The Issue The issues presented by this case concern the question of whether the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, has exhausted all treatment for the Petitioner, Edward G. LeGer, through available sex offender programs administered by the Respondent. See Section 917.20, Florida Statutes (1977).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner submitted a "Petition for Administrative Determination" to the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The Petition was received by the Division of Administrative Hearings on November 9, 1981, as transmitted by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The Department had requested the Division to conduct a formal hearing in keeping with Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The hearing was conducted on December 16, 1981. In the course of the final hearing the Petitioner testified and offered as witnesses, Larry Carroll and James Thaddeus Rogers, participants in the sex offender program at Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee, Florida. The Petitioner submitted two exhibits, composite in nature, which were admitted. Respondent called as witnesses, Robert Alcorn, Clinical Director for the Mentally Disordered Sex Offender Program at Florida State Hospital; Michael Pomeroy, Clinical Psychologist at Florida State Hospital and Connie Smith, Clinical Social Worker at Florida State Hospital. Respondent presented no exhibits. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner has been in the custody of the Respondent, in keeping with the orders of Court and the authority of Chapter 917, Florida Statutes (1977). During that time, the Petitioner has resided at the Florida State Hospital, Chattahoochee, Florida, where he has undergone treatment in the hospital program for the benefit of mentally disordered sex offenders. Although the Petitioner has been subjected to a full range of treatment opportunities, his progress in the recognition of and ability to deal with the underlying conditions which caused him to be placed in this program have reached their zenith. In the face of these circumstances, the Respondent has made a preliminary determination that it has exhausted treatment for the Petitioner, through the program in which he is enrolled. Additionally, it has been concluded that similar programs within the State of Florida do not offer other opportunities for progress. These opinions were made known to the Petitioner and when confronted with this information, the Petitioner requested the formal hearing which is the subject of this Recommended Order. LeGer was committed to the custody of the Respondent on February 27, 1979, the Court having found him to be a mentally disordered sex offender within the meaning of Chapter 917, Florida Statutes (1977). He was received into the program at the Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee, Florida, on April 23, 1979, and has undergone treatment beginning on that date. The objectives of the treatment program were to deal with LeGer's long standing sexual deviation, which specific condition is pedophilia and his associated difficulty with chronic alcoholism, until he no longer evidenced himself to be a menace to society in terms of sexual "acting out" or until it was concluded that he could no longer be treated for these difficulties. (The patient also had undergone treatment as a sex offender in the 1960's.) The program at Florida State Hospital has as its central focus the utilization of group therapy with adjunctive programs in recreational and occupational therapy, and this treatment regime relies heavily on a patient's self-motivation. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1 is constituted of a series of progress reports or clinical summaries of Petitioner's condition during the course of his treatment. As can be seen, the patient has made significant progress in dealing with his condition of alcoholism and his general conduct and demeanor has been exemplary; however, he has gained little insight into his sexual condition of pedophilia. This is borne out by the patient's beliefs that the staff session of September 16, 1981, in which he expressed his firm belief that he had reached maximum benefits from the treatment program and felt that he was no longer a risk to commit the sexual offenses, in that he was aware of the consequences of his deviant behavior for himself and others. This belief is erroneous, in that the staff report and the testimony given by staff members in the course of the hearing lead to the conclusion that the patient has not gained sufficient insight and understanding as to his deviant sexual behavior, sufficient to deter him from committing future sexual offenses. Michael Pomeroy, the patient's primary therapist from May, 1980, through mid-January, 1981, by his testimony, established the fact that the Petitioner had never been open enough with Pomeroy for Pomeroy to gain an understanding about what the patient's underlying problems were. It was through the witness Pomeroy's review of the history of the case that Pomeroy learned of the patient's problems with alcoholism and pedophilia related to young females. Pomeroy correctly describes the patient's participation in the program to be superficial, with the exception of the alcoholic rehabilitation aspects of the treatment and care. In dealing with Pomeroy, the patient was evasive and his behavior evidenced a manipulative demeanor (con or criminal attitude). In dealing with the question of his sexual problem, the patient simply would tell Pomeroy that he, the patient, wanted treatment. Pomeroy found the patient to be of the persuasion that the patient did not feel that he had a problem other than alcoholism, which had been overcome, and having overcome the alcoholism, all other problems were taken care of. Pomeroy found LeGer to have no understanding of what caused him to do his sexual acting out or what to do about that acting out in the future. These attitudes by the patient continued through the time of the final hearing, according to Pomeroy. In view of the lack of insight and no clear changes in attitude during the course of treatment and the resulting belief by the Petitioner that he does not have a problem of sexual deviance, Pomeroy's testimony establishes the fact that the Respondent is unable to treat the patient's pedophilia and the fact that his condition of pedophilia still presents a danger to society. Connie Smith, the patient's therapist from January, 1981, to the present, identified the most recent analysis by the staff of the problems presented by the patient's clinical profile. Those problems are: (1) gaining insight and understanding into deviant sexual behavior; (2) defensiveness and evasiveness with regard to relating feedback about himself and events directly related to his sexual problems; (3) exploring his needs to be over attentive to the needs and problems of others; and (4) exploring his dependence on alcohol. In these areas, Smith has found that the patient has not progressed in dealing with his sexual deviation and tends to over exaggerate his progress in that area. LeGer tells the therapist that he will do what she wishes him to do to participate in the program; however, he does not believe that he needs the therapy. (This comports with the testimony which LeGer gave in the course of the hearing. Notwithstanding this belief, he stated that he wanted to stay six months more in the program and that he would have done better had the therapy been more intense. The witnesses Carroll and Rogers agreed with this latter remark by the Petitioner and also expressed a belief that the patient had successfully completed the program, opinions not supported by the other evidence and not accepted by this Hearing Officer.) According to Smith, when LeGer has occasionally discussed the event which placed him in the program on this occasion, i.e., sexual battery on a minor female, he has discussed it in a superficial way and tended to place some blame on the victim. Finally, Smith agrees with Pomeroy's perception that the patient does not have sufficient insight into his problem and continues to meet the definition of a sex offender within the meaning of Chapter 917, Florida Statutes, and will not make progress by additional stay in the program. These perceptions are well founded. The Clinical Director of the Florida State Hospital Sex Offender Program, Robert H. Alcorn, presented the Petitioner's situation through a staffing conference of program officials in the other sex offender programs offered by the Respondent. This occurred on November 2, 1981, and it was the feeling of the other program officials that they would not be able to assist the Petitioner further, and in that sense, as in the situation at Florida State Hospital, had exhausted treatment for the Petitioner's underlying sexual deviance. The Respondent has exhausted all appropriate treatment for the patient's sexual problem, but that treatment has not been totally successful and the patient continues to be a sexual menace and there is a likelihood that the patient would commit other sexual crimes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services finding that it has exhausted all appropriate treatment for Edward G. LeGer in its sex offender programs and that said Edward G. LeGer be returned to the committing court for further disposition. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of January, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 13th day of January, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward G. LeGer Florida State Hospital Chattahoochee, Florida 32324 Ted Mack, Esquire Florida State Hospital Chattahoochee, Florida 32324
The Issue Did the Respondent commit the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated June 26, 2000, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Board is the agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine in the State of Florida. Respondent is and, at all times material hereto, has been licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida. On June 23, 1999, patient J.V., a 19-year-old female, presented at Mid Town Clinic (Mid Town) in Zephyrhills, Florida, along with Gabriel Amparo, the man with whom she lived and the father of her children. J.V., a Medicaid eligible patient, appeared at Mid Town to obtain a referral from a primary care physician to Dr. Ferilta, her gynecologist, in order to receive an intrauterine device (IUD). J.V. had appeared previously at Mid Town with Gabriel Amparo, who also received medical care and treatment from the physicians at Mid Town. On June 17 and 18, 1999, Gabriel Amparo had medical appointments at Mid Town and was accompanied by J.V. While at Mid Town with Gabriel Amparo on June 17 or 18, 1999, J.V. made an appointment for herself at Mid Town for June 22, 1999, at 3:45 p.m., and Gabriel Amparo also made an appointment for June 22, 1999, at 4:00 p.m. At the time J.V. made her appointment for June 22, 1999, she was given new patient forms, which J.V. filled out. On June 22, 1999, both J.V. and Gabriel Amparo arrived at Mid Town approximately 30 minutes late for their appointments. Respondent had already left Mid Town in order to make his rounds at the Hospital. J.V. lost her temper and became upset with the female staff members on duty that day. J.V. and Gabriel Amparo were given the last two appointments for June 23, 1999. J.V. and Gabriel Amparo arrived late for their appointments on June 23, 1999. Respondent, the physician at Mid Town who treated both J.V. and Gabriel Amparo on June 23, 1999, was still at Mid Town. However, the female nurses had already left for the day. J.V. was advised that the female nurses had left for the day. However, J.V. insisted that she be seen by the physician. J.V., was wearing a dark blue dress with flowers that buttoned down the front, from her chest to the middle of her thighs. The staff at Mid Town noted her appearance for the appointment and placed her in an examination room. The examination room contained a sink, chairs, and examination table. Respondent and J.V. discussed her request for a referral to Dr. Ferilta for the insertion of an IUD. Respondent asked J.V. if she was having any health problems. J.V. told Respondent that she thought she might have a urinary tract infection. J.V. identified bladder pain but did not identify symptoms in her pelvic area. At Respondent's direction, J.V. left the examination room, provided a urine sample, then returned to the examination room. Respondent reviewed the results of the urine