The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to suspend and terminate the Respondent's employment on the basis of allegations of misconduct set forth in a Notice of Specific Charges. The allegations of misconduct charge the Respondent with immorality, misconduct in office, and gross insubordination.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Chico J. Arenas, was employed as a teacher by the Dade County Public Schools pursuant to a professional services contract. At the time of the hearing in this case, K. F. was a fifteen-year-old student in the 10th grade. She is a former student of the Respondent. At the time of the hearing, E. W. was a fifteen-year-old student in the 10th grade. She is also a former student of the Respondent. Both K. F. and E. W. are females. Shortly after Halloween in 1990, one day when the Respondent and K. F. were alone in a classroom, the Respondent asked K. F. whether a male student named M. was "getting action." At that time M. was a close friend of K. F. The term "getting action" was a reference to sexual intercourse. When K. F. answered the question in the negative, the Respondent repeated the question and also made statements to the effect of, "M. is lucky," that he had "heard Jamaicans are wicked in bed," and that "older guys will show you more." The Respondent also told K. F. that she made him "excited." K. F. construed these statements as being sexual in nature. As a result of these statements by the Respondent, K. F. lost the trust she had in her teacher and never went back to his class. The incident involving K. F. resulted in the Respondent being made formally aware of the School Board's policies with regard to inappropriate statements to female students containing expressed or implied sexual references and the Respondent was specifically directed to avoid sexual harassment of female students. Beginning in February of 1992, on three separate Saturdays, at approximately 11:00 a.m. on each of those days, the Respondent telephoned E. W. at her home. At that time E. W. was one of the Respondent's students. On each of those occasions the Respondent's statements to E. W. were of a personal nature and had nothing to do with the fulfillment of Respondent's duties as a teacher. On the first of the three telephone calls to E. W., the Respondent identified himself, but there was very little other conversation. Shortly after the Respondent identified himself to her, E. W. told him that she was doing something and asked if he could call back later. During the course of the second telephone call, the Respondent made statements to E. W. to the effect that he "liked" her and that he had "feelings" for her. The Respondent also told E. W. that she was "a beautiful young lady" and that she "had a nice shape." After just a few such statements, E. W. told the Respondent to call back later and she hung up. The Respondent's statements during the second telephone conversation led E. W. to believe that the Respondent had a romantic or sexual interest in her. During the course of his third Saturday telephone call to E. W., the Respondent repeated statements to the effect that he liked her, that she had a beautiful shape, and that she was a beautiful young lady. He went on to also tell her such things as that "he wanted to wrap his hands around [her] and hold [her] tight," that "he wanted to give [her] things," that her boyfriend "didn't have to know what was going on," and he also told her "not to tell her mamma [she] was talking to him on the phone." The Respondent also asked E. W. to meet him in the library near her home and to otherwise skip school so that she could be with him. The Respondent also made comments to the effect that he could do more for E. W. than her boyfriend could and that she was "a beautiful young lady, and [she] deserved beautiful things." As a result of the statements during the third Saturday telephone call, E. W. became convinced that the Respondent wanted to have a sexual relationship with her and she began taking steps to avoid the Respondent. As a student, E. W. was doing well in the Respondent's class. If she had had any personal problems that came to the attention of the Respondent, it would have been his responsibility to have referred her to one of the school counsellors. The Respondent is not certified as a counselor or as a psychologist. At the time of the telephone calls to E. W. described above, the Respondent did not have any school related business which required him to call E. W. at home, nor was he trying to reach E. W.'s mother. When the events described above were reported to school officials, the Respondent was removed from a school based employment site and reassigned to work elsewhere. The reassignment and the reasons for it became known to a number of administrators, teachers, parents, and students. The disclosure of information about the matter resulted in part from statements the Respondent made to others. The Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher has been impaired as a result of his conduct with E. W. and his prior principal would be reluctant to rehire him as a teacher. The Respondent's conduct with E. W. also constitutes misconduct in office and is a breach of his professional relationship of trust with students because it exposed a student to embarrassment and disparagement. The Respondent's conduct with E. W. also constitutes immorality.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order in this case concluding that the Respondent is guilty of immorality, misconduct in office, and gross insubordination as charged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, on the basis of those conclusions, terminating the Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 10th day of January 1994. APPENDIX The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties: Findings of Fact submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3: Accepted in substance with some details modified in the interest of clarity. Paragraph 4: Rejected as irrelevant because the conduct described here was not charged in the Notice of Specific Charges. Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, the unnumbered paragraphs following 7, 8, and 9: Accepted in substance with some details modified in he interest of clarity and accuracy. Paragraphs 10 and 11: The essence of these paragraphs has been accepted, but most details have been omitted as unnecessary. Findings of Fact submitted by Respondent: By way of clarification, it is noted that the Respondent submitted two post-hearing documents in support of his positions on the issues: one titled RESPONDENT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS PROPOSED ORDER RECOMMENDING REINSTATEMENT, and the other titled RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER. The first of these two documents includes an extensive summary of the testimony, which summary has been carefully reviewed by the Hearing Officer. However, because those summaries do not constitute proposed findings of fact, they are not specifically addressed below. Here, as in the usual course of events, it would serve no useful purpose to recite at length the extent to which the summaries are or are not accurate and to do so would add to this Recommended Order voluminous subordinate and unnecessary details; details which have been carefully considered during the fact-finding in this case. Specifically addressed below are the paragraphs contained in the "Findings of Fact" portion of the RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (This disposition of the proposed findings is, in any event, irrelevant in view of the Hearing Officer's disposition of the immorality charge). Paragraph 4: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The evidence is sufficient to prove the acts alleged by a preponderance of the evidence. Paragraph 5: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as constituting a proposed conclusion of law, rather than proposed findings of fact. (On the basis of Johnson v. School Board of Dade County, 578 So.2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), the Hearing Officer has reached a conclusion different from the one proposed here.) COPIES FURNISHED: David Rothman, Esquire Thornton, Rothman and Emas, P.A. 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 James C. Bovell, Esquire 75 Valencia Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Dr. Joyce Annunziata, Director Office of Professional Standards Dade County Public Schools 1444 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33132 Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue #403 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33122 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent is guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(d), (g), and (j), Florida Statutes (2013),1/ or Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A- 10.081(4)(c) or (e), or 6A-10.081(5)(d) or (o), and if so, what penalty should be imposed by the Education Practices Commission.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 776134, which covers the areas of school principal and social science, and is valid through June 30, 2017. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was employed by the Pasco County School District (PCSD). In April 2009 Respondent became the principal at Zephyrhills High School (Zephyrhills School), and was employed in that capacity until November 2012. At the time Respondent started his career with the PCSD, he was aware of the Florida Education Code of Ethics for Teachers. Later, when Respondent became an assistant principal he became aware of Florida Education Code of Ethics for Teachers and Administrators (Code). Respondent knew of the Code, but had not read it "line by line." Respondent was aware that he was not to engage in conduct that could seriously reduce his effectiveness as a PCSD employee; he was not to use his institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage; he was not to engage in any kind of harassment or discriminatory conduct against any of his subordinates; and he was not to create a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive or oppressive environment. Respondent was aware of the appropriate behavior in the PCSD environment. Respondent understood that it was his job as the Zephyrhills School principal to run the school, "a full-service high school preparing kids for their futures." Respondent oversaw all the academic programs, approximately 1600 students, over 100 faculty and support staff, 25 to 30 acres of school grounds, and a multi-million dollar budget. Respondent oversaw the hiring and firing of Zephyrhills School staff. Although Respondent did not have the ultimate authority to hire or fire staff, his opinion regarding recommendations as to whom to hire or fire carried significant weight. Teachers and staff believed Respondent held power over their employment status. Respondent provided performance evaluations for Zephyrhills School teachers and staff, and provided input into the performance evaluations of other PCSD employees who worked on the campus of Zephyrhills School. Respondent's management style was open and relaxed. Respondent fostered an open-door policy; however, by his own admission, he was "constantly on the fly . . . and very seldom in [his] office." Respondent encouraged interactions with teachers and staff through school activities as well as other social settings away from the school. Janene Witfoth Sullivan was an adult education assistant principal of Moore-Mickens School assigned to split her time between Zephyrhills School and Pasco High School. Although Ms. Sullivan's supervisor was located at Moore-Mickens School, Respondent had input into Ms. Sullivan's performance evaluation. Respondent admitted that early in his tenure at Zephyrhills School, he approached Ms. Sullivan, who was on-duty in a common area and asked her if she was a witch. Respondent also admitted that he put his hands in the air in front of him, and said "Abracadabra" and words to the effect of "can you enlarge my penis?" Ms. Sullivan was appalled, shocked, and offended that Respondent would address her in such a fashion in the common area of the school. Ms. Sullivan never confronted Respondent about his actions as she was concerned about the consequences she would face, as Respondent provided input to Ms. Sullivan's supervisor for her yearly evaluation. Respondent acknowledged his error in judgment in making the comments and gesture. Aimee Boltze was the director of staff development for the PCSD and worked as the school advisory committee liaison between the district office and Zephyrhills School. Zephyrhills School was identified as a school in need of improvement, and Ms. Boltze regularly met with the Zephyrhills School administrative team to plan school strategies and programs to help improve the achievement scores. Respondent admitted that during an in-school meeting, with other administrators present (Andressa Williams, John Taylor, and Scott Davey), he commented that Ms. Boltze's hair looked like a scene from the movie There's Something About Mary.6/ Later in that same meeting, Respondent made another comment about Ms. Boltze and what she was doing to him "under the table" at a prior meeting.7/ These remarks were inappropriate, unwelcome and offensive to Ms. Boltze, and embarrassed other administrators who were present for the meeting. Ms. Boltze immediately addressed Respondent by telling him "you're an ass," that he was out of line, and that she, Ms. Boltze, was the director of staff development and he needed to be careful.8/ Theresa Wright was a biology teacher at Zephyrhills School when Respondent became its principal. Ms. Wright wanted to teach the 2011-2012 school year to save money to attend medical school. Early in the school year, Ms. Wright informed her union representative that she was uncomfortable with the way Respondent looked her "up and down" when she and Respondent were in the office. Ms. Wright and the representative discussed a possible sexual harassment complaint. When Respondent heard of this potential complaint, he became angry and immediately called Ms. Wright and the representative to his office for a meeting. During the meeting, Respondent threatened that he would "go after" Ms. Wright for slander because Respondent had "never spoke[n] to you, never looked at you, never talked to you, [and] was never in your [Ms. Wright's] classroom." Respondent confirmed that Ms. Wright looked scared during this meeting, and when told to leave Respondent's office, Ms. Wright and the representative did so. Ms. Wright feared she would lose her job and she resigned her teaching position within the first quarter of that school year. Respondent contacted his supervisor about his statements to Ms. Wright. Kristy Blazys (f/k/a Kristy Koess) accepted a position at Zephyrhills School as an assistant principal for the 2011-2012 school year. Prior to working at Zephyrhills School, Ms. Blazys had previously worked at an elementary school, a middle school and a different high school to obtain the requisite experience to become an administrator. During her one-year tenure at Zephyrhills School, Ms. Blazys heard Respondent make frequent sexual comments about other female teachers. As teachers walked through the school's common areas during class transitions, Respondent would comment on female teachers' weight gain in "all of the right places," about female breasts and his desire to play with them. Ms. Blazys endured crude sexist remarks by Respondent regarding her relationship with her then boyfriend. Ms. Blazys was afraid to report Respondent for fear of retaliation. Courtney Sprigg was a math teacher at Zephyrhills School while Respondent was its principal. Ms. Sprigg considered Respondent a friend as she knew him outside the school setting. Ms. Sprigg told Respondent to stop saying degrading and vulgar things about women because Respondent was never going to "pick up anybody by acting this way towards them or saying these things towards them." Ms. Sprigg found Respondent's comments about female teachers, including herself, to be offensive. Andressa Williams was an assistant principal at Zephyrhills School while Respondent was its principal. Ms. Williams heard Respondent's comment about a female employee's breast, and she told Respondent the comment was