Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by Petitioner on a continuing contract as a physical education teacher at North Ward Elementary School in the Pinellas County school system. Respondent holds a professional teaching certificate number 495697, issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education. On April 6, 1988, Respondent was conducting a physical education class at North Ward Elementary School. The students were playing "T-ball" outdoors, and during the game, one student, Michelle Washington, became upset with Respondent when she told the teams to change sides in order to allow all students to have a turn at bat. The student ran up to Respondent and began screaming in her face. Respondent asked her several times to stop and to calm down, but the screaming continued for between thirty and forty-five seconds. When it became apparent that Washington would not calm down, and after trying to verbally quiet her, Respondent slapped Washington on the cheek. No marks or bruises resulted, and at the end of the class period Respondent and Washington hugged and apologized to each other. Respondent reported the incident immediately to her principal, and also called the student's mother to apologize. During December, 1987 and January, 1988, Respondent grabbed Amudin (Deenie) Tzekas by the jaw, and Jason Owens by the arm in order to discipline and quiet them. These actions caused no physical injury to either student, and were not reported by Respondent or the students at the time. Based upon the testimony of students involved in these incidents, as well as Respondent's own testimony, the testimony of her principal, Marcia Morgan, and a written summary prepared by Steven Crosby of a conference held within a week of the incident involving Michelle Washington, it is found that Respondent slapped Washington on the face on April 6, 1988, after having grabbed Tzekas by the jaw and Owens by the arm earlier in the school year. These actions were taken by Respondent as forms of discipline, and to maintain control in her classes. Based upon the testimony of Marcia Morgan and Steven Crosby, who were accepted as experts in education, Respondent's actions involving these three students impair her effectiveness as a teacher due to the loss of respect among students and parents which has resulted. She failed to exercise good profession judgment, and instead her actions caused embarrassment to her students. This conduct by a teacher impairs the teaching profession as a whole. According to school board policy, teachers should never touch students in a punitive manner. By proper notice to Respondent, Petitioner sought to impose a three day suspension without pay as a result of these incidents, and Respondent has timely sought review of this proposed action. In August, 1987, prior to these incidents, Respondent was counseled by Marcia Morgan, her principal, about getting angry with people. Morgan told Respondent that if she violated school board policy, she could not help her.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing a three day suspension without pay upon Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of October, 1988. DONALD D. CONN 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 25th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2291 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected as a finding of fact since this is a conclusion of law. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence in the record. 6-8. Rejected since these are conclusions of law. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 11-13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and s. 14-15. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 16-17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 18. Rejected as unnecessary. 19-20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2 and 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted and Rejected, in part, in Findings of Fact 3, 5. Rejected in Findings of Fact 4 and 5. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected in Findings of Fact 4 and 5. Rejected in Finding of Fact 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott Rose, Ph.D. Superintendent of Schools Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618 Charleen C. Ramus, Esquire Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer as that term is used in Section 23.167, Florida Statutes. By memo dated November 6, 1981, all principals in Pinellas County were advised by Seymour Brown, Director, Secondary Placement and Substitute Teachers, that Thomas A. Rateau, Petitioner, was eligible to substitute in their schools as a teacher in business education and mathematics for grades 7 through 12. That substitute teacher offer was conditioned upon Rateau passing the November 11, 1981, physical examination. Rateau passed this examination. The principal at Dunedin Senior High School needed a teacher in business education to complete the semester ending January 25, 1982. He reviewed the applications on file in the office of Dr. Seymour Brown, interviewed Petitioner, and selected Petitioner to fill the vacancy at his school. The principal notified Dr. Brown of his choice and Petitioner was offered a contract for a teaching position in the Pinellas County school system for the 1981-82 school year for a period of 32 duty days beginning November 30, 1981, and ending January 25, 1982, which Petitioner accepted (Exhibit 2). This offer and acceptance were conditioned upon acceptable certification by licensed medical practitioner on a medical information form provided by the Personnel Department (Exhibit 2). At his option Petitioner took the medical information form to his attending physician, Dr. Guiterrez, who, on November 24, 1981, conducted a complete physical examination. Dr. Guiterrez