test, indicated to J.V. that she might have a urinary tract infection, then directed J.V. to lay on her back on the examination table. Respondent directed J.V. to unbutton her dress, probed her abdomen from her stomach to her pubic bone, asked J.V. if she felt any pain, and told J.V. that he would check her vaginal fluid to see if she had any discharge. J.V. was wearing underwear. Respondent did not have on gloves and did not wash his hands before examining J.V. Respondent moved J.V.'s underwear from over her vagina and placed his ungloved finger in, though not all the way in, J.V.'s vagina. Respondent did not say anything to J.V. about her vaginal fluid or discharge. Respondent did not utilize cotton swabs, glass slides, or any other type of instrument in connection with his manipulation of J.V.'s vagina. Respondent did not wash his hands after his manipulation of J.V.'s vagina. Respondent and J.V. were alone in the examination room during the entire time of the incident. Respondent was apparently mistaken in his testimony that Gabriel Amparo came into the examination room towards the end of the examination. Respondent did not: (a) make any sexual comments to J.V.; (b) ask J.V. to go out with him; (c) rub against J.V.; (d) appear to have an erection; (e) fondle J.V.'s breasts; (f) expose himself in any sexual way; and (g) act sexually or seductive in any way. Respondent advised J.V. that he wanted her to give a blood sample the next morning, June 24, 1999, after she had fasted. Upon leaving the examination room, J.V. chatted with Gloria Frum who advised J.V. of the necessity of fasting a period of time before the blood draw the next morning. The blood was drawn at Mid Town on the morning of June 24, 1999. J.V. was apparently mistaken about giving the blood sample on June 23, 1999. During J.V.'s discussion with Gloria Frum after the examination, J.V. made no complaints about Respondent or the manner in which he performed the examination. The referral for the IUD was sent to Dr. Ferilta on June 24, 1999. J.V. was apparently mistaken about not receiving a referral for the IUD. Following the incident with Respondent, J.V. told Gabriel Amparo about what had happened. The next day, J.V. contacted Dr. Ferlita's office and spoke with Debbie Suckow, Dr. Ferlita's office manager. J.V. inquired of Ms. Suckow as to how Dr. Ferlita performed pelvic examinations. J.V. told Ms. Suckow how Respondent had performed her vaginal examination. Ms. Suckow informed J.V. that it was incorrect to perform a vaginal examination without gloves and without a chaperone being present. A short time after talking with Ms. Suckow, J.V. spoke to the Zephyrhills Police Department and made a report concerning the incident with Respondent. J.V. did not report the incident earlier because until she spoke with Ms. Suckow she was not sure Respondent had done anything wrong. The Zephyrhills Police Department referred J.V. to the hotline for Sunrise Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Center. At Sunrise, J.V. spoke with, and later met with, Lillian Gonzalez, an outreach counselor. After relating the incident to Ms. Gonzalez, J.V. met with Clarice Freese, program supervisor, and related the incident to her. Subsequently, J.V. attended counseling sessions until a transportation problem caused her to stop. Mrs. Gonzalez referred J.V. to an attorney and to the agency regulating physicians in Tallahassee, Florida. J.V.'s testimony concerning the procedure used by Respondent in his examination of J.V. on June 23, 1999, is credible, notwithstanding the testimony of Respondent to the contrary, which I find lacks credibility. The normal course of an examination of a patient who presents with a suspected urinary tract infection does not involve a full pelvic examination, particularly where the patient does not identify symptoms in the pelvic area. The standard of care for a pelvic examination includes the use of gloves and the provision of a chaperone in the examination room. It is not usual and customary to simply push aside underclothing to perform an examination, and a physician would likely be unable to adequately perform an examination by doing so. It is outside the standard of care for a physician to manipulate external genitals with an ungloved finger as part of a pelvic examination. It is outside the standard of care to insert an ungloved finger into the patient's vagina while performing a pelvic examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and having reviewed the Recommended Range of Penalty under Rule 64B8-8.001(2), Florida Administrative Code, and Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances under Rule 64B8- 8.001(3), Florida Administrative Code, it is recommended that the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the charges outlined in the Administrative Complaint and imposing the following penalty: (a) One-year's probation, during which Respondent shall attend the Florida Medical Association- sponsored continuing medical education course, entitled Professional Boundaries: Preserving the Physician-Patient Relationship and shall be evaluated by the Physician's Recovery Network; and (b) Assessment of an administrative fine of $2,500.00. It is further recommended that since there was no evidence presented by the Board in its Case No. 2000-01665 that the Board dismiss Case No. 2000-01665 set out in Administrative Complaint in paragraphs 19 through 32, including Counts Four through Six. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert C. Byerts, Esquire Kim Kluck, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 A. R. Mander, III, Esquire Greenfelder, Mander, Hanson Murphy and Dwyer 14217 Third Street Dade City, Florida 33523 Tanya Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue presented by this case is whether the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, has exhausted all treatment for the Petitioner, Frank J. Lugo, Jr., through available sex offender programs administered by the Respondent. See Section 917.20, Florida Statutes (1977). The parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. Those proposed findings not included in this Recommended Order were not supported by competent and substantial evidence or were considered immaterial to the results reached.
Findings Of Fact On January 19, 1981, the Petitioner submitted a "Petition for Administrative Determination" to the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The Department requested the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to consider the matters set forth in the Petition. At the final hearing the Petitioner testified on his own behalf. Dr. Robert Berland, Ph.D., a psychologist and the Director of the Behavior Disorders Unit in the Forensic Service at the Florida State Hospital testified for the Respondent. Respondent's Exhibit 1, a composite exhibit consisting of a clinical summary, intradepartmental staffing report and an abstract of a staff conference, was admitted as evidence. At all times pertinent to this proceeding the Petitioner has been in the custody of the Respondent pursuant to an order of the Circuit Court of Pinellas County, Florida and Chapter 917, Florida Statutes (1977). From August 6, 1979 through the present, Petitioner has resided in the Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee, Florida, where he has undergone treatment in a hospital program for mentally disordered sex offenders. This program and similar programs in other institutions administered by the Respondent require a high degree of motivation on the part of the patient in order to achieve success. The success rate within the program is very low due to patients' long established behavior patterns. Although the Petitioner has progressed during the course of his treatment, the Department has made a preliminary determination that it has exhausted all appropriate treatment for the Petitioner through the program in which he is participating and has also concluded that similar programs for sex offenders within the state do not offer viable treatment alteratives. The primary treatment modality for mentally disordered sex offenders at Florida State Hospital is group therapy. The Petitioner has participated in group therapy sessions during his current hospitalization, but no significant change in his behavior has occurred. Dr. Berland has diagnosed his present condition as (1) exhibitionism, (2) voyeurism, (3) other sexual deviations, (4) mixed substance abuse, (5) psychogenic pain disorder, (6) anti-social personality, (7) passive-aggressive personality with contained hostility, and (8) narcissism. Exhibitionism has been the Petitioner's primary problem with his first arrest for indecent exposure occurring in 1971. Group and milieu therapy are the basic treatments available in the sex offender program at Florida State Hospital. Milieu therapy consists of interacting with people who share similar problems. Petitioner has participated in both therapies since his admission to the hospital. From August, 1979 to January, 1980, Mr. Lugo regularly attended group therapy and participated in the group. He developed a degree of insight into his condition. During this period, the group was led by Sam Cuningham, a psychologist, and met for one hour each week. From February, 1980, to August, 1980, Petitioner regularly attended group but did not actively participate. Dr. Berland became head of the group and its size increased from five to ten members. When Mr. Lugo participated, his discussions centered on other patients' problems rather than his own. Although there is a benefit in listening and discussing other patients problems such benefit is not substantial when coupled with a denial of a patient's own problem as was the case with Mr. Lugo. One of the reasons given by Mr. Lugo for not participating was a CERonic sore throat. After Dr. Berland had the Petitioner examined by a physician who could find no medical basis for the problem, it was concluded by Dr. Berland that the disorder was psychogenic. During this period the Petitioner joined another group started by psychology interns at Florida State University which offered individual counseling in addition to group therapy. This group lasted for approximately two months. On August 6, 1980, Mr. Lugo was presented for staffing by his treatment team. He was informed that his group participation was inadequate and given three areas where improvements was necessary: (1) analysis of and solution to sexual problems, (2) anti-social, manipulative and rule-violating behavior, and (3) hostility in interactions with others. During the period September, 1980, to October, 1980, the Petitioner's behavior did not significantly change. Although he did attempt to cooperate by complaining less about his physical problems and changing his manner of dress, Petitioner's participation during group therapy remained superficial. After being informed by staff that his group participation remained inadequate, Mr. Lugo began writing summaries of his group experiences. He continued to write summaries after being informed by the staff that he should discuss experiences with the group rather than write summaries. During September to October, 1980, Mr. Lugo's attendance at group therapy was erratic. On October 29, 1980, the treatment team met and after reviewing the Petitioner's case, concluded that Mr. Lugo continued to meet the criteria of a sex offender under Chapter 917, Florida Statutes, and that he was not amenable to further treatment in the behavior disorder unit. Having exhausted Florida State Hospital's treatment capabilities, the staff recommended that the patient be presented to an Intra-Departmental Screening Committee to determine if further treatment capabilities existed within any other sex offender treatment programs in the Department. On December 24, 1980, the Committee considered Mr. Lugo's case and recommended that he be returned to the appropriate Circuit Court as a treatment failure. Petitioner has progressed in areas outside of group therapy including ward activities and vocational training. However, his involvement in these areas is insufficient to cause a meaningful alteration of Petitioner's aberrant behavior. Although individual therapy is available for patients such as the Petitioner, it was not attempted in this case because Mr. Lugo never achieved a level of progress necessary to make such therapy feasible. The Petitioner desires to remain in the program at Florida State Hospital and be given individual therapy and assignment to a different treatment team.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services finding that it has exhausted all appropriate treatment for Frank J. Lugo, Jr., and that the said Frank J. Lugo, Jr. be returned to the committing court for further disposition. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 26th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven L. Seliger, Esquire Post Office Box 324 Quincy, Florida 32351 Gerry L. Clark, Esquire Florida State Hospital Chattahoochee, Florida 32324
