Findings Of Fact Mary Benekin holds teaching certificate No. 478252 and is certified to teach at the elementary and secondary levels in the areas of mental retardation and specific learning disabilities. Benekin was employed on annual contract as an exceptional education teacher in the Duval County School District at the Matthew W. Gilbert Seventh Grade Center. She began employment there in 1984 and continued to teach in that position until approximately February 20, 1987, when she left her position and did not return. The Petitioner seeks to revoke or otherwise penalize Benekin's teaching certificate for misconduct involving moral turpitude in violation of Section 231.28(1)(c), Florida Statutes; for misconduct which seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the school board in violation of Section 231.28(1)(f); for misconduct which violated the provisions of law or rules of the State Board of Education in violation of Section 231.28(1)(h); and for misconduct which intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code. These charges were based on 6 specific factual allegations against Benekin: use of sexually explicit language and terms in the classroom; recounting to students various sex acts she and her boyfriends performed and discussing other sex- related matters; sitting in front of students with her feet on her desk and her legs spread apart, sometimes scratching her vaginal area; making reference on numerous occasions to drugs and asking students if they knew where to buy drugs; repeatedly borrowing money from students, having students buy food for her, and asking students for some of their food; and making derogatory statements about students in the presence of other students, including statements that they smelled bad. Sexual Language and Discussions On direct examination, Ray Cummings, a student in Benekin's 4th period science class, stated that Benekin talked about sex to Tom Tom (Thomas Jones) on one occasion and that she said she "sucked men's dicks." On cross examination, Ray said that either Benekin or Racheal Ashley made the statements. Then on redirect examination, Ray said that Benekin talked "nasty," but did not say "suck men's dicks." Instead, she said something else regarding sex acts, about not allowing a man to "put his thing in her, that she would let him feel all over her." Ray then testified that he heard Benekin make these statements to Thomas. Finally, on recross examination, Ray said Benekin made these statements to "Racheal and them." By contrast, the report of the principal, Curtis Randolph, shows that Ray told the investigator there that he did not know of anything going on in Benekin's class. Also, Ray's testimony is contradicted by Thomas' statement. (See Findings of Fact 11 and 12). Kathy Jessup testified on direct that she overheard Benekin say, in a conversation with someone who Kathy cannot identify, that she would "suck men's dicks." Kathy testified that her friends told her Benekin said this in other classes, too. Kathy also said that she heard Benekin talk about sex, but she can't remember what was said or to whom. On cross examination, Kathy testified that Benekin told the whole class that she "sucked men's dicks." By contrast, the principal's report again shows that Kathy made no mention in that investigation of the alleged sexual discussions or the specific statement regarding "sucking men's dicks." Several sworn statements from students who were not present to testify were submitted "only for the purpose of corroboration." Regrettably, these statements do not corroborate much of the direct evidence. The statement of Kenyatta Brown says essentially that Benekin talked about sex to Tom Tom and Ray everyday and that Racheal told her that Benekin said she "sucked men's dicks." This is contrary to Ray's testimony and Thomas' statement and to the story she told to the principal's investigator. (See Finding of Fact 14). Racheal Ashley's statement says Benekin told "us" about specific sex acts and that she "suck's men's things." However when this is compared to other students' testimony and statements, it begins to become apparent that Racheal is probably the source of these alleged statements. Racheal's statement is directly contrary to the story she told the principal's investigator. (See Finding of Fact 13). Antinette Phillips' statement states that Benekin told the class all about her sex life and goes into great detail. No other students' recall of the events agree with Antinette's and no other student related the details stated by Antinette. Antinette's statement also differs from what she told the principal's investigator. (See Finding of Fact 15) Thomas Jones' statement indicates that Ray and Racheal told him that Benekin said she sucked her boyfriend's dick and that she let him fondle her. Thomas specifically stated that other students told him about Benekin's alleged discussions about sexual acts between her and her boyfriend. Finally Thomas stated that Benekin said what she does at home, she leaves at home. Thomas never heard any sex talk from Benekin. Clearly Thomas' statement is directly contrary to Ray's testimony and Racheal's statement and the report of the principal's investigator. The principal made a report of the information related by students in the course of his investigation. This information is contrary to the later statements of most of these students. For example, Racheal attributed the descriptions of sexual acts and the statement about sucking men's dicks to a Mrs. Sowell, another teacher. Racheal never said anything about Benekin in relation to these sexual discussions. Kenyatta Brown told the investigator that Benekin said in class that she and her boyfriend sucked each others privates and that Benekin asked Thomas and Antinette about their sex lives. This is directly contrary to her written statement. (See Finding of Fact 8) Antinette Phillips told the principal's investigator that Benekin told her, Thomas, Ray and Antinette about various details of her sex acts with her boyfriend. Again, these details are not consistent with the details given in her statement. It appears from all of these conflicting statements that a rumor circulated that Benekin made these statements; however, the testimony of Ray and of Kathy is specifically found to lack credibility and no weight is given to the student's statements because they contradict, not corroborate, the allegations. Accordingly, insufficient evidence exists to support a finding that these sexual discussions and use of sexual terms occurred. Inappropriate Sitting and Scratching The direct testimony of Ray Cummings again is that Benekin sat with her feet on her desk and that on one occasion she scratched her fresh appendectomy scar. The direct testimony of Kathy Jessup was that Benekin put her feet up on her desk while wearing pants. Kathy never saw Benekin scratch herself. Various of the sworn statements alleged that Benekin put her feet on her desk with her legs open and her underwear showing and scratched her vaginal area. These statements were admitted only to corroborate other admissible evidence. Here, there was no direct evidence to be corroborated by these statements. The only evidence entitled to any weight or consideration is that Benekin put her feet on her desk and on another occasion, while standing, scratched in the area of her fresh appendectomy scar. Neither of these acts can be construed to be misconduct as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Reference to Drugs The only direct testimony was that of Ray and Kathy. Ray never mentioned drugs in relationship to Benekin and Kathy specifically testified that she never heard of or saw Benekin discuss, mention or use drugs. Kathy did testify that other of her "friends" told her that Benekin told them that she used drugs. The only mention of drugs and drug use by Benekin came from the sworn statements which were admissible only to corroborate direct evidence. There being no direct evidence regarding any statements Benekin made to students regarding drugs, no finding can be made in regard to this alleged misconduct. Borrowing Money and Taking Food Ray Cummings testified that when students brought candy or food to class, they had to share it with everyone, including Benekin. He gave candy to her. Benekin would collect money from students to get snacks from the food machine in the teachers' lounge. When a student did not have money, the others would chip in. On one occasion, Benekin gave 15 pennies to Kathy for 3 nickels to be used in the food machine. Kathy testified that Benekin borrowed 15 cents from her and did not pay it back. Benekin also borrowed from other students. Kathy did not recall Benekin using the borrowed money for snacks for the whole class. On cross examination, Kathy could not remember receiving 15 pennies from Benekin, but agreed that it probably happened. Kathy also could not remember a student from whom Benekin borrowed money, but thought it may have happened with Thomas and Antinette. Kathy also recalled Benekin getting snack cookies from the teachers lounge for the students. Finally, on redirect examination, Kathy could remember only two times that Benekin borrowed money: the 15 cents from her and some money from Thomas. The sworn statement of Racheal corroborates that Benekin took candy from the students and asked them to buy her lunch. The sworn statement of Antinette corroborates that Benekin borrowed a quarter from Thomas. Thomas' sworn statement indicates that Benekin borrowed money from him and other students and that she never repaid him. Thomas also states that one day he had a Snickers bar and he refused to give any to Benekin. Later she saw him take a quarter from her desk and wrote a referral (disciplinary slip) for taking it. When he gave her a piece of candy, she let him throw away the referral. Based on this direct evidence and corroborative evidence, it is found that Benekin did borrow money from Kathy and Thomas and that she did take candy or food from students. Derogatory Statements Ray testified on direct that one time it stunk in the classroom and Benekin said that probably one of the girls was on her period. On cross examination, Ray acknowledged that Benekin explained to the class that if a student has a body odor, they