summarized Petitioner's condition as "physically healthy." Following this entry the box checked provided: "Has permanent physical limitations acceptable for this job. Re-examine before transfer to another position." Dr. Guiterrez also completed the School Board form (Exhibit 6) in which he wrote or checked the following: Diagnosis: Status Post-spinal Surgery Prognosis: Fair Medication Prescribed: Bufferin Dosage: Restrictions, If Any: No heavy lifting Eligible To Work: Yes Under My Care: Yes The physical examination conducted by Dr. Guiterrez was forwarded' to the School Board examining physician, Dr. Joseph A. Baird. Dr. Baird had Petitioner complete the medical information part of Exhibit 12. Therein Petitioner acknowledged that he had had back surgery, that he has a current medical problem with his back, that he has received worker's compensation, and that he has physical limitations. In describing his worker's compensation claim (Exhibit 12), Petitioner stated that while employed by the U.S. Postal Service an industrial accident caused by a failure of equipment exacerbated an unknown, pre-existing condition which was determined to be a tumor growing in his spinal column. Surgery subsequently removed that part of the tumor that had grown out of the bottom of his spine. He was terminated by the postal service because he could no longer perform the continually heavy lifting required by his postal service job. Dr. Baird questioned Petitioner about his back problems and learned that if the tumor again grows out of his spine Petitioner may need additional surgery. Dr. Baird observed the scar on Petitioner's back, had Petitioner bend at the waist and checked his knee-jerk reflexes. This examination took less than five minutes. Dr. Baird then contacted Patricia Diskey, Employment Coordinator for the School Board, and discussed with her Petitioner's condition and asked her to provide him with the physical requirements for a teacher of business education in a Pinellas County high school. Following this discussion, Dr. Baird submitted the form letter to the office of Dr. Brown stating simply that Petitioner did not meet the physical requirements necessary for employment in the Instructional Department of the Pinellas County School Board (Exhibit 11). At the hearing Patricia Diskey testified that the job requirements for a high school business education teacher included the ability to do frequent and heavy lifting of typewriters, computer components, and other office equipment used to teach business education; to be able to bend down to clearly see the data processing screen used by the students; to move numerous books from classroom to classroom; to transport equipment to the school's service center several blocks distant, take the equipment into the center for repairs and return with replacement equipment; and to stand for long periods of time. She also testified that business education teachers would be required to lift and move equipment around the classroom weighing up to 100 pounds. However, no evidence was presented that a demonstration of such physical ability was ever required of a business education teacher in the Pinellas County school system. Dr. Baird never includes a muscle-tone test in the examinations he conducts for teacher applicants. Petitioner was not requested to demonstrate his capability or inability to lift equipment used in the classroom. Physically, Petitioner is a well-developed white male. Exhibit 12 shows him 5 feet eleven and one-half inches in height and weight of 225 pounds. He is not obese and gives the appearance of one having greater than average strength normally found in men his age. Respondent presented evidence that it has employed disabled persons, and a list of those handicapped persons employed in Respondent's secondary schools was presented as Exhibit 9. It is noted that the majority of those handicapped employees listed have permanent type disabilities such as blind in one eye, deformed arm, legally blind, uses crutches, part of limb missing, speech impediment, hearing problems, limps, crippled leg, etc. Respondent also presented evidence that persons suffering back problems were hired by the School Board (Exhibit 10), one of whom was a paraplegic confined to a wheelchair, but produced no evidence that it had employed a teacher so handicapped.
The Issue The issue is whether respondent should be dismissed from his position as a physical education teacher aide for the reasons cited in petitioner's letter of March 12, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Wilson McKenzie, Jr., was employed as a physical education teacher aide at St. Petersburg Challenge (SPC) in St. Petersburg, Florida. The school is a part of the public school system operated by petitioner, School Board of Pinellas County (Board). Respondent's employment with the Board began on August 16, 1990, when he was assigned as a full time physical education teacher aide at Melrose Elementary School (MES). In early September McKenzie was reassigned to work at MES during the morning hours only and then during the afternoon hours at SPC, a drop-out prevention school for disadvantaged fourth and fifth graders. Pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between the Pinellas Educational Support Personnel Association and the Board, respondent served in a probationary status during his first six months of employment. Under the same agreement, he was continued in that status for an additional ninety days after his first evaluation. According to Article 9, Section 1 of the agreement, a probationary employee may be terminated "for any reason", and the Board's termination letter of March 12, 1991, relied upon that provision of the agreement as its authority for terminating McKenzie. Pending the outcome of this proceeding, McKenzie has remained in a suspended without pay status since March 28, 1991. The Board's Reasons for Termination Respondent's performance at MES during the morning hours was apparently satisfactory since petitioner, in its charging letter of March 12, 1991, chose not to rely upon any performance deficiencies at MES as a basis for termination. 