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent Ivory Scott, held Teaching Certificate Number 460227, issued by the Department of Education for the State of Florida. The Respondent was employed with the School Board of Lee County Florida, and was assigned to Mariner High School. In addition to his duties as a health teacher and drivers' education instructor during the 1987-1988 school year, the Respondent coached the boy's varsity basketball team. M. C., a fifteen-year old female minor student at Mariner High School, participated in after school sports activities as the head statistician for the boy's varsity basketball team and as a player for the girl's basketball team. The Respondent first became acquainted with M.C. when she attended his health class during the first semester of the school year. Before the basketball season began, the student approached the Respondent and told him that she kept statistics for the boy's basketball team at her former high school the year before. The student volunteered to be one of the statisticians for the Respondent's team. She was interviewed by Respondent regarding her recordkeeping abilities and knowledge of the game. Based upon the interview and the student's display of knowledge, she was made the team's head statistician. Prior to granting permission to allow M.C. to participate in the boy's basketball program as a student athletic assistant, her mother voiced concern to the Respondent about transportation problems which could occur when a family member was occasionally unable to meet the student at the school after a game. The Respondent solved this problem with an offer to provide the student with a ride home whenever the family was unable to pick up the student. This potential solution to the problem was accepted by the mother, and the Respondent did give the student a ride home after a few games during the basketball season. On February 9, 1988, the student M.C. wanted to go home before she played in a basketball game at school at 4:00 p.m. The student asked the Respondent for a ride, and he agreed to give her a ride after school ended at 2:20 p.m. When the Respondent left the school grounds with the student, no one else was in the vehicle. The Respondent drove in a direction away from the student's home. Once an isolated area was located, the Respondent engaged in sexual intercourse with M.C. The Respondent then drove M.C. home, and told her not to tell anyone about the incident. During the following week, but before February 19, 1988, the Respondent again left the school grounds alone with the student M.C. They traveled to another isolated area and the Respondent again had sexual intercourse with the student. When the student was driven home, she was instructed not to tell anyone about the incident. On February 19, 1988, the student M.C. was crying in an hysterical manner in the courtyard area of the school grounds. The child's schoolfriend, A.F., tried to comfort the child, but was unable to calm her. The assistant principal who observed the scene, took the girls to the guidance area so that they could deal with M.C.'s loss of control in a more private area. A female guidance counselor was asked to keep an eye on the students because of M.C.'s unusual behavior. In an attempt to assist the student, the guidance counselor asked M.C. if she would like to go to the counselor's private office. The student accepted the offer, but did not discuss why she was upset. On Monday, February 22, 1988, M.C. returned to the guidance counselor's office. She implied that her problem was of a sexual nature, but was unwilling to discuss the matter further. A few days later, the counselor gave the student the Abuse Counseling Center telephone number. On Friday, February 26, 1988, the child M.C. contacted the guidance counselor and revealed that she had seen the man involved in her problems the evening before. The police officer on campus was contacted. The student revealed to the counselor and the officer that she was in a relationship with a man who was twenty-five years old, married, and the father of a child. Although the Respondent was married and had a child, he was older than twenty-five years of age. The evening before the limited revelations to the counselor and officer occurred, M.C. had attended the school district's boy's basketball tournament. The Respondent was present at the tournament. The following week, the counselor and the police officer urged M.C. to tell her parents about her relationship with the man. When the student did not tell her parents, the police officer called the student's mother and told her what the student had told him. The student was taken for a medical examination by her mother on March 3, 1988, and it was determined that her hymen was no longer intact. The student would not tell her mother the name of the man involved, but she agreed to tell the guidance counselor on Friday, March 4, 1988. On the appointed date, the student told the counselor the man involved was the Respondent, Ivory Scott. The guidance counselor informed the assistant principal who brought the student into the guidance office on February 19, 1988, about the allegations. The assistant principal advised the principal. When the principal was informed of the student's accusations, he sent for the Respondent immediately to prevent him from hearing the news from less reliable sources. After the principal notified the Respondent of the student's accusations, the Respondent admitted to having the student M.C. alone with him in his vehicle on several occasions. The Respondent denied that any sexual activity took place during these times, and he was unable to speculate why the child might be motivated to make the accusations against him. During the hearing, the Respondent denied that the student M.C. had ever been alone in his vehicle with him, or that the events testified to by the student regarding sexual intercourse had ever occurred. It was his testimony that M.C. had once confided to him that her stepbrother had intercourse with her. The Respondent did not report this purported confidence to the authorities, and there was no evidence in the record to substantiate that the student had a stepbrother. A number of students from the high school testified at hearing. Members of the basketball team and a student athletic assistant testified that on Thursday, February 25, 1988, M.C. was behaving in a flirtatious, sexually aggressive manner with a member of the boy's basketball team in the back of the bus. The basketball player and his mother testified as to M.C.'s persistent need to seek attention from the player. A former boyfriend of M.C.'s testified that, contrary to her statements that she had not kissed with boys prior to the sexual incidents with Respondent, he had engaged in kissing activity with her. The former boyfriend also testified that M.C. told him that nothing has happened between her and the Respondent. She told him this after a newspaper article related her accusations and the Respondent's arrest. The former boyfriend had telephoned her to discuss the matter after his grandparents mentioned that they read about the accusations in the newspaper. Diane Goldberg, a licensed clinical social worker who was accepted as an expert in the area of child sexual abuse counseling, opined that M.C.'s behavior after the alleged incidents of sexual intercourse with the Respondent was congruent, and consistent with behavioral indicators which reflect that sexual molestation has occurred.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's Florida teaching certificate be revoked for violating Section 231.28(1)(c) and (h), Florida Statutes and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (h), Florida Administrative Code, of the State Board of Education. That the allegation that Respondent violated Section 231.28(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-4544 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1 and #2. Accepted. See HO #3. Rejected as to the finding that the student relied on Respondent for rides home after her basketball practices prior to the alleged incidents. Accept that she occasionally relied on Respondent for rides home after games. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #6. Reject as to two week time period. See HO #7. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. See HO #11. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. See HO #16. Accepted. See HO #17. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #17. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #17. Rejected. Witness incompetent to render legal conclusion. Rejected. Improper summary, Accepted. See HO #21. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Accepted. See HO #2. 2. Accepted. See HO #8-#10, #11, #13 and #15. Reject the first sentence. Contrary to fact. M.C. referred only to rides home, not rides home after games. See HO #6 and #7. Reject the second sentence as contrary to fact. See HO #6 and #7. The rest of paragraph 3 is rejected as contrary to fact. See HO #6 and #7. Accept first sentence. See HO #6. All but the last sentence in the first paragraph are accepted as facts presented. Although probative, these facts were not determinative. See Conclusions of Law. The last sentence is rejected as contrary to fact. See HO #6 and #7. The first two sentences in the second paragraph of proposed finding of fact number 4 is accepted. See HO #6 and #7. The third sentence is accepted as testimony. The finding of fact based on the evidence is found in HO #7. The last paragraph in proposed finding of fact number 4 is rejected as it is argument as opposed to a proposed factual finding. See Conclusions of Law. Rejected. Improper summary. See HO #19 and Conclusions of Law. Accept the first paragraph of proposed finding of fact number 6. See HO #14 and #15. The second paragraph is rejected as it is argument as opposed to a proposed finding of fact. See Conclusions of Law. Accept the first sentence. See HO #13 and #15. The rest of proposed finding of fact number 7 is rejected as irrelevant to these proceedings. Rejected. Dr. Seitz's testimony was not filed in Case NO. 88-4544. COPIES FURNISHED: Wilbur C. Smith, III, Esquire Post Office Drawer 8 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0008 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 1201 U.S. Highway One, Suite 315 North Palm Beach, Florida 33408-3581 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent's teacher's certificate should be revoked or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent held Florida Educator's Certificate No. 609670, covering the areas of Physical Education, General Science, and Education Leadership. The certificate expired on June 30, 2000. However, Respondent has the option to ministerially renew his certificate. In 1989, Respondent was a teacher at Pensacola High School. During the summer of 1989, Dona Snyder, then 18 years old, was a student at Pensacola High School. Respondent would often speak with Dona at school and telephone her at home to ask her to go out with him. She turned him down. However, the day before summer school ended Dona and Respondent engaged in romantic hugging and kissing. The last day of school they went to eat at a local restaurant. Later in the year, after Ms. Snyder had graduated, Dona and Respondent engaged in sexual intercourse, which resulted in the birth of a child. From 1994-1998, Respondent was employed as a Physical Education teacher at Pine Forest High School, in Escambia County. In 1994, M.M., aged 14, was a ninth-grade student at Pine Forest High School. She met Respondent during that year. When M.M. was in the tenth grade, Respondent chaperoned M.M's. ROTC class to Seattle, Washington. M.M. and Respondent became more familiar with each other during the trip. They became very comfortable with each other and Respondent began making comments of a sexual nature about M.M's. appearance. M.M. developed a crush on Respondent. When Respondent and M.M. returned from the Seattle trip, they visited each other at various locations at Pine Forest High School. In April 