are to come to her and she will let them go wash their body and apply a deodorant and that they are all human. Kathy remembered Benekin saying on one occasion something about someone smelling in the classroom. Benekin simply said something about an odor in the classroom. Kathy never heard Benekin put students down in class. If she had something to say to them, she would call them over to her desk and tell them. Kathy never heard her say it out loud in class. The only corroborative evidence in this regard is the principal's report which states that Kenyatta told the investigator that "Benekin made her feel bad in class by telling her that she (Kenyatta) smelled like she had been having sex." Kenyatta's sworn statement makes no mention of this and there is no showing that if statement was even made, whether it occurred in the hearing of other students. Thomas also told the investigator that one time he told Benekin that it smelled bad in the classroom and Benekin replied, "It must be one of my girls on their period." The allegation in the Administrative Complaint is that Benekin made derogatory statements about students in the presence of other students, including statements that they smelled bad. The evidence does not support this allegation. At worst, Benekin on one occasion made a general statement that a bad odor in the classroom must be the result of one of the girls being on her period. This is not a derogatory statement about a particular student and did not expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. A finding cannot be made based on the hearsay statement of the principal which reported the hearsay statement of Kenyatta since neither hearsay statement corroborates admissible evidence. Benekin's Use of Drugs While there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that Benekin asked students where to buy drugs, Benekin's own testimony is that she discussed drugs with students as part of a class project on drugs. In cross examination, Benekin acknowledged that she entered a hospital for treatment of chemical dependency on cocaine. She entered this hospital on approximately February 20, 1987, when she became aware of the principal's investigation. During the conference with the principal on that day, Benekin asked Mr. Randolph for help and asked for the necessary papers to request a medical leave of absence. Randolph understood that Benekin was referring to medical assistance for a drug problem. The medical program which Benekin entered is a two-year program with a 30-day inpatient component. Benekin completed the 30-day component and remains involved in the after care component. Effect of the Investigation As a result of the rumors and accusations made by students against Benekin, as revealed in the principal's investigation, Randolph expressed the opinion that Benekin was no longer effective as a teacher, that her effectiveness in the school had diminished and that her presence was a detriment to the faculty and the student body. No opinion was expressed regarding loss of effectiveness if the allegations were not true.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Department of Education, Education Practices Commission, enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Mary C. Benekin. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 16th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-5658 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Education Proposed finding of fact 1 is adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Proposed finding of fact 2 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 2. Proposed finding of fact 7 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 33. Proposed findings of fact 3 and 4 are unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 6 is irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 5 and 8-21 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. While each contains one or more statements which are true, the contents of each, taken as a whole, do not agree with the facts found herein. Additionally, there is an element of argument contained bin these paragraphs which are not adopted herein. Proposed findings of fact 22 and 23 are argument and are therefore rejected as findings of fact. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Mary C. Benekin The proposed findings of fact filed by Respondent are intermixed with conclusions of law and argument. Further, extensive additional facts, not made a part of the record, are presented. Accordingly, Respondent's proposed findings of fact are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order, except to the extent that they are unsupported by the competent substantial evidence or that they are argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Betty Steffens Attorney at Law 106 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Mary C. Benekin Route l, Box 249-E Pineville, South Carolina 29468 Martin Schaap, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 W. Madison St., Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Room 418, Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a valid Florida teaching certificate, No. 150877. That certificate allows him to teach in the areas of business education, mathematics, social studies and vocational education and is valid through June :30, 1995-. Respondent has been an employee of the School Board of Nassau County since 1979. He teaches mathematics at West Nassau High School in Callahan, Florida where he also serves as the chairman of the mathematics department. Respondent taught general math to a male student, Joey Roundtree, in the school 1985-86. One day while the student was in class he stood at Respondent's desk. Respondent was to the right of the student seated his chair. The student laid a book or piece of paper down and the Respondent reached across to pick up the book or paper and the back of his hand touched the student in the area of his midsection or the zipper of his pants. Respondent's hand moved straight across. Nothing was said by Respondent to the student at that time nor did Respondent make any facial gestures at that time. The student said nothing to the Respondent about this and no other action of this nature occurred between the Respondent and the student on any other occasion. While the Administrative Complaint by the Commissioner describes it as inappropriate conduct in that the Respondent is alleged to have "reached across the desk and brushed against the student's lower midsection", this touching by the Respondent is not found to be inappropriate. It is also significant that counsel to the Commissioner in the proposed fact finding does not urge upon the fact finder that this touching was inappropriate. While Joey Roundtree was in Respondent's general math class in the school year 1985-86 he recalls Respondent making sexually suggestive comments or innuendoes from statements made by other students. While Roundtree can not recall specific statements as they were made he remembers that generally the nature of the exchange between Respondent and a student would be to the effect that the student would say something like, "this is a hard question" and Respondent would say "well it's extremely hard" and in doing so the Respondent would emphasize the word hard. Roundtree recalls walking between the desks on several occasions at which time the Respondent would stare below Roundtree's belt until Roundtree arrived at Respondent's desk at which time time Respondent would lick his lips and look above his glasses. On many occasions Roundtree observed, almost daily, that if a comment was made about length, size or shape that the Respondent would turn this around in a suggestive way that was sexual. Roundtree in his 1985-86 school year understood that the Respondent was referred to as "Dirty Rob" and after being in class Roundtree recognized that the basis for that name was associated with what Roundtree refers to as dirty and nasty and suggestive conduct by the Respondent. These terms by Roundtree equate to sexual innuendos by the Respondent. `This even extended to Respondent and his conduct involving sexual innuendos out of the classroom and in the hallway. Roundtree observed that the Respondent in emphasizing the word "hard" would make facial gestures by looking down above his glasses and licking his lips at Roundtree as a member of the class and smiling and laughing when he said the word "hard". Roundtree recalls Respondent making comments to female members of the class of a sexual nature in the school year 1985-86 but cannot specify what those comments were. He did observe that they were accompanied by liplicking and smiling. Those actions by the Respondent met with comments by some of the female students to the effect "you're being nasty" or "I know what your trying to say," to which the Respondent would reply that "well, your mind is in the gutter". Roundtree has no recollection that the female students appeared embarrassed by the actions of Respondent directed to them, actions which were an every day occurrence. Allegations in the Administrative Complaint and Statement of Charges concerning the school year 1989-90 as to inappropriate and unprofessional conduct involving the touching of the breast and buttocks of a female student, sexually suggestive comments to a female student, inappropriate comments to a female student about her appearance, touching a male student in the genital area, making innuendoes from statements made by students and the use of profanity in front of and directed at students were not proven except to this limited extent: Dana Kriete was a math student taught by the Respondent in the year 1989- She overheard the Respondent talk about a girl's breasts, how large they were. That girl was Dell Evans. More specifically Respondent commented that he wondered "what her boyfriend could do with them," referring to Evans' breast. This comment was made in the presence of other students and loud enough so that the other students could have heard the remarks. When the remarks were made about Dell Evans, Evans appeared upset. The general remarks about Dell Evans were made on approximately five occasions. Kriete also overheard the Respondent use profanity in the classroom, specifically the words "ass" and "damn." In the school year 1990-91 Respondent taught consumer math to Carla Bass, a female student. Bass routinely attended class which was held on each school day, five consecutive days. While attending class Bass overheard the Respondent make sexually suggestive comments. Most of these comments were directed to Sylvia Brantley, a female student, regarding the breasts of Ms. Brantley. Bass overheard Respondent describe how big Sylvia Brantley's breasts were. Bass also heard Respondent say in class that when Brantley was asleep that Respondent was going to "kiss Brantley and wake her up like they do in Snowwhite". These remarks by Respondent were stated loud enough for other students to hear them. In the school year 1990-91 Bass heard Respondent refer to a female student whose name is Christine Hughes as Christine "Huge" which was an innuendo having to do with the student's breasts. Bass observed that when Respondent would make remarks about Brantley and Hughes that Brantley and Hughes would appear embarrassed. In the school year 1990-91 Bass observed the Respondent while staring at her breasts lick his lips and roll his eyes. Bass observed the Respondent lick his lips and raise his eyebrows while looking at other female students in particular certain parts of their bodies. While Bass was in the Respondent's class in the school year 1990-91 she overheard Respondent make suggestive comments about a student Jason Englert whom Respondent referred to as "inch". Englert would be cheating in class and giving out answers to other students and would refer to a measurement associated with inches to which the Respondent said, "yeah, I heard that's how long it was" taken by the student Bass as a sexual connotation referring to Englert's genitals. That connotation could be drawn by Bass from the remarks made by Respondent concerning the student Englert. The use of sexual connotations in the classroom made Bass feel uncomfortable and embarrassed her. On one occasion in the school year 1990-91 Respondent told Bass to "get the hell out of his classroom." This had occurred at a time when Bass was disrupting the Respondent. As previously alluded to, Respondent taught math to Sylvia Brantley in the school 1990-91. At hearing Brantley described events in the Respondent's classroom. She recalled the sexually suggestive manner in which the Respondent spoke of Christine Hughes as being Christine "Huge." This was done in Brantley's presence while Respondent called the class attendance roll. This occurred throughout the time that Christine Hughes was in school in that academic year. In the school year 1990-91 Brantley overheard Jason Englert give answers out in class referring to "an inch" and the Respondent would say something that had a sexual connotation, to the effect, "is that all it is" or "I know that's how small it is". Brantley observed the Respondent roll his eyes and lick his lips after making statements in the class that had a sexual connotation. Brantley observed the Respondent look at the breasts and as she refers to it "the behind" (posterior) of a female student while rolling his eyes and licking his lips. Brantley also observed the Respondent roll his eyes and lick his lips while looking at male students. The class which Brantley attended in the school year 1990-91 had approximately 28 to 30 students. Sabrina Silcox was a female student in Respondent's math class in the school 1990-91. When the Respondent would refer to her name in class he would refer to her as Sabrina "Silcock." This was a reference which had a sexual connotation. Respondent made this reference twice during the school year. This reference was made in front of approximately 20 students. On one occasion someone came to the class to get Sabrina Silcox and asked for her by that name, to which Respondent said "do you mean Sabrina Silcock." The person who had called for the student in the class then said "no sir, Sabrina Silcox". Silcox recalls that in class she observed the Respondent "do a little smirk and then do his eyes or something like that, just look at us out of his eyes, the corner of his eyes funny and stuff". Silcox did not pay any attention when Respondent made these gestures. Silcox indicated that at times she was embarrassed by Respondent's mispronunciation of her name. When she observed Respondent make the gestured with his facial expressions the other students would laugh and she was unaware if any of those students were embarrassed by Respondent's actions. Stella Darlene Metts, a female student, was taught math by the Respondent in the school year 1990-91. While in the class she heard Respondent make sexually suggestive comments. She heard Respondent refer to Christine Hughes as Christine "Huge," seen as a sexual innuendo referring to the student Hughes's breasts. An innuendo which was correctly interpreted by Metts under the circumstances in which that reference was made by the Respondent. Respondent made these remarks about the student Hughes while looking at her in a manner which Metts describes as perverted. Metts also saw the Respondent look at Sylvia Brantley in that fashion. The looks made toward Hughes were to Hughes's breasts. Respondent then would look back at the rest of the class and laugh about the situation with Hughes. Christine Hughes had large breasts, as observed by Metts when commenting about the events in Respondent's classroom, and when Respondent would look at Hughes's breasts the male students in the class would think that these antics were funny because to looking at Hughes's breasts Respondent would gain the attention of the male students in the class and laugh. The male students would state, while the Respondent was looking at Hughes, "yeah look at Mr. Roberts looking at you you better not wear red". The reference to the color red had to do with Respondent's expressed fondness for that color. Crystal Hicks, a female student, was in a math class taught by the Respondent in the 1990-91 school year. In the class Respondent made sexual innuendo statements in front of Hicks. First, reference football players Respondent stated, "all they do is get out of class and get down and hut all day up the butt." In referring to the band members Respondent stated, "all they do is beat and blow all day." As Hicks established, these statements were made "every now and then". Hicks observed the Respondent raise his eyebrows and stick his tongue out, like licking his lips, when staring at female students in the class. She was unable to determine exactly where those stares were directed concerning the students' bodies. About the use of profanity, which Hicks described Respondent using in class, the swear words "damn" and "hell" are found to have been stated in the presence of that witness. Jennifer Yawn, a female student, was in Respondent's math class in the school year 1990-91. Yawn described how Respondent would act if Yawn were chewing gum, that Respondent would say to "quit advertising." Yawn described the sexual connotations behind the remarks of the Respondent as "he would just say it like you were doing something with a sucker", by which Yawn meant that Respondent was describing what the student was doing with a sucker. While making the remarks about advertising Yawn saw the Respondent raise his eyebrows and lick his lips. The comments about advertising with the gum had to do with the instances in which the student blew bubbles. This made Yawn uncomfortable. Yawn also heard the Respondent use profanity in class, the words "hell" and "damn." Jason Englert was a male math student taught by the Respondent in the school year 1990-91. He overheard Respondent talk about Sylvia Brantley's breasts in the classroom, in an instance in which Respondent called Sylvia Brantley's breasts "pillows." He recalls sexual gestures by the Respondent when he was talking to Ms. Brantley. Those gestures involve staring at Ms. Brantley's breasts, moving his eyebrows and licking his lips. In addition Respondent made a sexually suggestive comment to Englert while Englert was walking away from the Respondent's desk. Englert glanced back at the Respondent and Respondent was looking at Englert's "butt," (posterior) Englert put his hands over his posterior, to which Respondent said, "well, that's the part I want to see." There were other persons standing by the desk who could have heard the remarks by Respondent. Those persons looked at Englert and laughed. This circumstance did not bother Englert. Englert also overheard the Respondent speak of Carla Bass and her breasts as being "pillows." Students other than Joey Roundtree, (school year 1985-86), who were in the Respondent's classes in the school year 1990-91 and who testified at the hearing made mention of the Respondent's nicknames "Dirty Rob" and "Red Rob". These references have to do with perceived conduct by the Respondent leading to the impression that his personality was that of an individual who was perverse, having to do with his involvement with sexual innuendoes. The students knew of Respondent's reputation for sexual innuendos before entering the classroom. Such knowledge might influence their reaction to Respondent's conduct which they observed first hand. However the impression which the students gained from his actions in the classroom as reported in these facts were not so influenced by his prior reputation that the students are found to have misinterpreted Respondent's intentions by his remarks and facial expressions which had sexual connotations. In crediting the testimony by the students which pointed out the inappropriate conduct by Respondent in engaging in sexual innuendoes, some of the circumstances which the students identified as being in a similar category have been discounted and any doubt about Respondent's conduct in those instances resolved in his favor. Moreover the decision to favor the impression which the students had about some of these events recognizes that the classroom conduct by some of the students who testified at the hearing was less than commendable in its own right. The conduct by those students did not control or excuse Respondent's improprieties in engaging in sexual innuendoes. The fact that some students who had been in the Respondent's math classes at various years, after the school year 1985-86 but including