1/ As the first ground for terminating respondent, petitioner alleged that respondent was deficient in the "area of relationships with students". To support this charge, petitioner presented the testimony of ten students, all fifth graders at SPC during school year 1990-91 and who came in contact with respondent. While some of the students gave conflicting versions of what transpired, and thus their complaints were questionable, it is found that, contrary to school policy and orders from his supervising teacher, respondent yelled at and argued with students during physical education class in an effort to enforce class discipline. In addition, he placed his hand on students' shoulders or backs and would pinch them despite their requests that he not do so, and twice called students insulting names (e.g., bitch) in the presence of other students. It was further established that on several occasions respondent went to the home of a student to discuss school problems instead of inviting the parent to come to the school. He also had difficulty in maintaining classroom discipline. Several of the students testified that respondent made them uncomfortable by "staring" at them during class or lunch period. Finally, respondent was observed by several students looking up the dress of a female student who sat on the floor with her legs spread apart. In fairness to respondent, however, it should be noted that in some instances the students were acting in an unruly fashion or were violating cafeteria rules by talking loudly and "trading" food, thus prompting respondent to yell at them. Even so, it is fair to say that respondent had numerous difficulties in his relationships with students and most of the students who testified disliked respondent and appeared to be afraid of him. In addition to the above ground, petitioner has cited respondent's failure to follow "directives from superiors" as a second reason for terminating his employment. This charge stems primarily from respondent's sponsorship of a dance program for students that he conducted after school hours. Respondent's group was known as the Very Important Kids Association and was made up of young, disadvantaged children from the south side of St. Petersburg. Respondent was told early on by various superiors, including the SPC principal, assistant principal and physical education teacher, that group activities should not be arranged during school hours, the group should not meet on school property and respondent should refrain from asking students to join his group during school hours. Despite having at least three formal conferences with SPC administrators concerning this matter, and receiving written memoranda with specific instructions, respondent continued to violate these instructions by asking students during school hours to join his group. By doing so, respondent failed to follow "directives from superiors" as alleged in the charging document. Respondent's Case Respondent, who is 27 years old, maintained at hearing that he was "set up" on these charges by unnamed individuals and that he gave his best effort at doing a good job. McKenzie pointed out that he had no problems at MES and that all problems were encountered at SPC. He stated he is sincerely interested in helping underprivileged children and offered a number of letters from third parties to corroborate this contention. Through cross-examination, respondent established that several complaints offered by the testifying students were caused by their own misbehavior and respondent's subsequent efforts to discipline them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of the allegations in the charging document and that he be terminated from his position as a teacher aide. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 1991.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Education Practices Commission should discipline the Respondent for statutory and rule violations alleged in the Petitioner’s Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Peter Zanfagna, holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 1022509 covering the area of physical education, which is valid through June 30, 2017. In August 2013, the Respondent was hired as the physical education teacher for Westbrooke Elementary School in the Orange County School District. The Respondent’s classes combined two regular classrooms and consisted of approximately 42 to 70 children, depending on absences. Without a paraprofessional to assist him for the first two to three weeks of the school year, the Respondent made do with the assistance of a parent of a student and managed his classes well. He was widely considered to be a big improvement over his predecessor in the job. He had good lesson plans, followed his lesson plans and managed to maintain order. He received a good evaluation when his assistant principal, Carl Sousa, assessed him. Once, the school’s administration asked him to avoid using the playground when other classes were using it for recess, as he was doing on what he called “Fun Friday.” The Respondent immediately complied with the request. On Friday, October 11, the Respondent was attempting to supervise a large group of kindergarteners as they moved from the playground to a pavilion where lumber, some with nails sticking out, was stacked in preparation for its use in setting up for the school’s annual fall carnival scheduled for that weekend. Just before the maneuver began, the Respondent explained to the