Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The respondent, Dianne Tice, began teaching home economics at the Jan Mann Opportunity School North (Jan Mann) in the 1981-82 school year. Jan Mann is a school devoted to students with behavior problems, attendance problems and learning disorders. Student James Woody, thirteen years old, was a continuing discipline problem for teachers at Jan Mann. At the time of his admission to Jan Mann, there were discussions as to whether Woody was the type of student who should be admitted. The staff psychologist at Jan Mann believed that a more appropriate placement would have been a residential facility. Nevertheless, Woody was admitted to Jan Mann. On March 13, 1984, Woody was attending respondent's fifth period home economics class. Due to his loud, profane language and banging on desks and chairs, respondent sent Woody to the Principal's office with a referral slip. Approximately twenty minutes later, Woody returned to the respondent's classroom and again became disruptive. Respondent then requested the security guard or hall monitor to either talk to Woody or again take him to the Principal's office. The hall monitor spoke with Woody, placed him back in the classroom and told respondent to put Woody outside the classroom with him if Woody caused any further trouble. Thereafter, the respondent was in the front of the classroom when another student asked to be assisted with the placement of buttonholes in some pants she was sewing. The respondent picked up a pair of scissors, a seam ripper and some keys and began walking to the rear of the classroom to get other equipment from a cabinet so that she could assist the student. At this point, Woody again became disruptive -- pounding on desks and using loud, profane language. The evidence is very conflicting as to what then transpired. Woody left his desk, and it is not clear whether respondent told him to leave the classroom before then or whether he was attempting to proceed to the rear of the room in order to use the restroom. In any event, Respondent was walking toward or behind Woody with the scissors, seam ripper and keys still in her hands. They both ended up at the rear door of the classroom, which opens and closes by means of a push bar. Woody was on the outside of the door and respondent was on the inside. The evidence is again conflicting as to whether respondent was attempting to hold the door closed so that Woody could not reenter her classroom, or whether she was attempting to open the door to either bring him back in or see where he had gone. Whatever she was attempting to do, Woody was either pulling or pushing in the opposite direction. The hall monitor, sitting some ten to fifteen feet away from the door, observed Woody at the door outside the classroom pulling on the door, and began to go over to the door when Woody released the door and cafe over to him. The monitor observed blood on Woody's hand and took him to the bathroom to wash his hand. He then went back to respondent's classroom and asked respondent how Woody had gotten cut. Respondent then ran into the bathroom to help. What was said in the bathroom is also the subject of conflicting testimony. Woody at first told school personnel that he cut his hand while banging on a desk. Respondent told him not to try and protect her. Whatever was said, respondent does not deny that Woody may have been accidentally cut with the scissors, seam ripper or keys during the scuffle at the rear door of the classroom. After the incident, respondent told several people that she had cut Woody. There is no evidence, however, that respondent intentionally stabbed Woody's hand during the incident. As noted above, respondent was first employed at Jan Mann for the 1981- 82 school year. Her annual evaluation for that year indicates that she was rated acceptable in all categories of the evaluation and was recommended for re- employment by her then Principal, Robert Edwards. During this first year, respondent was also formally observed by the Dade County School Board Supervisor of Home and Family Education. She was found to be acceptable in all categories and all comments were very favorable. During the 1982-83 school year, respondent was formally observed in her classroom on three occasions. In November of 1982, Assistant Principal Altman rated respondent unacceptable in the two categories of "classroom management" and "techniques of instruction," and acceptable in the remaining six categories. She was given an overall summary rating of acceptable. In January of 1983, respondent was again observed by Ms. Altman and received an unacceptable rating in three categories, but an overall summary rating of acceptable. Approximately one week after the January evaluation, respondent and Ms. Altman were involved in an incident which resulted in respondent filing a grievance against Ms. Altman for allegedly pushing her in the presence of her students. Principal Oden investigated the matter and decided that respondent's allegations against Ms. Altman were unfounded. In March of 1983, a Department of Education consultant performed an instructional program review and found respondent to have met all assessment standards. Additionally, it was noted that respondent was "commended for her management and organization of the facility." Respondent's annual evaluation by Principal Oden, dated June 9, 1983, indicates that she was rated acceptable in all categories except for the category entitled "preparation and planning." Principal Oden remarked that respondent "does a good job at teaching, but needs to devote more attention to planning." Respondent was recommended for re-employment by Principal Oden. During the 1983-84 school year, Respondent had two formal classroom observations. Assistant Principal Willie Shatteen observed her classroom on October 6, 1983, and found her performance to be acceptable in all categories. His written comments included the following: "lesson plans are evident," "materials are arranged far in advance," "students orderly and attentive," and "has knowledge of background of each student to provide for individual's need." In a follow-up letter, however, Mr. Shatteen criticized respondent for not following her lesson plans and for her negative attitude toward constructive criticism. Several conferences were held between respondent and her supervisors in October and November, 1983. By letter dated November 17, 1983, Principal Oden expressed several concerns he had relating primarily to respondent's planning, teaching and classroom management skills, and made ten recommendations for improvement. Principal Oden formally observed respondent's classroom on December 8, 1983, and rated her acceptable in all categories except "preparation and planning," but gave her an overall rating of acceptable. His comments in the area of "preparation and planning" included "improvement may be achieved through better planning." A "conference for the record" was held on December 13, 1983, to discuss the recommendations made in the November 17th letter. Also discussed was the possibility that respondent would not be recommended for continued employment at Jan Mann should she fail to make the necessary improvements discussed in the November 17th letter. Another conference was arranged for a time between January 19, 1984, and January 25, 1984. The record is not clear as to whether that conference occurred. Respondent's lesson plans were submitted to and reviewed by her supervisors every week. While the January 4, 1984, review found that the plans were not organized to include certain items and that a conference was needed, the plans for the following five weeks were found to be "accepted" and, in one instance, "plans are excellent. No improvement is needed at this time." Just prior to the March 13, 1984, incident involving student James Woody, Principal Oden decided that he was going to recommend respondent for a continuing contract. He told her this and her name was included on the list submitted to the School Board containing those recommended for a continuing contract. While be felt that there were some modifications needed in her teaching behavior, he also felt that there was room for her to improve with the beginning of a new year. Had it not been for the Woody incident, Principal Oden would have recommended respondent for a continuing contract. Indeed, his decision of "not recommended for employment" contained on the 1983-84 annual evaluation contains the remark "pending S.I.U. ..." -- referring to the investigation of the Woody incident by the School Board's Special Investigative Unit. Had respondent been cleared of the Woody incident, she would have been recommended by Principal Oden for re-employment on a continuing contract basis. His annual evaluation for the 1983-84 school year, signed on March 21, 1984, rates respondent as unacceptable in the two categories of "preparation and planning" and "professional responsibility," and acceptable in the remaining six categories. Apparently in connection with the investigation of the Woody incident, a psychiatric evaluation of respondent was performed by Dr. Gail D. Wainger, a psychiatrist. After spending approximately one hour with the respondent on March 20, 1984 (the same day that respondent was informed that she would not be recommended for employment), Dr. Wainger concluded that respondent appears to be suffering from chronic paranoid schizophrenia, and that she experiences misperceptions and shows evidence of poor judgment. This diagnosis was based, in part, upon the respondent's expressions to the effect that the school administration was against her and was attempting to get rid of her and also her relating to Dr. Wainger incidents which occurred at an apartment complex in which she formerly resided. Dr. Wainger is of the opinion that respondent would be likely to decompensate during stressful situations. On June 20 and 22, 1984, another psychiatric examination of respondent was performed by Dr. Lloyd Richard Miller, a psychiatrist. Dr. Miller spent approximately three hours with the respondent over two different days, performed some psychological testing, and also reviewed Dr. Wainger's psychiatric report. It was his conclusion that respondent did not suffer from a mental illness, and he did "not view her as guarded, suspicious or paranoid in any way. It was Dr. Miller's opinion that respondent has the sufficient mental capacity to return to work as a teacher. An expert in the area of teaching personnel evaluation and personnel management employed with the Dade County School Board, Dr. Desmond Patrick Grey, reviewed respondent's personnel files, including her classroom performance and annual evaluations, the investigative reports of the Woody incident and Dr. Wainger's psychiatric report. Dr. Grey was of the opinion that respondent's performance evaluations indicate a serious problem that would limit her effectiveness as a teacher; that the Woody incident impaired the integrity of the profession and the respondent; and that respondent has an incapacity to perform the expected function of a teacher. Three employees at Jan Mann testified in respondent's behalf. A school psychologist believed that respondent's character and reputation at Jan Mann were outstanding. A graphic arts aide felt that respondent was excellent dealing with the children and was dedicated in her occupation. A workshop instructor felt that respondent had been a "pretty competent teacher."