inappropriate and that Respondent should be careful in what he said. Although Ms. Williams did not feel uncomfortable when she heard these comments while alone with Respondent, she was uncomfortable when someone else was present. Ms. Williams also heard Respondent's comments about Ms. Blazys' new relationship. In one instance, Ms. Williams commented to Respondent and other administrators before a school meeting, that Ms. Blazys was not in the mood for jokes about her relationship. Despite Ms. Williams' comment, Respondent made a comment about Ms. Blazys being late for work because she "got some" or was with her boyfriend. This comment was taken as a sexual reference. Aimee Stryker-Marando, an ESE9/ teacher first met Respondent in 2001 when they both worked at a local middle school where Respondent was an assistant principal. Ms. Stryker-Marando started work on a master's degree while employed at another high school. While at this other high school she was having some difficulty in obtaining the requisite opportunities for her graduate course work. After accepting a "friend" request from Respondent via Facebook, the two started communicating. Respondent was able to provide Ms. Stryker-Marando with information about graduate school assignments, projects and papers, and where to locate other information. Respondent and Ms. Stryker-Marando admitted they had a consensual sexual relationship prior to Ms. Stryker-Marando's employment at Zephyrhills School. The consensual sexual relationship, identified as a "friends with benefits" (FWB) relationship, began in late spring 2011 and continued through that summer. At some time during this FWB relationship, Ms. Stryker- Marando spoke with Respondent about an open ESE position at Zephyrhills School, and she applied for it. Ms. Stryker-Marando interviewed for the ESE position with Assistant Principal Williams. Respondent did not participate in the interview process for the candidates; however, when Ms. Williams told Respondent that Ms. Stryker-Marando was the best qualified candidate, Respondent gave his approval for Ms. Stryker-Marando to become a teacher at Zephyrhills School. Despite telling Respondent the FWB relationship could not continue, Respondent threatened Ms. Stryker-Marando with various statements, such as: "you owe me," "I saved your career," or "I helped you with grad school." Ms. Stryker-Marando felt her job was in jeopardy, and as a then single mother with two children, she no longer felt it was a consensual relationship, but rather job security. Respondent was her supervisor, the "CEO" of the Zephyrhills School, and had the power (real or imaginary) to end her job and/or her teaching career. Respondent repeatedly testified that he had a consensual sexual relationship with Ms. Stryker-Marando, which was on-going during the time when Ms. Stryker-Marando was his subordinate. However, for Ms. Stryker-Marando the sexual relationship was not consensual. Ms. Stryker-Marando did not want to continue the sexual relationship after she started working at Zephyrhills School, but she felt intimidated, harassed and threatened by Respondent. Ms. Stryker-Marando felt so much pressure by Respondent that she sought and obtained an ESE position at a different school. Mark Steve is the plant manager for Zephyrhills School. Mr. Steve worked in this capacity during the time Kari Kadlub, Tim Urban, and Derrick Tucker were assistant principals under Respondent at Zephyrhills School. Ms. Kadlub contacted Mr. Steve with a request for some work to be done. Mr. Steve was busy with other school projects, but at the end of the day he went to Ms. Kadlub's portable to follow-up on her request. As he walked up the ramp to the portable's door, he heard a lot of commotion coming from within the portable. When Mr. Steve knocked on the door, he heard more commotion, and looked through the view port (a window in the door approximately 8 inches by 31 inches in size). Mr. Steve saw Respondent standing by and exiting through the back door of the portable, dressed in his dress shirt and tie, but lacking pants which were draped over his arm. Mr. Steve backed away from the door window and when Ms. Kadlub answered the door, she appeared to be visibly shaken, and her hair and clothing were askew. Mr. Steve apologized for the interruption and left without following up on Ms. Kadlub's request. Shortly after Mr. Steve left the portable, Mr. Tucker and Mr. Urban knocked on Ms. Kadlub's portable door. Once inside the portable, the three assistant principals had a trivial conversation, and Mr. Tucker observed a pair of men's shoes on the floor beside a couch. Upon leaving the portable, Mr. Tucker and Mr. Urban went to the end of a building and watched the front door to Ms. Kadlub's portable. Less than two minutes later, Mr. Tucker saw Respondent leave Ms. Kadlub's portable, fully clothed and wearing shoes. Respondent contends that he used Ms. Kadlub's portable a few times to change into gym clothes because it was close to the school track. On the day these events allegedly happened (in paragraphs 24 and 25 above), Respondent contends that he went into Ms. Kadlub's locked portable while no one was there, changed clothes, and went out to walk the track. Ms. Kadlub contends that Respondent was already in gym clothes when she entered her portable, they discussed a student based issue, and he left the portable. This portion of the hearing implied that Respondent and Ms. Kadlub were engaged in some type of sexual relationship. There was no evidence to support that implication. Mr. Steve's testimony was credible. He expressed concern for his job over reporting his observation. Likewise, Mr. Tucker's testimony was descriptive. However, neither Mr. Steve nor Mr. Tucker observed any actual contact, sexual or otherwise between Respondent and Ms. Kadlub. There were significant rumors spread throughout the school and community which caused Ms. Kadlub to move to another school.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j) and rule 6A-10.081(5)(d), and not guilty of section 1012.795(1)(d), and rule 6A-10.081(4)(c) and (e), or rule 6A-10.081(5)(o). It is further RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission revoke Respondent's certification as an educator, with the decision concerning whether the revocation is permanent being left to the discretion of the Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 2014.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend without pay and terminate Respondent’s employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact Background The School Board is a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. 1 At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties stipulated that students N.E., C.Z., T.C., and S.M., were unavailable, and that their deposition testimony, included within the School Board’s Exhibit No. 12 and Respondent’s Exhibit Nos. 16 through 18, could be received in evidence in lieu of their live testimony. The School Board hired Respondent in 2010 as a teacher at Campbell Drive K-8 Center ("Campbell Drive"), a public school in Miami-Dade County. During the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years and at all times relevant to this case, Respondent was employed at Campbell Drive as an intensive reading teacher pursuant to a professional services contract. At all times material to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board’s policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD"). The alleged conduct giving rise to the School Board’s proposed suspension and termination of Respondent occurred during the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years. Allegations Involving K.S. The School Board alleges in paragraph 10 of the Notice of Specific Charges that during the 2016-2017 school year Respondent made grossly inappropriate physical and verbal sexual contact with K.S. At the time of the alleged conduct, K.S. was a female 12-year-old student in Respondent’s seventh-grade intensive reading class. Specifically, paragraph 10 of the notice alleges: During the course of the school year, beginning sometime after the Winter Recess, he would touch her private area over her clothing. On one day during lunch, the Respondent requested that this student come to his room during lunch to make up a test. When she arrived in the room, the Respondent initiated physical sexual contact with the student. In addition to touching the girl beneath her clothes, the Respondent exposed himself to her and had her touch his private area. After the brief encounter, the girl exited the room. During the course of the school year the Respondent also asked her to engage in sexual acts and made sexual comments to her. The School Board further alleges in paragraph 10 of the notice that during the 2017-2018 school year, when K.S. was a student in Respondent’s eighth grade intensive reading class, "Respondent requested a sexual favor from [K.S] on a small note that he had handed her." At hearing, Respondent vehemently denied making any sexual comments or engaging in any sexual contact with K.S. 2 K.S.’s Written Sworn Statement to Detective Webb On March 2, 2018, K.S. was interviewed by Detective Steven Webb, with the School Board’s police department, regarding alleged inappropriate sexual conduct by Respondent against her. That same day, K.S. gave a written sworn statement to Detective Webb, received into evidence as Respondent’s Exhibit No. 11. In this sworn statement, K.S. stated that during the 2016-2017 school year, Respondent "became sexually active with students, he did multiple things." K.S. went on state that Respondent: started off by touching my private area and then he advanced a couple of days later by pulling his pen[n]is (sic) out and grabbing my hand and, placing it there. One day he sent a student to get me from the cafeteria and on the pass it stated that I had to make up a test, but when I entered his class he rubbed my breast, and started to suck them for about 10 to 15 seconds, and then I pushed him away. He was dropping my grade until I did the things he wanted me to do with him which is to have sex, give him head, thing of that nature. Recently, about 2-3 weeks ago he asked me to do things with him and that’s a reason to why I left early recently. 2 K.S. did not complete her seventh-grade school year at Campbell Drive. Before the school year ended, the principal of Campbell Drive asked K.S. to leave the school because of disciplinary problems involving physical altercations with other students and defiant behavior. K.S. subsequently enrolled in Villa Prep Academy, a private school where she completed her seventh-grade year. K.S. did not attend Villa Prep Academy for very long because she was dismissed from that school during the early part of her eighth-grade year. In December 2017, K.S. re-enrolled in Campbell Drive. Upon her return, K.S.’s mother requested that she be put in Respondent’s classroom and K.S. was a student in Respondent’s eighth-grade intensive reading class for the remainder of the 2017-2018 school year. There was nothing mentioned in K.S.’s written sworn statement about Respondent engaging in any inappropriate conduct toward K.S. while she sat at her desk in Respondent’s classroom. K.S.’s Audio Recorded Interview with Detectives Webb and Ochoa In a subsequent audio recording interview of K.S. on March 2, 2018, by Detective Webb and Detective Gil Ochoa, received into evidence as the School Board’s Exhibit No. 5, K.S. initially described the cafeteria pass incident as follows: K.S. stated she left the cafeteria with her food tray in hand and went to Respondent’s classroom. Upon entering Respondent’s classroom, she began telling him things about her family. K.S. stated Respondent then took away her food tray, set the tray down, and pulled her over to another area of the room, at which time he touched her breasts over her shirt, lifted up her shirt and sports bra, exposed her breasts, and sucked on one of her breasts for about 10 to 15 seconds. K.S. stated she got scared and left the classroom, and that is all he did that day. K.S. failed to mention anything about Respondent pulling out his penis on this occasion until asked specifically about it by Detective Ochoa near the conclusion of the interview. School Board’s Ex. 5 at 13:22. K.S. then stated that she saw his penis, but she was scared and looked away. K.S. made no mention of Respondent placing her hand on his penis. During this interview, K.S. went on to describe another occasion in Respondent’s class that occurred after school was dismissed for the day. According to K.S., on this particular occasion, Respondent asked her "to give him head" and "to have sex with him." However, according to K.S., it never happened. K.S. further stated that recently (two to three weeks ago), Respondent asked that she "give him head." There was no mention in this interview of Respondent touching K.S.’s vaginal area or dropping her grades. The entire audio recorded interview lasted approximately 15 minutes. At the conclusion of the interview, K.S. was asked if there was anything else that she remembered that she wanted to add. K.S. declined and she did not state any other alleged inappropriate physical and verbal sexual contact by Respondent. K.S.’s Testimony at Hearing At the final hearing, K.S. testified that toward the beginning of the 2016-2017 school year, Respondent moved her seat next to his because she was easily distracted by the other students and failed the first test. Subsequently, the following exchange occurred between counsel for the School Board and K.S.: Q: Now, during that school year, did Mr. Rizo ever do anything inappropriate to you during class time? A: Yes. Q: All right. Can you explain to the Judge what he would do to you? A: He would, like, walk by, ‘cause since I was sitting so close to him, he would just touch me, like, my private areas or he’ll just, like go down on my arm, like that. Stuff like that. Q: All right. Now, this would occur during class time? A: Yes. Q: When specifically--was there a specific time that it would occur during class time? A: Mainly when we were testing or doing our work. T. Vol. 1, pp. 28-29. Counsel for the School Board went on to question K.S. about the testing process and Respondent’s efforts to curtail students cheating on tests. K.S. testified that students placed raised stapled manila folders on their desks to prevent students from seeing each other’s tests. Counsel for the School Board then asked K.S., in leading fashion: "So it was this time, during the testing, when he would touch you? K.S. responded: "Yes." Id., Vol. 1, pp. 29-30. However, K.S. could not describe the number of times "this occurred" during the 2016-2017 school year. Moreover, this alleged inappropriate touching supposedly occurred while 20 to 25 other students were in the classroom. At hearing, K.S. testified at one point that Respondent’s touching of her vaginal area occurred every time they had tests, but she acknowledged that the raised stapled manila folders were not always present on the students’ desks during testing. At hearing, K.S. further acknowledged that had the inappropriate touching occurred as she testified to, any student at any point could have looked and seen Respondent caressing her in her vaginal area. Counsel for the School Board then inquired of K.S. if there was "ever anything more serious that [Respondent] did to [her]" that school year (2016- 2017). In response, K.S. described the alleged cafeteria pass incident as follows: A: I was in lunch--because I was in seventh grade at the time, seventh grade goes to lunch before anybody, and he sent one of his eighth grader students with a pass to go to get me. Because in order to leave the lunchroom, you have to have a pass. Security didn’t let you leave the lunchroom. Security called me and told me that my teacher was calling me to make up a test. When I got in the room, I had my tray in my hand, and he took my tray, put it down, he exposed himself. And then there was a corner and he, like, put me in the corner and he sucked on my breast. T. Vol. 1, pp. 32-33. However, moments later, K.S. described the incident differently: First he pushed me to the corner, and then after he sucked my breast, then he exposed himself. And then I was just scared. And he--when he exposed himself, he grabbed my arm and he made me touch his area, and