children his safety concerns about them having to walk past the lumber to get where they were going and told them he wanted them to walk in single file behind him. As he began walking along a sidewalk outside some classrooms, several students ran up beside him. Concerned for the students’ safety and upset that they ignored his instructions, the Respondent reprimanded them by yelling or screaming at them in a very loud voice. Two teachers were startled by the loud yelling or screaming. They looked out the window and saw it was the Respondent. One said the yelling or screaming was extreme and in a sharp, harsh tone. The other said the Respondent was pointing a finger six-to-eight inches from the face of one child. She heard him yelling or screaming at the child, “I told you to stay behind me, not in front of me, not next to me, but behind me.” Both thought the Respondent’s behavior was over-the-top, especially for children so young. Neither knew the reason for the Respondent’s behavior. One of the teachers who witnessed the incident said she heard children sobbing and screaming. The other said one child was crying and another was starting to cry. They believed the children were crying because of the Respondent’s loudness. The Respondent conceded that he yelled or screamed at the children to “stop” and “hold up.” He testified that his main concern during this incident, as always, was the safety of the children. He suggested the children’s crying may have been in reaction to his message to them that they could be seriously hurt if they ran into the lumber and nails. The Respondent also pointed out that he was saddled unfairly with the difficult task of supervising and monitoring a very large number of small children without adequate help. Even so, there was no evidence of any other similar incident. It was not proven by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent inappropriately disciplined students by requiring them to sit on concrete for entire class periods. When students were misbehaving so as to endanger other students or were not following the Respondent’s instructions, the Respondent would place the students in “timeout” by having them sit apart from the rest of the class for periods of time. Sometimes this occurred when the class was in the pavilion, which is where his classes gathered for attendance and for dismissal. The pavilion had a concrete floor and no walls but had a roof and was not an inappropriate place for students to be in time-out. Early in the school year, the Respondent sometimes left children in time-out for inappropriately long periods of time. When this was reported to administration, the Respondent was given a directive to limit time-out to ten minutes. The Respondent testified that he complied with that directive throughout the rest of the school year until he resigned, effective April 25, 2014. With one exception, there was no evidence that the Respondent failed to comply with this directive. On April 16, 2014, a school psychologist attempted to observe one of the Respondent’s kindergarten or first-grade students to help a school “staffing” determine if the child was autistic and eligible for special education. Near the beginning of the class, while the class was in the pavilion, the Respondent placed the child in time-out for not listening to instructions. The Respondent proceeded with his class, and the child remained in time-out for approximately 20 or more minutes. On that day, the Respondent had no assistant and was attempting to teach a class of 40 or more students by himself. The psychologist conceded that he might have lost track of time and left her “target” in time-out longer than intended. The Respondent did not recall the incident. It was not proven by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent inappropriately disciplined students by requiring them to do laps for entire class periods. First, the evidence was clear that the Respondent did not force his students to run laps. They always had the option of running or walking. Second, after attendance was taken in the pavilion, all classes began with stretching and warm-ups. Third, running or walking laps was sometimes a class activity, not discipline. Fourth, when laps were being run or walked, the duration of the activity or discipline could be determined by how well the students were performing; if they were not performing well, extra laps could be added to the activity or discipline. The charge that the Respondent made A.O., a twelve-year old fifth-grader, continue running after she complained of pain in her recently injured ankle arose from an incident on January 15, 2014. As to how recently A.O.’s ankle had been injured, her ankle was in a boot for about a month after the injury, and she had been out of the boot for about a week at the time in question. The evidentiary basis for the rest of the charge consisted of the written statements A.O. and the testimony of her and her mother. A.O. wrote an ambiguous statement the day after the incident. It started saying that the Respondent made the class run for the whole class period but then said he would let some people sit down and make others keep running. She stated her ankle started hurting after 20 minutes, so she asked if she could stop running, but he said to keep running. She did not state that she told the Respondent her ankle hurt. A.O. wrote another ambiguous statement for the Petitioner’s investigator in September 2014. In it, she said the Respondent did not make the class run the whole class period every day. She said, “[t]hat day we were walking and we were not running so he made us run the whole time.” Although “that day” was not specified, it reasonably can be inferred that the investigator was asking about January 15, 2014. In this statement, A.O. did not mention her