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Amended Specific Notice of Charges against respondent Dianne Tice be DISMISSED, and that she be awarded back salary for the remainder of the contract period following her suspension. Respectfully submitted and entered this 16th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Robertson, Esquire Merritt, Sikes and Craig, P.A. McCormick Building - 3rd floor 111 Southwest Third Street Miami, Fla. 33130 Carl DiBernardo, Esquire Commercial Bank of Kendall 8603 S. Dixie Highway - Suite 210 Miami, Fla. 33143 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Fla. 33132
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Respondent Jimmy Buoy has been employed by the School Board of Dade County as a School Resource Specialist, a non-instructional employee, at Madison Junior High School in Miami, Florida. He was hired for that position in January, 1980, by a Mr. Stergen, who was then the principal of Madison Junior High School. His duties at that time included maintaining the security of the students and school premises at Madison Junior High School, supervising the school monitors, enforcing school board policies and Madison Junior High School regulations, enforcing the school's dress code with reasonable force if necessary, and administering corporal punishment. In November 1982, Thelma Davis became the principal at Madison Junior High School. Although she took away Respondent's authority to administer corporal punishment, the remainder of Respondent's duties remained the same. Among his other duties, he continued to have the authority to enforce the school's dress code and the authority to use reasonable force in enforcing that dress code. In August 1984, a reorganization resulted in the school resource specialists being organizationally located within the special investigative unit of the school system. Pursuant thereto, area supervisors gained authority and control over school resource specialists at schools within each area however, the principals maintained their individual authority and supervision over the school resource specialist(s) employed at their schools. whether the principal's supervisory control over the school resource specialist was joint, concurrent, or "line supervision" with the area supervisor, the job description issued at the time for school resource specialists specified that the school resource specialist, among other duties, "performs other safe school activities as assigned by the principal." On three occasions prior to April 26, 1985, Tracy Merchison, a student at Madison Junior High School, had a hat in his possession while on school premises, a violation of the school's dress code. Respondent confiscated Tracy's hat on each of those occasions in accordance with his long-standing procedures for doing so: Respondent returned the hat to the student at the end of the school day if it was the student's first offense; Respondent retained the hat in his possession until the end of the school year if it was the student's second or subsequent offense. The student could regain possession of his hat prior to the end of the school year, however, if the student's parent made contact with the Respondent. Respondent used the opportunity of such parental contact to advise the parent regarding the school's dress code and to enlist the parent's support in obtaining that student's compliance with the dress code. Tracy's mother had been so contacted, and Tracy's hats had been returned to him, the last hat being returned to him a day or two before April 26, 1985. On April 26, 1985, Respondent observed Tracy Merchison outside the school library with a hat in his hand, the same hat that had just been returned to him after being confiscated for its appearance on the school grounds. Respondent approached Tracy and asked Tracy for his hat. Tracy refused to give Respondent his hat. Respondent repeatedly requested the hat, and Tracy repeatedly refused. After several requests, Respondent reached for the hat, and Tracy started switching the hat back and forth between his hands behind his back to keep it away from Respondent. Respondent continued to request the hat while reaching for it still hoping that Tracy would voluntarily and calmly relinquish it. Finally, Respondent grabbed one of Tracy's arms to hold it still and took the hat from Tracy's hands with his other hand. As Respondent then stepped away from Tracy, Tracy reached out with both of his hands and shoved Respondent in the chest pushing Respondent backward. Respondent grabbed the front of Tracy's shirt with both of his hands and pushed Tracy against the wall. Respondent spoke to Tracy telling him essentially to control himself so he would not get hurt and to stop showing off for his friends. Respondent then released his hold on Tracy. Tracy started walking away from Respondent but started cursing and threatening Respondent. Respondent said "Fine, Tracy. Fine, but I have the hat." Tracy came back to Respondent and started pushing against Respondent attempting to get his hat back from Respondent. As Tracy continued to lean against and shove Respondent, Respondent again grabbed Tracy and shoved him back against the wall. After he shoved Tracy into the wall, he then pushed Tracy against a pole a few feet away from the wall, and the momentum forced Tracy's head to move backward hitting the pole. Respondent released Tracy, and Tracy ran into the attendance office yelling, using profanity, and threatening Respondent with physical harm. Tracy grabbed a stick with a nail on one end of it which is used for picking up papers from the ground and started out of the office still yelling that he was going to "get" Respondent. He was restrained, however, by Principal Davis and Assistant Principal Thompson, and the stick was taken from him. Tracy then grabbed a stapler in his continuing attempt to "get" Respondent, and Principal Davis wrestled the stapler away from him. Tracy tried to again get the stick with the nail in it but was again restrained by the administrative personnel. Respondent at that point came into the office, told Principal Davis what had transpired, and left the office to break up a fight on the physical education field. Since Tracy failed to calm down, he was not permitted to leave school by himself. Rather, Principal Davis, after being unable to contact Tracy's parents, had someone drive Tracy home. No other disciplinary action has been taken by Petitioner against Respondent prior to or subsequent to the incident in question, and Respondent continues to enforce the dress code at Madison Junior High School in accordance with his normal procedures. Respondent continues to have authority to enforce the dress code at Madison Junior High School.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent Jimmy Buoy not guilty of the allegations contained in the Formal Notice of Charges filed against him and awarding full back pay and benefits for the period of time that he was suspended from his employment. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of September, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Britton, Superintendent. School Board of Dade County 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Phyllis O. Douglas Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Frank R. Harder, Esquire. Twin Oaks Building, Suite 100 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Dan J. Bradley, Esquire 2950 S.W. 27th Avenue Suite 310 Coconut Grove, Florida 33133
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Erron L. Evans, was a student at Miami Norland Senior High School (MNSHS) in Dade County, Florida during school year 1986-87. The school is under the jurisdiction of petitioner, School Board of Dade County (Board). During the first half of school year 1986-87, Erron was a thirteen year old ninth grade student. He turned fourteen on January 1, 1987. Between September 17, 1986 and January 6, 1987 Erron was the subject of at least five student case management referral forms for disruptive conduct in class or on the school premises. These forms are used whenever a student is referred to the principal's office for disciplinary action. They are used sparingly and only when the conduct is so "extreme" as to warrant their use. Such forms related to incidents occurring on September 17, October 3 and 27 and December 4, 1986 and January 6, 1987. On September 17, Erron and R. W., another male student, became embroiled in a fight after Erron provoked R. W. by calling him names. The encounter was eventually broken up by a teacher, and Erron earned a ten-day suspension from school for his misconduct. On October 3, or the day when Erron returned from his suspension, Louis Allen, a teacher and football coach at MNSHS, was in his classroom during lunch hour when three students entered the class and placed their books on empty desks. When Allen told them they could not leave their books in the classroom during lunch hour, one student responded they did it regularly. Allen said that was not true for he had never seen them do it before. The same student responded "You're a Goddamned liar." Not knowing the identity of any of the students, Allen took the three to the assistant principal's office where he learned from one of the three that Erron was the student who had used the profanity. Erron then became hysterical, began screaming, and made physical threats upon Allen. Erron briefly left the office, but returned a few minutes later shouting obscenities. It should be noted that this entire episode took place in front of several teachers, students and school employees and had the effect of undermining the authority of Erron's superiors. After leaving the office once again, Erron went to the classroom where the student who had identified him was sitting. He "stormed" into the classroom and backed the student against the wall. The teacher was forced to call another teacher to remove Erron from the classroom. Erron received a ten-day suspension for this misconduct. On December 4, 1986, Erron was written up again on a student case management referral form for disruptive behavior while in the classroom. For this, he received punishment in the form of a work detail at school. The final incident occurred on January 6, 1987 when Erron attempted to start a fight with a female student but ended up fighting with another male student. After Erron was brought to the administrative assistant's office to discuss the incident, the assistant telephoned Erron's mother. Erron briefly spoke with his mother, started screaming on the telephone, and slammed the telephone down. He then told the assistant "Fuck you assholes, I'm leaving the whole damn school," and departed the premises. Erron was thereafter given a ten-day suspension from school beginning on January 7. During the fall of 1986, Erron's academic record was also poor. For the grading period ending November 6, 1986 he received four F's and two D's in his courses, and his conduct and effort were rated very poor. During this same period, he was absent from school at least fourteen days, many of which were due to disciplinary suspensions. It was further established that in one class (mathematics) Erron was generally unprepared and did not bring class materials. He was also argumentative with his teacher and interrupted the normal workings of the class. This interfered with the other students receiving an educational benefit from the instruction. On October 17, 1986, a child study team at MNSHS convened to discuss Erron's situation. After reviewing his performance, behavior and attendance, the team recommended that Erron be reassigned to an opportunity school. Erron and his mother were invited to attend this conference. Whether they did so was not disclosed. In any event, Erron was given notice of transfer by letter dated October 30, 1986. That prompted the instant hearing. It is presumed (but not known) that Erron is now attending Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-North, an opportunity school in Miami. 