then I grabbed my tray, I threw it away, and then I left. Id. at p. 33. According to K.S., she was in Respondent’s classroom on this particular occasion between five or ten minutes. The corner of Respondent’s classroom is located right next to the door entering the room. K.S. testified that the incident occurred with just Respondent and K.S. in the classroom, but with the other student who had retrieved K.S. from the cafeteria still waiting outside the door when K.S. left Respondent’s classroom. At hearing, counsel for the School Board also asked K.S., in leading fashion, whether she ever told the police officers that Respondent would "suck on your breasts or try to have sex with you multiple times?" In response, K.S. testified: "I told them--I told them the suck on my breast part, when he exposed him. And then when they asked about my eighth-grade- year, I told them how he wrote on a sticky note that I want to give him head, like oral sex …." Inconsistently, K.S. testified in her deposition that Respondent wrote on the sticky note: "Can I eat her?" According to K.S. in her deposition, Respondent picked up the sticky note, showed it to K.S., and she grabbed it from him and threw the note away. School Board’s Ex. 11, p. 11. At hearing, K.S. testified that Respondent handed her the sticky note and that she then threw it away. K.S. and Respondent never communicated by telephone, text, e-mail, or social media. There are no witnesses to any of the alleged incidents. K.S. never reported any alleged inappropriate conduct by Respondent to her parents, a teacher, or school administrators. However, at hearing, K.S. testified she told V.S.C. about Respondent’s conduct toward her during the 2016-2017 school year when V.S.C. came to her house on a single occasion sometime during K.S.’s eighth grade school year. Allegations Involving V.S.C. The School Board alleges in paragraph 11 of the Notice of Specific Charges that during the 2017-2018 school year, Respondent also made inappropriate comments to V.S.C. during his role as an afterschool care supervisor, and that he would "bump up against" V.S.C., "rubbing himself on her buttocks area." V.S.C. was not a student in Respondent’s classroom. The alleged inappropriate conduct occurred while V.S.C., a female 14-year-old eighth grade student at Campbell Drive, attended the school’s Students with a Goal ("SWAG") afterschool program. SWAG is an outdoor program where students can engage in a variety of recreational activities. Respondent was one of six school staff members that participated in the program. At any given time, there were approximately 100 students in attendance. Students could play soccer, basketball, football, dodge ball, board games, or do homework. Students could freely rotate through the different activities by simply notifying the adult conducting the desired activity. Respondent primarily engaged in soccer, but would occasionally participate in other activities. At hearing, Respondent vehemently denied making any sexual comments or engaging in any sexual contact with V.S.C. V.S.C.’s Audio Recorded Interview with Detective Bernice Charley On March 6, 2018, V.S.C. was interviewed by Detective Bernice Charley, with the School Board’s police department, regarding alleged inappropriate sexual conduct by Respondent against her. An audio recording of the interview was received into evidence as the School Board’s Exhibit 8.3 During the interview, V.S.C. stated that while she and Respondent were at SWAG during the 2017-2018 school year, Respondent told her he wanted to slap her face with his penis; he asked her if she liked it rough (referring to sex); and he told her his penis was his "third leg." According to V.S.C., she and Respondent would engage in a verbal "back and forth," and he would say these comments in front of other students at SWAG. Additionally, V.S.C. stated she and Respondent would "bump" into each other at SWAG. According to V.S.C., Respondent would bump into her side or back from behind. During the interview, V.S.C. stated she had a bad memory. V.S.C. was reluctant to speak and there were many long pauses by her after questioning by Detective Charley. After much prodding and requests by Detective Charley for V.S.C. to "open-up," V.S.C. actually stated: "There’s nothing to talk about because nothing did happen." School Board’s Ex. 8, at 38:48-38:52. After further pauses, prodding, and requests by Detective Charley for V.S.C. to "open up," V.S.C. stated that Respondent also touched her breasts one time while they were at SWAG. According to V.S.C., this incident occurred with her shirt on. The School Board argues in its proposed recommended order that V.S.C. also described another incident while she and Respondent were at his classroom. According to V.S.C., Respondent was standing at his desk and V.S.C. was standing in the doorway, at which time Respondent stated to V.S.C.: "me and you here and now," followed by Respondent tapping on his desk. V.S.C. interpreted this comment as meaning that Respondent wanted 3 The audio recorded interviews of K.S. and V.S.C. (School Board’s Exhibits 6 and 8) are contained on a thumb-drive accompanying the School Board’s written exhibits received into evidence at the hearing. to have sex with her. According to V.S.C., other students were present when Respondent allegedly made the comment. Notably, this alleged incident is not referred to in the Notice of Specific Charges. The notice was, therefore, insufficient to inform Respondent of the School Board’s contention. The entire recorded interview lasted approximately 52 minutes. Much of the interview involved Detective Charley’s repeated efforts to redirect V.S.C. and her attempts to have V.S.C. "open-up." V.S.C.'s Testimony at Hearing At the final hearing, V.S.C. could not even remember whether she was in seventh or eighth grade during the 2017-2018 school year. In any event, V.S.C. testified that during the 2017-2018 school year, she attended Campbell Drive and the afterschool SWAG program. Respondent and V.S.C. did not have much interaction in the SWAG program. V.S.C. testified that she did not really participate in any of the SWAG activities; rather, she would either just "hang-out with [her] friends or sleep," or watch her friends and Respondent play soccer. However, most of V.S.C.’s time was spent sleeping near a tree, far away from where Respondent spent most of his time with the soccer group. When asked if Respondent ever did anything inappropriate to her during the SWAG program, V.S.C. testified that he talked about his "private part" to her, saying that "it was big," and referring to it once as "his third leg." Counsel for the School Board then asked V.S.C. in leading fashion: "Okay. Did he ever mention anything that he would like to do with his private part," to which V.S.C. responded, "I don’t remember. I just know that he talked about it once." T. Vol. 1, p. 82. V.S.C. described unspecified things that Respondent allegedly said to V.S.C. as "playful, like, in an inappropriate way," and "weird." Counsel for the School Board then asked V.S.C. in leading fashion: "Do you remember telling these things that he would say to you to the police at a given point," to which V.S.C. responded, "I barely remember. It’s, like, such a long time ago now." Id. at p. 83. As with her recorded interview with Detective Charley, V.S.C. was reluctant to testify at hearing and there were many long pauses by her after questioning by the School Board’s counsel. After further prodding and requests by the School Board’s counsel to describe "the things he would say to you, other than his talking about his private part," V.S.C. described the aforementioned verbal incident in Respondent’s classroom. On cross-examination, V.S.C. acknowledged this comment was loud enough so that other students could hear it and that she read a sexual connotation into the comment. Id. at p. 97. Counsel for the School Board again asked V.S.C. if Respondent ever made any other comments to her during SWAG, to which V.S.C. responded, "I can’t remember." Id. at p. 85. Subsequently, the following exchanges occurred between counsel for the School Board and V.S.C.: Q: Did he ever threaten to slap you with anything?" A: Yeah, with his penis. Q: What did he say? A: He said he wants to, like, slap me in the face with his penis. Q: And when did he say that? A: I think in SWAG. Yeah, it was in SWAG. * * * Q: Do you remember Mr. Rizo touching you in any other way other than bumping you with his hip or anything like that? A: When we would play fight, he would, like, put his pelvis, like, on my back area. Q: What would he do with his pelvis? A: He would just, like, be there, like, behind me and play fighting me. Q: Did he ever try to touch you sexually in any way? A: I guess, yeah, if he’s doing that, if he’s behind me like that. Id. at pp. 87 and 92. V.S.C. never reported any alleged inappropriate conduct by Respondent to her parents, teachers, or school administrators. At hearing, V.S.C. acknowledged that she and K.S. were friends. At hearing, V.S.C. admitted that she and Respondent were never alone during the SWAG program and that she was always close to the other students. At hearing, nothing was mentioned about Respondent touching V.S.C.’s breasts. Allegations involving N.E. In paragraph 12 of the Notice of Specific Charges, the School Board alleges that "Respondent also made sexual advances and over the clothing sexual contact with a third female student [N.E.] during the 2017-2018 school year." However, N.E. did not testify live at hearing and the School Board did not present any eyewitness testimony in support of the allegations. At hearing, Respondent vehemently denied making any sexual comments or engaging in any sexual contact with N.E. Ultimate Findings of Fact At hearing, the undersigned had the opportunity to observe the testimony and demeanor of Respondent, K.S., and V.S.C. The testimony of Respondent is credited and is more persuasive than the testimony of K.S. and V.S.C., which is not credited or persuasive. Notably, K.S.’s and V.S.C’s versions of the events as set forth in their statements to the police and testimony at hearing were vague, differed in key respects, and much of their testimony and statements to the police were obtained through patently leading questions. Moreover, V.S.C. admitted that her memory is bad and that "there’s nothing to talk about because nothing did happen." It is also inconceivable that K.S. would have returned to Respondent’s classroom for intensive reading during the 2017-2018 school year had the alleged conduct during the 2016-2017 school year actually occurred. Had the alleged incidents occurred as testified about by K.S. and V.S.C., who were friends, it is also expected that there would have been eyewitnesses. In sum, the persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that Respondent did not engage in inappropriate physical and verbal sexual contact with K.S., V.S.C., or N.E., as alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges, and Respondent did not engage in conduct with K.S., V.S.C., or N.E., which constitutes misconduct in office or immorality.4 4 K.S. and N.E. were also friends. As detailed above, N.E. did not testify at the hearing. However, an audio statement and a written statement purportedly authored by N.E., both of which are hearsay, were received into evidence at the final hearing as the School Board’s Exhibit Nos. 6 and 16, respectively. Although hearsay is admissible in administrative proceedings, this does not necessarily mean that the undersigned must use the hearsay in resolving a factual issue. The statements cannot be used as the sole basis to support a finding of fact, because they do not fall within an exception to the hearsay rule. Furthermore, the statements do not supplement or explain other non-hearsay evidence. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. ("Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence, but it shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions."). At hearing, the parties stipulated to the receipt into evidence of N.E.’s deposition testimony in lieu of her live testimony. Even if the audio statement and written statement could be used by the undersigned, however, the audio statement, written statement, and deposition testimony would not be given any weight based on the live testimony Respondent presented at hearing. Unlike N.E., who did not testify live
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board, enter a final order rescinding the suspension and termination of Respondent, Oscar D. Rizo, and reinstate Respondent with full back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of immorality and unprofessional conduct as is more specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated February 25, 1991.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered permanently revoking the Florida teaching certificate of Robert M. Dodd, Jr. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1991. Copies furnished: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0400 Robert M. Dodd 38124 Townview Avenue #106 Zephyrhills, Florida 33540 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 325 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0400 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0400
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent, Alexander Roy, is guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(d), (f), (g) and (n), Florida Statutes (2011). If violations are found, the appropriate penalty must be determined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate 1035877, covering the areas of mathematics, middle grades integrated curriculum, and social studies, which is valid through June 2015. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed by the St. Lucie County School Board (SLCSB) as a mathematics teacher at Manatee Elementary School, also known as Manatee K-8 School. On or about January 13, 2012, Respondent was arrested in Osceola County, Florida, as the result of allegations that Respondent used an internet provider and “knowingly persuaded, induced, enticed and coerced an individual who had not attained the age of eighteen years, to engage in sexual activity.” The allegations were based on the probable cause affidavit of Kevin Kulp, Special Agent for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, who worked on the undercover operation giving rise to Respondent’s arrest, which stated that Respondent contacted a person on-line that he believed to be the mother of a 13-year-old girl in order to have sex with both the mother and the daughter. The “mother” and the “daughter” were undercover police officers. As a result of Respondent’s arrest, a search warrant was executed to search Respondent’s residence in St. Lucie County, Florida. According to Detective Longson, the search revealed that Respondent possessed approximately 75-100 images of minors engaged in explicit sexual conduct. The analysis of the information seized at Respondent’s home also included photos and videos of a teenage girl, approximately 16 years old, engaged in explicit sexual acts with Respondent. On January 17, 2012, as a result of his arrest, Respondent was placed on temporary duty assignment at his home. On or about March 5, 2012, Respondent was charged by indictment with one count of Enticing and Attempting to Entice a Minor to Engage in Sexual Activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), and four counts of Possession of Child Pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). A Superseding Indictment containing the same charges was filed May 31, 2012. On March 27, 2012, he was suspended without pay by the SLCSB because of the federal criminal charges against him. On April 10, 2012, Respondent was terminated from his employment by the SLCSB, based upon his inability to report for work because of his imprisonment. On or about June 15, 2012, Respondent was tried in federal court before a jury. He was found guilty of all five counts. On September 12, 2012, United States District Court Judge K. Michael Moore adjudicated Respondent guilty on all five counts, and sentenced him to life in prison as to Count 1, and 120 months of incarceration as to each of Counts 2 through 5, with the penalty for all five counts to be served concurrently. Upon release, Respondent is to be placed on probation for life, a condition of which is to comply with the requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. § 16901. et seq.), as directed by the probation officer, the Bureau of Prisons, or any state sex offender agency in a state in which he resides, works, is a student, or was convicted of a qualifying offense. Also included in the Special Conditions of Supervision are that Respondent may not possess or use any computer, with the exception of pre-approved use in connection with authorized employment; that Respondent shall not have personal, mail, telephone, or computer contact with children under the age of 18; that Respondent shall not be involved in any children’s or youth organization; and that Respondent shall participate in a sex offender program. Respondent’s arrest, prosecution, and conviction were covered by the media, in the newspaper and on the radio, television, and internet. Respondent’s conviction significantly impairs Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher in the community. Respondent’s certification is for middle school grades. The prohibition from having contact with children under the age of 18 makes it impossible for him to hold employment as a teacher in the public school system. As stated by Maurice Bonner, the Director of Personnel for St. Lucie County Schools, “[t]here is absolutely no way that the students and the parents and the community would have any faith in him being alone in a classroom with kids even for one minute. And he would not be able to effectively be in a classroom. Or be on campus, period, where there are children present.” His testimony is credited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of all four Counts in the Amended Administrative Complaint and permanently revoking his certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: David Holder, Esquire J. David Holder, P.A. 387 Lakeside Drive Defuniak Springs, Florida 32435 Alexander Roy, Register # 99238-004 United States Penitentiary Post Office Box 24550 Tucson, Arizona 85734 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent, Henry L. Penia, engaged in acts of immorality or immoral conduct, in that during the month of July, 1978, he improperly touched a female student in an indecent or improper manner on school grounds during school hours in violation of Sections and 231.09, Florida Statutes, and Section 6B-1, Rules of the State Board of Education. Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following:
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Henry L. Penia, holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 044411, Graduate, Rank III, which by its terms is valid through June 30, 1981, for the areas of elementary education, history and political science. Respondent began his employment with the Hillsborough County School Board in February, 1952, and continued to be so employed until he was discharged on May 10, 1979. Respondent was assigned to LaVoy Elementary School (LaVoy) in 1974, where he taught nursery operations for the trainable mentally retarded (TMR) classified students. By way of background, the Florida Professional Practices Council, Petitioner, received a report from Hillsborough County school officials on May 24, 1979, indicating that Respondent had been charged with immoral conduct with a female student. Pursuant thereto, and under authority contained in Section 6A-4.37, Rules of the State Board of Education, staff of the Department of Education conducted a professional inquiry into the matter, and on September 10, 1979, reported the matter to the Petitioner's Executive Committee. The Executive Committee found that probable cause existed to believe that Respondent is guilty of acts which provide grounds for revocation of his teaching certificate. The Commissioner of Education found probable cause on October 1, 1979, and directed that Petitioner file a petition to revoke Respondent's teaching certificate pursuant to the authority contained in Rule 6A-4.37 of the State Board of Education and the guiding authority in Section 231.28, Florida Statutes. The material allegations of the Petition as filed by Petitioner are that during the month of July, 1978, Respondent committed an act of immorality in that he improperly touched a female student in an indecent manner during school hours on the school grounds of LaVoy. Concluding, the Petition alleged that the Respondent had violated Sections 231.28 and .231.09, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1, Rules of the State Board of Education, in that based on the above-cited alleged conduct by Respondent, he committed acts of immorality which were inconsistent with good morals and the public conscience and failed to set a proper example for students. The Petition adds that Respondent's conduct as alleged was sufficiently notorious to bring the education profession into public disgrace and disrespect and seriously reduced his (Respondent's) effectiveness as a School Board employee. Michael Sails, presently the head custodian at Foster Elementary School, Hillsborough County, was, during times relevant herein, a custodian at LaVoy. During a school day in July of 1978, Mr. Sails, while standing at the rear of Mrs. Evans', a teacher at LaVoy, portable observed Respondent's arm around the neck of Irene (last name unknown) while Respondent and the other students were standing around the agricultural area at LaVoy. Kennedy Watson, the head custodian at Dickinson Elementary School, was, during times material herein, employed as a custodian at LaVoy. During July of 1978, Messrs. Watson and Sails were seated in Mrs. Evans' portable where they could view the agricultural area at LaVoy. Mr. Watson was situated a distance of approximately seven feet from Respondent and Miss Martin when he observed Respondent with his hands and arms around student Irene Martin's breast and crotch areas. Student Martin, according to Watson, is a "very developed teenager". Watson's view was not obstructed when he observed Respondent's hands draped around Miss Martin's crotch and breast. (See location "X" on Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) Mr. Watson, to get a better view of the acts by Respondent toward student Martin, situated himself at the rear of Mrs. Bennett's pod. Mr. Watson observed Respondent and student Martin for approximately ten minutes. Mrs. Bennett, who was in her classroom at the time, observed that something unusual was happening outside her classroom and inquired of Mr. Watson as to what was occurring. Mr. Watson declined to discuss the incident then but agreed to do so later since he was, at that time, very upset about what he had observed. On July 13, 1978, Mrs. Sandra Kilpatrick, a staffing specialist for exceptional education for the Hillsborough County School System and formerly a teacher at LaVoy, sent Mrs. Bennett a message that student Irene Martin was in Respondent's class. Mrs. Kilpatrick confirmed that Irene Martin is a TMR student with an I.Q. of less than 50. Mary Bennett, an employee of the Hillsborough County School System for approximately thirteen years, is presently the Director of the Mentally and Profoundly Handicapped Program for students. Mrs. Bennett serves as diagnostician for student placement. Mrs. Bennett knows Kennedy Watson and recalled the day that Mr. Watson entered her room in July, 1978, when he appeared to be upset. Mrs. Bennett observed Respondent from a distance of approximately sixty feet from her pod with his body closely against Miss Martin in a "bumping, grinding manner" which lasted approximately several minutes. She observed Respondent touch Miss Martin in a few places in the breast area with one of his hands down along side Miss Martin's. Mrs. Bennett emphasized that no training was taking place while Respondent and student Martin were engaged in the conduct as described herein. When questioned specifically about the incident, Mrs. Bennett made certain the fact that no instructional activity was taking place and that Respondent made no attempt to free himself of Miss Martin if indeed that was his claim. She also indicated that no shovel was being used by Respondent for a training activity. After observing the incident, Mrs. Bennett discussed it with Mrs. Kilpatrick later that afternoon and made an attempt to contact Ms. Davidson, the Principal at LaVoy. Mrs. Bennett was sure that the date was July 13 because she left for Ohio to celebrate her parents' fiftieth wedding anniversary on Friday, July 14, 1978. Mrs. Bennett has great distance vision and was not mistaken as to what she observed by Respondent relative to student Martin. Conceding that she was not an expert on guessing distances and that she could be mistaken as to the exact distance that her pod is situated from the area in which she observed Respondent and Miss Martin, Mrs. Bennett was unequivocal in her testimony charging that what she witnessed was not any attempt by Respondent to train or otherwise instruct student Martin. Millicent Davidson, the Principal at LaVoy, is familiar with student Irene Martin. Principal Davidson was formerly a teacher at LaVoy and noted that student Martin has an I.Q. range of a four year old. Student Martin is unable to judge "right" from "wrong" and reacts to physical stimuli differently than a person with a normal I.Q. Principal Davidson also confirmed that student Martin has a habit of grabbing the wrists or hands of persons to gain their attention. (Testimony of Millicent Davidson.) On July 24, 1978, Principal Davidson contacted school security as she observed Respondent in the agricultural area from portable No. 371. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 2.) On that date, while she observed Respondent and Miss Martin, Principal Davidson's view was not obstructed. Irene Martin and the other students were potting plants with Respondent when Respondent grabbed one female student on her buttocks. Principal Davidson observed Respondent's arm draped around student Martin from the time that they left the agricultural area until they reached the portables, at which time the hugging ceased. Principal Davidson related (during the hearing) that physical contact with students was banned at LaVoy. On that day, July 24, 1978, Principal Davidson had a conference with Respondent and security employees Dossinger and Tyrie, wherein Respondent denied that he engaged in any physical touching of students. He was at that time suspended pending the outcome of the School Board hearings which ultimately resulted in Respondent's dismissal from employment. Based on Principal Davidson's observance of Respondent on July 24, and subsequent unfavorable press accounts of the incident relative to the school, she would not want Respondent to return as a teacher at LaVoy. S. E. Dobbins, the Personnel Services Director for the School Board, read several newspaper articles in the "Tampa Times", the "Florida Sentinel Bulletin" and other local newspapers respecting the subject incident between Respondent and student Irene Martin. Veda Bird, the former Principal at LaVoy and a teaching professional for more than forty-seven years, retired from the Hillsborough County School System during 1978. Principal Bird recommended Respondent for employment by the School Board. She observed him on a daily basis and was unaware of any character charges having been leveled against Respondent during his tenure of employment. Principal Bird is also familiar with student Irene Martin. She recalled that student Martin had a habit of grabbing teachers and was generally very vocal and hyperactive while at school. Principal Bird remembered student Martin as being a very strong student who constantly had to be counselled about grabbing instructors and other students to gain their attention. Finally, Principal Bird recalled that Respondent and Mr. Kennedy Watson had personality clashes and that she considered that Mr. Watson thought that Respondent was "out to get his (Watson's) job." RESPONDENT'S DEFENSE Respondent appeared on his own behalf and generally denied all of the material allegations of the Petition for Revocation filed herein. Specifically, Respondent denied that student Irene Martin attended his class on the date of July 13, 1979. He related his policy of not permitting students to attend his classes when they were not assigned to be there. Respondent recalled one occasion wherein he was showing a student how to dig with a shovel. At that time, he stood in front of the student and demonstrated how to dig a hole with a shovel. Respondent denied that there was any body contact between himself and the female student while he gave the digging instructions. Respondent also denied that there was any body contact between himself and a female student during July of 1978, as testified by Mrs. Davidson and Mrs. Bennett. He related that on one occasion he struggled to get Irene Martin back to the classroom area and that he had to, in essence, pull her back from the agricultural area to the class pod. Respondent believed that Mr. Watson's testimony herein was motivated and stemmed from a disagreement he had with Watson concerning the disappearance of approximately two hundred azalea plants that Respondent had given Watson to plant for the school.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's Teaching Certificate No. 044411, be REVOKED. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of August, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1980.
Findings Of Fact Mary Benekin holds teaching certificate No. 478252 and is certified to teach at the elementary and secondary levels in the areas of mental retardation and specific learning disabilities. Benekin was employed on annual contract as an exceptional education teacher in the Duval County School District at the Matthew W. Gilbert Seventh Grade Center. She began employment there in 1984 and continued to teach in that position until approximately February 20, 1987, when she left her position and did not return. The Petitioner seeks to revoke or otherwise penalize Benekin's teaching certificate for misconduct involving moral turpitude in violation of Section 231.28(1)(c), Florida Statutes; for misconduct which seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the school board in violation of Section 231.28(1)(f); for misconduct which violated the provisions of law or rules of the State Board of Education in violation of Section 231.28(1)(h); and for misconduct which intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code. These charges were based on 6 specific factual allegations against Benekin: use of sexually explicit language and terms in the classroom; recounting to students various sex acts she and her boyfriends performed and discussing other sex- related matters; sitting in front of students with her feet on her desk and her legs spread apart, sometimes scratching her vaginal area; making reference on numerous occasions to drugs and asking students if they knew where to buy drugs; repeatedly borrowing money from students, having students buy food for her, and asking students for some of their food; and making derogatory statements about students in the presence of other students, including statements that they smelled bad. Sexual Language and Discussions On direct examination, Ray Cummings, a student in Benekin's 4th period science class, stated that Benekin talked about sex to Tom Tom (Thomas Jones) on one occasion and that she said she "sucked men's dicks." On cross examination, Ray said that either Benekin or Racheal Ashley made the statements. Then on redirect examination, Ray said that Benekin talked "nasty," but did not say "suck men's dicks." Instead, she said something else regarding sex acts, about not allowing a man to "put his thing in her, that she would let him feel all over her." Ray then testified that he heard Benekin make these statements to Thomas. Finally, on recross examination, Ray said Benekin made these statements to "Racheal and them." By contrast, the report of the principal, Curtis Randolph, shows that Ray told the investigator there that he did not know of anything going on in Benekin's class. Also, Ray's testimony is contradicted by Thomas' statement. (See Findings of Fact 11 and 12). Kathy Jessup testified on direct that she overheard Benekin say, in a conversation with someone who Kathy cannot identify, that she would "suck men's dicks." Kathy