the school years 1989-90 and 1996-91 did not observe the Respondent participate if any form of misconduct involving sexual innuendoes does not change the impression held about the testimony given by students who described those sexual innuendoes. This refers to testimony by Vicki Giveons and Bryan Hopkins who did not observe misconduct by the Respondent in their classes. The classes that they attended were different from the classes attended by witnesses who identified Respondent's sexual innuendoes. Finally, Respondent's testimony concerning these events in which he has been found to have acted inappropriately with regard to sexual innuendoes is rejected. Racial discussions were held in the Respondent's classes; however, the remarks which he made about racial issues were not biased when examined in the context of the testimony presented at hearing. Likewise the Respondent did not engage in any form of misconduct for which he is held accountable pertaining to the racially inflammatory notes, racially inflammatory replica of a grave site cross, racially inflammatory replica of a grave site tombstone, and racially inflammatory replica of a coffin and funeral carriage. Jeff Rieves, a male student in one of Respondent's math classes in the school year 1990-91 was responsible for producing the notes and other paraphernalia. Rieves contends these items were produced in an environment that was cordial or done in the way of a joke. Although the Respondent created the appearance that he was somewhat indulgent concerning the insensitive acts by the student, a stance taken by the Respondent to minimize the impact created by the correspondence and paraphernalia, Respondent did not believe that these incidents were intended to be all in good fun. It is not accepted that Rieves gave the notes and paraphernalia to the Respondent intending it wholly as a joke and that the Respondent perceived that these items were presented as a joke. Whether what extent Rieves intended his actions to have a more sinister influence, to the extent that you could say that Rieves intended racial harassment is less clear. Being uncertain concerning the student's intent, Respondent was prudent to make officials within the Nassau County School District aware that these circumstances existed and to be a willing participant in the investigation that ensued by the Nassau County Sheriff's Office. When interviewed by the principal at his school and officers from the Nassau County Sheriff's Office, both before and after the law enforcement officials had spoken to Jeff Rieves about this incident, Respondent did not name Rieves as the individual who had prepared the tombstone, coffin and funeral carriage. Whatever suspicions the Respondent may have had that Rieves was the person who had constructed these items, especially given the realization that Rieves had written notes with overtones that bore a racial threat, those notes having been sailed in Respondent's direction by Rieves as paper airplanes, Respondent did not know absolutely that Rieves had constructed the paraphernalia. Contrary to Rieves' assertion, the cross, headstone, coffin and funeral carriage were not handed overt directly to the Respondent as Rieves had told the law enforcement officers when interviewed. Respondent discovered these items where Rieves had left them in his class. Having held their conversation with Rieves, rather than confiding to the Respondent that the sheriff's office had ascertained who the culprit was, the officers for reasons that are not apparent, chose to believe Rieves' comment to the effect that Rieves had directly presented the paraphernalia to the Respondent and to confront the Respondent with this belief by asking the Respondent once again who the person was who had created the paraphernalia. When Respondent did not respond that Rieves was the person who had prepared the paraphernalia in a setting in which the sheriff's office was convinced that he did know, he was charged with giving false information to a police officer concerning the alleged commission of a crime by claiming that he had been harassed by persons not known to the Respondent when indeed he knew who the individual was who had constructed the paraphernalia. Under summons the State Attorney's Office for the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida took action against the Respondent on the theory of the false reporting concerning the alleged commission of a crime in Case No: 91-301218, August 1, 1991. This matter was disposed of through the misdemeanor pretrial intervention program involving deferred prosecution. Respondent served the 40 hours of community service contemplated by the disposition in the case. He did this upon advice of counsel that if he went to a trial that he might not prevail in that case. Notwithstanding his decision to conclude the court action by subjecting himself to the requirements set forth in the pretrial intervention, for purposes of this hearing it is not found that the statements which Respondent made concerning his knowledge about the person who had constructed the paraphernalia were false, in that Respondent did not know with certainty who had prepared the paraphernalia. Although the sheriff's office interviewed Rieves and another individual Michael Lloyd who had been involved in the creation of the paraphernalia, neither the sheriff's office nor the administrative prosecutor sought to verify the information received from the culprits who had created the paraphernalia to determine from a more unimpeachable source that Respondent knew who had created the paraphernalia, in that the Respondent had been given the paraphernalia personally in the classroom as Rieves describes, before attributing false motives to the Respondent in complaining about the racial harassment. This could have been achieved by interviewing students who would have been in attendance at the time when Rieves purportedly presented the paraphernalia to the Respondent in the classroom. Absent that effort Respondent was charged upon information provided by a less than credible source and tried in the present case, leading to the impression that Respondent's explanation about this event is more compelling. Craig Marsh, Superintendent, Nassau County School District, a professional educator, was accepted as an expert in the field of education. As an expert Marsh expressed the opinion that the Respondent, based upon his participation in the sexual innuendos discussed in the fact finding, were matters so serious that they impaired Respondent's effectiveness in the school system. That opinion is accepted.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Nassau County enter a final order which dismisses the Respondent from his employment as a continuing contract teacher based upon the violations found. That the Education Practices Commission suspend Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of three years during which time Respondent shall submit himself to evaluation by a qualified professional to ascertain the underlying causes for the conduct which has brought about this discipline. If the qualified professional believes that Respondent needs to participate in a program to gain insight and correct any underlying condition in the interest of the Respondent and his prospective students, then Respondent shall cooperate in that endeavor. If Respondent fulfills any necessary requirement for counseling or if counselling is not deemed necessary, then the last year in the suspension period shall be served in a probationary status during which time Respondent shall not engage in conduct which violates Chapter 231.28, Florida Statutes, and the associated rules found within Chapter 6B, Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 13th day of May 1992. APPENDIX CASE NO. 91-6677 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties: Petitioner Castor Paragraphs 1 through 13 are subordinate to facts found, except the date in Paragraph 7 which should be 1989-90. Paragraphs 14 through 16 are rejected for reasons of credibility. Paragraphs 17 through 19 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 20 is rejected. Paragraphs 21 through 24 4re subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 25 is rejected. Paragraph 26 is subordinate to facts found with exception to the last phrase of profanity which is rejected. Paragraphs 27 through 42 are contrary to facts found in their suggestion that the Respondent acted in a racially biased manner or gave false information or reports as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 43 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 44 through 46 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 47 and 48 1 not necessary to the resolution of the dispute and are contrary to the legal conclusions drawn. Petitioner Marsh Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found.. Paragraph 2 see discussion of Paragraphs 1 through 26 for Petitioner Castor. Paragraph 27 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 28 and 29 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Respondent's Facts in the Prosecution by Commissioner Castor Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found.. Paragraphs 2 through 36 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 37 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 38 in its first two sentences are subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentence is rejected as it attempts to absolve the Respondent of his conduct. Paragraph 39 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 40 is consistent with the disposition of the case. Paragraphs 41 through 43 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 44 is consistent with the disposition in the case as are Paragraphs 45 through 48. Paragraph 49 is subordinate to facts found where it describes use of profanity but conary to facts concerning the number of times. Paragraph 50 is rejected in its attempt to be persuasive in countering the notion that Respondent used profanity in the classroom more than an isolated incident. Paragraphs 51 and 52 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 53 and 54 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 55 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 56 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Respondent's Facts in the Prosecution by Superintendent Marsh Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraphs 2 through 15, see discussion of facts in the Castor prosecution, Paragraphs 3-7 through 50. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. Brooks, Esquire Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Karen Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Lane Burnett, Esquire 331 East Union Street, Suite 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Brian T. Hayes, Esquire 245 East Washington Street Monticello, FL 32344 Craig Marsh, Superintendent Nassau County School Board 1201 Atlantic Avenue Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 Robert Johnson, Chairman Nassau County School Board Post Office Box 436 Callahan, FL 32011