2/ For disruptive behavior, Erron was previously assigned to an opportunity school for the last few months of school year 1985-86. While there, he showed remarkable progress over his prior performance in the regular school program. Indeed, his grades were better than a B average during the final grading period, and his effort and conduct were very good. This record prompted the team and ultimately the Board to reassign Erron back to MNSHS for school year 1986-87. Erron's mother has been personally contacted by MNSHS personnel on a number of occasions regarding his conduct. In addition, several teacher-parent conferences have been held. Despite this parental contact, no improvement in Erron's grades or deportment has occurred.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Erron L. Evans be reassigned to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-North. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of February, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 13th day of February, 1987.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has for twelve years been an instructional employee of the School Board of Broward County, Florida. She currently holds a continuing contract as a classroom teacher, and is assigned to Perry Elementary School in Miramar, Florida. During the same time period, Harold McKahand, Respondent's husband, and Peggy Freeman were instructional employees of the Broward County School Board assigned to Perry Middle School, adjacent to Perry Elementary where Respondent taught. From as early as 1979, Respondent had suspected that her husband and Mrs. Freeman were having a love affair. These suspicions were a frequent topic of conversation between Respondent and her husband. In fact, Respondent had indicated to her husband her intention to seek a divorce. Notwithstanding Mr. McKahand's assurances that he did not want a divorce and would no longer see Mrs. Freeman, he continued to do so, and Mrs. Freeman on many occasions made telephone calls to the McKahand residence, which Respondent apparently considered harassing in nature. All of this culminated in a discussion between Respondent and Mrs. Freeman in August of 1981 in which Respondent requested that Mrs. Freeman cease making telephone calls to her home because they disturbed her and her two children. After this discussion between Respondent and Mrs. Freeman, there was little or no personal contact between them until the act which gave rise to this proceeding. On December 12, 1981, Respondent, her husband and two children attended a racquetball tournament. After the tournament, they returned to their home and Respondent busied herself with work around the home. Respondent's husband, unbeknownst to Respondent, took the family car and proceeded to Perry Middle School to obtain some work folders from his office. Upon arriving at Perry Middle School, Mr. McKahand discovered Mrs. Freeman conducting a Saturday afternoon basketball practice with the school's girls basketball team, which she served as coach. Mr. McKahand and Mrs. Freeman conversed briefly, and Mr. McKahand departed the school and returned home. Meanwhile, Respondent's oldest son had left the family home without performing certain chores which had been assigned to him by Respondent. Upon discovering her son's absence, Respondent took her bicycle and began to search the neighborhood for him. Her search carried her ultimately to the gymnasium at Perry Middle School. Respondent had no knowledge that her husband had gone to his office at Perry Middle School, nor did she know that Mrs. Freeman was conducting a basketball practice at the school. When Respondent arrived at the school, she walked into the gymnasium to see if her son was there. Upon entering the gym, she saw the basketball practice in session, and noticed Mrs. Freeman. When she did not see her son, Respondent started walking from the gym. A member of the girls basketball team advised Mrs. Freeman that Mrs. McKahand was at the door. Although there is some conflict in the testimony on this point, it appears that Mrs. McKahand did not beckon to Mrs. Freeman to follow her outside the gym, but that one of the team players told Mrs. Freeman of Respondent's presence, and indicated to Mrs. Freeman that Respondent wanted to talk to her. Upon being advised of this, Mrs. Freeman walked across the basketball court, picked up her purse from a table, and proceeded to the gym door through which Respondent had exited. By this time Respondent was outside the gym. Mrs. Freeman forcefully opened the gymnasium door behind which Respondent was standing, striking Respondent on the arm. As Mrs. Freeman exited the door, she and Respondent grabbed one another and a fight ensued. The girls basketball team members were at various positions inside the gymnasium at the time the scuffle between Respondent and Mrs. Freeman started. It is clear from the record, however, that each of the students were located behind Mrs. Freeman and, therefore, were not in the best of positions to observe the precise manner in which the conflict started. It is also equally clear that the physical confrontation between Respondent and Mrs. Freeman occurred quickly and spontaneously, and, as a result, the various eye-witness accounts contained in this record predictably contain varying and conflicting versions of the events leading up to and culminating in the scuffle between Respondent and Mrs. Freeman. During the course of their physical confrontation, Mrs. Freeman placed one of her hands on Respondent's throat and the other in Respondent's hair, and Respondent reciprocated, pushing Mrs. Freeman against the gymnasium wall. Several blows were exchanged between the two women. Although the gymnasium door had closed behind Mrs. Freeman, several of the basketball team members followed the two teachers out the door and attempted to separate them. After the fight began, there is no evidence that Respondent acted other than in defense of the actions of Mrs. Freeman. When the students were finally successful in separating the two combatants, Respondent began looking for her sunglasses, which had fallen off, and Mrs. Freeman retrieved her purse, which she had dropped during the altercation. Upon finding her purse, Mrs. Freeman called to several of the students to stand back, whereupon she removed a .22 calibre pistol from her purse, and fired at least two shots. Respondent, upon observing Mrs. Freeman to be armed, began to run from the school premises, retrieved her bicycle, and retreated to her home. Apparently unsatisfied with these results, Mrs. Freeman incredibly loaded several of the team members, including some of the students who testified in this proceeding, into her car, where she reloaded her weapon. Mrs. Freeman then proceeded to drive in a reckless manner, including running several stop signs, to Respondent's home. Upon arriving at Respondent's home, Mrs. Freeman pulled her car into the driveway, took her pistol, got out of her car, and again confronted the Respondent who was standing in her driveway with her two children. Respondent picked up a broom in her garage and got her two children to stand behind her in an attempt to shield them from Mrs. Freeman. Mr. McKahand, who was inside the home during this time, came outside, and ultimately was able to get Respondent inside their home. Mrs. Freeman then departed the McKahand residence, but shortly thereafter began making harassing telephone calls to the McKahand home. Later that afternoon, Mr. McKahand attempted to take Respondent to her part-time job in a local department store, but was prevented from doing so when Mrs. Freeman attempted to run the McKahand car off the street with her vehicle, and further fired upon the McKahands with her pistol. As previously indicated, Petitioner has charged Respondent with referring to Mrs. Freeman as a "bitch" during the course of their fight. Respondent denies making such a statement, and the only testimony in the record which would establish a finding that such a statement was made is contained in the conflicting testimony of Mrs. Freeman and Rachel Geathers, one of the student basketball players. Mrs. Freeman's testimony in this regard, which the Hearing Officer hereby finds unworthy of belief, was that Respondent referred to her as a "filthy bitch" as Mrs. Freeman exited the gymnasium door. Ms. Geathers' testimony was that Respondent referred to Mrs. Freeman as a "bitch" after the two combatants had exited the gym and enough time had passed to allow all of the basketball players to run through the door and outside the gym. Ms. Geathers' testimony in this regard is also rejected, in that several of the other students who were in a better position to observe and hear Respondent and Mrs. Freeman testified that they heard no such statement made. Accordingly, it is specifically concluded that the evidence in this case fails to establish Respondent's use of profanity in the presence of students as alleged in the Petition. There is no evidence in the record of this proceeding to indicate the Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the Broward County School System has in any way been adversely affected by the above-described events. In fact, Respondent's principal and grade chairman both testified that Respondent is a good teacher, and they would welcome her back on the faculty of Perry Elementary School should she be absolved of the allegations involved in this proceeding. Even a cursory review of the record in this case will reveal sharp divergencies and conflicts in the testimony of several witnesses. In attempting to resolve these conflicts, the Hearing officer has observed the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, their interest, if any, in the outcome of this proceeding, together with any motive, bias or prejudice which might affect their credibility. Further, the Hearing Officer has also taken into account the conditions existing at the time of the incident observed by the witnesses in weighing the credibility to be attached to the various accounts contained in this record. In so doing, the Hearing Officer has concluded that Respondent did not go to the Perry Middle School gymnasium seeking a confrontation with Mrs. Freeman. Indeed, the record clearly establishes that Respondent did not know Mrs. Freeman was even at the gymnasium on the date in question. Further, it is concluded, despite some evidence to the contrary, that Respondent did not summon Mrs. Freeman to follow her outside the gymnasium, but that Mrs. Freeman was induced to do so as a result of a student telling her that someone was outside the gym to see her. Finally, the quality as opposed to the quantity of the evidence in this case does not support a factual conclusion that Respondent, in fact, initiated the physical confrontation with Mrs. Freeman. Because of her conduct at the time of the incident, and further because of the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in Mrs. Freeman's testimony at the final hearing in this cause, her testimony, in its entirety, is worthy of little credibility. Because of this, her testimony that Respondent initiated the fight has been found unworthy of belief. The testimony of Mrs. Freeman's students, several of whom testified that the first aggressive gesture they saw was made by Respondent, is tainted both by their admitted allegiance to their teacher, Mrs. Freeman, and by their physical positioning which would not admit a particularly clear view of the incident. Conversely, the factual version of this incident given by Respondent in her testimony was, in every particular, more plausible than that contained in the testimony of either the students or Mrs. Freeman. At the time of the above- described incident, almost three and one-half months had passed since Respondent had last spoken in person with Mrs. Freeman. The Respondent did not know that Mrs. Freeman was at the gymnasium when she arrived there looking for her son. As a result, there could not have been any premeditated design on the part of Respondent to assault Mrs. Freeman and, due to the passage of time since her last contact with Mrs. Freeman, there is no apparent motive of record to explain a spontaneous assault. As a result, the only way to resolve the conflict in the testimony concerning how this altercation originated is to weigh the credibility of the various participants. Making such a choice is perhaps the most difficult task a finder of fact must face in a proceeding such as this, but by applying the aforementioned factors, the Hearing Officer has determined that in the areas of conflict, the testimony of the Respondent is more credible than that of either Mrs. Freeman or her students.