testified that her friends told her Benekin said this in other classes, too. Kathy also said that she heard Benekin talk about sex, but she can't remember what was said or to whom. On cross examination, Kathy testified that Benekin told the whole class that she "sucked men's dicks." By contrast, the principal's report again shows that Kathy made no mention in that investigation of the alleged sexual discussions or the specific statement regarding "sucking men's dicks." Several sworn statements from students who were not present to testify were submitted "only for the purpose of corroboration." Regrettably, these statements do not corroborate much of the direct evidence. The statement of Kenyatta Brown says essentially that Benekin talked about sex to Tom Tom and Ray everyday and that Racheal told her that Benekin said she "sucked men's dicks." This is contrary to Ray's testimony and Thomas' statement and to the story she told to the principal's investigator. (See Finding of Fact 14). Racheal Ashley's statement says Benekin told "us" about specific sex acts and that she "suck's men's things." However when this is compared to other students' testimony and statements, it begins to become apparent that Racheal is probably the source of these alleged statements. Racheal's statement is directly contrary to the story she told the principal's investigator. (See Finding of Fact 13). Antinette Phillips' statement states that Benekin told the class all about her sex life and goes into great detail. No other students' recall of the events agree with Antinette's and no other student related the details stated by Antinette. Antinette's statement also differs from what she told the principal's investigator. (See Finding of Fact 15) Thomas Jones' statement indicates that Ray and Racheal told him that Benekin said she sucked her boyfriend's dick and that she let him fondle her. Thomas specifically stated that other students told him about Benekin's alleged discussions about sexual acts between her and her boyfriend. Finally Thomas stated that Benekin said what she does at home, she leaves at home. Thomas never heard any sex talk from Benekin. Clearly Thomas' statement is directly contrary to Ray's testimony and Racheal's statement and the report of the principal's investigator. The principal made a report of the information related by students in the course of his investigation. This information is contrary to the later statements of most of these students. For example, Racheal attributed the descriptions of sexual acts and the statement about sucking men's dicks to a Mrs. Sowell, another teacher. Racheal never said anything about Benekin in relation to these sexual discussions. Kenyatta Brown told the investigator that Benekin said in class that she and her boyfriend sucked each others privates and that Benekin asked Thomas and Antinette about their sex lives. This is directly contrary to her written statement. (See Finding of Fact 8) Antinette Phillips told the principal's investigator that Benekin told her, Thomas, Ray and Antinette about various details of her sex acts with her boyfriend. Again, these details are not consistent with the details given in her statement. It appears from all of these conflicting statements that a rumor circulated that Benekin made these statements; however, the testimony of Ray and of Kathy is specifically found to lack credibility and no weight is given to the student's statements because they contradict, not corroborate, the allegations. Accordingly, insufficient evidence exists to support a finding that these sexual discussions and use of sexual terms occurred. Inappropriate Sitting and Scratching The direct testimony of Ray Cummings again is that Benekin sat with her feet on her desk and that on one occasion she scratched her fresh appendectomy scar. The direct testimony of Kathy Jessup was that Benekin put her feet up on her desk while wearing pants. Kathy never saw Benekin scratch herself. Various of the sworn statements alleged that Benekin put her feet on her desk with her legs open and her underwear showing and scratched her vaginal area. These statements were admitted only to corroborate other admissible evidence. Here, there was no direct evidence to be corroborated by these statements. The only evidence entitled to any weight or consideration is that Benekin put her feet on her desk and on another occasion, while standing, scratched in the area of her fresh appendectomy scar. Neither of these acts can be construed to be misconduct as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Reference to Drugs The only direct testimony was that of Ray and Kathy. Ray never mentioned drugs in relationship to Benekin and Kathy specifically testified that she never heard of or saw Benekin discuss, mention or use drugs. Kathy did testify that other of her "friends" told her that Benekin told them that she used drugs. The only mention of drugs and drug use by Benekin came from the sworn statements which were admissible only to corroborate direct evidence. There being no direct evidence regarding any statements Benekin made to students regarding drugs, no finding can be made in regard to this alleged misconduct. Borrowing Money and Taking Food Ray Cummings testified that when students brought candy or food to class, they had to share it with everyone, including Benekin. He gave candy to her. Benekin would collect money from students to get snacks from the food machine in the teachers' lounge. When a student did not have money, the others would chip in. On one occasion, Benekin gave 15 pennies to Kathy for 3 nickels to be used in the food machine. Kathy testified that Benekin borrowed 15 cents from her and did not pay it back. Benekin also borrowed from other students. Kathy did not recall Benekin using the borrowed money for snacks for the whole class. On cross examination, Kathy could not remember receiving 15 pennies from Benekin, but agreed that it probably happened. Kathy also could not remember a student from whom Benekin borrowed money, but thought it may have happened with Thomas and Antinette. Kathy also recalled Benekin getting snack cookies from the teachers lounge for the students. Finally, on redirect examination, Kathy could remember only two times that Benekin borrowed money: the 15 cents from her and some money from Thomas. The sworn statement of Racheal corroborates that Benekin took candy from the students and asked them to buy her lunch. The sworn statement of Antinette corroborates that Benekin borrowed a quarter from Thomas. Thomas' sworn statement indicates that Benekin borrowed money from him and other students and that she never repaid him. Thomas also states that one day he had a Snickers bar and he refused to give any to Benekin. Later she saw him take a quarter from her desk and wrote a referral (disciplinary slip) for taking it. When he gave her a piece of candy, she let him throw away the referral. Based on this direct evidence and corroborative evidence, it is found that Benekin did borrow money from Kathy and Thomas and that she did take candy or food from students. Derogatory Statements Ray testified on direct that one time it stunk in the classroom and Benekin said that probably one of the girls was on her period. On cross examination, Ray acknowledged that Benekin explained to the class that if a student has a body odor, they are to come to her and she will let them go wash their body and apply a deodorant and that they are all human. Kathy remembered Benekin saying on one occasion something about someone smelling in the classroom. Benekin simply said something about an odor in the classroom. Kathy never heard Benekin put students down in class. If she had something to say to them, she would call them over to her desk and tell them. Kathy never heard her say it out loud in class. The only corroborative evidence in this regard is the principal's report which states that Kenyatta told the investigator that "Benekin made her feel bad in class by telling her that she (Kenyatta) smelled like she had been having sex." Kenyatta's sworn statement makes no mention of this and there is no showing that if statement was even made, whether it occurred in the hearing of other students. Thomas also told the investigator that one time he told Benekin that it smelled bad in the classroom and Benekin replied, "It must be one of my girls on their period." The allegation in the Administrative Complaint is that Benekin made derogatory statements about students in the presence of other students, including statements that they smelled bad. The evidence does not support this allegation. At worst, Benekin on one occasion made a general statement that a bad odor in the classroom must be the result of one of the girls being on her period. This is not a derogatory statement about a particular student and did not expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. A finding cannot be made based on the hearsay statement of the principal which reported the hearsay statement of Kenyatta since neither hearsay statement corroborates admissible evidence. Benekin's Use of Drugs While there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that Benekin asked students where to buy drugs, Benekin's own testimony is that she discussed drugs with students as part of a class project on drugs. In cross examination, Benekin acknowledged that she entered a hospital for treatment of chemical dependency on cocaine. She entered this hospital on approximately February 20, 1987, when she became aware of the principal's investigation. During the conference with the principal on that day, Benekin asked Mr. Randolph for help and asked for the necessary papers to request a medical leave of absence. Randolph understood that Benekin was referring to medical assistance for a drug problem. The medical program which Benekin entered is a two-year program with a 30-day inpatient component. Benekin completed the 30-day component and remains involved in the after care component. Effect of the Investigation As a result of the rumors and accusations made by students against Benekin, as revealed in the principal's investigation, Randolph expressed the opinion that Benekin was no longer effective as a teacher, that her effectiveness in the school had diminished and that her presence was a detriment to the faculty and the student body. No opinion was expressed regarding loss of effectiveness if the allegations were not true.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Department of Education, Education Practices Commission, enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Mary C. Benekin. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-5658 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Education Proposed finding of fact 1 is adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Proposed finding of fact 2 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 2. Proposed finding of fact 7 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 33. Proposed findings of fact 3 and 4 are unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 6 is irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 5 and 8-21 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. While each contains one or more statements which are true, the contents of each, taken as a whole, do not agree with the facts found herein. Additionally, there is an element of argument contained bin these paragraphs which are not adopted herein. Proposed findings of fact 22 and 23 are argument and are therefore rejected as findings of fact. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Mary C. Benekin The proposed findings of fact filed by Respondent are intermixed with conclusions of law and argument. Further, extensive additional facts, not made a part of the record, are presented. Accordingly, Respondent's proposed findings of fact are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order, except to the extent that they are unsupported by the competent substantial evidence or that they are argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Betty Steffens Attorney at Law 106 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Mary C. Benekin Route l, Box 249-E Pineville, South Carolina 29468 Martin Schaap, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 W. Madison St., Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Room 418, Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Petitioner was subjected to race and gender discrimination, sexual harassment/hostile work environment, and retaliation, as alleged in her Petition for Relief.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner, a 36-year-old Caucasian female, was employed by Respondent as a sales associate. She first worked for Respondent at its Sebastian, Florida, store where she started in June 2006. She voluntarily resigned from the Sebastian store in October 2006 and was hired by Respondent's Merritt Island, Florida, store one week later. Respondent owns and operates an appliance retail store in Central Florida. Respondent employs more than 15 people. At some time during Petitioner's employment, John Barnaba, an operations manager who rotated among several stores, said things to her that she found "unacceptable." For example, "You would look good on my Harley," "You look like a biker chick," and "You must be anorexic." He also clapped his hands behind her and said, "hurry, hurry, hurry." She reported Mr. Barnaba's conduct to Phil Roundy, her manager and manager of the Merritt Island store, who said "That's just the way he is," or words to that effect. She was unaware of any other action undertaken by Mr. Roundy regarding her complaint. In January 2007, Petitioner began a voluntary sexual relationship with Mr. Roundy, which involved at some point, Petitioner and Mr. Roundy living together. This relationship lasted until April 29, 2007, when the parties separated. She and Mr. Roundy "got back together in May, about a week after her termination." Mr. Roundy did not sexually harass Petitioner based on the voluntary nature of their relationship, nor did he sexually harass Petitioner between April 29 and May 18, 2007. After Petitioner and Mr. Roundy separated, he started treating her "differently." She reports that he became critical of her and would not assist her. Respondent has published an "information resource for common questions and concerns" titled, "Associate Handbook" that addresses sexual harassment and presents a grievance procedure for employees who believe they have been subjected to unfair treatment. It contemplates reporting the unfair treatment to (1) "your immediate manager"; (2) the store manager; or (3) "[s]hould the problem, however, be of a nature which you do not feel free to discuss with your manager, you are encouraged to discuss the problem in confidence directly with Human Resources." Petitioner requested a transfer to another store on May 1, 2007. She requested the transfer before Mr. Roundy started treating her "differently." She called Human Resources on May 9 and 15, 2007; it is unclear as to whether she called to check on the requested transfer or to report the alleged sexual harassment. She did not timely pursue any recourse suggested in the Associate Handbook. On May 9, 2007, Mr. Barnaba, the operations manager mentioned above, authored an email that characterized several of Petitioner's activities of that work day as "completely unprofessional and insubordinate." The following day, Mr. Roundy emailed his supervisor that Petitioner had gone through his private, business-related emails and discovered Mr. Barnaba's May 9, 2007, email. He also related several incidents that he thought unprofessional and that reflected bad customer service. He advised that Petitioner accused Barnaba and himself of conspiring to try to terminate her. Petitioner was scheduled to work on May 16 and 17, 2007, but did not report to work. She was scheduled to work on May 18, 2007; as a result, Kevin Draco, a risk manager for Respondent, went to the Merritt Island store to interview her. When Petitioner did not appear, management made the decision to terminate Petitioner for "absenteeism."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 4th day of April, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Maurice Arcadier, Esquire 2815 West New Haven Avenue, Suite 303 Melbourne, Florida 32904 Christopher J. Coleman, Esquire Schillinger & Coleman, P.A. 1311 Bedford Drive, Suite 1 Melbourne, Florida 32940
