony indicated no animosity toward Dixon nor influence by Sandra Brown. Freddie Jones is a student at Piper High School. He informed another student, Sandra Cunningham, that Dixon had asked Jones to spread a rumor about her. Jones recanted his initial statement to investigators at the prehearing deposition. He returned to the allegation at the hearing, explaining that he had tried to help Dixon by lying at the deposition, but came to believe it was more important to tell the truth. Jones' testimony lacks credibility because of its inconsistency with his earlier sworn statement. Valynda Johnson is an eleventh grade student at Piper High School. She and Dixon had frequent contacts even though she was not his student. Several times Dixon sent her passes to leave class in order to meet him on the athletic field. Dixon concedes that he once sought to have her excused from class to do some typing for him. On one occasion, Dixon invited Johnson to a basketball game with him and on another to meet him at a convenience store. On two occasions, Dixon asked Johnson, "When are you going to let me do that?" or words of similar import. When she asked what he meant, he replied, "You know what I'm talking about." Johnson was unsure of Dixon's intentions, but believed that Dixon was probably seeking sexual relations with her. Although Johnson was confused on some of the details of her testimony, she was a generally credible witness, showing no animosity toward Dixon or influence by Sandra Brown. Rene Snelling is an 18-year-old student at Piper High School. Dixon and Snelling became friendly, and Dixon made periodic comments to her about her figure and potential for a modeling career. They also discussed a trip to visit a college in Kentucky. Although Dixon took only male students on this trip, he did bring back souvenir T-shirts for Snelling and several other students. Dixon also phoned Snelling at her home and once told her he had a gold chain for her. The comment on which Count 8 is based involved Dixon's question to Snelling, "If we ever had sex would you [Snelling] be ladylike enough not to tell anyone?" or words of similar meaning. This conversation took place in the school library where Snelling was working on a class assignment. Dixon denies making this statement but recalls that when he asked to sit beside her in the library she replied that a nice-looking man like Dixon could sit next to her. Although Snelling was unsure of some of the details of her contacts with Dixon, she was a generally credible witness and showed no animosity toward Dixon or influence by Sandra Brown. Hooker T. Robinson is a 18-year-old student at Piper High School. He overheard Rene Snelling tell another student that if Coach Dixon were not so dedicated to his wife she would fuck him. Robinson was called by Respondent apparently to discredit Snelling's testimony. However, Robinson's testimony indicates that a sexual attraction was developing between Dixon and Snelling which is consistent with the charges contained in Count 8. Darryl Allen is a 15-year-old student at Piper High School. He overheard Chanita Austin, Rene Snelling and Valynda Johnson discussing Dixon in early January. He heard one of them say, "He [Dixon] is acting so high class and doesn't speak anymore," or words of similar import. Darwin Taylor is a 15-year-old student at Piper High School. He overheard a discussion between Sandra Brown and Rene Snelling about February wherein Mrs. Brown stated to Snelling, "Don't worry, we've got him where we want him." Taylor further overheard Mrs. Brown advise Snelling to tell the judge that Dixon gave her a gold chain and tried to touch her and have sex with her. This testimony and that of students Lesia McGee and Chanita Austin (deposition) establishes that Mrs. Brown either intentionally or in the zeal of her investigation encouraged exaggerations. However, the students testifying in this proceeding recognized this and were net swayed by Mrs. Brown's encouragement. The testimony of Piper High School students Alvin Williams, Eugene Wimbs and Ernest Merrell is not material and is accorded no evidentiary weight herein. The depositions of Piper High School students Sandra Anderson, Chanita Austin and Jackie Dawson do not contain evidence relevant to the charges herein and are likewise accorded no weight. The testimony of Anthony Ash, Broward County CTA representative, and Andrew Thomas of the Broward County School System, involve procedural matters not directly relevant to factual questions at issue here. The Respondent denies making the statements and other improper conduct attributed to him by the witnesses. He points out that the complaining witnesses are all from the same neighborhood and are all below-average students. He theorizes that they were confused over factual matters and did not appreciate the damage their statements could have upon him, and that they were unduly influenced by Sandra Brown. The testimony of these Piper High School students, with the exception of Freddie Jones who changed his testimony, was generally credible. They demonstrated an appreciation for the gravity of their complaints and the potential impact on Dixon's career. They did not show any resentment toward Dixon, but rather viewed him as a friend or former friend. The witnesses were encouraged to come forward by Sandra Brown. As noted above, Mrs. Brown's investigative techniques were lacking in objectivity. However, there was no indication that any witness committed perjury as a result of improper influence by Mrs. Brown. Although it was apparent that the students did discuss this case among themselves, there was no indication of any conspiracy against Dixon.