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Respondent should be suspended without pay for five days from employment with the School Board because of the matters alleged in the charging letter issued herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Polk County School Board, (Board), was the county agency responsible for the provision of public instruction from pre-kindergarten through secondary and adult education in Polk County, Florida, and operated Haines City High School in Haines City. Respondent had been employed at HCHS for eight years and in the last two years prior to the incidents in issue, taught in the school's Diversified Cooperative Training Program, (DCT) under a continuing contract of employment. In January, 1994, Respondent was administered a verbal reprimand as a result of reports that she has been consuming alcohol in the presence of her students at an out of town conference. A part of the basis for that reprimand was her reported comments to students to the effect that her predecessor as DCT instructor had advised her not to let Black students into the program because they caused trouble. These comments by Respondent were communicated to Black students who were upset by them. At some point during the 1993-1994 school year, Respondent reportedly overheard a student, Alisha Tanner, (now, Forsythe), in a discussion with another student regarding her breakup with her boyfriend. Respondent is alleged to have stated to Ms. Tanner that, "...if you have a vibrator, you won't need a boyfriend." Both Ms. Tanner and another female student who allegedly heard the statement, claim to have been shocked and embarrassed by hearing a teacher make such a statement, and a third student, Delana Muncy, indicated Ms. Tanner was crying as a result of the comment made to her. Evidence was also presented to indicate that about the same time, Respondent was overheard by several other students to have asked a male student, Jonathan Bradley, if he masturbated. Respondent does not deny using the term, "vibrator" to the female student. Her version of the conversation is somewhat different than those of the students, however. Respondent admits that she overheard the two girls discussing one's breakup with her boyfriend and that she joined the conversation. She, however, indicates that she did so to remind them of the dangers of reckless sexual behavior and suggested that the young lady find other ways, including the use of a vibrator, to satisfy her sexual needs. Respondent denies, however, the use of the word "masturbate" to Bradley. Only two of the students in or near the conversation recall Respondent making such a comment. Notwithstanding these comments were alleged to have been made during the early or middle part of the school year, no mention of them was made by any of the students to Respondent, her immediate supervisor, parents, school administration, or Board personnel until late in the school year, just shortly before graduation. At that time, a group of the students allegedly involved met for lunch at Pizza Hut off campus and in the course of their conversation, Respondent's alleged indiscretions surfaced. Prior to leaving campus, some of these students who now testify against Respondent passed a list of complaints against her around and, though denied, there is at least some indication the students were trying to get Respondent fired. Some of the students refused to sign the list. It was only several months after the inappropriate comments were allegedly made that the first official complaint was made. Other information presented at hearing indicates that during the school year several of the students involved in the reporting of this incident became dissatisfied with Respondent's conduct of her class. Respondent was alleged by students to have used such words in class as "shit", "hell", and "pissed off", and is reported to have commented, on a hot day, "I've got sweat running down between my breasts and the crack of my ass." No specific incident was presented to explain or elaborate on this. In addition, Respondent allowed a class discussion on marketing to inappropriately discuss the sale of condoms as a demonstrative example. In this case, she allowed any student who was offended by the discussion to leave the room, but this was not a satisfactory solution, as the students' excusal served only to focus unwelcome attention on the excused students. More specifically, Respondent was alleged to have become upset with student Bradley because, contra to the instructions she had given him about picking up the DCT jerseys from the printer, he disobeyed her instructions and picked them up without her permission. Respondent chastised Bradley for this. It is entirely possible the allegations against Respondent are the result of her disciplining of Mr. Bradley, thereby antagonizing him and his clique. Another allegation made against the Respondent by the Principal is her reported permission to several of her students to grade, average and record student grades, which allowed them access to her grade book. The HCHS teacher handbook, of which Respondent had previously been given a copy, specifically prohibits teachers from making grade books available to students and proscribes allowing students to record grades. Both the principal, Mr. Partain, and the Board's Director of Employee Relations indicated, without specific examples being provided, that Respondent's sexually inappropriate comments and her failure to abide by Board rules have impaired her effectiveness as a teacher in the school system. In general, her misconduct diminished her stature as a role model for her students, and her failure to obey Board rules compromised her ability to enforce discipline, but not to the degree that her effectiveness as a teacher was destroyed. Prior to the initiation of this action, the only disciplinary action taken against Respondent since she started working for the Board in 1988 was the verbal warning, (reduced to a letter), in January, 1994 regarding the drinking in front of students at conference and the untoward reference to Blacks. Other than that, her personnel record, commencing with the teacher evaluation done during the 1988-1989 school year, reflects positive comments and no criticism.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Mary L. Canova be reprimanded for improperly allowing students to grade the papers of other students, to average grades, and to have access to her grade book. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of November, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 6th day of November, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 94-4483 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. First two sentences accepted. Conclusions as to misconduct rejected. Accepted that a comment was made by Respondent to a student which included a reference to a vibrator. Exact wording as alleged not proven. Not proven. Accepted that condoms were discussed, but it is not established that the suggestion to use condoms as an example came from Respondent or that she agreed to the discussion other than reluctantly. In any event, this discussion was not listed as a basis for discipline. Not proven and not a listed basis for discipline. & 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. Accepted as a restatement of the witnesses' testimony. FOR THE RESPONDENT: - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein with the exception of the last sentence which is not proven. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. First two sentences accepted. Third sentence a non proven conclusion. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Lane, Tron, Clarke, Bertrand, Vreeland & Jacobsen, P.A. Post Office Box 1578 150 East Davidson Street Bartow, Florida 33831 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman and Sakellarides, P.A. 24650 U.S. 19 North Suite 308 Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 John A. Stewart Superintendent Polk County Schools Post Office Box 391 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830
The Issue Whether Respondent's Professional Service Contract should be terminated for just cause based on actions constituting misconduct in office within the meaning of Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2004),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009.