The Issue Whether Respondent has committed an unlawful employment practice in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2006), and if so, what remedy should be ordered?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a female formerly employed by the School District. From February 2006 to April 18, 2007, she was employed as a paraprofessional in the special education unit at Flagler Palm Coast High School. Petitioner is an "aggrieved person" within the meaning of Section 760.02(6) and (10), Florida Statutes, in that Petitioner is female and filed a complaint of gender discrimination and retaliation with the Commission. Respondent is an "employer" within the meaning of Section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. From the inception of her employment and until March 13, 2007, Ms. Price was assigned as a paraprofessional (parapro) in Mr. Robert Rinker's classroom. Ms. Price had not been in the work force for several years before taking the job at Flagler Palm Coast High School and was taking classes at night to obtain her teaching degree. Mr. Rinker teaches in what was described as a self- contained classroom for students who are classified as emotionally handicapped in the exceptional education program. At Flagler Palm Coast High School, at least some of the students in the program would attend classes in the 300 building of the campus, and would have fewer classes and teachers compared to a traditional schedule. However, students would not necessarily be limited to one classroom all day. They could, for example, have classes with other special education teachers in the 300 building. Parapros are evaluated by the assistant principal. While teachers with whom the parapro worked might be asked to provide input for evaluations, the teachers are not considered to be their supervisors. Ms. Price was in the classroom with Mr. Rinker during first and second periods, between classes, and during lunch. During third and fourth period, Mr. Rinker supervised students in the gym while Ms. Price remained in the classroom with students who did not go to the gym. Stan Hall also teaches special education in the 300 building of Flagler Palm Coast High School. During Ms. Price’s employment, he was assisted by a parapro named Kathy Picano. Ms. Picano sometimes visited Ms. Price in Mr. Rinker’s classroom. She is significantly younger than both Ms. Price and Mr. Rinker. Mr. Rinker is a jovial man and a veteran teacher. He coaches soccer and has coached basketball. He is well liked by his peers and by the students he teaches. Mr. Rinker often tells jokes and stories, and sometimes his jokes are “off color” or of a sexual nature. The jokes and stories are told to both male and female colleagues and not in the presence of students. No other staff member had ever told Mr. Rinker that his jokes were offensive and no one had ever complained to supervisory personnel that they were offended by Mr. Rinker’s behavior. Mr. Rinker sometimes used the phrase, “a good lovin’ is the universal cure.” He testified that he had heard this phrase since his childhood from his older relatives, and simply meant that when someone is having a bad day, a hug or other encouragement helps make things better. The remark could be addressed to students and staff alike. He did not mean anything sexual by the phrase, and others hearing the phrase did not interpret it as a sexual remark. Mr. Rinker’s testimony is credited. Ms. Price, however, was offended by Mr. Rinker’s jokes. She testified that nearly every conversation with Mr. Rinker became focused on sex. According to Ms. Price, the first week she worked with Mr. Rinker, they were discussing mailboxes in the classroom, and he stated, “let’s talk about the box you are sitting on.” She understood that he was referring to her vagina. Ms. Price stated that she was shocked by this statement, but did not say so because it was her first week on the job. Mr. Rinker does not remember ever making such a statement. Whether or not this incident actually happened, it occurred over a year prior to Ms. Price's complaint to either the School District or the Commission. Also that first week, Ms. Price mentioned in the classroom that she had a headache, and in response Mr. Rinker rubbed her shoulders or neck. Ms. Price was offended but did not tell Mr. Rinker his touch was unwelcome. Ms. Price claims that while things were not too bad the first semester she worked with Mr. Rinker, eventually it got to the point where she was unable to have a conversation with Mr. Rinker without it focusing on sex. She claimed that he sometimes purposefully rubbed up against her in the classroom.1/ In order to avoid talking to him or being physically close to him, she moved her desk to another part of the room. While she claimed the situation was intolerable, she did not report Mr. Rinker’s behavior to any supervisor and did not tell him she was offended by his conduct. Kathy Picano and Ms. Price sometimes spent time together in Mr. Rinker’s classroom. Mr. Rinker sometimes told jokes in Ms. Picano's presence and sometimes “invaded her personal space.” He acknowledged that he might have patted her on the back in passing as part of a greeting, but Ms. Picano described the touch as no different from what she might have received from her grandmother. Although Ms. Picano did not particularly care for Mr. Rinker’s jokes, she attributed them to being “just his personality.” She was not offended by Mr. Rinker’s behavior and, before being questioned with respect to Ms. Price's complaint in this case, never complained about it to him or anyone else in authority at the school. She acknowledged hearing Mr. Rinker make the “good lovin” comment, but found it endearing, as opposed to harassing. Ms. Price, however, was deeply offended by what she viewed as Mr. Rinker’s behavior toward Ms. Picano. The things with which she took offense did not stop with Mr. Rinker’s jokes or the attention she perceived that he gave to Ms. Picano. She did not think that Mr. Rinker or Mr. Hall did an adequate job of teaching, and was upset that Mr. Hall’s students were allowed, on occasion, to come to Mr. Rinker’s classroom to finish assignments because they were disruptive. She did not appreciate the way Mr. Peacock, the assistant principal, performed his job and believed there was an unwritten code where coaches and athletes did not have to follow the same rules as others on campus. Perhaps most of all, she was offended because students in Mr. Rinker’s classroom talked about sex too much and she did not believe that he did enough to stop it. In her view, this was exacerbated when Mr. Hall’s students were allowed to come over and finish work. Further, she believed that the students were using the computers in the classroom to access inappropriate videos and music that were offensive. Computers were in the classroom for students to complete assignments and to do research for school projects. When they were finished with their work, students sometimes played games on the computers and checked sports sites. Sites such as “myspace,” however, were blocked in accordance with school policy. While Ms. Price claimed the students were using the computers for inappropriate purposes, she admitted that she could not see what was on the computer screens from where she sat in the classroom. The testimony of the students did not corroborate her claim. All stated computers were used for school work and when school work was finished, to play games as stated above. Only one student indicated that he watched music videos. All the others denied doing so. There is no question that the students in Mr. Rinker’s class sometimes talked about sex and used profanity in the classroom.2/ One of the classes was a health class. The students were teenagers, many of whom had significant emotional problems with little or no support at home. Some of their individual education plans addressed the problem of too much use of profanity, with a goal of reducing its use in the classroom setting. Staff who testified all stated that trying to eliminate the use of profanity entirely was probably not a realistic goal, but modifying behavior to reduce it was. Their testimony is credited. Ms. Price was not the only one who complained about students talking about sex in the classroom. Barbara Ryan was another parapro who sometimes worked in Mr. Rinker’s classroom. She agreed that the students sometimes talked about sex and remembered a particular incident where she thought the discussion was particularly explicit and she said something to Mr. Rinker. He told the students involved to “knock it off.” In December 2006, an anonymous call came in to Ms. Myra Middleton at the District office complaining about inappropriate language used by students in the 300 building. Ms. Middleton referred the person to Mr. Peacock in accordance with School District policy. She spoke to Mr. Peacock, who said he would take care of it. After the phone call, Mr. Peacock went to each of the classrooms in the 300 building and spoke to the students about the inappropriateness of using profanity and talking about sex in the classroom. There was no evidence, however, that the anonymous call was placed because of conduct occurring in Mr. Rinker's classroom. The talk by students did not necessarily stop after Mr. Peacock spoke to the students. However, the more credible evidence is that these conversations did not involve the entire class, but rather small groups of students. Several students testified they never heard talk about sex in the classroom. The conversations that did occur took place while other conversations were also taking place. When Mr. Rinker heard the conversations, he told students to stop. There is no credible evidence that Mr. Rinker heard each conversation that Ms. Price heard or that he deliberately chose not to address the students’ behavior. Nor is there any evidence that the students’ discussions regarding sex were in any way directed toward her. Mr. Rinker was not particularly computer literate. As a consequence, Ms. Price entered all of the students' grades in the computer. She had access to Mr. Rinker’s password and would print out his e-mail. In early March, 2007, Mr. Rinker received an e-mail from Mr. Peacock’s secretary directing that he see Mr. Peacock regarding his evaluation. Ms. Price did not believe that Mr. Peacock intended to complete the required observation for Mr. Rinker's evaluation, and this offended her. Ms. Price answered the e-mail as if she were Mr. Rinker, noting that no observation had yet taken place. This conduct violated the written standards applicable to parapros. Mr. Peacock discovered that Ms. Price, and not Mr. Rinker, had responded to his secretary's e-mail. On March 9, 2007, Mr. Peacock called Ms. Price into his office and told her that it was improper for her to send e-mails under Mr. Rinker’s name. During the meeting, Ms. Price explained that she was inputting grades, attendance and all other computer data. Mr. Peacock advised that additional training would be made available for Mr. Rinker, but that she was not to perform his duties. Ms. Price was under the impression that she was receiving a reprimand. She also felt that Mr. Rinker, who was also counseled by Mr. Peacock, did not defend her as vigorously as he should, and that he was the one who should be in trouble. In fact, Mr. Rinker told Mr. Peacock that Ms. Price had his permission to use his password for the computer and that she was very helpful. Ms. Price’s reaction to this incident was well out of proportion to the incident itself. Moreover, she did not appear to recognize that what she did in signing Mr. Rinker’s name to the e-mail was wrong. She was crying, both after the meeting and into the next week. The meeting with Mr. Peacock took place on a Friday. On Monday, Ms. Price was on a previously-scheduled day off. On Tuesday, she was still upset to the point of tears, and went to see Sue Marier, the ESE Department head. Although she was told repeatedly, both by Ms. Marier and by Mr. Peacock, that she was not being formally reprimanded for the incident, she continued to believe she was being treated unfairly. She told Mr. Rinker, Ms. Marier and Mr. Peacock that if she was going down, then so was Mr. Rinker. The following day, March 14, 2007, Ms. Price went to the principal, Nancy Willis, and complained that Mr. Rinker had been sexually harassing her since the beginning of her employment. Ms. Willis advised Ms. Price to put her complaint in writing, which she did. The complaint was forwarded immediately to the district office for investigation. During the investigation, Mr. Rinker was suspended with pay. Mrs. Willis also asked Ms. Price if she wanted to be moved to a different classroom, and Ms. Price indicated she did not want to be around Mr. Rinker. Mrs. Willis went to Sue Marier, the ESE Department Head, and asked where there was a need for a parapro so that Ms. Price could be transferred. At the time of the request, Ms. Marier did not know that Ms. Price had filed the complaint regarding sexual harassment and thought Ms. Price was still upset over the computer e-mail incident. She told Mrs. Willis that the greatest need was in the class for autistic children, and Ms. Price was transferred to that class. A decision had been made to add more staff, including another teacher, for that area, but positions had not yet been advertised. Parapros do not generally have the right to choose their assignments. They are placed in the classroom with the greatest need. At the time of Ms. Price's transfer, the autistic classroom was the classroom with the greatest need. This transfer did not result in a change in pay or status. There were significantly fewer students in the autistic class than in Mr. Rinker's class, and at least one of the students had a one-on-one aide in the classroom. While there was a slight change in schedule, it was not significant, and she remained a parapro at the same rate of pay. Both Sue Marier and Nancy Willis went by at different times to check on Ms. Price in her new placement. The more credible evidence indicates that Ms. Price did not complain about being in this classroom. The School District has two policies that deal with sexual harassment: Policy number 662, entitled Prohibition of Sexual Harassment - Employees, and Policy number 217, entitled Prohibiting Discrimination, Including Sexual and Other Forms of Harassment. It is unclear why the School District has both at the same time. The definitions regarding sexual harassment in both policies are similar, with Policy number 217 being slightly more detailed. The complaint procedure outlined in Policy number 217 is clearly more detailed, and it cannot be said that it was followed to the letter in this case. However, Policy number 217 was amended after the investigation took place in this case. No testimony was presented to show whether the more detailed procedures presently listed in Policy number 217 were in place at the time of the investigation. Further, the documents related to the investigation reference Policy number 662, as opposed to Policy number 217. It is found that the investigation was conducted in accordance with Policy number 662, and that to do so was appropriate. Ms. Price’s complaint of sexual harassment was investigated by April Dixon and Harriet Holiday. Over the course of the next several days, both Mr. Rinker and Ms. Price were interviewed (separately) as well as several other staff members. Those staff members included Sue Marier, Kathy Picano, Donna Dopp, Stan Hall, Pat Barile (Sue Marier's assistant), Mr. Tietema (another teacher), and Barbara Ryan. The investigation conducted was reasonable, given the allegations by Ms. Price. Ms. Price's written complaint stated that Mr. Rinker made inappropriate sexual comments; that he rubbed up against her on numerous occasions; that Mr. Rinker allowed the students to talk in the classroom using sexually explicit language and had made no effort to stop it; and that he had made inappropriate sexual comments to Ms. Picano. Policy number 662 provides in pertinent part: Sexual harassment consists of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other inappropriate oral, written or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: submission to