own ankle hurting but stated another student claimed to have fallen and hurt his ankle, may or may not have told the Respondent about it, and seemed fine after the class. She also stated that when a student actually got hurt in class, the Respondent would send them to the clinic to get ice for the injury. At the hearing, counsel for the Petitioner had A.O. adopt her January statement and led her to testify that she told the Respondent that her ankle hurt, and asked him if she could stop running and sit down, and that he told her “no.” She then said she “kept walking.” Counsel then asked if the Respondent said, “no, keep running,” and she said, “yes.” She then said “no” to the suggestions that she was about to cry and was uncomfortable. She said she told her mother that evening that her ankle was hurting. On cross, she clarified that she “might have not been running as much as the other kids. I only said since it was hurting could I sit down. And you said, no, keep walking.” She then said she could not remember exactly what the Respondent said to her but only knew she asked to stop and sit down, and the Respondent said no, she had to keep going. On redirect, she agreed with counsel for the Petitioner that her memory of events would have been better at the time of her January statement than her September statement. A.O.’s mother testified that A.O. told her on the evening of January 15, 2014, that her ankle was hurting while running, that she asked the Respondent to stop, and that he said, no. She did not give any testimony on whether her daughter told the Respondent that her ankle was hurting. The Respondent denied that A.O. told him her ankle was hurting and that he refused to let her stop. He stood by his testimony that students always were given the option to walk and that he asked A.O. if she could walk slowly, she said she could, and she did. For that reason, he was not aware of any cause for concern. He testified persuasively, with strong corroboration from Robert Flynn, who was the Respondent’s teaching assistant for the last part of the Respondent’s tenure at Westbrooke and is the current physical education teacher there, and others, that the health and safety of the children was the Respondent’s number one priority, and that he would not have made any student run or walk if he thought there was a risk of injury. Taken together, the evidence was not clear and convincing that the Respondent made A.O. keep running after being told her ankle was hurting. The charge that the Respondent refused to allow A.L., a ten-year-old fourth-grader, to go to the clinic for an asthma treatment arose from an incident on April 18, 2014. The evidentiary basis for this charge consisted of two written statements by A.L. and the testimony of A.L. and her mother. A.L.’s first written statement was on April 21, 2014. It said she was in the Respondent’s class running at 12:15 p.m. when she had an asthma attack and went up to the Respondent to ask him if she could go to the nurse, “but before I can say anything he said no I can’t go to the nurse because I sometimes ask him if I can go to the nurse for my inhaler. Then I had to walk slow.” A.L. gave a second statement, this time to the Petitioner’s investigator, which was essentially consistent with the first one. Neither statement made it clear that A.L. told the Respondent she was having an asthma attack or that she needed her inhaler. At the hearing, she testified that she was running in class, felt an asthma attack, and asked the Respondent if she could go to the nurse to take her inhaler, and that he said, no, keep running. She then was led by counsel for the Petitioner to testify that she also told the Respondent she “couldn’t run and needed [her] inhaler.” Counsel for the Petitioner also led her to testify that she told her mother after school that she had gone to the Respondent and told “her [sic?]” that “[she] needed to see the nurse.” A.L.’s mother testified that her daughter had tears in her eyes when picked up after school. The mother could tell her daughter was having an asthma attack but no one else in the pickup area noticed. The mother took her daughter to the hospital, where it was determined that after a full medical workup that A.L. had walking pneumonia. A.L. spent a few days in the hospital and returned to school with a new medication for the pneumonia to take in addition to her inhaler. The Respondent denied that A.L. asked him to go to the clinic. He testified persuasively, with strong corroboration from Robert Flynn and others, that the health and safety of the children was the Respondent’s number one priority, and that he would not have refused to allow A.L. or any student go the clinic upon request for a medical reason. It appears from the greater weight of the evidence, including A.L.’s shy demeanor, and the number of children in the Respondent’s class, that A.L.’s medical request was not made known to the Respondent at the time. Taken together, the evidence was not clear and convincing that the Respondent refused to allow A.L. to go to the clinic for an asthma treatment. After A.L.’s parents reported to Westbrooke’s administration why A.L. was out of school, the school’s administration blamed the Respondent for refusing to allow A.L. to go to the clinic for an asthma treatment. This was the culmination of deteriorating relations between the Respondent and the school administration that began when the Respondent got his first paraprofessional assistant, Laura Fogarty. Ms. Fogarty was a private school physical education teacher, coach and athletic director in Chicago, who had moved to Orlando and took the paraprofessional job while she was awaiting her Florida certification. The Respondent felt she was undermining and disrespecting him and angling to replace him and felt that the school’s