Findings Of Fact The Board is the entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Charlotte County Public School System. Art. IX, §4, Fla. Const. and §1001.30, Fla. Stat. Mr. LaGrange began his employment with the Board in 1991. In January 2005, Mr. LaGrange began teaching a new Health Careers and Occupations class at Port Charlotte High School. The class was a vocational educational course for low- functioning students and consisted of about 20 ninth-grade students. A.V., N.M., T.B., S.B., N.H., and B.H. were students in this class. Sometime in either March or April 2005, Mr. LaGrange made an inappropriate remark about A.V.'s appearance. The incident happened near the end of the class, while A.V. was drawing on the board with her back to the students. Mr. LaGrange stated: "Look at A.V.'s cute little ass" or words to that effect. This remark greatly embarrassed A.V. As A.V. was leaving Mr. LaGrange's classroom on the day of the incident, she yelled to Mr. LaGrange that it was a disgusting and perverted comment for him to make in front of the entire class. Other students, including N.M., N.H., T.B., and B.H., heard Mr. LaGrange make the sexually inappropriate remark about A.V. Although each student's recollection of the incident may vary concerning the exact words that Mr. LaGrange used, the students all agreed that Mr. LaGrange made an inappropriate remark about A.V.'s backside in front of the class. Mr. LaGrange also made some inappropriate remarks to N.M. He told her that "If I have a wet dream about you, I won't tell you" or words to that effect. Mr. LaGrange's comments made N.M. feel uncomfortable and caused her to view Mr. LaGrange as "weird." T.B. also heard Mr. LaGrange make comments in class concerning wet dreams. A.M., a female student, would sometimes come into Mr. LaGrange's classroom, kneel beside the desk of S.B., a male student, and watch S.B. draw. S.B. heard Mr. LaGrange comment to A.M. to the effect that she liked to be on her knees for guys a lot. S.B. also heard Mr. LaGrange tell N.M. that "for somebody who is a schoolgirl, you know a lot about sex." S.B. felt that the remarks were perverted. On April 28, 2005, Mr. LaGrange referred A.V. and N.M. to a school dean, Matthew Wheldon, for excessive gum chewing. Gum chewing is a minor infraction and is normally allowed in classrooms other than Mr. LaGrange's class. Mr. Wheldon asked the girls how things were going in Mr. LaGrange's class, and they confided in him about the inappropriate remarks that Mr. LaGrange had been making in the classroom. Mr. Wheldon referred the matter to the assistant principal, and an investigation ensued, resulting in Mr. LaGrange being suspended. After reviewing the investigation report and being made aware of two other times that Mr. LaGrange had been disciplined, the Superintendent of Schools for the School Board of Charlotte County recommended to the Board that Mr. LaGrange be dismissed from his teaching position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that the actions of Leonard LaGrange constitute just cause to dismiss him from his employment with the Charlotte County School Board, and terminating his Professional Services Contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of April, 2006.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Florida teaching certificate of Respondent, Edith E. Gonzalez, should be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined for the alleged violations set forth in an Administrative Complaint entered on September 21, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent has been a certified teacher in Florida holding Certificate No. 194394. Respondent is certified in the areas of administrative supervision, elementary education, varying exceptionalities, French, Spanish, gifted and special learning disabilities. Her certificate is valid through June 30, 1996. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Miami Carol City High School (the "School") in the Dade County School District. The students enrolled in the Dade County Public School System hail from a variety of ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Miami Carol City High School has a student population that is predominantly black. Respondent is 62 years old and will be 63 in December. She is an immigrant from Lima, Peru and Spanish is her native language. Respondent has been a teacher for the School Board for 24 years. She also taught for 5 years in Catholic schools. In addition, she has taught in Korea and Ecuador. The evidence indicates that from 1985 through 1992, the School Board received various complaints regarding Respondent and/or her conduct in the classroom. Except as set forth below, the specific nature of those complaints was not established in this proceeding. In 1987, Respondent was investigated by the Professional Practices Services of the Education Practices Commission for inappropriate discipline techniques. As a result of that investigation, Respondent entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which Respondent was placed on probation for one and a half years and issued a letter of reprimand. During the 1991/92 school year, the School Board was requested by the School to investigate allegations of inappropriate and derogatory comments purportedly made by Respondent. A formal fact finding investigation was conducted by the School Board. After the investigation was completed, a "conference for the record" was held between Respondent and School Board officials during which the investigative report was reviewed and Respondent's entire record with the School Board was discussed and considered. Respondent did not have an opportunity to review or provide input into the investigation until the conference for the record. During the conference, the School Board advised Respondent that the investigative unit concluded that the allegations of inappropriate and derogatory comments were true. Respondent was further advised that the Regional Supervisor for the School Board was going to initiate the steps necessary to suspend and dismiss her from employment. The evidence established that the School Board's decision to seek termination of Respondent's employment was based upon a review of her entire employment record with the School Board. The School Board investigation was completed on February 10, 1992, and the School Board moved to suspend Respondent and terminate her employment on or about April 1, 1992. While Respondent initially challenged the termination of her employment, on or about June 4, 1992, she decided to resign her position without a hearing. As a result, she never had an opportunity to confront the witnesses and/or challenge the investigation conducted by the School Board. The only direct evidence presented in this case regarding racial slurs and/or inappropriate and derogatory comments by Respondent was testimony from D. P., who was a student in Respondent's fourth period Spanish Class during the 1991/92 school year, and from Roxanne Mendez, who worked as a Media Specialist at the School. Their testimony was insufficient to establish that Respondent was racially prejudiced, or that she intentionally belittled, degraded, or made fun of students. The evidence established that Respondent's fourth period Spanish class was very difficult to control and included many students who misbehaved on a regular basis. Respondent admittedly had a difficult time in dealing with the class. On a couple of occasions, out of frustration, she told the students they were acting like "animals" or "savages" and told them they needed to be locked in a cage. While these comments may have been insensitive, they were not intended as racial slurs. The only student in the class who testified admitted that the comments were only made when the class was acting up and he was not personally offended by them. The evidence also established that, on some occasions when Respondent could not remember the name of a student, she would refer to them as "boy" or "girl". These comments were made to both black and white students and were not intended to be racially disparaging. While Petitioner contends that Respondent advised her students that she was prejudiced against blacks, the evidence established that any such comments were made sarcastically and/or in jest and were not taken seriously by the students. On one occasion when the students were particularly rambunctious, Respondent reprimanded them and told them they were acting "like a bunch of Haitians just off the boat." The exact circumstances surrounding this comment were not clearly established. Apparently, the aunt of one of the students was present when this remark was made and took great offense. As a result of this incident, Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher at the School was reduced. No evidence was presented of any other incidents which would justify discipline or revocation of Respondent's teaching certificate. Respondent clearly had a difficult time dealing with the serious discipline problems that existed at the School. Many of the students made virtually no effort to learn. On several occasions, students deliberately disrupted classes and Respondent's class in particular. Some of the students referred to Respondent as "Taco Bell." Based upon the evidence presented, it is concluded that Respondent was a dedicated teacher who was trying her best in a difficult situation. Respondent often emphasized to her class the need to be tolerant and overlook cultural differences with other individuals. R. W. was one of Respondent's students during the 1991/92 school year. Even though she was not in the fourth period class, her testimony was very persuasive and is given great weight. She testified that at no time during that year did she ever feel uncomfortable in any way by what the Respondent said or did in the classroom. She also testified that the Respondent never showed disrespect toward her or the class and that the Respondent never referred to students in any way which would indicate that she was prejudiced against black children. The only other student who testified, D. P., confirmed that Respondent did not make him feel ill at ease or uncomfortable or hurt or sad or offended in any way. According to him, the only critical comments made by Respondent were directed to students who were misbehaving. While on some occasions Respondent's comments may have been insensitive and ill- advised, the evidence was insufficient to establish that Respondent was racially prejudiced, and/or that she intentionally embarrassed students or deliberately made racial slurs or disparaging comments. The evidence presented regarding Respondent's personal life confirmed that she harbors no racial prejudices.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint, but dismissing the remaining Counts. As a result of her violation of Section 231.28(1)(f), Florida Statutes, Respondent should be reprimanded and placed on probation for one year. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of August 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1993.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Manatee County School Board (Petitioner) has just cause to terminate the employment of Teacher Karyn Cena (Respondent).