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Counts 3 and 4 of the Petition be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent Clarence Dixon be found not guilty of the charges contained in Counts 1, 2 and 6 of the Petition. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent Clarence Dixon be found guilty of the charges contained in Counts 5, 7 and 8 of the Petition. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent Clarence Dixon be discharged from employment as a teacher by the Petitioner School Board of Broward County. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Whitelock, Esquire 1244 SE Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Richard H. Frank, Esquire 341 Plant Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606
The Issue Whether just cause exists to suspend Respondent, a teacher, for ten days without pay for putting hand sanitizer in a student’s mouth.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Board is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the District. Pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes, the District has the authority to discipline employees pursuant to section 1012.22(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Respondent began her employment with the District in 2007. In October 2019, she was teaching at PPMS as a science teacher. Prior to the incident involved in this case, Respondent received no discipline from the Board. Respondent is an experienced teacher who has been trained on the proper method of interacting with students, exercising best professional judgment, and following policies, rules, and directives. Respondent received training concerning ethics relative to her position with the District as a teacher. Respondent has been through the orientation process for new employees of the District three times. The Incident Giving Rise to Discipline On October 14, 2019, Respondent was teaching a science class of approximately 30 sixth and seventh grade students. In this class was sixth grade student X.S., who was being verbally disruptive. Although X.S. was not cussing, Respondent told him that he needed to have his “mouth washed out with soap.” Respondent reached behind herself to grab a bottle on her desk which was either hand soap or hand sanitizer. X.S. and Respondent walked towards each other. X.S. challenged Respondent to “Do it!” Respondent raised the bottle to X.S.’s mouth and pumped in a substance from the bottle. X.S. bent over and spit on the floor. Respondent asked X.S. what he was doing, and he stated that he got hand sanitizer in his mouth. As X.S. stood up, X.S. was observed wiping his mouth and Respondent told him not to spit on the floor. X.S. left the classroom to go to the bathroom and rinse his mouth. His fellow students immediately began talking about the incident while Respondent returned to her desk. The Investigation X.S. did not immediately report the incident because he did not want to anger his foster mother. However, on the day after the incident, October 15, 2019, three students approached PPMS Principal Aronson and Officer Michaels and reported that Respondent had squirted hand sanitizer into X.S.’s mouth. Officer Michaels spoke to the students and X.S. individually and asked them to provide written statements regarding what they observed.1 Principal Aronson and Officer Michaels questioned Respondent regarding the incident. When approached by Officer Michaels, Respondent asked, “What is this about?” He responded that, “this is about squirting hand sanitizer into a student’s mouth.” Respondent said, “It wasn’t hand sanitizer. It was soap.” Respondent did not deny squirting something into X.S.’s mouth to either Principal Aronson or Officer Michaels. Principal Aronson asked Respondent to leave campus. He accompanied her to her classroom and observed a bottle of hand sanitizer on her desk. Principal Aronson also contacted Human Resources to report the incident and spoke to Human Resources Manager Jose Fred who handled overseeing the investigation from that point forward. 