1996, towards the end of M.M.'s tenth grade year, Respondent told M.M. that he would like to see her away from school. Respondent made it clear that he was interested in a sexual relationship with M.M. M.M. was around 16 years old at the time. Respondent encouraged M.M. to either lie to her mother or sneak out of her home at night in order to meet him. At first, M.M. refused Respondent's suggestions. She did not think sneaking out was right. Later in 1996, Respondent and M.M. saw each other at a football jamboree. Respondent gave M.M. his telephone number. M.M. later telephoned Respondent and they decided to meet at the University Mall. It was agreed that M.M. would concoct a pretextual reason to go to the mall which she would tell her mother. After they met at the mall, Respondent took M.M. to his home. They went to his bedroom and had sex. After this first sexual encounter, Respondent and M.M. started meeting each other and having sex almost every weekend for more than a year. M.M., with Respondent's encouragement and complicity, would sneak out of her mother's home from her bedroom window at approximately 2:00 a.m. Respondent would pick her up several blocks away from her house. They would go to Respondent's house and have sex. Afterwards, Respondent would take M.M. back to the place where he picked her up. M.M. would then walk back to her house and enter through her bedroom window. Clearly, Respondent placed M.M. in a dangerous situation by encouraging and facilitating these late-night excursions. Respondent and M.M. had sex in various places, such as Respondent's home, Respondent's car, Belleview ball park, the school baseball field, and the baseball locker room. On one occasion, Respondent took M.M. and another female high school student to a local hotel for group sex. Respondent provided alcohol to the girls. He directed the girls to have sex with each other. While the girls had sex with each other, Respondent watched. Respondent had sex with the other student and then had sex with M.M. During their relationship, Respondent told M.M. not to tell anyone about their affair because he could lose his job and go to prison. Respondent also talked M.M. into foregoing her desire to pursue college and ROTC. Through this relationship, he directly contributed to M.M.'s grades deteriorating and a loss of self-esteem. The good relationship she had with her mother deteriorated. M.M. was known as Coach Bragg's girlfriend. He encouraged her to lie to her mother. None of these behaviors should be encouraged or promoted by a teacher. The relationship between Respondent and M.M. came to light when M.M's. mother woke one night and discovered her daughter missing. She confronted M.M. when M.M. was attempting to get back into her bedroom through the window. M.M's. mother telephoned the police. Later, Respondent lost his effectiveness as a teacher when he was removed from his teaching position. Respondent was arrested and charged with unlawful sexual activity with a minor. On or about July 7, 1998, the case against Respondent was nolle prosequi by the court because Respondent had instructed M.M. to lie about their relationship. During the time of the prosecution, Respondent also caused M.M. to ignore her subpoena to testify at Respondent's trial and go into hiding until the prosecution was dismissed. However, a bench warrant was issued for M.M. Once it became clear that the prosecution would be pursued, M.M. returned to Escambia County and was arrested and jailed on a bench warrant which had been issued for her failure to appear at trial. Respondent concocted a story for M.M. to tell to the prosecution. He talked her into marrying a best friend of Respondent's so that she could say she was seeing this friend instead of seeing Respondent. Respondent's lack of moral character is apparent. As a teacher, Respondent held a position of trust towards M.M. and Dona Snyder. Clearly by engaging in a sexual relationship with them he breached that trust and violated both the Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code. Respondent has repeated this predatory behavior over the course of his teaching career and cannot be trusted to protect female students from his amorous intentions. Clearly, Respondent does not have the moral character to be a teacher and should not be permitted to hold or renew his teaching certificate.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Education Practices Commission permanently revoking Respondent's Florida Educator's Certificate No. 609670. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 15th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire 528 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael D. Tidwell, Esquire 811 North Spring Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Education Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaints are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this matter, Respondent Robert S. Colen was a licensed mental health counselor, holding Florida license MH 0001546. The Respondent’s business address is 800 Belcher Road, North, Suite 1, Clearwater, Florida 34625. The Respondent was trained in a form of mental health counseling identified as “Gestalt” or “humanistic” therapy. Such therapy includes physical, non-sexual, touching, such as hugs. There is no credible evidence that therapeutic touching within a counseling relationship is inappropriate. A number of the Respondent’s clients testified that he almost always hugged them at the end of the counseling session. The only witness who testified that the Respondent did not hug was a male patient who indicated that he was not inclined to permit the Respondent to hug him. Other than the three patients identified herein, none of the witnesses regarded the hugging as sexual, and none seemed at all offended by the physical contact. Patient M. C. Patient M. C. was referred to the Respondent by Dr. Michael Gemino, the patient’s psychiatrist. At the time of the referral, M. C. was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, alcohol abuse, and passive aggressive disorder. She was referred to the Respondent for counseling related to alcohol addiction and co-dependency issues. During the course of therapy, the Respondent began to hug M. C. as he did many of his other patients. At some point during the therapy, a discussion of different types of “love” occurred. Based on that discussion, M. C. apparently became convinced that the Respondent was in love with her and she with him. At some point during the counseling, the Respondent and M. C. began to experience some type of emotional involvement which exceeded the typical counselor-client situation. There were extended periods when the Respondent held M. C. in his arms as she recounted painful experiences she had suffered. M. C. asserts that the Respondent told her that he loved her and that beginning in February 1994, she engaged in sexual activity with the Respondent. She asserts that the two would lie on pillows on the floor of his office, that the Respondent would touch her unclothed genital area with his hands and mouth, and that she would perform fellatio on the Respondent. In about July 1994, M. C. reported the alleged sexual activity to Dr. Gemino, who referred her to Kerry Kushmick, an unlicensed individual apparently working with Dr. Gemino. Mr. Kushmick met with the Respondent and M. C. to discuss the matter. Although M. C. repeated her allegations, the Respondent denied any sexual contact, but acknowledged that the two were in a "psychological cocoon,” that he was "in over his head," that he should have terminated therapy earlier, and that there were some “boundary” issues which needed resolution. The evidence fails to establish that the Respondent engaged in sexual activity with M. C. The recollection of M. C. as to times and circumstances under which the sexual activity occurred lacks credibility. The Respondent’s office was located immediately adjacent to a public waiting area which served a number of professional offices. The receptionist’s desk in the waiting area was located next to the Respondent’s office. The walls in the office suite were poorly insulated and sound traveled from the offices into the waiting area; however the receptionist testified that she heard nothing indicating any sexual activity ever took place in the Respondent’s office. She also testified that the door to the Respondent’s office closed improperly and would not lock. The evidence establishes that the Respondent did not maintain an appropriate therapeutic relationship with M. C. The Respondent did not recognize that transference and counter- transference were occurring, and did not timely seek assistance to resolve the situation. The Respondent's failure to recognize the developing situation with M. C. was detrimental to her mental condition and constitutes a failure to meet minimum standards of performance as his professional activity. At some point after M. C. spoke to Dr. Gemino, he provided to her the names of other patients whom he had referred to the Respondent for counseling. M. C. met separately with J. M. and R. P. They discussed the interactions with the Respondent. The former patients continued to maintain contact for a period of time after the initial meeting. At the hearing, J. M. and R. P. expressed concern regarding the emotional condition of M. C. Patient J. M. In about October 1993, J. M. was referred to the Respondent by Dr. Gemino, the patient’s psychiatrist. At the time of the referral, J. M. was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. She was referred to the Respondent for marital therapy, after having been involved in sexual relations outside her marriage. J. M. attended initial counseling session with her husband. She attended subsequent sessions without her husband. She also participated in group therapy at the Respondent’s office. J. M. dressed in a “seductive” manner for counseling sessions, frequently wearing very short shorts. At one time, after a group therapy session, the Respondent received a complaint from another patient regarding J. M.’s attire during counseling, stating that she was sitting on a pillow on the floor, was not wearing underwear, and was exposing herself. J. M. testified that she did not wear underwear during the group therapy and further acknowledged that she was not wearing underwear at the time of her testimony. J. M. asserts that during the initial counseling session, while her husband was out of the room, the Respondent told her she was attractive. J. M. asserts that during subsequent session, which she attended alone, the Respondent would lie on the pillows with her, touch her, tell her she was beautiful and call her his “soul mate.” She asserts that the Respondent was always touching her and kissing her. The evidence fails to support the assertions J. M. asserts that the Respondent purchased gifts for her. The Respondent acknowledged that he may have purchased some type of tape for her, but there were not multiple gifts. J. M. asserts that he did not charge for all sessions. The Respondent acknowledged that he did not charge for all her sessions and said that is frequently the case when a patient is undergoing financial difficulty. J. M. testified that the Respondent told her she should take a test for the AIDS virus. She believed that the Respondent made the suggestion for the purpose of determining her health status prior to engaging in sexual relations with her. The Respondent testified that he made the suggestion based on her sexual activity outside her marriage and the fact that she was referred to him for marital counseling. Despite having been interviewed by an investigator for the Department, J. M. testified for the first time at the hearing that the Respondent told her he was going to “lick her pussy like you’ve never had it before.” There is no credible evidence that the Respondent made the statement. J. M. terminated her therapy with the Respondent because he indicated she needed to pay him some of the money she owed from the counseling. The evidence fails to establish that the Respondent acted inappropriately in his interaction with J. M. Patient R. P. The Respondent provided therapeutic counseling to R. P. from January to March of 1988. At the time of the 1988 counseling, R. P. was being treated for an inability to accept affection. From August to October 1991, the Respondent engaged in a second round of therapy with R. P. She was depressed, lacked a social support system, and was dependent on prescription pain medication. She was also involved in a difficult relationship with her mother. There were only four sessions during the 1991 round of therapy. During the second round of therapy, the Respondent encouraged her to bring her mother to counseling (her mother declined.) The Respondent hugged and touched R. P during the sessions, told her she was special and a valuable person. R. P. had expressed concern about being able to be physically affectionate with a man. Part of the Respondent’s plan of therapy was physically hugging or holding R. P. in a manner intended to permit her to become comfortable with such attention in a non-threatening environment. Some of the hugs lasted for up to 15 minutes. Depending on the mental status of the patient, a 15 minute hug, while unusual, is not necessarily inappropriate. R. P. asserts that the Respondent told her she was his “soul mate” and discussed sexual relations with her. She asserts that he told her he had feelings about her which he had not experienced with other patients. The evidence fails to support the assertion. After R. P. stopped attending the sessions, she received two letters from the Respondent, the second of which made her feel “threatened.” He also called R. P. several times. R. P. believed he was trying to make her feel guilty. The Respondent asserts that he was concerned about her discontinuation of therapy and the fact that she owed him money. The evidence fails to establish that the Respondent acted inappropriately in his interaction with R. P.