Findings Of Fact While working at the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind in St. Augustine, Florida, Respondent sustained an injury in trying to restrain a student who was a resident in the multi-handicapped program. This part of the school is known as Vaill Hall Middle School Boys. The injury took place sometime around January, 1988. As a result Respondent was placed on worker's compensation leave for this line-of-duty injury. Dr. M. W. Kilgore, II, was responsible for evaluating the Respondent's physical condition and making a decision concerning the appropriate date for the Respondent to return to work at the school. On October 14, 1988, Samuel R. Visconti, the personnel director for the school wrote Dr. Kilgore stating that the Respondent had been out of work since January 13, 1988 and asking that Dr. Kilgore determine whether Respondent would be able to perform assigned duties. In trying to assist Dr. Kilgore in making the decision a copy of the Respondent's position description was provided. A response was made from Dr. Kilgore on November 2, 1988, in which he had written on the copy of the position description, "Have reviewed enclosed job description and it is my medical opinion that Stewart Rockwell is physically capable of performing these duties." In addition a form statement was provided on Dr. Kilgore's stationary in which it notes that he had treated the Respondent from April 7, 1988 until November 2, 1988 and that the Respondent was mentally and physically able to return to work effective November 2, 1988. Copies of these materials may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit B admitted into evidence. The information from Dr. Kilgore was received by the Petitioner on December 1, 1988. As a consequence Mr. Visconti wrote to the Respondent on December 2, 1988, stating that Dr. Kilgore had indicated that the Respondent was able to work effective November 2, 1988 and notifying the Respondent of the expectation that he should return to work on December 5, 1988 at 11:30 p.m., the beginning of his work shift. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit C admitted into evidence. That correspondence was dispatched by certified mail return receipt requested. In addition to sending the Letter of December 2, 1988, Mr. Visconti spoke with the Respondent on the phone and told the Respondent he was expected to return to work on December 5, 1988, in view of the comments of Dr. Kilgore to the effect that the Respondent was able to return to his job. In this same telephone conversation Mr. Visconti indicated to the Respondent that if the Respondent was of the persuasion that he needed further convalescence he was expected to get medical evidence and apply for leave from the Petitioner, which would have been without pay, and that the school would consider that request. He reminded the Respondent that returning to work on December 5, 1988 would not jeopardize the pending worker's compensation claim which the Respondent had placed against the Petitioner. This conversation took place before the December 2, 1988 correspondence was sent. Respondent didn't apply for medical leave without pay or request to continue in his worker's compensation status away from the job prior to returning to work on December 5, 1988. On December 5, 1988 Respondent appeared at work for his 11:30 shift at the Vaill Hall Middle School Boys. He was unable to conclude that shift due to problems he stated he was experiencing with his back. He left one and one-half hours before the completion of the shift. Mr. Visconti was made aware of the fact that the Respondent had left his duty station before the conclusion of the duty shift commencing on December 5, 1988 and continuing into the morning of December 6, 1988. That shift would have ended at 8:00 a.m. on December 6, 1988. Respondent had left at approximately 6:30 a.m. on December 6, 1988. Having been made aware of the Respondent's decision to leave before the conclusion of his duty shift Mr. Visconti instructed Catherine L. Rhoten, Residential Programs Supervisor of the Day and Night Staff, that she should monitor the situation of the Respondent's attendance at his job, that if the Respondent didn't call he would be considered as having abandoned his job after three days absence upon dates that he was expected to be at his employment with the school. On December 6, 1988 a conversation was held between the Respondent, Rhoten and L. Daniel Hutto, Assistant Principal Residential Programming. This was a telephone conversation. In the course of this discussion Respondent was made aware of the fact that he had been moved from his present job assignment at Vaill Hall to an assignment in the Gregg Hall Transition Group effective upon his return to work on December 8, 1988. Gregg Hall was a dormitory for students who were having problems adjusting to residential living at the school and was constituted of children 12 years old through 18 years old. Both the Vaill assignment and the Gregg assignment were on the second floor. Respondent asked if the new assignment included more or less physical movement than in his previous situation at Vaill. The response was that it included some moving around. The Respondent retorted that he was unable to do that because of his physical condition. At that point of the conversation it was emphasized to Respondent that medical documentation had been made available to the school from Dr. Kilgore which indicated that the Respondent was mentally and physically able to return to work and that he was expected to return. Respondent was told that if he did not come back to work for his duty shift and that if he missed three days in a row disciplinary action would be taken against him. Between the two assignments, Vaill and Gregg Hall, the students who were at Vaill Hall were more prone to be physically resistant than those at Gregg Hall, as it might impact the question of some further injury to the Respondent. Gregg Hall is a dormitory for deaf students. On the other hand the majority of students at Vaill Hall would be asleep during Respondent's duty assignment. During the telephone conversation of December 6, 1988, Respondent was made aware that he needed to bring medical documentation to vouch for the problems that he had had on the duty shift for December 5-6, 1988 in which he had left an hour and a half early. He needed a medical excuse for missing the hour and a half. This was in furtherance of receiving credit for the time missed on that shift. The assignment at Gregg Hall ran from 3:15 p.m. through 11:45 p.m. The first work day was to be December 8, 1988. In the December 6, 1988, conversation Respondent indicated that he wished to have some other doctor than Dr. Kilgore evaluate his medical situation in that he did not think that Dr. Kilgore believed his complaints concerning his physical condition. He was told that he would have to look to Dr. Kilgore to evaluate his condition. When Respondent was told that medical documentation had been received from Dr. Kilgore which indicated that Respondent was able to work, he stated that he didn't believe he could. Respondent was told if he didn't feel that he was able to work he could resign as an alternative to his problem. His reply to this suggestion was that he would not resign because the reason he was unable to work was due to an injury he had received while working at the school. The doctor which the Respondent asked to see was Dr. Hubert Bullock. Through the December 6, 1988 conversation, Respondent was left with the impression that Hutto would contact the personnel office of the school to see if an appointment could be made for the Respondent to see Dr. Bullock. Respondent intended to call back on December 7, 1988 to inquire about the appointment. Before speaking to Mr. Hutto on December 7, 1988 Respondent checked with Dr. Bullock's office and was told that the school had not made an appointment for his benefit. As a consequence the Respondent attempted to make an appointment for January 4, 1989. In the course of the telephone conversation on December 7, 1988 between Respondent and Mr. Hutto, instigated by Respondent, he asked Mr. Hutto if arrangements had been made for him to see another doctor to get another opinion of his physical condition. Respondent was told again that the school had received medical documentation that he was able to work and that it was expected that Respondent should return to work at 3:15 p.m. on December 8, 1988. Respondent replied that Dr. Kilgore did not know how he felt and that he wanted to see his own physician, namely Dr. Bullock. Mr. Hutto stated in response to that remark that Respondent was expected to be at work at 3:15 p.m. on December 8, 1988. Mr. Hutto informed the Respondent to the effect that the school was not going to arrange for the Respondent to have an appointment with Dr. Bullock. Respondent told Mr. Hutto that he had made his own appointment for January 4, 1989 and would not be able to provide any other medical evidence of his condition until he had gone to see the doctor, meaning Dr. Bullock and that he wouldn't be back until he kept that appointment. Through the conversation of December 7, 1988 with Mr. Hutto, Respondent was left with the impression that the school would wait until he saw Dr. Bullock before clearing up the question of his medical condition and returning to work. For some reason Respondent did not believe that any disciplinary action would be taken against him before he saw Dr. Bullock. Nothing in the remarks of Mr. Hutto on the occasion of December 7, 1988 in the telephone conversation described or otherwise would reasonably lead the Respondent to conclude that the Petitioner would not take some action against Respondent if he were absent from his duty assignment or lead the Respondent to believe the Petitioner would wait for the outcome of an evaluation by Dr. Bullock before taking disciplinary action against him for absence from his duty assignment. Petitioner's Exhibit A admitted into evidence is a written summarization of the conversations of December 6 and 7, 1988, between Respondent and Ms. Rhoten and Mr. Hutto. Respondent did not show up for his work assignment on December 8-12, 1988. As a consequence on December 15, 1988, Mr. Visconti sent a certified mail letter to Respondent which he signed for on December 19, 1988. This letter constituted notification by the Petitioner that it considered the Respondent to have abandoned his job position because of those absences. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit D and admitted into evidence. Although the correspondence reminds the Respondent of his right to question the action of the Petitioner in dismissing him from his employment through a petition filed with the Department of Administration and not with the Public Employees Relation Commission, Petitioner initially sought to gain relief with the Public Employees Relation Commission who dismissed the action. The Commission did allow the case to be sent to the Department of Administration for its analysis. That led to the Department of Administration's request for the Division of Administrative Hearings to assign a Hearing Officer to conduct a formal hearing. This request was responded to by the Division and a hearing conducted as commented on in the course of this Recommended Order. Under the circumstances, Respondent's request for hearing though submitted to the wrong forum initially is still perceived as a timely request. After receipt of the Notice of Abandonment, Respondent at that time did not seek or gain any form of medical leave without pay or receive treatment at an emergency room. The next medical evaluation that was received was through Dr. Bullock. The January 4, 1989 appointment had to be reset to January 23, 1989 due to the illness of Dr. Bullock. Notice of this change of appointment many be found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence, commentary by Dr. Bullock concerning the need to change the appointment from January 4, 1989 to January 23, 1989, which the Respondent made Petitioner aware of through the person of a Ms. Stephanie Battle of the Petitioner's office. This notification of the change of appointment as described in Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 from Respondent to Petitioner's employee took place on January 5, 1989, beyond the time of the Notice of Abandonment and opportunity for election to contest the proposed action by the Petitioner. As a result, when Respondent tried to provide further information, Ms. Stephanie Battle informed the Respondent not to bring any more information to the Petitioner. This refers to the Respondent's attempt to provide information described as a supplemental disability claim report, Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 denied admission as evidence. Specifically, Battle told the Respondent that he did not need to give anymore paperwork to the school because he had been terminated. That item, Respondent's Exhibit No. 2, bears a date of March 7, 1989. Respondent did not see Dr. Bullock until February 10, 1989. Respondent's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence is correspondence dated December 19, 1988 in which Respondent attempts to explain to Mr. Visconti the reasons why he failed to work for the five consecutive days described in the abandonment letter. It recounts portions of the conversations of December 6, 1988 and December 7, 1988 between the Respondent and Ms. Rhoten and Mr. White. It is insufficient to promote Respondent's reinstatement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED That a Final Order be entered which holds that Respondent has abandoned his job with Petitioner and has thereby resigned. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1989, 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 28th day of July, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara J. Staros, Esquire Carl J. Zahner, Esquire State Board of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Stewart M. Rockwell, pro se 40 Macaris Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Andrew J. McMullian, III, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Larry D. Scott Senior Attorney Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
Findings Of Fact Respondent was reassigned to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School- North, an alternative school, on December 16, 1982, because of his unacceptable conduct in Grade 9 at North Miami Junior High School. Petitioner presented evidence of 16 incidents of conduct by Respondent which required disciplinary action in the year preceding his reassignment to the alternative education program. Additionally, his grades in all courses were unsatisfactory at the time of reassignment. Respondent did not accept the alternative school assignment and instead obtained employment at a restaurant. He is now living with his grandmother, Mrs. Helen Wood, who seeks his return to a regular junior high school program. She has discussed this proposal with the principal of Thomas Jefferson Junior High School and he apparently agrees with her. Respondent's evidence established that his family life was difficult and disruptive during the period of his misconduct. His situation has now stabilized and he is responsive to his grandmother's supervision. He should, therefore, be given an opportunity to return to the regular academic program (Grade 9) at Thomas Jefferson Junior High School.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order classifying Respondent as a disruptive student, but permitting him to attend the Thomas Jefferson Junior High School in a probationary status. ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1983, at Tallahassee Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mrs. Helen Ward 1000 Northwest 153rd Street Miami, Florida 33169 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether Respondent made inappropriate comments towards his students while in class on February 22, 2006, and further engaged in a crude and vulgar exchange with a student in regard to those comments. If proven, do the above-described acts violate the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession and/or Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida. Fla. Admin. Code Chapter 6B-1. If proven, do the above-described acts constitute misconduct in office and constitute conduct unbecoming a public employee sufficient to warrant suspension and/or termination of Respondent's annual contract.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the formal hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: At the time of his suspension in February of 2006, Respondent, Sylvester Jones, had been employed as a math teacher with the Brevard County School District for approximately seven months and was under an annual contract for the 2005-2006 school year. As a first year employee and teacher, Respondent had been assigned to Bayside High School, where John Tuttle was principal. Respondent was also assigned a mentor teacher, Ms. Robin Howard, in order to assist him with any issues pertaining to teaching. Respondent was also furnished a document outlining the "teacher's code of conduct," which included inter alia the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession and Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession of Florida. The Brevard County School District had further provided Respondent with training as to the proper method to be utilized in a classroom in the event a student makes disparaging remarks to a teacher. During the school year 2005-2006, Respondent taught math as a "roamer," moving physically from one classroom to another during the course of the school day. The complainant, A.C., was a student at Bayside High School, and was a student in Respondent's fourth period math class. The class was made up of a high-spirited group of challenging students, 40 percent of whom required special services or special accommodations. This made the class difficult to teach. While Respondent was teaching at the front of the class, on February 22, 2006, a note was being passed between some of Respondent's students and the students from the adjoining classroom that was being taught by a teacher by the name of Scott Teter. The note was found by Teter, and he brought it to the attention of Respondent by coming into Respondent's classroom during the class period. Throughout the proceeding at hand, Respondent has given differing versions as to whether Teter had read the note to Respondent's class or whether the note was merely handed to Respondent by Teter during the class. Initially Respondent alleged that Teter had read the note out loud to the class. Later in his testimony, Respondent provided a demonstration during the hearing, whereby he claimed that Teter had displayed the note to the class. It is undisputed that the note referred to Respondent as being "a fag," and it appears that said note was handled by and partly generated by A.C. Upon reading the note, Respondent felt that he had been insulted and that his manhood was being attacked; Respondent testified that the note was an "assassination" of his character. In response to the note, the persuasive evidence is that Respondent made the following statement in front of his class: "Whoever thinks that I am a fag, ask your mother to bend over, and I will prove if I am a fag or not." One of Respondent's students, namely A.C., then began to vocalize his concern about Respondent's statement and questioned Respondent as to whether Respondent's comment meant that he wanted to have sexual activity with the student's mother. During his fourth period class, Respondent denied A.C.'s challenge, but then repeated his comment, as reflected above, to the entire class. The student, A.C., later decided to notify his mother regarding Respondent's statements, but due to his mother's work schedule, did not do so until the evening of February 23, 2006. The student's mother felt Respondent's comments were vulgar and "disgusting." Upon learning of the comments, M.C. escorted her son to school the next day, February 24, 2006, and met with the school's principal, Tuttle. They related A.C.'s recollection of the incident on February 22, 2006, to him. This is the first time that any school official had been notified of the allegations. Based on the complaint from the parent/student, Tuttle instructed his staff to obtain statements from each of the students in Respondent's fourth period class. Tuttle sought to determine the veracity of the assertions being leveled against a teacher by a parent. Upon obtaining written statements from students in regard to Respondent in the classroom, the principal set up a meeting with Respondent. During this meeting, Respondent claimed that his remarks to his class on February 22, 2006, were as follows: "if anyone thinks that I am a fag to have their mother bend and bow before him." Respondent claimed he was trying to teach them respect, using the "Japanese ritual" of bowing. Respondent became very agitated during the meeting and asked for time to write a statement. He was given until February 27, 2006, to provide his version of the events to the principal. On February 27, 2006, Respondent submitted his written response to the principal as to his version of events. His statements claim that the note was presented to him by Teter and the note had said, "Dr. Jones is a fag, don’t bend over." Respondent then remarked to the class that, "if any one thought he was a fag to ask his mother." Respondent stated that he had hoped this statement would have caused the students to discuss the matter with a parent, and maybe he would have a teacher- parent conference. Although Respondent had advised the principal of having the note in his possession, he never produced the note to the principal or any school official, nor was it presented in this proceeding to confirm his claim as to the contents of the letter. Further, Respondent never set up a parent-teacher conference in this regard with any students, nor did he refer the student, A.C., to the principal's office for discipline. Respondent's versions with regard to his actual comments made to his students are in direct conflict with the version given by many of his students at the hearing. The credible testimony is that Respondent had at least twice repeated the statement in front of the class, "If anyone thinks I am a fag, ask your mother to bend over and I will prove if I am a fag or not." Unlike the students' testimonies regarding the comments, Respondent has changed his version of events on several occasions. Subsequent to the February 27, 2006, statement, he has modified it as attested to by Robin Howard. In early March 2006, Respondent told her that he had said, "if anyone thinks that I am a fag to bow." Respondent claimed that this was a teaching technique, but did not recall the name of the technique. During his meeting with the superintendent, he claimed that this is a technique called "metaphoric contrast." At the hearing, Respondent did not produce any authority which described this technique. Instead, Respondent presented the testimony of Dr. Sharail Jones, who is an assistant pharmacist and a student in Respondent's bible class at the Greater Blessed Assurance Church, of which Respondent is pastor, who claimed that Respondent uses this technique as part of his way of teaching. Respondent's assertion that he was using the technique of "metaphoric contrast" during the incident on February 22, 2006, a term that is unknown to an experienced teacher such as Ms. Howard, is not credible. The teacher's code of conduct specifically states that a teacher shall be honest in all his professional dealings. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 6B-1.006. This teacher's conduct throughout this cause has been a direct violation of this rule. At first, he denied the assertion and claimed it was a fabrication. Thereafter, he has modified his version of his remarks and then at the hearing asserted that he does not have a present recollection as to whether he made the remarks or not. Then, during cross-examination, Respondent claimed that he may have said the comments as attested to by his students; however, he does not view such a remark as inappropriate, even though his own witnesses concede that the remarks as attested to by the students would be inappropriate. The comments were viewed by some students as having a sexual connotation, seen as embarrassing, and were alarming enough to cause one of Respondent's students, A.C., to get into a confrontation with Respondent as to whether the teacher wanted to have sex with the student's mother. His concern was great enough to cause the student to notify his mother. As the superintendent testified, a teacher is a role model and is expected to adhere to the teacher's code of conduct. A teacher is in a position of authority. This type of comment displays a lack of respect for the students and their families. Respondent's usage of vulgar and sexual comments directed to a student's mother in the classroom setting created an atmosphere that was not conductive to learning and allowed his students to respond back to him with unacceptable language and with impunity. The evidence in this proceeding has proven that Respondent engaged in conduct that unnecessarily embarrassed several students and created an atmosphere detrimental to learning in his fourth period class on February 22, 2006. Teaching Effectiveness Respondent was formally evaluated on two occasions during the 2005-2006 school year. Respondent's first evaluation, dated October 26, 2005, resulted in a rating of "Effective" in five categories and "Needs Improvement" in five categories. No "Unsatisfactory" score was assigned to Respondent. "Effective" is the highest performance rating that a teacher can achieve. Respondent's annual evaluation, dated February 14, 2006, resulted in a rating of "Effective" in eight categories and "Needs Improvement" in two categories. Compared to his performance ratings in October 2005, Respondent's annual evaluation demonstrated a significant improvement in teaching performance during the course of his first year with the Brevard County School District. The evidence indicated that prior to the date of the incident, Respondent worked hard at improving his teaching skills and providing his students with a positive learning environment. Respondent had not been formally disciplined or issued directives prior to being relieved of duty on February 24, 2006. There was no evidence which indicated that Respondent had ever used inappropriate language with his students prior to the statements made on February 22, 2006. Reputation as a Member of the Community Church members testified that Respondent, as minister of the Greater Blessed Assurance Church, tutored children at his church, maintained a transitional facility for people who need temporary homes, and is a role model to the community. Collective Bargaining Agreement Petitioner entered into a collective bargaining agreement, called the "Agreement between the School Board of Brevard County and the Brevard Federation of Teachers, Local 2098 [BFT], Florida Education Association, AFL-CIO, Inc., American Federation of Teachers, National Education Association, 2005-2006" (Agreement) On Petitioner's annual contract with Respondent is a statement which indicates that Petitioner is bound by the terms of the Agreement with the BFT. Article II, Teacher Protection, Section (G) of the Agreement states: Any disciplinary action taken against a teacher based on a complaint by a parent or student shall be limited to informal action unless the matter is first reported to the teacher in writing. Formal disciplinary action resulting from such complaint shall be limited to those matters which have been reported to the teacher in writing. Dismissal Process The first notice that Respondent received of any misconduct on his part occurred on February 24, 2006, when the principal held a meeting with Respondent and handed him a letter stating that he would be removed from the classroom immediately and placed on administrative leave with pay due to allegations of misconduct. The action which resulted in Respondent's being placed on administrative leave due to allegations of misconduct was initiated by the actions or statements of a parent and/or student(s). BFT representative, Janet Eastman's uncontroversial testimony was that the removal of a teacher from teaching duties and placement of a teacher on administrative leave constitutes disciplinary action for purposes of interpreting the Agreement. Respondent received no written notice of the incident in question prior to the disciplinary action taken on February 24, 2006. Petitioner and Respondent both set forth the following undisputed sequence of events: On Friday, February 24, 2006, the principal met with Respondent and notified him of the nature of the allegations in writing and immediately placed Respondent on administrative leave with pay. On Monday, February 27, 2006, Respondent presented his version of events, in writing, to the principal. On March 8, 2006, Respondent received a letter from the Superintendent notifying Respondent of the charges and a recommendation to the School Board that he be terminated. On March 8, 2006, John Russo of the BFT made a written request for the investigative files pertaining to Respondent. On March 9, 2006, Russo, on behalf of Respondent, requested a meeting with the Superintendent. On March 14, 2006, the meeting between Respondent and Superintendent took place, with Russo present. That night, on March 14, 2006, the School Board met and voted to terminate the Respondent's annual teaching contract. On March 15, 2006, Respondent requested a formal hearing to contest Petitioner's tentative action. The request was granted and this matter was referred to DOAH on March 22, 2006 for a de novo formal hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's annual contract with the School Board be terminated, effective March 14, 2006. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold T. Bistline, Esquire Stromire, Bistline & Miniclier Post Office Box 8248 Cocoa, Florida 32922 Elizabeth F. Swanson, Esquire Egan, Lev and Siwica, P. A. Post Office Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802-2231 Benjamin B. Garagozlo, Esquire 3585 Murrell Road Rockledge, Florida 32955 Dr. Richard A. DiPatri, Superintendent Brevard County School Board 2700 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Viera, Florida 32940-6601 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Honorable John Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Does just or proper cause exist to terminate Respondent- custodian, an educational support (non-instructional) employee for gross insubordination, misconduct in office, violation of the Code of Ethics by attempting to use students for personal gain, and overall unsatisfactory job performance?
Findings Of Fact Respondent was first employed as a custodian at Gainesville High School by the Alachua County School Board on August 16, 1993. As such, he qualified as "non-instructional personnel" and as an "educational support employee." He remained continually employed until the termination letter giving rise to the instant case. At all times material to this cause, Respondent was employed under a Collective Bargaining Agreement between his union and the School Board. On May 20, 1994, Respondent completed training for and was certified as a "Certified Custodian." He received a "step-up" in pay as a result. Certification attests to competency, not performance or attitude. Samuel D. ("Sam") Haywood, Assistant Principal, supervised and evaluated Respondent through a chain of command during the school years of 1993-1994, 1994-1995, and 1995-1996. Despite an interim evaluation identifying problem areas on March 16, 1995, Respondent was rated overall "satisfactory" annually during those years. Petitioner had a history of being uncooperative and verbally abusive with the Head Custodian and Lead Worker, but these problems were resolved by the subsequent annual evaluations and prior to the present charges, so they have not been considered. At the conclusion of the 1995-1996 school year, Sam Haywood was replaced as Assistant Principal by John C. Williams, who continued to supervise Respondent through a chain of command that descended through Albert Williams, Head Custodian, and Alexander Bradley, Lead Worker. As of the 1996-1997 school year, Respondent was the on- site union representative for the Gainesville High School custodians. Assistant Principal John C. Williams holds a master's degree in school psychology and is a certified school psychologist. He had held the position of school psychologist in Sarasota County for ten years prior to his appointment at Gainesville High School. His supervisory experience consists of two years as assistant manager at Eckerd Drugs before becoming a school psychologist. At all times material he was responsible for the maintenance needs of Gainesville High School, making sure maintenance needs were responded to by the central office or the maintenance person on staff. That responsibility covered the upkeep of the grounds and the buildings. He was responsible for the cafeteria as far as being the immediate supervisor of the cafeteria manager and was responsible for the discipline of approximately 1,950 students. He also was responsible for the security of the buildings, responding to fire emergencies and evaluating one-fourth of the instructional staff. In addition, he was the site supervisor of the custodial staff with twelve custodians, plus the Head Custodian. Virginia S. Childs is the Principal of Gainesville High School. James Williams, Mark Lee, and Willie Townsend are custodians at