administration was siding with her when disagreements between them were presented to the school’s administration. The Respondent became increasingly antagonistic to Ms. Fogarty and the school’s administration. When the A.L. incident occurred, the school’s administration decided to ask the Respondent to resign or be fired. The Respondent chose to resign. After resigning, the Respondent was employed by a charter school in Manatee County as a physical education teacher, coach, and athletic director. He testified that he has been there for a year and a half with “zero problems.” On cross, it was brought out that the Respondent actually had been on administrative leave for about the last two weeks, apparently since counsel for the Petitioner questioned the charter school’s principal in preparation for the hearing and made the principal aware of the Petitioner’s investigation and disciplinary case against the Respondent’s state educator certificate. Cross-examination of the Respondent by counsel for the Petitioner also attempted to have the Respondent contradict his testimony regarding his positive teaching experiences at other Florida schools before he was hired by Westbrooke. Those attempts at impeachment were unsuccessful, and the Petitioner presented no evidence to contradict the Respondent’s testimony, which is accepted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order denying the Petitioner’s request for a five- year suspension and dismissing the charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 3rd day of May, 2016.
The Issue The issues here are as presented through an administrative complaint brought by the Petitioner against Respondent. In particular, it is alleged that Respondent falsified applications related to her certification as a teacher in the State of Florida and her employment as a teacher in the Duval County, Florida School System. In particular it is alleged that Respondent falsely answered questions pertaining to her arrest or conviction for a misdemeanor offense in Jacksonville, Florida. For these acts, Respondent is alleged to have violated Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, in that she has obtained her teaching certificate by fraudulent means and been guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the school system. Moreover, it is alleged that further fraud was committed related to Rule 6B- 1.06(5)(a)(g) and (h) Florida Administrative Code, pertaining to fraudulent statements or disclosures.
Findings Of Fact On April 28, 1981, Shirley Lambert made application to be certified as a teacher in the fields of health education and physical education. This certification request was made with a State of Florida, Department of Education Teacher Certification section. A copy of the application may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. As part of the application, question V asks, "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" Lambert responded in the negative. Lambert also signed the application form below that portion of the application related to notarization which states "I understand that Florida Statutes provide revocation of a teacher's certificate if evidence and proof is established that the certificate is obtained by fraudulent means. (Section 231.28 FS). I certify that all information pertaining to this application is true and correct." As a result of this application, Respondent was issued a teacher's certificate from the State of Florida, Department of Education in the field of physical education. The date of the issuance was June 25, 1982, for a period ending June 30, 1983. A copy of this certificate is found as petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. In fact, as was known to the Respondent at the time of making the application for certificate, she had been arrested and charged with petit theft for an offense that occurred on April 11, 1978, the taking of clothing less than $100 in value. The basis of the charge was Section 812.014(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Respondent pled guilty to this offense and was given a ten day jail sentence which was suspended and probation imposed for a period of six months. The particulars of this disposition may be found in Petitioner's composite Exhibit No. 3, which contained records of court related to the offense. On August 10, 1982, Respondent made application for employment with the Duval County School Board, Jacksonville, Florida. A copy of that application may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. This application had a similar question related to prior criminal offenses. The application stated, "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" Again, the question was answered in the negative although Respondent was aware of the aforementioned criminal violation at the time she answered this questionnaire. The application was signed by Respondent and at the place of signature, Lambert was exposed to the language at the signature line which states "I certify that all information on this application is true and accurate and recognize that it is subject to verification and that my employment and/or continuance thereof is contingent upon its accuracy." Not being mindful of her prior criminal involvement the Duval County School System hired Respondent as a substitute teacher on September 13, 1982. Her criminal record was later disclosed to the administrators within that system and her employment was terminated effective October 12, 1982. Had the administration known of the prior criminal involvement, they would not have hired Lambert in view of the fact that they could be more selective and not choose a person with a prior criminal involvement, given the high number of applicants for jobs within their system. Dalton Epting, Director of Certified personnel