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a first grade teacher employed by the Petitioner to work at Tillman Elementary School (Tillman) pursuant to a professional services contract. On May 11, 2010, the Tillman first grade students were gathered in an auditorium to rehearse for a musical program to be presented in celebration of Memorial Day. The students had been rehearsing for several days prior to May 11, 2010. As might be expected, some first grade students required occasional redirection. Such redirection was generally communicated by a teacher delivering a "stern look" to the non-complying student. If the correction was not successful, a non-complying student was directed to go to the back of the room and sit on a bench that essentially served as a "time out" area. At one point in the program, the students were standing, singing, and holding up their arms, pretending to waive American flags. The flags had not yet been distributed to the students. During this portion of the rehearsal on May 11, 2010, the Respondent apparently thought that one of the students ("S.M.") was playing and not pretending to wave the non-existent flag appropriately. The Respondent grabbed the student by the arm and quickly walked the student to the back of the room, where the Respondent placed the student forcefully on the time out bench. The student did not resist the Respondent in any manner. There was no credible evidence that the Respondent provided any redirection to the student prior to her physical interaction with the student. There was no evidence that the student was unable to comply with a verbal directive delivered by the Respondent or any other teacher. There was no evidence that the student was acting out or posed any threat whatsoever to himself or any other student, or to the Respondent or any other school employee. There was no evidence that any force or physical contact was necessary whatsoever to correct the student's behavior or to direct the student to the time out area. At the hearing, the Respondent was described by witnesses as appearing "angry" during the incident. Although the Respondent denied that she was angry with the child, the Respondent's interaction with the student was clearly inappropriate under the circumstances, and it is not unreasonable to attribute her behavior to anger. Observers of the incident testified that the student appeared to be embarrassed by the incident, sitting with his head bowed after being placed on the bench. Some teachers testified that they felt personal embarrassment for the student.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Manatee County School Board enter a final order, terminating the employment of Karyn Cena. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of March, 2011.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact During all times relevant hereto, Petitioner served as head of the Florida Department of Education, the state agency charged with the responsibility of investigating and prosecuting complaints of violations of section 1012.795, Florida Statutes (2012),1/ against teachers holding Florida educator certificates. Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate 730576, covering the areas of emotionally handicapped and mathematics, which is valid through June 30, 2016. During all times relevant hereto, Respondent was employed as a mathematics teacher at Winter Springs High School (WSHS) in the Seminole County School District (SCSD). Dr. Michael Blasewitz is currently the executive director of secondary education for Seminole County Public Schools and was principal at WSHS from 2004 through the 2011- 2012 school year. In 2006, Dr. Blasewitz hired Respondent as a teacher at WSHS. On or about January 25, 2010, Dr. Blasewitz issued a letter of reprimand to Respondent for making inappropriate, sexually suggestive comments to female students. The reprimand contains the following directives: You are to conduct yourself in a professional manner at all times; You are to avoid making remarks that can be interpreted as sexual in nature while in the presence of students; You are to redirect students who exhibit behavior that is unruly, inappropriate, or sexually suggestive; and You are to maintain an appropriate student/teacher relationship at all times when interacting with students. On or about March 5, 2012, Dr. Blasewitz issued a second letter of reprimand to Respondent for making an inappropriate, sexually suggestive comment to a student, and displaying a rubber penis on his desk, which Respondent had confiscated from a student. The reprimand contained the following directives: You are to conduct yourself in a professional manner at all times; You are to avoid making remarks that can be interpreted as sexual in nature while in the presence of students; You are to redirect students who exhibit behavior that is unruly, inappropriate, or sexually suggestive; and You are to maintain an appropriate student/teacher relationship at all times when interacting with students. Respondent was informed in both letters of reprimand that further misconduct could result in more discipline, including termination of his employment. Dr. Donna Reynolds has been the principal at WSHS since 2012. On or about October 11, 2012, a 16-year-old female student, A.T., reported that while in Respondent’s classroom, she was seated on Respondent's desk chair. A.T. alleged that Respondent asked her to remove herself from his chair and when she refused to do so, Respondent sat in the chair (with the student still seated) by physically wedging himself between the back of the chair and A.T.'s back. Respondent, by placing himself in such a position, allegedly caused the front of his torso to press against A.T.'s back. A.T. allegedly did not like being touched by Respondent and, as an expression of her displeasure, poked Respondent in his eye with a marker. An investigation was launched as to Respondent’s alleged misconduct involving A.T., and it was pursuant to this investigation that other alleged misconduct by Respondent was discovered.2/ On or about October 26, 2012, the SCSD reassigned Respondent to the maintenance department pending the outcome of the investigation stemming from the allegations made by A.T. On or about March 15, 2013, the SCSD notified Respondent that at the next regularly scheduled board meeting, the SCSD would be recommending that Respondent's employment be suspended without pay and subsequently terminated. On or about April 12, 2013, Respondent entered into a settlement agreement with the SCSD, wherein Respondent resigned from employment, effective immediately, and agreed not to seek reemployment with the SCSD in any capacity, “at this time or at any future time.” Respondent, in both the settlement agreement and his letter of resignation, did not admit to or otherwise acknowledge any wrongdoing as it relates to any matter pertaining to his employment with SCSD. Background Former WSHS student K.C., at the time of the disputed fact hearing, was 20 years old. K.C. entered the ninth grade at WSHS during the 2009-10 school year and graduated from WSHS at the end of the 2012-13 school year. During the 2011-12 school year, when K.C. was a junior at WSHS, one of her assigned classes was to work as Respondent’s aide. According to K.C, this resulted in her spending between one to two hours each school day in Respondent’s classroom. M.A. is currently a senior at WSHS. During the 2012-13 school year, M.A. was enrolled as a student in one of the algebra classes taught by Respondent. M.A.’s first language is Spanish and she only started speaking English a few years ago. M.H. graduated from WSHS in 2015. M.H. was never enrolled as a student in any of the classes taught by Respondent but met Respondent during the 2011-12 school year when a student that M.H. befriended on the bus informed M.H. that she was involved sexually with Respondent. M.H., even though she did not know Respondent at the time, approached Respondent and inquired about the nature of his relationship with the student in question. Upon questioning by M.H., Respondent denied that he was involved in a sexual relationship with the student in question. As a consequence of this encounter, Respondent and M.H. developed a friendship. Girls Sitting on Respondent’s Lap Throughout the course of the 2011-12 school year, K.C., while performing her duties in Respondent’s classroom as a teacher’s aide, often observed female students conversing with Respondent while sitting on Respondent’s lap. K.C.’s specific recollection is that throughout the school year there were numerous times when she observed many different girls sitting on Respondent’s lap. According to K.C, the girls would often sit on Respondent’s lap in positions where they would straddle Respondent while facing him, sit such that their butts would be on Respondent’s lap with their backs facing Respondent, or sit across Respondent’s knees. M.A. also witnessed Respondent engage in conduct similar to that described by K.C. During the 2012-13 school year, M.A. was enrolled as a student in one of the algebra classes taught by Respondent. The algebra class met during the first and second periods of the school day. M.A. credibly testified as follows: Q: Okay. Did you ever see any girls sit on Mr. Mulock’s lap? A: Yes. During class. Because I had him for a long time, first and second period. So girls from different grades, older, they would come in the classroom and just talk to him, and they would sit on his lap. Q: I mean how? Sideways? Backwards? A: Facing out. Q: Facing out? A: Uh-huh. Q: Backed up to him with their butt in his lap? A: Yeah. Q: What were they doing while they’re sitting [o]n Mr. Mulock’s lap? A: Talking, laughing, joking around. Tr., pp. 191, 192 M.H. credibly testified to an incident where, against her will, she ended up sitting on Respondent’s lap. According to M.H., one day while in Respondent’s classroom, she was walking past Respondent while he was sitting on a chair, when Respondent, for no reason, grabbed her forearm and tugged her towards him thereby causing her to fall in a seated position on Respondent’s lap. Inappropriate Text Messages K.C. credibly testified that on one occasion she received a sexually suggestive text message from Respondent. K.C. explained that once while working as Respondent’s student aide, she was in Respondent’s classroom when the school’s front office called