Gainesville High School. On September 4, 1996, the Assistant Principal tried to locate Respondent because he wanted part of Respondent's assigned area raked and mowed for a sports activity that was taking place that evening. After searching from approximately 4:30 to 5:15 p.m., the Assistant Principal located Respondent exiting a restroom outside of his assigned area. The Assistant Principal directed Respondent to rake and mow the designated area "for company." By both the Assistant Principal's and Respondent's accounts, the Respondent told the Assistant Principal twice that, since he could not complete the job by 6:00 p.m. quitting time, he would mow or he would rake, but he would not do both. The Assistant Principal repeatedly told Respondent to do both jobs. In the course of arguing with the Assistant Principal, Respondent also appealed to a teacher/coach standing nearby that he should not have to do both jobs. The Respondent did not complete the job as requested. The Assistant Principal did not cite Respondent for not completing the September 4, 1996, assignment as requested, but, upon proper notice, he held a conference on September 6, 1996, to discuss the incident. Present were the Assistant Principal, the Principal, the Respondent, and the Respondent's union representative. In the conference the Assistant Principal stated that on September 4, he had simply requested the Respondent to do a job, and he did not expect to have to explain or justify the request to the Respondent. The Principal explained to the Respondent that the Assistant Principal was the Respondent's supervisor and that Respondent must comply with his work assignments unless they were harmful or unlawful even if Respondent disagreed with them. She explained that Respondent should first comply with the Assistant Principal's request and he could then pursue a grievance, if he felt a grievance were warranted. It was explained that the Respondent needed to be a member of a team and contribute positively and without wasting time instead of being confrontational and argumentative with his supervisor. The Respondent stated that he was a man and that he had the right to disagree with his supervisor about how his job should be done. No progressive discipline form was provided to Respondent. At formal hearing, Respondent maintained he had injured his back in 1994 and later injured his neck and left shoulder in January 1995, but the medical documentation shows an injury on March 3, 1995, to his neck and a September 27, 1996, strain to his trapezius muscle (shoulder). A School Board document references an October 2, 1996, injury. Respondent explained the new date of injury of September 27, 1996, was assigned by his doctor so that workers' compensation would cover an aggravation of the old injury. According to Respondent, the School Board initially denied the claim(s), but a ruling in his favor became final on November 26, 1996.2 In any case, after September 27, 1996, the Assistant Principal put considerable effort into adjusting Respondent's work hours and assigning him duties which complied with the evolving physical restrictions placed on him by his doctors. In order to improve general efficiency, the Assistant Principal and Head Custodian Albert Williams revised the work schedules of all the custodians, changing hours of work, lunch times, and even shifts. Albert Williams passed out the revised schedules and told the custodians that there would be a meeting in the conference room on October 3, 1996, to discuss the changes in their schedules and that they could ask questions about their schedules then. At the October 3, 1996, meeting, Willie Townsend raised questions about his own revised schedule. The Assistant Principal told him that they were there to discuss schedule changes and his priorities generally but not individual situations. He invited all the custodians to discuss individual schedules privately one-on-one in his office immediately after the general meeting. Respondent raised his hand, taking it upon himself as the on-site union representative, to speak on behalf of Mr. Townsend. The Assistant Principal recognized Respondent, but again said he would not go over each individual schedule in the meeting. Respondent continued to interrupt, and the Assistant Principal stated his position again. Over continued comments by Respondent, the Assistant Principal asked Respondent to be quiet. Respondent persisted in speaking, making rude comments, while the Assistant Principal tried to quiet him and move on with the meeting. The Assistant Principal finally rose from his seat and told Respondent to, "shut up." Respondent then stood up, too. Both men's voices were raised. As a result of this exchange, the meeting broke up without accomplishing anything. No credible evidence supports a finding that Respondent used profanity in the October 3, 1996, meeting.3 When the meeting broke up, the Assistant Principal led the way to his office. Behind closed doors, the Assistant Principal met with Respondent and Albert Williams. The Assistant Principal positioned himself behind his desk and told Respondent that his actions in the meeting had been inappropriate and uncooperative. The Respondent stated that he had a right to speak and that the Assistant Principal "could not tell me to do a damn thing." There is no evidence of profanity beyond this remark, which Respondent admits he made.4 The Assistant Principal asked Respondent to leave his office. Respondent did not leave. Instead, he asked to use the telephone to call a union representative. The Assistant Principal told him he would have to use the public telephone in the outer office. Respondent replied that the telephone on the Assistant Principal's desk was a public telephone and he had a right to use it. He reached for the telephone. The Assistant Principal moved the telephone out of Respondent's reach and stood up, asking Respondent to leave his office. Respondent then "bowed up," clenching his hands into fists at his sides. The Assistant Principal's perception was that Respondent was positioning himself to strike him. By that time, the voices of the two men were loud enough to be heard in an adjacent front office by Dr. Arnold of the school administrative staff, the school receptionist, two students, and a parent volunteer. Their movements were also observed through the office's glass door. Albert Williams felt it necessary to calm Respondent, caution him against any further talk or actions, and cajole him into leaving the Assistant Principal's office. No force was necessary to remove Respondent. The Assistant Principal snapped that Respondent, "was suspended." Respondent left the Assistant Principal's office and began talking to other custodians who had waited outside. Respondent then attempted to involve Dr. Arnold. She told him she would not speak to him at that time. Only then did Respondent and the other custodians disperse. After Respondent left the area where he had been talking with other custodians, Business Manager Judy Warren authorized him to sell tickets at the junior varsity football game. Principal Childs was apprised of the situation, and when she looked for Respondent, Ms. Warren told Ms. Childs where to locate him. The Principal went to Citizens' Field where the varsity game was being played. She told Respondent he was relieved of his duties and on paid administrative leave for October 4, 1996. Respondent had pre-scheduled vacation leave for the next two weeks. Upon appropriate notice, a disciplinary conference was held when the Respondent returned from his vacation on October 21, 1996. Present were the Respondent; Ms. Birdsong, Personnel Supervisor; a union representative; the Assistant Principal; and Dr. Jim Scaggs, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources. At the conference, Dr. Scaggs reviewed the incident of October 3, 1996, with the Respondent, including written accounts by Dr. Arnold and the Assistant Principal. Dr. Scaggs informed the Respondent that it was not appropriate to challenge his supervisor during a staff meeting. He told Respondent that the Assistant Principal was the Respondent's supervisor and directed Respondent to recognize him as his supervisor. He further directed the Respondent to follow his supervisor's directions, work cooperatively with him in the future, and refrain from challenging him. Dr. Scaggs confirmed his oral instructions in writing, issued a notice of suspension of the Respondent without pay for three days, October 23-25, 1996, for raising his voice in the October 3, 1996, general meeting and afterwards, using mild profanity, attempting to use intimidating body language, insubordination, and a flagrant disrespect for his superior's authority, and Ms. Childs' failure to find Respondent on duty in his assigned workplace.5 Progressive discipline is only mentioned when Dr. Scaggs' letter comments on the removal of a progressive discipline form from the Respondent's personnel file because Respondent was not given a copy of it at the September 6, 1996, conference. Therefore, the October 23-25, 1996, suspension was Respondent's first discipline other than counseling. On November 18, 1996, Respondent was assigned to light duty (such as dusting) in B wing and scheduled from 2:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. The accounts of Respondent, the Assistant Principal, and James Williams concur that when Respondent came on duty he spent about ten minutes talking to James Williams who was supposed to be raking outside B wing. Respondent had no raking duties at that time, due to his medical restrictions. The Assistant Principal asked Respondent what he was doing out of his assigned work area on November 18, 1996, and asked him to go to his assigned indoor work area. At that time, Respondent did not tell the Assistant Principal that he was asking James Williams' advice about cleaning up chemicals in his area, which was the reason Respondent offered at formal hearing for being out of his assigned work area on November 18, 1996. By Respondent's, the Assistant Principal's, and James Williams' accounts, Respondent also did not immediately obey the Assistant Principal's directive. Instead, he continued talking to James Williams another 2-3 minutes and briefly spoke with Dean Byrd before following the Assistant Principal's instructions to go back to work on B wing. On November 25 or 26, 1996, Respondent was working the evening shift behind Mark Lee who did the heaviest duties while Respondent was doing light duty. Respondent went to the restroom and to get lightbulbs. That night, the Assistant Principal returned to campus shortly after 7:00 p.m. due to his daughter's volleyball game. He also walked through the school to see what was going on. He saw other custodians but not Respondent. He saw Respondent across courts and corridors twice, but they did not meet. When he finally located Respondent, Respondent did not at first give a clear answer where he had been. Then Respondent said he had been helping Mark Lee. The Assistant Principal went to speak to Mark Lee and closed the door behind him. There are three versions of what happened next, related by the Assistant Principal, Respondent, and Mark Lee, respectively. The best reconciliation of the three versions is that Respondent opened the door. Thereafter, a sort of tug of war ensued with the Assistant Principal repeatedly closing the door, insisting that he had a right to a private conversation with another employee, and Respondent repeatedly opening the door, insisting he had a right to hear any conversation about himself. This altercation ceased only when the Assistant Principal gave Respondent a direct order