of Duval County Public Schools, felt that a prior conviction of a misdemeanor offense of petit larceny would be in violation of standards required of teachers in Duval County. Likewise, the offense of petit larceny would be sufficient grounds to deny certification when requested of the State of Florida, Department of Education. Respondent testified that in the course of the final hearing and indicated in discussing both applications which are at issue that she read those applications too fast and made a mistake in answering the questions related to her prior criminal involvement. She felt in effect that she had not read the applications carefully. Moreover, in giving her explanation at final hearing, even though she recognized her prior criminal involvement in the way of arrest and the plea of guilty to petit theft, she stated that she did not feel the questions in the applications related to misdemeanors. She was of the opinion that the questions pertained to more serious crimes. Given the plain language of the questions in the application for certification with the State of Florida and the application for a position with the Duval County School Board and the precautionary statements related to accuracy and possible penalties for inaccuracy, Respondent's explanations are not plausible. Respondent's comments do not constitute a reasonable excuse for having falsified her applications for certification and employment.
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination at the formal hearing was whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be revoked for violating Subsection 231.28(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B- 1.06(3)(a) and (e), as more fully described in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed as a substitute teacher pursuant to certificate number 479861 from the State of Florida Department of Education. Respondent's teaching certificate expires on June 30, 1991. Respondent had approximately 10 years experience as a substitute teacher in Dade and Broward counties. He never received an evaluation less than satisfactory and never received a written reprimand during his 10 years of employment as a substitute teacher. Respondent never achieved annual or continuing contract status with any school board in Florida. Respondent was a permanent substitute teacher in physical education during the 1988-1989 school year. His teaching responsibilities were divided between Natural Bridge Elementary and Biscayne Gardens Elementary. Respondent also worked as an actor and had appeared in at least one episode of the television program "Miami Vice". One of Respondent's students at Biscayne Elementary was Omar de Jesus. Omar was in the sixth grade at the time. Racquel de Jesus, Omar's younger sister, was in the fifth grade at Biscayne Elementary but was not one of Respondent's students. Judy Aulet is the mother of Omar and Racquel. Mrs. Aulet and her children lived approximately two blocks from Biscayne Elementary. They moved to Florida after the school year began. Omar and Racquel began attending Biscayne Elementary sometime in October, 1989. Neither Omar, Racquel, nor Mrs. Aulet knew that Respondent was an actor. Respondent approached Omar approximately two to three weeks after Omar began attending school in October, 1989. Respondent told Omar that Respondent had noticed Omar's mother the first day Omar started school and that Omar's mother was very pretty. Respondent asked about Omar's mother during class on several subsequent occasions, asked Omar for his mother's telephone number and address so Respondent could talk to her, and generally engaged Omar in extended conversations about Omar's mother. On one occasion, Respondent told Omar that Respondent had obtained the address and telephone number of Omar's mother through the school records and was coming over for dinner that evening. Omar was alarmed at Respondent's apparent preoccupation with his mother and was embarrassed by Respondent's repeated comments and inquiries. Omar disclosed the problem to his mother. When Respondent told Omar that he was coming over for dinner, Omar disclosed the situation to his mother. At that time, Omar discovered that Respondent had also been talking to Omar's sister, had given a picture of himself to Racquel, and had asked her to take the picture to her mother. Racquel was first approached by Respondent during physical education class one day. Racquel accompanied two of her friends over to where Respondent was teaching another physical education class. After the two friends left, Respondent told Racquel that her mother was very pretty. The next Monday during Racquel's lunch break, Respondent asked Racquel if her mother was going out with anyone or if she had a husband. Approximately two to three days later after school, Respondent gave Racquel a picture of himself and told Racquel to give it to her mother. Racquel did not want Respondent to go out with her mother and was concerned over the situation. Racquel was afraid that Respondent would get mad if Racquel told Respondent that her mother did not want to go out with him. Racquel was also afraid to tell her brother for fear her brother would get mad at Respondent. After Racquel disclosed the situation to her mother, Racquel was concerned enough to telephone her father in New York for advice. /1 One day during his physical education class, Omar accused Respondent of cheating in-favor of the girls' team when Respondent was refereeing a game between the boys and girls. Omar and Respondent began arguing. Omar told Respondent that he was going to get Respondent fired for confronting Omar and his sister about their mother and that a detective was coming to school to investigate the matter. Respondent grabbed Omar by the arm, shook him, called Omar a "motherfucker", and