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health, Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling, enter a Final Order imposing a fine of $1,000 on, and issuing a public reprimand to, Robert S. Colen. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: William C. Childers, Esquire Thomas Wright, Esquire Anne Cox, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Louis Kwall, Esquire Kwall & Showers, P.A. 133 North Fort Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33755 Lucy C. Gee, Executive Director Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Building 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues presented by this case concern the question of whether the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, has exhausted all treatment for the Petitioner, Lewis J. McLean, through sex offender programs administered by the Respondent. See Section 917.20, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner submitted a "Petition for Administrative Determination" to the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The Petition was received by the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 18, 1982, as transmitted by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The Department has requested the Division to conduct a formal hearing in keeping with Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Final hearing in this case was conducted on April 2, 1982, following a continuance of the originally scheduled hearing date of February 25, 1982, which continuance was granted to the Petitioner to allow him to attempt the employment of counsel to represent him in this action. In the course of the final hearing, the Petitioner testified in his own behalf. Respondent offered as witnesses: Robert Alcorn, Clinical Director, Mentally Disordered Sex Offender Program at Florida State Hospital, and Charles Schaefer, Clinical Psychologist. Respondent submitted two (2) items of evidence which were received. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner has been in the custody of Respondent, in keeping with the court order. His commitment has been on the basis of Chapter 917, Florida Statutes (1977), involving Lewd and Lascivious and Indecent Assault or Act upon a child under the age of fourteen (14) related to the handling, fondling or making an assault upon that child, without the intent to commit sexual battery, by committing fellatio on the victim. The commitment order to the program dates from May 23, 1979, and the Petitioner was placed in the Forensic Service, Mentally Disordered Sex Offender Unit at Florida State Hospital on July 30, 1979. During his stay at Florida State Hospital, the Petitioner has undergone treatment in the program for the benefit of sex offenders. Although the Petitioner has been subjected to a full range of treatment opportunities, his progress in dealing with the underlying disorder, Pedophelia, has reached a place where improvement is no longer expected by the patient. In the face of these circumstances, Respondent has made a preliminary determination that it has exhausted treatment for the Petitioner, through the program in which he is enrolled. Additionally, it has been concluded that similar programs within the State of Florida do not offer opportunities for progress. Those opinions having been made known to the Petitioner, Petitioner requested and was granted the hearing which lead to the entry of the Recommended Order. The program at Florida State Hospital has as its main focus the utilization of group therapy with adjunctive programs in recreation and occupational therapy, and this treatment regimen relies heavily on a patient's self-motivation. Respondent's Exhibit 1, admitted into evidence, is constituted of a series of clinical summaries related to the patient's performance during the course of his treatment at Florida State Hospital. The most recent of these summary statements was prepared from the session of November 18, 1981. In brief, the opinions stated in the clinical summaries accurately indicate that the Florida State Hospital has exhausted all available treatment for the Petitioner's Pedophilia. Moreover, the presentation of Petitioner's case to the Intra-Departmental Screening Committee, which is constituted of administrative personnel of the various sex offender programs in the State of Florida, correctly concluded that the Respondent has exhausted all available treatment for the Petitioner in any program in the State of Florida. Finally, testimony given in the course of the hearing was in keeping with the opinions expressed in the clinical summaries and the opinions held by the members of the Intra- Departmental Screening Committee. Notwithstanding the efforts of the Respondent, Petitioner continues to meet the definition of sex offender as set forth in Chapter 917, Florida Statutes, to include the propensity to commit further sexual offenses of the nature for which he was placed in the Sex Offender Program. Charles Schaefer became the Petitioner's primary therapist in August, 1981, and has continued to perform that function. Schaefer's testimony establishes that Petitioner's stay in the program, in terms of duration, has been average. Schaefer continues to meet with the Petitioner in group therapy sessions, which sessions are the primary focus of the treatment modality. These sessions occur four (4) times a week and the patients within those sessions, through discussion, are primarily responsible for bringing about an understanding of the underlying disorder which caused their placement in the program. In addition, McLean has participated in individual therapy sessions with Schaefer and in adjunctive therapy, in particular small engine repair. At the time that Schaefer undertook the care of Petitioner as primary therapist, he reviewed the past clinical reports and matters of record on file at Florida State Hospital and noted that those reports indicated that Petitioner was superficial in his understanding of his sexual deviation and had little or no insight into why he had committed the offense which caused his placement. These recorded observations were accurate in outlining Petitioner's condition. Over the period of time of his attendance in group sessions with Schaefer, Petitioner has ceased bringing his problems to the group therapy sessions to discuss them with others and his problems were only discussed in group, based upon other members within the group learning of those problems by conversations held with Petitioner while on the ward and carrying forward the topics at group sessions. This form of ward discussion is not designed and will not achieve improvement in Petitioner's understanding of his sexual deviation. Moreover, Petitioner tends, in the course of the group sessions, to minimize the severity of his problems and is more motivated toward being relieved of the responsibility of dealing with the problem and being removed from those sessions, as opposed to attempting to understand and deal with his aberrant life style. Schaefer, in his attempts to assist the Petitioner, tried an approach which gave the Petitioner great latitude to find a way to discuss the patient's problem. This method was followed by a more confrontive style of working with Petitioner. Neither of these choices was successful and the Petitioner has continued to be evasive, silent in group therapy sessions and has only talked in those sessions when confronted with a direct question. On those occasions, McLean gives answers which are short and uninformative. Schaefer has taken McLean out of the patient volunteer work program as a means to achieve better performance in group therapy sessions. This form of motivation has not borne a better result in terms of participation. Neither has the attempt to have individual therapy sessions once a week lead to any better result. In those individual therapy sessions with Schaefer, Petitioner has not talked. Recently, McLean has been dealt with only through the group therapy sessions and no progress has been made in dealing with his condition. It is only on a couple of occasions within the last nine (9) months that McLean has been forthright in his discussion of his condition. As can be seen in the Respondent's Exhibit 1, admitted into evidence, in the November, 1981, staffing conference, to consider the question of his retention in the program, Petitioner stated that he knew that he needed more help and felt that he could benefit from another six (6) months' stay in the hospital so that he could become a former sex offender and not be felt to meet the criteria related to sex offenders. At present, McLean seems satisfied with his personality as it now exists. That personality allows him to perform in an acceptable fashion on the hospital ward and in the adjunctive therapy involvement; however, he would not be appropriate in a social circumstance which gave the Petitioner opportunity to commit a further sexual offense. Robert Alcorn, the Unit Director at Florida State Hospital, in charge of the Sex Offender Program, indicated that the McLean case had been presented to the Intra-Departmental Screening Committee described herein. This was done on December 31, 1981, and as indicated in Respondent's Exhibit 2, it was the opinion of all administrative officials in the various programs that Respondent had exhausted treatment for McLean's condition. McLean, through his testimony in the course of the hearing, indicated that he feels that he has done his best and that he tries to express himself on the subject of his Pedophilic condition. Nonetheless, he feels that he has a problem discussing those matters in a group setting and that he is uncomfortable talking to members of the group. He does feel that he has brought some problems to the group discussion. In his mind, the reason that he committed the crime for which he was placed in the program, was based upon his tendency to "keep everything in" and his difficulty communicating with his wives. He does not feel that he will commit a sex offense in the future and that he could address his problems by talking to a marriage counselor or someone of that nature. He feels that he is well, but he would like to stay in the program if it is determined that he is not ready to be released. In summary, the Respondent has exhausted all appropriate treatment for this Petitioner's sexual disorder, but that treatment has not been successful and the patient continues to suffer from that condition and continues to pose a danger to commit another sex offense.
The Issue Does the Department of Corrections' Sexual Harassment Policy, as contained in the Pamphlet "Sexual Harassment, Your Rights and Responsibilities", in a one-page document entitled "Department of Corrections Sexual Harassment Policy", and Chapter 7 of the Department's Personnel Procedures Manual, constitute umpromulgated rules, pursuant to Section 120.535 F.S.? Are existing Department of Corrections Rules 33-4.001(4)(a), 33-4.002(4), and 33-4.003(22) and (24), F.A.C. invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority due to vagueness, pursuant to Section 120.56 F.S.?