1 These written statements, Exhibits 11 through 16, were admitted over Respondent’s objection that they contain impermissible hearsay and are unduly prejudicial because these students refused to attend their scheduled depositions or appear for final hearing. However, their general descriptions of the incident were corroborated by the deposition of student J.C., as well as in part by Respondent. As discussed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.213(3), hearsay evidence may be used to supplement or explain other evidence, but shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless the evidence falls within an exception to the hearsay rule as found in sections 90.801-.805, Florida Statutes. On October 15, 2019, Respondent was issued the one-day stay at home letter from Mr. Aronson titled “Assignment to Your Residence with Pay for October 15, 2019.” On October 15, 2019, Respondent was also issued a letter advising her that she was assigned to her residence for October 16 and October 17, 2019. Mr. Fred, under the supervision of Vicki Evans-Paré, Director of Employee and Labor Relations, compiled written statement of six students, took a written statement of Respondent on October 17, 2019, and drafted an Investigative Report dated October 18, 2019, which substantiated violations of applicable rules and Board policies. In her statement to Mr. Perez, Respondent claims it was X.S. who put his hand on hers and pulled the bottle to his own mouth and that she did not squirt anything. However, the remainder of her statement is consistent with the students’ reports of the incident.2 Post-Investigation Due Process On October 30, 2019, Respondent was provided with a Notice of Pre- Determination Meeting, which provided her with the allegations of misconduct. Respondent was provided with a copy of the entire investigative file and time to review it with the representative of her choice. Respondent attended a Pre-Determination Meeting on November 9, 2019, to give her the opportunity to provide any additional information, dispute, and explain or elaborate on any information contained in the Investigative Report. The Employee and Labor Relations (“ELR”) Department enlists the Employee Investigatory Committee (“EIC”) which reviews all of ELR’s case 2 At final hearing, Respondent testified that the bottle was never near the student’s mouth. This is wholly inconsistent with her prior written statement to Mr. Perez, her deposition testimony, and the statements of the students. This conflict negatively impacted Respondent’s credibility. files, inclusive of all documents maintained by ELR, of anything that might lead to suspension or termination, to make a suggestion to the Superintendent, if the allegations are substantiated. Once the EIC decides that the allegations are substantiated and recommends discipline, Ms. Evans-Paré takes the entire employee investigative file, inclusive of the EIC’s recommendations, to the Superintendent who then makes the ultimate recommendation for employee discipline. On November 22, 2019, Respondent was provided with supplemental information to the investigative file and provided an opportunity to respond to the documents by December 6, 2019. On December 9, 2019, Respondent requested that her response be placed in her file. She wrote “in response to the copies of the information from the District that is being used as evidence against me …” after reviewing the case file, complained that only six of 22 students were interviewed or provided statements and it was not an ethical, random sample of the class. Respondent also alleged that the documents had been altered; however, she did not provide any evidence of such during the final hearing or within the response. On December 6, 2019, Respondent again provided a response to the student witness statements to ELR wherein she stated “I have 22 students in my class, only 6 students filled out statements? You have 3 black children submitted in reporting, of which one is not accurate. Yet, they are the minority in this class, of which, 2 out of the 6 statements were from Hispanic students. It is surprising that not a single white student in my class noticed the incident.” On January 24, 2020, Respondent was notified that the Superintendent would recommend her a ten-day suspension without pay to the Board at its February 19, 2020, meeting. On February 19, 2020, the School Board adopted the Superintendent’s recommendations to suspend Respondent without pay for ten days. Respondent’s Post-Suspension Status Respondent’s suspension by the Board was picked up by the Associated Press and reported across social media and traditional media platforms locally and nationwide. Ms. Evans-Paré testified that typically, when a teacher is alleged to have done something inappropriate with students, the District cannot have the teacher in a classroom around students, so the teacher is reassigned to another location. Respondent was reassigned to adult and community education, so she was in a no-student contact position. Respondent was then moved into Human Resources Funding 9920 status due to the press and comments from the parents received by Principal Aronson and her inability to be returned to PPMS. This allowed Principal Aronson to hire another teacher to take her place. Respondent has not been back in the classroom as a teacher for the District since October 15, 2019.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board uphold the ten-day suspension without pay and return Respondent to the classroom. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2021. V. Danielle Williams, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Nicholas Anthony Caggia, Esquire Johnson and Caggia Law Group 867 West Bloomingdale Avenue, Suite 6325 Brandon, Florida 33508 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Donald E. Fennoy, II, Ed.D. Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Certificate Number 227135, regular, valid through June 30, 1982, covering the areas of biology, science and social studies. Respondent received a bachelor's degree in history, zoology and education from Parson's College in 1967, and a Master of Science degree from the Florida Institute of Technology in 1980. During the 1976-77 school year, Respondent was employed as a science teacher at Nims Middle School in Tallahassee, Florida. Respondent, a licensed professional photographer, also worked with the photography club at Nims Middle School during the school years from 1975 through 1978. On or about May 30, 1977, while Respondent was employed as a science teacher at Nims Middle School, two students, Linda McKenzie and Linda Underwood, were excused from their regularly scheduled sixth period classes to go to Respondent's classroom to look at laboratory animals kept there. At all times material hereto, Respondent aid the two students mentioned above were the only occupants of the classroom. Respondent and the two students engaged in conversation, during which Respondent discussed taking photographs of the two students. As the two students began to leave the classroom, Respondent placed his hands on Linda Underwood's waist and "French-kissed" her. Ms. Underwood was shocked and embarrassed, and quickly left the classroom. The incident was not reported to Ms. Underwood's parents, but was reported to school officials by Ms. Underwood several days after the incident occurred. Prior to the above-described incident, Ms. Underwood had called Respondent on the telephone at his home, and had also written him letters. None of these letters were introduced into evidence in this proceeding. Ms. Underwood apparently also made several telephone calls to Respondent after the incident occurred. Neither the content of these telephone conversations nor any other evidence of record in this proceeding is sufficiently clear to demonstrate that Ms. Underwood was so biased against Respondent to have fabricated her testimony. Having observed the demeanor of the several witnesses testifying on this issue, and having considered their interest, if any, in the outcome of this proceeding, Ms. Underwood's version of the incident is accepted as persuasive. While Respondent was employed as a science teacher at Nims Middle School, he drove to the home of Mrs. Juanita Jackson accompanied by two Nims Middle School students, Carlotta Wolfe and Lori Taylor. The two students were dressed in either bathing suits or shorts, and rode in the front seat with Respondent. had offered the two students a ride when he observed them walking, and was asked by them to drive to the Jackson home. Respondent did not know the purpose of the visit to the Jackson home. One of the students apparently requested that Mrs. Jackson's daughter be allowed to get into the car with Respondent and the other students, but Mrs. Jackson refused to allow her daughter to do so. Although Mrs. Jackson testified that she observed Respondent's arm on the back of the seat while Carlotta Wolfe was seated next to him, there is insufficient evidence of record from which to conclude that any impropriety was intended by Respondent, or in fact occurred. Respondent was granted a leave of absence by the Leon County School Board for the 1979-80 school year, and was reassigned to Godby High School for the 1980-81 school year. On August 4, 1980, Respondent met with William J. Montford, principal of Godby High School, and other administrative personnel. During that meeting Respondent was specifically warned about inappropriate and improper comments and behavior directed toward students. During the 1980-81 school year Ms. Kelly Moore was one of Respondent's students. On one occasion when Ms. Moore was tardy to class and was in the process of signing a late sheet in compliance with school policy, Respondent told her to put her telephone number by her name "...in case I get horny one day." On another occasion, when Respondent inquired and was told that Ms. Moore worked in the lingerie department at Maas Brothers department store, he observed to Ms. Moore that he "...could really get into panties, especially yours." Each of these comments was made in Respondent's classroom, in the presence of other students, and for no appropriate reason. Respondent denies making these remarks, but it is specifically concluded that the testimony of Ms. Moore is more persuasive concerning these incidents. While employed as a teacher at Godby High School, Respondent engaged in a conversation with Dorothy Bryant, Yolanda Jenkins and Kendra Green, three of his students. During the course of this conversation, Respondent