threatened Omar. Respondent told Omar that if he was fired over this he would "come after" Omar. Omar had a disciplinary history involving failure to listen, inattentiveness, and "mouthing off" at teachers. Omar was sent to the principal's office many times by other teachers. Omar accused Respondent of cheating in favor of the girls team whenever Respondent refereed games between the girls and boys. Omar called Respondent a "cheat" to Respondent's face on more that one occasion. Respondent never sent Omar to the principal's office for discipline. Respondent awarded Omar a grade of B in physical education and a C in conduct. The altercation between Omar and Respondent occurred approximately two to three weeks after Omar and Racquel had disclosed the situation to their mother. At the time of that disclosure, Mrs. Aulet had put Respondent's picture in a drawer and told her children she would report the matter to the school. She told her children not to confront Respondent with the issue. Mrs. Aulet did not know Respondent and had never communicated with him or met him. Mrs. Aulet reported the incident to Dr. Jolivette, the school's principal, after the altercation between Omar and Respondent. Dr. Jolivette questioned Respondent and verbally reprimanded Respondent. Dr. Jolivette requested an investigation, and the matter was investigated by a detective. Respondent was suspended from his employment and remained suspended at the time of the formal hearing. Respondent's actions subjected Omar and Racquel to unnecessary embarrassment. The conditions both children were subjected to were harmful to learning. Respondent demonstrated extremely poor judgment in his course of conduct. He used Omar and Racquel in an attempt to attain personal gain outside the scope of his employment. Respondent's actions and course of misconduct were serious in their nature.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 231.28(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B- 1.06(3)(a) and (e). It is further recommended that Respondent's teaching certificate be revoked for a period of three years from the date of the final order in this proceeding. DONE and ENTERED this 4th of September 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of September 1990.
The Issue Should the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission (EPC), impose discipline against Respondent, who holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 292611, for the alleged violations set forth in EPC Case No. 001-0121-A?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts: Respondent holds a Florida Educators Certificate (FEC), number 292611, in the areas of General Science, Physical Education, and Middle Grades. Respondent's FEC is valid through June 30, 2005. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as Physical Education Teacher at Sante Fe High School (Sante Fe) in the Alachua County School District. Additional Facts: During his career Respondent has been employed by the Alachua County School Board as part of the instructional staff. His career spans 33 years. Respondent taught physical education at Sante Fe from 1974 through 2001. In the last two years he has taught at Bucholz High School in drivers education. The physical education curriculum at Sante Fe, to include the spring of 2000, emphasized physical activity for the students three days a week. Two days a week were devoted to classroom instruction. The physical fitness instruction emphasized cardio vascular conditioning and building endurance in the participants' muscles. The physical activity took place both inside the gymnasium and outside on the school grounds. The physical activity involved stretching before engaging in the prescribed activity. A typical physical fitness class taught by Respondent would have had 35 to 48 students. In the spring of 2000 two of the students taught physical education by the Respondent were E.C. and L.B., who were ninth graders. On the whole, the proof is not clear and convincing that Respondent inappropriately stared at the students E.C. and L.B. when they were doing their exercises in the physical education class in the spring of 2000, as they claim. During the spring of 2000 E.C. and L.B. went to Respondent's office to exchange a basketball which was flat for one that was not. After the students asked for a new basketball Respondent replied "well that's not the only thing that's flat" while looking in the direction of the students. The students took this remark to be intended as sexual innuendo concerning the chest of the student E.C. but their impression was gained outside the context of another remark made at that time directed to those students referring to them as a "bunch'a airheads." When the set of remarks are considered together they do not constitute remarks that are perceived as sexual harassment or sexual innuendo as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. To refer to students as "airheads" is not appropriate, however that remark is not the subject of the Administrative Complaint. The comments made by Respondent directed to E.C. and L.B. were overheard by a male student, F.T.B. M.H., whom one can infer was a student at Sante Fe, showed Respondent her midriff where she had been sunburned. Respondent commented "M., you need to put sunscreen on. You're going to get burnt up." No other facts were established concerning Respondent and the student M.H. Contrary to the material allegations in the Administrative Complaint, no proof was presented concerning the allegation that Respondent told female students in his class that the shorter their shorts were, the higher their grades would be.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint in all its counts. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 23rd day of April, 2003.