looking for Respondent. At the time of the call, Respondent was absent from the classroom. K.C., in an attempt to provide cover for Respondent, informed the front office that Respondent was in the hallway talking to another teacher, even though in reality she did not of Respondent’s whereabouts. After speaking with the front office, K.C. texted Respondent and asked “if he was coming to class.” Respondent replied to K.C. saying, “I’m not coming. I have not seen you yet.” K.C. was bothered by Respondent’s sexually suggestive reply. M.H. testified that she also received a sexually inappropriate text message from Respondent. M.H. credibly testified that a few months after befriending Respondent, he randomly sent her a text message generally asking, “hey, what’s up?” M.H. responded by saying, “hey, not much. Just hanging around.” Respondent then texted that “he was sexually frustrated and in need of release.” M.H. was uncertain of Respondent’s motives, and because she felt uncomfortable with Respondent’s text, she elected not to respond to his sexually charged statement. Sexually Suggestive/Inappropriate Comments and Gestures K.C. testified that one of her fellow students died while K.C. was a student at WSHS. Following a memorial service for the departed student, K.C., Respondent, and a number of other female students went to a business establishment near the school for refreshments. While at the establishment, Respondent asked the girls if they were still virgins. According to K.C. “everyone [was] just like shocked and like hurried up and changed the topic.” In a separate incident, Respondent also asked K.C. if she and her then boyfriend were engaged in sexual activity. K.C. advised that Respondent’s inquiry about whether she and her former boyfriend were having sex “was kind of awkward [and] I just felt like he shouldn’t be asking that[,] it was like personal.” Eventually K.C. ceased all contact with Respondent because being in his presence made her feel very uncomfortable. Respondent also made inappropriate comments to M.A. On one occasion, Respondent told M.A., “you are very beautiful. Just wait a little bit longer till you’re 18, because I’m going to be at your door knocking.” M.A. said that she felt embarrassed by Respondent’s statement. M.A. also testified that while in class with Respondent, she observed Respondent jokingly arguing with a female student (C.C.) about a marker. M.A. credibly testified that during this incident, she saw Respondent grab C.C. around her waist and touch C.C. on her butt with his hand. Former WSHS student M.H. credibly testified that Respondent discussed his sex life with her, including sexual fantasies that he had about a female co-worker and his sex life with his wife. Respondent told M.H. that “he was a little frustrated with his wife because she want[ed] to conceive more children at the time, and he liked being more spontaneous about it, and she was scheduling sex on a calendar.” M.H. also credibly testified that Respondent made inappropriate comments about her breasts, stating that Respondent once said that she “looked perky today.” There was also an instance where Respondent pinched M.H. on the butt. M.H. also credibly testified that while Respondent was planning for a scalloping trip with her and several other students, she heard Respondent exclaim that “he couldn’t wait to see [K] (another student at WSHS) in her bikini.” On another occasion M.H. was present when Respondent, while standing next to another female student, squeezed the female student’s lips and said, “doesn’t she have perfect lips for a blow job.” On yet another occasion, M.H. heard Respondent proclaim that a student named C.W. “had big tits” and that another student, S.G., “had a great body.” Finally, M.H. heard Respondent offer the following proposition to student S.G.: Q: And tell us what exactly did you hear Mr. Mulock say. A: He had made a proposition to her that if she could get him off orally, blow job, then he would treat her to a weekend of whatever she wanted to do. Anything. And if she failed to get him off orally, then it was vice-versa, that she got – or he got to do whatever he wanted with her for an entire weekend. Tr., p. 183. M.A. also witnessed Respondent making sexually suggestive gestures and inappropriate comments. M.A. credibly testified as follows: Q: Okay. Did you ever observe Mr. – hear Mr. Mulock make any inappropriate comments and make inappropriate gestures? A: Yes. Q: Tell us about that. A: He would – when he was teaching, he would always talk and then always try and make it out of sex. He would make gestures with his tongue. He would poke his cheek (indicating) with his tongue and just make gestures like that (indicating). And trying to be funny or being nasty. Q: This is kind of embarrassing for you? A: A little bit, yeah. He would do like stuff like that (indicating), like open his mouth and – Q: And move his hand back and forth? A: Yeah. Q: And poke his tongue inside his cheek? A: Yeah (indicating). And he would then swallow stuff and like that. Q: Okay. When he would do those things, in your mind what is he doing? A: I didn’t understand why he would do th[at] stuff in front of the whole class. And the funny thing is that it was only – he was always around girls. So the girls would find that a little bit funny at that time, some girls. And then some guys would just shake their heads. It was very clear what he was trying to do, you know. Q: When you say it was very clear –- A: Yeah. Q: -- what’s clear in your mind? What is he doing? A: Because he’s being nasty, perverted. It’s not right. Tr., pp. 189 through 191. Respondent Assisted M.H. with Skipping Class M.H., by her own admission, was not a star student during her freshman year and she credibly testified that Respondent materially contributed to her less than stellar performance as a student. M.H. testified as follows: Q: Alright. Now at that point did you all, you and Mr. Mulock, then develop a friendship? A: Yes. Q: Did you spend a lot of time with him in class during the class day? A: Yes. Q: Tell us about when you would go to his classes – go to his room. How many times a week would you say you went to his room? A: Probably on a daily basis. Q: Daily basis. How long did you stay there? A. Sometimes the whole day, sometimes just one or two classes, depending on which class I was trying to skip that day. Q: Okay. Now if you’re spending time in his class, and he’s not one of your teachers, weren’t you supposed to be somewhere else? A: Of course. Q: Okay. And did he know that you were supposed to be somewhere else in class? A: Yes. Q: Okay. Did he ever make excuses for you with teachers, to get you back in the class? A: To get me back in – into his classroom, or Q: Into another class. A: Yes. Q: Okay. How would he do that? A: Either by email, or a phone call, or writing a pass. Q: To the teacher whose class you were supposed to be in? A: Yes. Q: Okay. So you just went there often and just kind of hung out? A: Yes. Q: And he was okay with that? A: Yes Tr., pp. 156 through 158. Afterschool Activities Petitioner alleges that Respondent, without the approval of students’ parents and the administration of WSHS, took students fishing on his boat and had students doing yardwork at his personal residence. Neither the boat trip nor the yardwork activity occurred during the school day. Respondent admits that administrative personnel for WSHS were unaware of these afterschool activities. However, as to the fishing trip and yardwork performed at Respondent’s home, the undisputed evidence establishes that the father of one of the students escorted his daughter on the fishing trip and the mother of one of the students that performed yardwork at Respondent’s home transported her daughter to Respondent’s home on the day in question. The evidence offered by Petitioner as to these allegations is insufficient to establish that Respondent engaged in clandestine activities that breeched established standards related to parental consent. Students Hanging Out in Respondent’s Classroom Paragraph 6(e) of the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent, after being warned by his immediate supervisor, continued to allow students to hang out and socialize in his classroom during his lunch breaks and planning periods. Dennis McComb arrived at WSHS in October 2011. Mr. McComb was Respondent’s immediate supervisor. Within a month of his arrival, Mr. McComb observed that students, contrary to policy, were in Respondent’s classroom during Respondent’s planning period. Mr. McComb informed Respondent that he needed to cease allowing students in his classroom during the planning period. As previously indicated, K.C. worked as Respondent’s student aide during the 2011-12 academic term. K.C. testified that she witnessed multiple girls hanging out in Respondent’s classroom “when we were switching classes . . . [o]r sometimes they would already be in there when I went to his class for the class I was supposed to be there for.” M.A. testified that “girls from different grades, older, they would come in the classroom and just talk to him, and they would sit on his lap.” M.H. testified that Respondent “would have classes going on, and then other students throughout the day would come in and visit him, or other students would skip in his class as well.” The testimony of these students is not specific as to when they made their observations in relation to Mr. McComb’s directive to Respondent regarding students being in Respondent’s classroom at improper times. Respondent’s Effectiveness as Educator Undermined Dr. Blasewitz, Dr. Reynolds, and Mr. McComb testified that based on Respondent’s conduct while employed at WSHS, they would not want Respondent employed as a teacher and believe the alleged misconduct engaged in by Respondent, if true, would undermine his effectiveness as an educator.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in counts one through six of the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order suspend Respondent's Florida Educator Certificate 730576 for a period of five years, to be followed by a one-year period of probation. The terms and conditions of Respondent's suspension and probation shall be established by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 2015.