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Petitioner has been a career-service employee working as a Parole Officer I for DOC. He has earned a master's degree in criminology. At all times material, DOC has had in effect a one-page document entitled "Department of Corrections Sexual Harassment Policy" (P-5), a Pamphlet entitled "Sexual Harassment, Your Rights and Responsibilities" (P-3), and a Personnel Procedures Manual. Chapter 7 of the Personnel Procedures Manual is entitled "Sexual Harassment Complaints" (P-6). DOC has not adopted these documents as rules, and Petitioner here challenges them as unpromulgated rules. On February 22, 1996, Petitioner received written notice that he would be suspended without pay for ten days as a result of his violation of DOC Rules 33-4.001(4)(a), 33-4.002(4) and 33- 4.003(23)(25), F.A.C., (since renumbered) and the DOC's Policy on Sexual Harassment. The letter did not rely on Chapter 7 of the agency's Personnel Procedures Manual or its Pamphlet entitled "Sexual Harassment, Your Rights and Responsibilities". Petitioner appealed this action to PERC, which subsequently entered a recommended order upholding DOC's disciplinary action. Language from PERC's recommended order, which is pertinent to this instant rule challenge is: Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-4.001(4)(a) states, in pertinent part, that 'No . . . employee shall knowingly . . . commit any act or engage in any conduct which would violate any state statute, rule, directive or policy statement.' Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-4.002(4) states, in pertinent part, that 'Each employee . . . shall perform his duties fairly and impartially and otherwise conduct himself both on-duty and off-duty so as to command the respect of fellow employees, persons on parole, probation or otherwise under his supervision, inmates and the general public.' Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-4,.003(23) states that a first offense of conduct unbecoming a public employee is punishable by a written reprimand, up to a thirty day suspension or dismissal. Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-4.003(25) states that a first offense of willful violation of rules, regulations, directives or policy statements is punishable by a written reprimand, up to a thirty day suspension or dismissal. The DOC pamphlet entitled 'Florida Department of Corrections Sexual Harassment: Your Rights and Responsibilities,' provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Sexual Harassment requires two elements: The alleged conduct must be of a sexual nature, must be unwelcome and unwanted. Sexual harassment may be any of, but not limited to, the following: * * * continued suggestions regarding invi- tations to social events outside the work place, after being told such suggestions are unwelcome; * * * prolonged staring or leering to [sic] a person; * * * 32. State of Florida, Department of Corrections, Personnel Procedures Manual, Chapter 7, Sexual Harassment, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: * * * O. Sexual Harassment - Sexual Harassment is defined as unwelcome sexual advances, unwelcome requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature from or involving an employee's supervisors, peers, subordinates or any other persons in contact with an employee or applicant during the course of the conduct of the employee's or applicant's business when: Submission to such conduct is either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of employment; or Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual; or Such conduct has the purpose or effect of interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment. 33. The DOC Sexual Harassment Policy provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Sexual harassment may result from unwelcome sexual advances or a hostile environment created by conduct offensive to the victim such as suggestive or lewd comments, dirty jokes, offensive pictures or physical touching. Accordingly, all employees are being placed on notice that any employee found guilty of having engaged in sexual harassment will be severely disciplined, up to and including dismissal. * * * The charge of conduct unbecoming a public employee is a general charge that is subsumed if the Agency has a more specific charge that fully describes the alleged misconduct. Ford v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 FCSR Para. 148 (1993); Mathis v. Department of Corrections, 6 FCSR Para. 122 (1991). In this case, I conclude that the charge of unbecoming conduct is subsumed within the charge of sexual harassment and should be dismissed. PERC's recommended order also applied the foregoing provisions. At the date of formal hearing in the instant rule challenge, PERC had issued no final order. Before this instant Division of Administrative Hearings final order could be entered, PERC had extended the time for the parties to file exceptions to its hearing officer's recommended order, and ultimately, on August 13, 1996, PERC adopted its hearing officer's recommended order, thereby rendering Petitioner subject to future disciplinary action at the second occurrence level under Rule 33-4.003, F.A.C. The final order of PERC is now under appeal by Petitioner. These facts are officially recognized, sua sponte. Petitioner received copies of the Pamphlet, the Sexual Harassment Policy, and a copy of Chapter 33-4, F.A.C., on July 16, 1993, when he began employment with the agency. He did not receive a copy of Chapter 7 of the Personnel Manual and was unaware of it until his PERC proceeding. DOC imposes disciplinary action against its employees for conduct which constitutes sexual harassment. Petitioner received periodic training in agency seminars on the agency's Sexual Harassment Policy, including annual film presentations. He did not receive similar training regarding "conduct unbecoming a public employee", which is a term utilized in Section 110.227(1), F.S., and for which an employee may be disciplined. Section 110.227(1), F.S., also permits discipline of employees for "willful violation of the provisions of law or agency rules". Rule 33-4.001(4)(a), F.A.C., provides, in pertinent part: Responsibility for Conduct of Employees, Inmates and Others. No Administrator, Superintendent, Officer-In-Charge, Supervisor, or other employee shall knowingly permit any subordinate, inmate or other person to, nor shall he, commit any act or engage in any conduct which would violate any statute, rule, directive or policy statement . . . . Petitioner claims that Rule 33-4.001(4)(a), F.A.C., is vague as applied to him because he is not an administrator, superintendent, officer-in-charge, or a supervisor. According to Petitioner, this rule in only applicable to those who supervise subordinates. Rule 33-4.002(4), F.A.C., provides in pertinent part: (4) Each employee shall keep himself physically fit, mentally alert, personally neat and clean and shall perform his duties fairly and impartially, and otherwise conduct himself both on-duty and off-duty so as to command the respect of fellow employees, persons on parole, probation or otherwise under his supervision, inmates and the general public . . . . Rule 33-4.003, F.A.C., is entitled "Range of Disciplinary Actions" and lists a number of violations. Item (22) is "Conduct Unbecoming a Public Employee"; Item (24) is "Willful Violation of Rules, Regulations, Directives, or Policy Statements". The range of disciplinary penalties is increased at the second occurrence level under the rule. The agency Policy Statement, Pamphlet and Chapter 7 of the agency Personnel Manual state that sexual harassment is conduct unbecoming a public employee and contain definitions of sexual harassment, including hostile work place sexual harassment. The first sentence of the Pamphlet states that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and is conduct unbecoming a public employee, as provided in Sections 110.105, 110.227 and 110.233, F.S., and Chapter 33-4, F.A.C. (Rules of the Department). The first page of the Pamphlet states EEOC guidelines defining sexual harassment, as recognized by the agency: Unwelcome sexual advances, unwelcome requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of a person's employment, or Submission to, or rejection of, such conduct by [sic] decisions affecting an individual, or Such conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with a person's work [sic] hostile or offensive working environment. The Pamphlet goes on to advise that sexual harassment requires two elements: conduct of a sexual nature/that is unwelcome and unwanted. It lists examples of harassing behavior, advises of the need to report such behavior, and explains the agency's internal complaint procedure and the procedure's protections against retaliation. It gives references for legal remedies outside the agency. Chapter 7 of the Personnel Procedures Manual states basically the same information as the Pamphlet, lists the same legal authorities and details the internal complaint procedure. It specifically provides, If there is a determination that there is cause to believe sexual harassment occurred, disciplinary action shall be taken in accordance with Chapter 33-4 Department of Corrections Rules. Chapter 7 was first effective on January 25, 1989 and last amended on March 5, 1993. It derives its authority from Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Sections 110.105, 110.227, and 110.233, F.S., and Chapter 33-4, F.A.C. Both the agency Pamphlet and Chapter 7 of the Manual state that sexual harassment is conduct unbecoming an employee. Petitioner's position with regard to whether or not the Pamphlet and Chapter 7 of the Manual constitute unpromulgated rules appears to center on his belief that without them, employees are not on notice as to exactly what behavior constitutes sexual harassment, that they contain a subtext of what types of sexual harassment, i.e. hostile work environment, will be disciplined, or that they alone reveal that sexual harassment constitutes "conduct unbecoming". Petitioner testified that he understood blatant sexual harassment, such as unconsented physical contact, to be conduct unbecoming a public employee, but he did not have a clear understanding about the "gray areas", such as complimenting co- workers, socializing outside work, or what acts constituted hostile work place sexual harassment. However, Petitioner testified that he was on notice that the agency had an Anti-Sexual Harassment Policy and that at all times material, he knew that if he committed sexual harassment, he would be subject to discipline, up to and including termination. Petitioner admitted that if any employee engaged in actual sexual harassment against another employee, the offending employee would not command the respect of fellow employees, as described in Rule 33-4.002(4), F.A.C. He also was on notice through Rule 33-4.003, F.A.C., that he could be disciplined for "conduct unbecoming" or "willful violations of law or policy statements". He is charged at law with knowledge of Section 110.227(1) requiring discipline for "conduct unbecoming" or "willful violation" and Chapter 760 F.S., which implements Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The agency routinely disciplines its employees for sexual harassment and has a long history of application of its Anti-Sexual Harassment Policy. Petitioner did not submit any evidence as to how Chapter 7 of the agency's Personnel Procedures Manual, the Pamphlet, or the one- page Policy Statement had any affect on him, beyond the discipline described, supra. Furthermore, there was no evidence presented to show that the agency's Sexual Harassment Policy, the Pamphlet, or Chapter 7 of the Personnel Procedures Manual have any affect on any person not employed by Respondent. There was no evidence that any of the provisions in these documents were self-executing.