told these students that he would like to take them out and get something to drink and smoke with them. During the course of this conversation, Respondent either used or agreed to the use of the term "orgy" in connection with the above-described offer, and wrote a mathematical equation on the blackboard, and inquired of the students "How many times can one go into three?" During the 1980-81 school year at Godby High School, Traci Lingel was another of Respondent's female students. On one occasion when Ms. Lingel sought a pass to leave Respondent's classroom, Respondent remarked to her "Just because I'm your teacher and because I'm older than you doesn't mean that we can't go to bed together." On another occasion, Respondent remarked to Ms. Lingel that he had met her sister, also a student at Godby High School, and that he knew that it was her sister because she had "sexy eyes" just like Ms. Lingel. Further, Respondent observed to Ms. Lingel that he would award her an "A" in his course if she could arrange a date for him with her sister. On still another occasion, Respondent inquired of Ms. Lingel's boyfriend if Respondent could blow in Ms. Lingel's ear. On other occasions Respondent told two of his students, Debbie McCauley and Leeann Nelson, during class periods that he thought they had "nice legs." In addition, Respondent on one occasion told Ms. Nelson that he would like to go to bed with her. On several occasions during his tenure at Godby High School, Respondent related to various of his students that he was "hung over," had gotten drunk the preceding weekend and/or had smoked marijuana. On at least one other occasion, upon sending a male student to Respondent's vehicle to retrieve some items left there by Respondent, Respondent told the student that a bottle of liquor was under the seat in the truck, and the student could take a drink if he wished to do so. This latter remark was made in the presence of other students. Respondent spoke on the telephone with another of his students, Theresa Tran, about taking photographs of her. Respondent inquired of Ms. Tran concerning her favorite alcoholic beverages, and remarked to her that he could take her photographs and afterwards take her out for a drink. Respondent also on one occasion remarked to Traci Lingel, another of his students mentioned earlier in this order, that he and Ms. Lingel could get drunk or high and he could take her photographs. Respondent received a written reprimand dated February 10, 1981, from his principal, William J. Montford, concerning his improper conduct with female students. Respondent was again reprimanded by his principal by written reprimand dated March 17, 1981. On or about June 6, 1981, a presentation designed to inform high school students about the dangers of drug abuse was made in Respondent's classroom. A student attending a drug abuse program outside Godby High School participated in the program to share his negative experiences with drugs with other students. During a break in the program, Respondent engaged in a conversation in which the above-mentioned student and a representative of the Florida Alcohol and Drug Abuse Association participated. During the course of this conversation, Respondent related that he obtained high-quality cocaine through his girlfriend from the New York or Boston areas, and that the quality of drugs so obtained was better than could be obtained in the Tallahassee area. Respondent's remarks to female students were often made openly in a classroom setting so that the students who were the subject of the remarks were embarrassed before their peers and Respondent's predilection for making such remarks became common knowledge among his students. As a result, many of his students were uncomfortable attending his classes. Because of the frequently open and notorious nature of his conduct as hereinbefore related, Respondent's effectiveness as an instructional employee has been seriously reduced. Respondent generally denies that the incidents related above ever occurred. There is, accordingly, a sharp divergence in the various accounts of these activities as related by several of the witnesses. In resolving these testimonial discrepancies, the Hearing Officer observed the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and considered the interests, if any, of these witnesses in the outcome of this proceeding in determining which of the various versions of these occurrences were the more credible. Both counsel for Petitioner and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer during the course of this proceeding. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact are not included in this Recommended Order, they have been rejected either as not having been supported by evidence of record or as being irrelevant to the issues involved in this proceeding.
Recommendation Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, through its undersigned Hearing Officer, William E. Williams, held a public hearing in this cause on September 17 and 18, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida.