such conduct is made, either explicitly or implicitly, a term or condition of employment (or of an individual's education). submission to or rejection of such conduct is used as the basis for an employment or employment decisions affecting that individual; or such conduct substantially interferes with an employee's work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. Sexual harassment, as defined above, may include but is not limited to the following: verbal harassment or abuse; pressure for sexual activity; repeated remarks to a person with sexual or demeaning implications; unwelcome or inappropriate touching; suggesting or demanding sexual involvement accompanied by implied or explicit threats concerning one's employment. * * * Procedures. -- Any employee who alleges sexual harassment by any staff member must report the incident directly to the building principal or the employee's immediate supervisor. Alternatively, the employee may make the report to the Assistant Superintendent of Instructional Accountability. Filing a complaint or otherwise reporting sexual harassment will not affect the individual's status, future employment or work assignments. The right of confidentiality, both of the complaint and of the accused will be respected, consistent with the Board's legal obligations, and with the necessity to investigate allegations of misconduct and take corrective action when this conduct has occurred. In determining whether alleged conduct constitutes sexual harassment, the totality of circumstances, the nature of the conduct, and the context in which the alleged conduct occurred will be investigated. The Superintendent or designee has the responsibility of investigating and resolving complaints of sexual harassment. A substantiated charge against a Board employee shall subject such employee to disciplinary action, including but not limited to warning, suspension or termination, subject to applicable procedural requirements. After investigation of Ms. Price's complaints, April Dixon discussed her findings with Mr. Delbrugge, the School District Superintendent. She also turned over to him all of the transcripts of taped interviews and her conclusions regarding the investigation. She concluded, and he agreed, that the investigation showed Mr. Rinker told inappropriate jokes in the workplace but that in all other respects Ms. Price's complaints were not substantiated. The investigation also revealed that Ms. Price also used profanity and occasionally told sexually- related jokes in the workplace. The Superintendent decided that the appropriate penalty (in addition to the suspension with pay already imposed) was to reprimand Mr. Rinker with a letter in his file; to require him to receive additional training on sexual harassment; to warn him that further complaints would result in termination; and to place him on probation for the remainder of the school year. This discipline was consistent with the School District's collective bargaining agreement concerning discipline of instructional staff. Mr. Rinker was informed of this result March 19, 2007, and completed the sexual harassment training as required. Ms. Price was notified informally of the results of the investigation that same day. She received official notification by letter dated May 3, 2007. Ms. Price was very dissatisfied with the results of the investigation and the action taken by the School District. She felt that Mr. Rinker should be fired. It is clear, after hearing, that nothing less then Mr. Rinker's termination would appease her. Ms. Price was also unhappy with her new placement. She did not like being in the classroom with the autistic students and felt they were dangerous. She felt that she should have been allowed to remain in her original classroom and Mr. Rinker should have been removed. After less than three weeks, she tendered her resignation. This three-week period included one week off for Spring Break and some personal leave days taken due to Ms. Price's husband having a stroke. Her resignation is dated April 18, 2007, but her last day working in the classroom was approximately April 6, 2007. Ms. Price's resignation was voluntary. While there was some belief that she left because of her husband's stroke, Ms. Price disputes that assertion and insists that it was because of the conditions in the new classroom to which she was assigned. Her resignation letter, however, references neither reason. It states: Dear Ms. Willis: It is with sincere regret that I am writing this letter of resignation as an ESE Para Professional for Flagler Palm Coast High School. Please accept this as such. I do apologize for the short notice. I would also like to take this opportunity to express to you my appreciation of your handling of my complaint. You are the only one who has validated me as a person and as a worthy employee. I only had a brief encounter with you but it was enough for me to know that working directly under you would have been a pleasure as well as a great learning experience as I respect your leadership abilities. I recognize that this is a trying situation for all involved and that you have done your very best to rectify the matter under the circumstances. It is important for me to let you know that whatever happens in the future in regards to my claim, this is no way a reflection on you. I truly hope that you can appreciate my position and the importance of making positive changes for the future. Based upon the evidence presented, it is found that Ms. Price resigned for a variety of reasons, including her husband's stroke and her unhappiness with the new placement. However, her dissatisfaction with the handling of the complaint regarding Mr. Rinker and his continued employment was at least a part of her decision. Ms. Price was not subjected to an adverse employment action as a result of her complaint. To the contrary, school officials transferred her to another classroom at her request. The conditions in the new classroom setting were not onerous.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Human Relations Commission dismissing Petitioner’s complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of August, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a valid Florida teaching certificate, No. 150877. That certificate allows him to teach in the areas of business education, mathematics, social studies and vocational education and is valid through June :30, 1995-. Respondent has been an employee of the School Board of Nassau County since 1979. He teaches mathematics at West Nassau High School in Callahan, Florida where he also serves as the chairman of the mathematics department. Respondent taught general math to a male student, Joey Roundtree, in the school 1985-86. One day while the student was in class he stood at Respondent's desk. Respondent was to the right of the student seated his chair. The student laid a book or piece of paper down and the Respondent reached across to pick up the book or paper and the back of his hand touched the student in the area of his midsection or the zipper of his pants. Respondent's hand moved straight across. Nothing was said by Respondent to the student at that time nor did Respondent make any facial gestures at that time. The student said nothing to the Respondent about this and no other action of this nature occurred between the Respondent and the student on any other occasion. While the Administrative Complaint by the Commissioner describes it as inappropriate conduct in that the Respondent is alleged to have "reached across the desk and brushed against the student's lower midsection", this touching by the Respondent is not found to be inappropriate. It is also significant that counsel to the Commissioner in the proposed fact finding does not urge upon the fact finder that this touching was inappropriate. While Joey Roundtree was in Respondent's general math class in the school year 1985-86 he recalls Respondent making sexually suggestive comments or innuendoes from statements made by other students. While Roundtree can not recall specific statements as they were made he remembers that generally the nature of the exchange between Respondent and a student would be to the effect that the student would say something like, "this is a hard question" and Respondent would say "well it's extremely hard" and in doing so the Respondent would emphasize the word hard. Roundtree recalls walking between the desks on several occasions at which time the Respondent would stare below Roundtree's belt until Roundtree arrived at Respondent's desk at which time time Respondent would lick his lips and look above his glasses. On many occasions Roundtree observed, almost daily, that if a comment was made about length, size or shape that the Respondent would turn this around in a suggestive way that was sexual. Roundtree in his 1985-86 school year understood that the Respondent was referred to as "Dirty Rob" and after being in class Roundtree recognized that the basis for that name was associated with what Roundtree refers to as dirty and nasty and suggestive conduct by the Respondent. These terms by Roundtree equate to sexual innuendos by the Respondent. `This even extended to Respondent and his conduct involving sexual innuendos out of the classroom and in the hallway. Roundtree observed that the Respondent in emphasizing the word "hard" would make facial gestures by looking down above his glasses and licking his lips at Roundtree as a member of the class and smiling and laughing when he said the word "hard". Roundtree recalls Respondent making comments to female members of the class of a sexual nature in the school year 1985-86 but cannot specify what those comments were. He did observe that they were accompanied by liplicking and smiling. Those actions by the Respondent met with comments by some of the female students to the effect "you're being nasty" or "I know what your trying to say," to which the Respondent would reply that "well, your mind is in the gutter". Roundtree has no recollection that the female students appeared embarrassed by the actions of Respondent directed to them, actions which were an every day occurrence. Allegations in the Administrative Complaint and Statement of Charges concerning the school year 1989-90 as to inappropriate and unprofessional conduct involving the touching of the breast and buttocks of a female student, sexually suggestive comments to a female student, inappropriate comments to a female student about her appearance, touching a male student in the genital area, making innuendoes from statements made by students and the use of profanity in front of and directed at students were not proven except to this limited extent: Dana Kriete was a math student taught by the Respondent in the year 1989- She overheard the Respondent talk about a girl's breasts, how large they were. That girl was Dell Evans. More specifically Respondent commented that he wondered "what her boyfriend could do with them," referring to Evans' breast. This comment was made in the presence of other students and loud enough so that the other students could have heard the remarks. When the remarks were made about Dell Evans, Evans appeared upset. The general remarks about Dell Evans were made on approximately five occasions. Kriete also overheard the Respondent use profanity in the classroom, specifically the words "ass" and "damn." In the school year 1990-91 Respondent taught consumer math to Carla Bass, a female student. Bass routinely attended class which was held on each school day, five consecutive days. While attending class Bass overheard the Respondent make sexually suggestive comments. Most of these comments were directed to Sylvia Brantley, a female student, regarding the breasts of Ms. Brantley. Bass overheard Respondent describe how big Sylvia Brantley's breasts were. Bass also heard Respondent say in class that when Brantley was asleep that Respondent was going to "kiss Brantley and wake her up like they do in Snowwhite". These remarks by Respondent were stated loud enough for other students to hear them. In the school year 1990-91 Bass heard Respondent refer to a female student whose name is Christine Hughes as Christine "Huge" which was an innuendo having to do with the student's breasts. Bass observed that when Respondent would make remarks about Brantley and Hughes that Brantley and Hughes would appear embarrassed. In the school year 1990-91 Bass observed the Respondent while staring at her breasts lick his lips and roll his eyes. Bass observed the Respondent lick his lips and raise his eyebrows while looking at other female students in particular certain parts of their bodies. While Bass was in the Respondent's class in the school year 1990-91 she overheard Respondent make suggestive comments about a student Jason Englert whom Respondent referred to as "inch". Englert would be cheating in class and giving out answers to other students and would refer to a measurement associated with inches to which the Respondent said, "yeah, I heard that's how long it was" taken by the student Bass as a sexual connotation referring to Englert's genitals. That connotation could be drawn by Bass from the remarks made by Respondent concerning the student Englert. The use of sexual connotations in the classroom made Bass feel uncomfortable and embarrassed her. On one occasion in the school year 1990-91 Respondent told Bass to "get the hell out of his classroom." This had occurred at a time when Bass was disrupting the Respondent. As previously alluded to, Respondent taught math to Sylvia Brantley in the school 1990-91. At hearing Brantley described events in the Respondent's classroom. She recalled the sexually suggestive manner in which the Respondent spoke of Christine Hughes as being Christine "Huge." This was done in Brantley's presence while Respondent called the class attendance roll. This occurred throughout the time that Christine Hughes was in school in that academic year. In the school year 1990-91 Brantley overheard Jason Englert give answers out in class referring to "an inch" and the Respondent would say something that had a sexual connotation, to the effect, "is that all it is" or "I know that's how small it is". Brantley observed the Respondent roll his eyes and lick his lips after making statements in the class that had a sexual connotation. Brantley observed the Respondent look at the breasts and as she refers to it "the behind" (posterior) of a female student while rolling his eyes and licking his lips. Brantley also observed the Respondent roll his eyes and lick his lips while looking at male students. The class which Brantley attended in the school year 1990-91 had approximately 28 to 30 students. Sabrina Silcox was a female student in Respondent's math class in the school 1990-91. When the Respondent would refer to her name in class he would refer to her as Sabrina "Silcock." This was a reference which had a sexual connotation. Respondent made this reference twice during the school year. This reference was made in front of approximately 20 students. On one occasion someone came to the class to get Sabrina Silcox and asked for her by that name, to which Respondent said "do you mean Sabrina Silcock." The person who had called for the student in the class then said "no sir, Sabrina Silcox". Silcox recalls that in class she observed the Respondent "do a little smirk and then do his eyes or something like that, just look at us out of his eyes, the corner of his eyes funny and stuff". Silcox did not pay any attention when Respondent made these gestures. Silcox indicated that at times she was embarrassed by Respondent's mispronunciation of her name. When she observed Respondent make the gestured with his facial expressions the other students would laugh and she was unaware if any of those students were embarrassed by Respondent's actions. Stella Darlene Metts, a female student, was taught math by the Respondent in the school year 1990-91. While in the class she heard Respondent make sexually suggestive comments. She heard Respondent refer to Christine Hughes as Christine "Huge," seen as a sexual innuendo referring to the student Hughes's breasts. An innuendo which was correctly interpreted by Metts under the circumstances in which that reference was made by the Respondent. Respondent made these remarks about the student Hughes while looking at her in a