The Issue Did Respondent engage in a personal relationship with the student A. H. which involved sexual intercourse and kissing? Did the Respondent also send several notes and cards to A. H. about this alleged relationship? Was the student A. H. a minor at the time that Respondent is alleged to have engaged in these activities? If the facts are true, has Respondent violated various provisions of Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate 437177, covering the area of elementary education. The certificate is valid through June 30, 1998. Respondent was not employed as a teacher at times relevant to the inquiry. Respondent did have affiliation with Keystone Heights High School, Keystone Heights, Florida, in the capacity of volunteer trainer for the boys' basketball team in the school year commencing Fall 1990 through Spring 1991. In the calendar years 1990 and 1991 Respondent's primary occupation was as proprietor of a dance studio unaffiliated with public education. A. H. was a student at Respondent's dance studio. He had attended Respondent's dance school since he was in the 4th or 5th grade. A. H. was a freshman at Keystone Heights High School in the 1989-1990 school year, which commenced in the Fall of 1989 and concluded in the Spring of 1990. A. H. was born on April 25, 1975. In addition to A. H.'s association with Respondent's dance school, A. H. was part of the Keystone Heights boys' basketball team during the time that Respondent served as a volunteer trainer for that team, the school year 1990- 1991. In May 1990, Respondent, then 33 years old, and A. H. attended a dance competition. In that competition, Respondent and A. H. were partners. Respondent, A. H., A. H.'s mother, grandmother and two sisters were staying in a hotel in Orlando, Florida while attending the dance competition. The individuals in the party were staying in adjoining rooms. A. H. and Respondent went to one of the rooms to get dressed for the dance competition and to put on makeup. At this time A. H. and Respondent were alone. A. H. was sitting on the bed watching television having already dressed and prepared himself for the competition. Respondent approached A. H. and sat on his lap and they kissed. A. H. describes this activity as a mutual encounter. After the competition in Orlando, A. H. and the Respondent rode home together in the same car. When A. H. and Respondent got back from Orlando, they parked the Respondent's car behind the dance studio which was in a community known as Midway that is halfway between Melrose, Florida and Keystone Heights, Florida. Having parked the car, Respondent and A. H. engaged in what A. H. referred to as "heavy petting." In particular, A. H. fondled Respondent's breasts, and they kissed. Respondent kissed A. H.'s chest and neck. Before A. H. and Respondent stopped and engaged in this activity behind the studio, Respondent had commented on the trip back from Orlando to this effect, "at least you can't get me pregnant." When A. H. and Respondent engaged in their activities behind the studio after the trip back from Orlando, his shirt was off as was the Respondent's top garments. This encounter lasted approximately one hour and a half. During the summer of 1990, Respondent and A. H. made another trip to Orlando for a dance competition. On two separate nights during that trip, Respondent and A. H. engaged in sexual activity other than intercourse. On the morning of Memorial Day 1990 Respondent came to A. H.'s home in Keystone Heights. This rendezvous was arranged through a telephone conversation between A. H. and Respondent. When Respondent arrived at A. H.'s home he was alone. A. H. and Respondent went to A. H.'s room and engaged in sexual intercourse while in a state of undress. They then showered together and had sexual intercourse a second time. A. H. had never engaged in sexual intercourse before this date. Between Memorial Day 1990 and February 1991, Respondent and A. H. engaged in sexual intercourse approximately 30 times. In addition to having sex in A. H.'s home; they had sex at a duplex apartment in Keystone Heights that was owned by A. H.'s father; they had sex in a car that belonged to Respondent's mother-in-law; they had sex at Respondent's home; they had sex in a guest house on the same property as Respondent's home; and, they had sex at the dance studio. The rendezvous between A. H. and Respondent for purposes of the sexual encounters were clandestine. A. H. was unaware if he and the Respondent were seen or suspected of engaging in their activities. During the course of their relationship, Respondent mentioned marriage to A. H., but A. H. would not discuss marriage with the Respondent. Respondent told A. H. that when he reached the age of 18 that the Respondent and A. H. would run away together and she would work and put A. H. through school. A. H. stated that his reaction to that comment was "I was scared." He remarked about his response to her comments, "just for the time, you know, I'd agree with her, 'Yeah, sure. That's nice.' and try to blow it off and get to the next subject." During their relationship A. H. voluntarily and willingly participated in those pursuits. During the relationship, Respondent wrote notes to A. H. about her feelings for A. H., the details of which were not established at hearing through competent evidence so that facts might be found concerning the contents of those notes. During the relationship between A. H. and the Respondent, Respondent told A. H. that she loved him. Eventually the relationship was concluded by A. H., who states "I broke it off, I just--I couldn't take that much pressure. So I just told her I didn't want to continue the relationship." That decision to conclude the relationship was made in February 1991. At that time A. H. was a sophomore in high school. By virtue of comments made to his friends and acquaintances, it may be inferred that A. H.'s parents found out about his relationship with Respondent. That discovery was made on April 16, 1991. The circumstances involving A. H.'s decision to conclude the relationship in February 1991, the consequences of his parent's discovery in April 1991 and the overall relationship between A. H. and the Respondent were not shown to have left A. H. in a condition that was harmful to his mental or physical health or such that the events constituted harm to his ability to learn as a student, or found to cause A. H. unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement or were they matters which affected his safety.
Recommendation Based upon the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding the Respondent in violation of Counts I, III and VI; that dismisses Counts II, IV and V; and that revokes Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of 5 years. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of February, 1995, 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 20th day of February, 1995. APPENDIX The following discussion is given concerning the proposed findings of fact of the parties. Petitioner's Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 8 are subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 9 is rejected in that it does not completely describe the reaction by A. H. Moreover, a finding concerning his reaction is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 10 through 12 are subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 13 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 14 through 16 are subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 17 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 18 and 19 are subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 20 is contrary to the facts found. Paragraph 21 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 22 is subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 23 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 24 is subordinate to the facts found. Paragraphs 25 through 32 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 33 is subordinate to the facts found. Respondent's Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 6 are subordinate to the facts found. Paragraphs 7 and 8 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 9 is subordinate to the facts found. Paragraphs 10 and 11 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 12 through 82 constitute recitation of testimony, legal argument and some suggested fact finding which is intended to exonerate Respondent. These paragraphs are rejected as contrary to the facts found. Paragraphs 83 through 86 are subordinate to the facts found. Respondent's proposed fact discussion concerning the alibi for Memorial Day 1990 is rejected in that it has been determined that the sexual encounter between the Respondent and A. H. occurred before her trip to Jacksonville, Florida on that date. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire 2121 Killearney Way, Suite G Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 244 Blairstone Pines Drive Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether the Seminole County School Board has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment or to otherwise discipline him based upon the conduct alleged in the Petition for Termination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing and the parties' stipulations, the following findings are made: Parties The School Board is the governing body of the local school district in and for Seminole County, Florida. Respondent is a 48-year-old male. He has been employed as an educational support employee of the School Board for approximately five years. During the 2001-02 school year, Respondent worked at Seminole High School (SHS) as a computer specialist. Collective Bargaining Agreement and SHS Handbook Respondent's employment with the School Board is governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the Seminole Educational Clerical Association, Inc., and the School Board (SECA Agreement). Article VII, Section 5 of the SECA Agreement provides in pertinent part: Regular employees who have been hired for a minimum of three (3) continuous years . . . shall not be disciplined (which shall include reprimands), suspended, or terminated except for just cause. * * * C. An employee may be suspended without pay or discharged for reasons including, but not limited to, the following providing just cause is present: Violation of School Board Policy. Violation of work rules. * * * Article VIII, Section 1 of the SECA Agreement provides in relevant part that "[e]mployees may be immediately disciplined including termination for serious violation of the following: misconduct; " Respondent's employment is also governed by the SHS Faculty Handbook (SHS Handbook). The SHS Handbook is provided to SHS employees at an orientation session prior to the beginning of each school year. Respondent acknowledged receipt of the SHS Handbook prior to the 2001-02 school year. The SHS Handbook includes a sexual harassment policy which states that the School Board "will not tolerate sexual/racial harassment activity by any of its employees." As it relates to the circumstances of this case, the policy defines sexual harassment as follows: Sexual harassment consists of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other inappropriate verbal, nonverbal, graphic, written or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: * * * (c) such conduct substantially interferes with . . . [a] student’s academic performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive . . . school environment. Sexual harassment, as defined above, may include but is not limited to the following: verbal, nonverbal, graphic, and written harassment or abuse; * * * (c) repeated remarks to a person with sexual or demeaning implications; * * * In determining whether alleged conduct constitutes sexual[] harassment, the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the conduct, and the context in which the alleged conduct occurred will be investigated. . . . . The sexual harassment policy in the SHS Handbook is virtually identical to the School Board's district-wide sexual harassment policy. Thus, a violation of the policy in the SHS Handbook is a violation of School Board policy. Alleged Inappropriate Comments/Conduct by Respondent During the 2001-02 School Year Respondent had four "peer counselors" assigned to him during the 2001-02 school year, including eleventh-grader Nichole Combee. A peer counselor is a student who assists a teacher or other school staff member with designated tasks, such as filing or running errands on campus. The student provides that assistance for one class period per day. Nichole had approached Respondent at some point during the first semester of the 2001-02 school year and asked whether she could be a peer counselor for him. The record does not reflect the process by which that request was processed or approved by the administration at SHS, or even whether such approval is required. Nichole started as a peer counselor for Respondent in January 2002, which is the beginning of the second semester of the 2001-02 school year. Nichole continued in that position through May 23, 2002, when the regular school year ended. Nichole was Respondent's peer counselor during seventh period, which is the last period of the school day. Nichole's primary duty as Respondent's peer counselor was filing computer permission slips. During the time that Nichole was Respondent's peer counselor, she discussed her family troubles and school attendance problems with Respondent and his assistant, Mark Williams. Respondent tried to help Nichole with those problems. On several occasions, he talked to Nichole's mother on the phone in an attempt to help work things out between Nichole and her mother with respect to the "trouble" created at home by Nichole's academic and attendance problems. Nichole also discussed problems that she was having with male students and some male teachers at SHS looking at her large breasts rather than her eyes when they were speaking to her. She told Respondent at the time that he and Mr. Williams always looked her in the eye, and she reaffirmed that statement in her testimony at the hearing. Nichole discussed matters related to her breasts with Respondent on other occasions as well. On at least one occasion, she told Respondent that her breasts caused her back to hurt because of their size. On subsequent occasions when Nichole complained about her back hurting, Respondent replied by saying, "Well, you know why." That comment was intended by Respondent and understood by Nichole to be a reference to Nichole's prior comments that her large breasts were the cause of her back pain. Respondent never told Nichole that she should not discuss her breasts or other personal matters with him. Respondent acknowledged at the hearing that it would have been inappropriate for him to initiate a conversation with Nichole about her breasts (as a source of her back pain or otherwise), but that he did not see anything wrong with the discussions that he had with Nichole on that subject because she brought it up and because there was nothing sexual being implied. After classes had ended on the last day of the 2001-02 school year, a number of students engaged in a "water fight" using water balloons and "water bazookas." This conduct is apparently a "tradition" at SHS. The SHS administration had directed the school staff to try to prevent this conduct and/or to get the students off campus and onto their busses as quickly as possible. Respondent observed a group of students involved in a water fight near his office in the media center, and he went outside to break up the students. The group included Nichole and her friend Natalie Cotto-Caraballo, who was a tenth-grader at SHS. Nichole and Natalie were wearing white tank-top shirts that they had made for the last day of school. The shirts had gotten wet during the water fight and, as a result, the girls' bras were visible through the shirts. Respondent commented to Nichole and Natalie that he could see their bras through their shirts and that they needed to cover themselves up. He then directed the girls and the other students in the group to their buses. Nichole testified that the comment made her feel somewhat uncomfortable because "it's our bras and, you know, even though people see them, usually they don't say anything, you know." Respondent's comment regarding his ability to see the girls' bras was not inappropriate under the circumstances; it was a statement of fact and justified Respondent's direction to the girls to cover themselves up. Nichole did not immediately report the bra comment, either to her parent(s) or the SHS administration. Indeed, the comment did not even come to light until Nichole's second interview with the School Board's investigator in August 2002. Respondent gave Nichole a hug as she was leaving for her bus on the last day of school and told her to have a nice summer. Despite its close proximity in time to the bra comment, Nichole testified that the hug did not make her uncomfortable. She just considered it to be friendly "good bye" hug, which was all that was intended by Respondent. Nichole did not complain about Respondent to her parent(s) or anyone in the SHS administration during the time that she was his peer counselor. Lunch Invitations During Summer School Nichole attended the first session of summer school, which began on June 3, 2002, less than two weeks after the end of the regular school year. The only class that Nichole took during summer school was an English class taught by "Ms. Morris." Nichole was not Respondent's peer counselor during summer school, nor was she working on any school-related project with Respondent during that time. On June 3, 2002, while Respondent and Mr. Williams were in Ms. Morris' class fixing a computer, Respondent asked Nichole if she wanted to go to lunch with him off-campus. Nichole declined the invitation because she was "grounded" and had to pick up her brother from school. Respondent was again in Ms. Morris' class on June 5, 2002, and he again invited Nichole to lunch. Nichole again declined. Respondent did not have permission from Nichole's parent(s) or the SHS administration to take Nichole off-campus. The reason that Respondent invited Nichole to lunch was to thank her for doing a good job as his peer counselor and to congratulate her on deciding to stay in school and attend summer school, which Respondent and Mr. Williams had both counseled her to do. Respondent had taken a former male student off-campus to lunch for the same reasons in the past. Respondent and Nichole were not alone at the time of either invitation. Both invitations occurred in Ms. Morris' classroom, and Ms. Morris and other students were "milling around" in the classroom at the time. At the hearing, Nichole testified that she didn't think anything of the lunch invitations at first since she considered Respondent a "friend." However, she also testified that it "it was a little uncomfortable because he is a teacher." Nichole did not report the lunch invitations to Ms. Morris or to anyone in the SHS administration. Nichole did, however, tell her mother about Respondent's lunch invitations because "she thought she should know." On June 5, 2003, Nichole's mother called the SHS principal, Karen Coleman, and complained about the lunch invitations. Ms. Coleman told Nichole’s mother that she would look into the matter, which she did. The resulting investigation led to this proceeding. Investigation and Preliminary Disciplinary Recommendation Ms. Coleman began the investigation by speaking to Nichole on June 5, 2002. That discussion focused only on the lunch invitations. Nichole provided Ms. Colemen an unsworn written statement regarding the lunch invitations on June 5, 2002. That statement did not include any reference to the "lingerie incident" discussed below or the incidents described above involving the bra comment or the hug that Respondent gave to Nichole on the last day of school. Nichole provided Ms. Coleman another unsworn written statement on June 6, 2002. That statement referenced Respondent's comments about the source of Nichole's back pain, but it did not mention the lingerie incident or the other incidents described above. After speaking with Nichole, Ms. Coleman spoke with Respondent. Respondent admitted that he had invited Nichole to lunch off-campus. He further admitted that he did not have permission from Nichole’s parent(s) to take her off-campus and that he did not obtain permission from the SHS administration. Respondent told Ms. Coleman that he did not realize that such permission was necessary. Respondent had taken a male peer counselor to lunch off-campus in the past without receiving approval from the student's parents or the SHS. After Ms. Coleman's conversations with Nichole and Respondent, she contacted John Reichert, the School Board's director of human resources. Mr. Reichert directed John Byerly, the School Board’s internal affairs investigator, to conduct a formal investigation. Mr. Byerly interviewed Nichole on June 10, 2002, at SHS. Nichole did not mention the lingerie incident, the bra comment, or the hug to Mr. Byerly during that interview. Mr. Byerly also interviewed Respondent and Mr. Williams as part of his investigation. The results of Mr. Byerly's investigation were presented to the Executive Professional Standards Review Committee (Review Committee) on June 27, 2002. Among other functions, the Review Committee is used to make disciplinary recommendations to Mr. Reichert. The Review Committee’s recommendation was characterized at the hearing as "preliminary," and it is apparently not binding on Mr. Reichert when he formulates his recommendations to the Superintendent regarding employee disciplinary actions. The Review Committee recommended that Respondent be suspended for three days and/or be reassigned or transferred to another school. That recommendation was based only upon Respondent’s lunch invitations to Nichole and comments regarding the source of her back pain; it did not take into account the lingerie incident, the bra comment, or the hug because those incidents had not been disclosed by Nichole or Natalie at that point. Mr. Reichert and/or the Superintendent apparently did not accept the Review Committee’s recommendation because the Superintendent's July 26, 2002, letter recommended termination of Respondent's employment. At the hearing, Mr. Reichert testified that the reason for the change in the recommended discipline was the subsequent discovery of the lingerie incident, which he characterized as the "major driving factor" behind the termination recommendation. However, the preponderance of the credible evidence demonstrates that the lingerie incident was not disclosed to School Board staff until after the July 26, 2002, letter. Alleged Gift of Lingerie The lingerie incident was first disclosed by Natalie on August 2, 2002, when she was interviewed by Mr. Byerly.1 Natalie had given an unsworn written statement to Ms. Coleman on that same date, but that statement did not mention the lingerie incident. Based upon the "new information" from Natalie, Mr. Byerly interviewed Nichole again on August 15, 2002. The interview occurred at Lyman High School (LHS), where Nichole had transferred for her senior year.2 After the interview, Mr. Byerly had Nichole prepare a sworn written statement. The statement included the following account of the lingerie incident, which was consistent with Nichole's testimony at the hearing: When I was a peer counselor for Mr. Reeder, I had walked into class on[e] afternoon in 7th period and we were talking and he said ["]oh here I got something for you.["] He handed me a white plastic bag and through the bag I could see a black thing and I knew it was the langera [sic]. I then just put it on the floor and went on with my work. When the bell rang I picked up my belongings including the white plastic bag. When I got on the bus I showed Natalie it. It was a black see[-]through spagatie [sic] strap shirt and black thongs. When I got off the bus I walked home and through [sic] it away. That was the last time anything was ever said about it. Mr. Byerly interviewed Natalie again on August 16, 2002. Natalie's told Mr. Byerly that the lingerie incident occurred "a couple months before the end of the regular school year" and that Nichole showed her the lingerie on the bus. However, the sworn written statement she prepared after the interview indicated that the incident occurred "[a]bout the day before school was over" and that she learned of it "on the bus/car." Nichole told Natalie that the lingerie was from Respondent. Natalie had no independent personal knowledge that it was from him. There were some inconsistencies in Natalie's and Nichole's descriptions of the lingerie, but those inconsistencies were not material. They consistently described the lingerie as having a black see-through top and black panties. Nichole did not report the incident to the SHS administration around the time that it allegedly occurred. Nor did she tell her mother about the incident, even though she considered the lingerie gift to be more inappropriate than the lunch invitations which she did immediately tell her mother about. Nichole testified that she was somewhat embarrassed by the gift and she did not want her mother to think she "led into it." Respondent unequivocally denied that he gave Nichole any lingerie or other clothing, and Nichole's and Natalie's testimony relating to the lingerie incident was not credible. Thus, the School Board failed to prove that Respondent gave Nichole the lingerie. It is undisputed that Respondent never engaged in any type of sexual contact (e.g., kissing, inappropriate touching) with Nichole. Nichole made that point clear in both of her interviews with Mr. Byerly and in her testimony at the hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Seminole County School Board issue a final order which dismisses the Petition for Termination and provides Respondent the remedial relief that he is entitled under the collective bargaining agreement. DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 2003.