manner which Metts describes as perverted. Metts also saw the Respondent look at Sylvia Brantley in that fashion. The looks made toward Hughes were to Hughes's breasts. Respondent then would look back at the rest of the class and laugh about the situation with Hughes. Christine Hughes had large breasts, as observed by Metts when commenting about the events in Respondent's classroom, and when Respondent would look at Hughes's breasts the male students in the class would think that these antics were funny because to looking at Hughes's breasts Respondent would gain the attention of the male students in the class and laugh. The male students would state, while the Respondent was looking at Hughes, "yeah look at Mr. Roberts looking at you you better not wear red". The reference to the color red had to do with Respondent's expressed fondness for that color. Crystal Hicks, a female student, was in a math class taught by the Respondent in the 1990-91 school year. In the class Respondent made sexual innuendo statements in front of Hicks. First, reference football players Respondent stated, "all they do is get out of class and get down and hut all day up the butt." In referring to the band members Respondent stated, "all they do is beat and blow all day." As Hicks established, these statements were made "every now and then". Hicks observed the Respondent raise his eyebrows and stick his tongue out, like licking his lips, when staring at female students in the class. She was unable to determine exactly where those stares were directed concerning the students' bodies. About the use of profanity, which Hicks described Respondent using in class, the swear words "damn" and "hell" are found to have been stated in the presence of that witness. Jennifer Yawn, a female student, was in Respondent's math class in the school year 1990-91. Yawn described how Respondent would act if Yawn were chewing gum, that Respondent would say to "quit advertising." Yawn described the sexual connotations behind the remarks of the Respondent as "he would just say it like you were doing something with a sucker", by which Yawn meant that Respondent was describing what the student was doing with a sucker. While making the remarks about advertising Yawn saw the Respondent raise his eyebrows and lick his lips. The comments about advertising with the gum had to do with the instances in which the student blew bubbles. This made Yawn uncomfortable. Yawn also heard the Respondent use profanity in class, the words "hell" and "damn." Jason Englert was a male math student taught by the Respondent in the school year 1990-91. He overheard Respondent talk about Sylvia Brantley's breasts in the classroom, in an instance in which Respondent called Sylvia Brantley's breasts "pillows." He recalls sexual gestures by the Respondent when he was talking to Ms. Brantley. Those gestures involve staring at Ms. Brantley's breasts, moving his eyebrows and licking his lips. In addition Respondent made a sexually suggestive comment to Englert while Englert was walking away from the Respondent's desk. Englert glanced back at the Respondent and Respondent was looking at Englert's "butt," (posterior) Englert put his hands over his posterior, to which Respondent said, "well, that's the part I want to see." There were other persons standing by the desk who could have heard the remarks by Respondent. Those persons looked at Englert and laughed. This circumstance did not bother Englert. Englert also overheard the Respondent speak of Carla Bass and her breasts as being "pillows." Students other than Joey Roundtree, (school year 1985-86), who were in the Respondent's classes in the school year 1990-91 and who testified at the hearing made mention of the Respondent's nicknames "Dirty Rob" and "Red Rob". These references have to do with perceived conduct by the Respondent leading to the impression that his personality was that of an individual who was perverse, having to do with his involvement with sexual innuendoes. The students knew of Respondent's reputation for sexual innuendos before entering the classroom. Such knowledge might influence their reaction to Respondent's conduct which they observed first hand. However the impression which the students gained from his actions in the classroom as reported in these facts were not so influenced by his prior reputation that the students are found to have misinterpreted Respondent's intentions by his remarks and facial expressions which had sexual connotations. In crediting the testimony by the students which pointed out the inappropriate conduct by Respondent in engaging in sexual innuendoes, some of the circumstances which the students identified as being in a similar category have been discounted and any doubt about Respondent's conduct in those instances resolved in his favor. Moreover the decision to favor the impression which the students had about some of these events recognizes that the classroom conduct by some of the students who testified at the hearing was less than commendable in its own right. The conduct by those students did not control or excuse Respondent's improprieties in engaging in sexual innuendoes. The fact that some students who had been in the Respondent's math classes at various years, after the school year 1985-86 but including the school years 1989-90 and 1996-91 did not observe the Respondent participate if any form of misconduct involving sexual innuendoes does not change the impression held about the testimony given by students who described those sexual innuendoes. This refers to testimony by Vicki Giveons and Bryan Hopkins who did not observe misconduct by the Respondent in their classes. The classes that they attended were different from the classes attended by witnesses who identified Respondent's sexual innuendoes. Finally, Respondent's testimony concerning these events in which he has been found to have acted inappropriately with regard to sexual innuendoes is rejected. Racial discussions were held in the Respondent's classes; however, the remarks which he made about racial issues were not biased when examined in the context of the testimony presented at hearing. Likewise the Respondent did not engage in any form of misconduct for which he is held accountable pertaining to the racially inflammatory notes, racially inflammatory replica of a grave site cross, racially inflammatory replica of a grave site tombstone, and racially inflammatory replica of a coffin and funeral carriage. Jeff Rieves, a male student in one of Respondent's math classes in the school year 1990-91 was responsible for producing the notes and other paraphernalia. Rieves contends these items were produced in an environment that was cordial or done in the way of a joke. Although the Respondent created the appearance that he was somewhat indulgent concerning the insensitive acts by the student, a stance taken by the Respondent to minimize the impact created by the correspondence and paraphernalia, Respondent did not believe that these incidents were intended to be all in good fun. It is not accepted that Rieves gave the notes and paraphernalia to the Respondent intending it wholly as a joke and that the Respondent perceived that these items were presented as a joke. Whether what extent Rieves intended his actions to have a more sinister influence, to the extent that you could say that Rieves intended racial harassment is less clear. Being uncertain concerning the student's intent, Respondent was prudent to make officials within the Nassau County School District aware that these circumstances existed and to be a willing participant in the investigation that ensued by the Nassau County Sheriff's Office. When interviewed by the principal at his school and officers from the Nassau County Sheriff's Office, both before and after the law enforcement officials had spoken to Jeff Rieves about this incident, Respondent did not name Rieves as the individual who had prepared the tombstone, coffin and funeral carriage. Whatever suspicions the Respondent may have had that Rieves was the person who had constructed these items, especially given the realization that Rieves had written notes with overtones that bore a racial threat, those notes having been sailed in Respondent's direction by Rieves as paper airplanes, Respondent did not know absolutely that Rieves had constructed the paraphernalia. Contrary to Rieves' assertion, the cross, headstone, coffin and funeral carriage were not handed overt directly to the Respondent as Rieves had told the law enforcement officers when interviewed. Respondent discovered these items where Rieves had left them in his class. Having held their conversation with Rieves, rather than confiding to the Respondent that the sheriff's office had ascertained who the culprit was, the officers for reasons that are not apparent, chose to believe Rieves' comment to the effect that Rieves had directly presented the paraphernalia to the Respondent and to confront the Respondent with this belief by asking the Respondent once again who the person was who had created the paraphernalia. When Respondent did not respond that Rieves was the person who had prepared the paraphernalia in a setting in which the sheriff's office was convinced that he did know, he was charged with giving false information to a police officer concerning the alleged commission of a crime by claiming that he had been harassed by persons not known to the Respondent when indeed he knew who the individual was who had constructed the paraphernalia. Under summons the State Attorney's Office for the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida took action against the Respondent on the theory of the false reporting concerning the alleged commission of a crime in Case No: 91-301218, August 1, 1991. This matter was disposed of through the misdemeanor pretrial intervention program involving deferred prosecution. Respondent served the 40 hours of community service contemplated by the disposition in the case. He did this upon advice of counsel that if he went to a trial that he might not prevail in that case. Notwithstanding his decision to conclude the court action by subjecting himself to the requirements set forth in the pretrial intervention, for purposes of this hearing it is not found that the statements which Respondent made concerning his knowledge about the person who had constructed the paraphernalia were false, in that Respondent did not know with certainty who had prepared the paraphernalia. Although the sheriff's office interviewed Rieves and another individual Michael Lloyd who had been involved in the creation of the paraphernalia, neither the sheriff's office nor the administrative prosecutor sought to verify the information received from the culprits who had created the paraphernalia to determine from a more unimpeachable source that Respondent knew who had created the paraphernalia, in that the Respondent had been given the paraphernalia personally in the classroom as Rieves describes, before attributing false motives to the Respondent in complaining about the racial harassment. This could have been achieved by interviewing students who would have been in attendance at the time when Rieves purportedly presented the paraphernalia to the Respondent in the classroom. Absent that effort Respondent was charged upon information provided by a less than credible source and tried in the present case, leading to the impression that Respondent's explanation about this event is more compelling. Craig Marsh, Superintendent, Nassau County School District, a professional educator, was accepted as an expert in the field of education. As an expert Marsh expressed the opinion that the Respondent, based upon his participation in the sexual innuendos discussed in the fact finding, were matters so serious that they impaired Respondent's effectiveness in the school system. That opinion is accepted.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Nassau County enter a final order which dismisses the Respondent from his employment as a continuing contract teacher based upon the violations found. That the Education Practices Commission suspend Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of three years during which time Respondent shall submit himself to evaluation by a qualified professional to ascertain the underlying causes for the conduct which has brought about this discipline. If the qualified professional believes that Respondent needs to participate in a program to gain insight and correct any underlying condition in the interest of the Respondent and his prospective students, then Respondent shall cooperate in that endeavor. If Respondent fulfills any necessary requirement for counseling or if counselling is not deemed necessary, then the last year in the suspension period shall be served in a probationary status during which time Respondent shall not engage in conduct which violates Chapter 231.28, Florida Statutes, and the associated rules found within Chapter 6B, Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May 1992. APPENDIX CASE NO. 91-6677 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties: Petitioner Castor Paragraphs 1 through 13 are subordinate to facts found, except the date in Paragraph 7 which should be 1989-90. Paragraphs 14 through 16 are rejected for reasons of credibility. Paragraphs 17 through 19 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 20 is rejected. Paragraphs 21 through 24 4re subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 25 is rejected. Paragraph 26 is subordinate to facts found with exception to the last phrase of profanity which is rejected. Paragraphs 27 through 42 are contrary to facts found in their suggestion that the Respondent acted in a racially biased manner or gave false information or reports as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 43 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 44 through 46 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 47 and 48 1 not necessary to the resolution of the dispute and are contrary to the legal conclusions drawn. Petitioner Marsh Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found.. Paragraph 2 see discussion of Paragraphs 1 through 26 for Petitioner Castor. Paragraph 27 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 28 and 29 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Respondent's Facts in the Prosecution by Commissioner Castor Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found.. Paragraphs 2 through 36 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 37 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 38 in its first two sentences are subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentence is rejected as it attempts to absolve the Respondent of his conduct. Paragraph 39 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 40 is consistent with the disposition of the case. Paragraphs 41 through 43 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 44 is consistent with the disposition in the case as are Paragraphs 45 through 48. Paragraph 49 is subordinate to facts found where it describes use of profanity but conary to facts concerning the number of times. Paragraph 50 is rejected in its attempt to be persuasive in countering the notion that Respondent used profanity in the classroom more than an isolated incident. Paragraphs 51 and 52 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 53 and 54 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 55 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 56 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Respondent's Facts in the Prosecution by Superintendent Marsh Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraphs 2 through 15, see discussion of facts in the Castor prosecution, Paragraphs 3-7 through 50. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. Brooks, Esquire Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Karen Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Lane Burnett, Esquire 331 East Union Street, Suite 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Brian T. Hayes, Esquire 245 East Washington Street Monticello, FL 32344 Craig Marsh, Superintendent Nassau County School Board 1201 Atlantic Avenue Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 Robert Johnson, Chairman Nassau County School Board Post Office Box 436 Callahan, FL 32011