to leave the door closed. Respondent obeyed the oral order. When the Assistant Principal exited the room, Respondent asked him why he was harassing Respondent. Respondent then followed the Assistant Principal down the hallway, accusing him of harassing him. The Assistant Principal wrote up his version of the entire incident on November 26, 1996.6 Within a short time, Respondent announced to Mark Lee and Alexander Bradley that his neck hurt and his old injury had been aggravated by the Assistant Principal snatching the door away from him.7 Respondent next went to the Assistant Principal's office. The Assistant Principal searched for workers' compensation Notice of Accident forms but did not find any. He refused to authorize emergency treatment under the Workers' Compensation Act as a result of the incident with the door, because he viewed Respondent's behavior as insubordination and as not job related. He told Respondent to use his own insurance if he felt he needed emergency treatment. Respondent sought treatment. Respondent was put on three days' bed rest which coincided with the Thanksgiving holiday weekend. Respondent returned to work the Monday following the holiday weekend. On December 19, 1996, the Assistant Principal attempted to deliver to Respondent the mandatory notice of conference form letter, for a scheduled conference the next day. The Respondent walked away, thereby signaling his refusal to sign to acknowledge receipt of the notice. The Assistant Principal asked Respondent to wait there while he went to A wing, about 20 yards away, to get Alexander Bradley to be a witness to the delivery of the form. The Respondent did not wait but continued downstairs and crossed into the administration building. The Assistant Principal followed, requesting that Respondent sign the form. Principal Childs, coming out of her office, was in front of Respondent. The Assistant Principal, following behind, called out to Ms. Childs to ask the Respondent to stop to sign the notice. Only when Principal Childs asked Respondent to sign the form did he do so. She explained he must sign the form and the meeting would be rescheduled to accommodate his union representative. Respondent's defense to the foregoing incident was that he wanted to telephone his union representative to be sure she would be available the next day for a conference since that would be the day before a holiday. This explanation is not credible in light of Respondent being the on-site union representative and having been through conferences for the record before. With his familiarity with the procedures, he must have known when he walked away from the Assistant Principal that his signature would only acknowledge receipt of the notice and that the progressive discipline conference would have to be rescheduled to accommodate his union representative. Moreover, prior to this date, Respondent's union representative had explained to Respondent, in Ms. Child's presence, that Respondent's assertion that he had to call his union representative even before he signed accepting a notice was insufficient and that he must contact his union representative on his own time. The conference scheduled for December 20, 1996, did not take place because Respondent's union representative was, in fact, not available. It was rescheduled after the winter holidays, on January 7, 1997. The conference on January 7, 1997, was a progressive discipline meeting. Present were the Respondent, his union representative, the Principal, and the Assistant Principal. The incidents of November 18 and 26 and December 19, 1996, were discussed with the Respondent. The conclusion of the Principal and Assistant Principal was that the behaviors of the Respondent were unacceptable because he continued to show disrespect to the supervisor's authority. He was cited for being out of his assigned work area on November 18, 1996; for insubordination on November 26, 1996; and for refusing to obey a supervisor's direct order on December 19, 1996. As discipline the Principal imposed a two-day suspension of the Respondent without pay for January 15-16, 1997. On January 17, 1997, Bruce A. Mueller, OTR/L.CRT. of Rehab Solutions in Gainesville wrote to Gary Newcomer, M.D., that based on his evaluation, the Respondent was then able to work at the "light-medium" physical demand level for an 8-hour day. Mr. Mueller stated that the Respondent should avoid shoulder height and above activities, but he could do shoulder and overhead work on an occasional basis. On January 23, 1997, after required notice, the Assistant Principal gave Respondent an interim evaluation of his job performance. The Respondent was rated "Satisfactory" in the areas of Quality of Work and Appearance and Grooming; "Needs Improvement" in the areas of Productivity, Attendance and Punctuality, and Use of Time; "Not Satisfactory" in the areas of Responsibility and Dependability, Cooperation, Initiative, Personal Relationships, and Acceptance of Constructive Criticism. Overall Performance was rated "Not Satisfactory". The Respondent indicated in the meeting and by correspondence on February 5, 1997, that he did not agree with the evaluation. The plan for improving performance was set out in the following memo from the Assistant Principal: In order to improve overall performance David Mosley will receive directions from Albert Williams [Head Custodian] concerning his productivity, use of time and initiative. His performance as it relates to cooperation, personal relationships, i.e. as it relates to his supervisor, and acceptance of constructive criticism of his supervisor or head custodian can be improved by learning to work cooperatively with John Williams [Assistant Principal]. Efforts will be made to inform him when his behavior is not reflective of the appropriate employee-supervisor relationship. The custodial schedule changes that Respondent received before the interim evaluation directed him to follow the directions of the Head Custodian, Albert Williams. When Respondent asked Albert Williams whether the duty was appropriate under Respondent's medical restrictions, he referred Respondent to the Assistant Principal for clarification. The plan for improvement did not indicate any change in that procedure. On January 29, 1997, the Respondent visited Gary Newcomer, M.D., at Alliance Occupational Medicine in Gainesville. Dr. Newcomer issued a duty status report on that date, indicating that the Respondent had reached maximum medical improvement, and that the "light-medium" restriction was in place, and included a checklist of the activities and weights which the Respondent could operate. The Respondent had been assigned to "light duty" and his hours had been 2:30 to 11:00 p.m. On January 24, 1997, the Assistant Principal had issued a ten-day notice of schedule change to Respondent, requiring him to switch to 4:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., effective February 7, 1997, and that Respondent was to assume new duties of locking gates and checking the gym area after students returned from various late events. Respondent communicated with Synester Jones, Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources, and an old family friend, John Dukes, Jr., Assistant Superintendent of Student Support Services, asking them to intervene in what he believed to be harassment by the Assistant Principal. On January 30, 1997, Respondent went to Gainesville High School's main office and sought an interview with Principal Childs. When her secretary told him she was in conference, he asked to wait. While the Respondent was in the main office, the Assistant Principal requested that he return to his work area, the top of B Wing. The Respondent left the office and went around the corner. The Assistant Principal then went into a meeting with administrators Dr. Arnold and Mr. Bishop. The Respondent returned and stood at the reception counter. The Assistant Principal went out and again requested that he go to his work area. The Respondent said that he wanted to speak to the Principal. The Assistant Principal told the Respondent the Principal was busy and that he could make an appointment with her later. The Respondent then asked to speak to Dr. Arnold. Dr. Arnold told him she was busy at the time. The Respondent then asked to speak to Mr. Bishop. Mr. Bishop asked the Respondent if he could go to work. The Respondent replied he could. Mr. Bishop said, "You need to go to it." Only at that point did the Respondent leave to go to his work area. Respondent inquired aloud why no one would speak to him. Respondent's behavior at this time clearly evidenced that he would accept direction from other superiors but not his direct supervisor, the Assistant Principal. The custodians had been instructed that if they intended to leave work during their shift, they must first check with either Albert Williams, the Head Custodian, or the Assistant Principal. On January 30, 1997, Alexander Bradley, the Lead Worker, informed the Assistant Principal that the Respondent had left work, saying he was ill. The Respondent had clocked out at 3:27 p.m. but had not first checked with either the Head Custodian or the Assistant Principal. Upon proper notice, on January 31, 1997, a disciplinary conference was held to discuss the behavior of the Respondent on January 30. Present were the Respondent; his union representative; Dr. Arnold; the Assistant Principal; and the Principal. The concern was the unwillingness of the Respondent to respond to a request by the Assistant Principal in a cooperative and timely manner. The Principal and Assistant Principal imposed a two-day suspension of the Respondent without pay, February 5-6, 1997, for insubordination, referencing Respondent's willingness to take directions from Dr. Arnold and Mr. Bishop, but not his own supervisor. Nothing was said about security problems.8 In February 1997, the school received an updated report from the Respondent's doctor indicating his work capacities. A few days prior to February 19, 1997, the Assistant Principal revised the Respondent's written work schedule to reflect the doctor's latest report. On February 18 or 19, 1997, Respondent went to see Principal Childs to complain because his schedule was being changed so frequently. He complained that the new schedule called for him to sweep or mop and that sweeping and mopping aggravated his shoulder. Consequently, he was not required to mop or sweep that day. The Principal agreed to have the Assistant Principal review Respondent's restrictions. After consulting medical records and risk management, the Assistant Principal did not further alter the duties assigned Respondent. The Principal, the Assistant Principal, and Alexander Bradley went through the schedule with the Respondent to be sure he understood it. The next day, the Respondent again stated to the Lead Worker, Alexander Bradley, that he did not understand the custodial duties to which he was then assigned. Mr. Bradley informed the Assistant Principal, who then went to the Respondent's work area to explain the schedule to the Respondent. The Assistant Principal asked what Respondent did not understand. Respondent's reply was that he did not understand any of it. Clearly, Respondent was not being entirely accurate but was once more objecting to mopping and sweeping each day. However, his words, tone, and the context of his reply was flippant and disrespectful to his supervisor. The Assistant Principal chose to take the Respondent's reply literally and asked what specific duties Respondent did not understand. Respondent stated he did not want to discuss it with the Assistant Principal, and the Assistant Principal persisted in taking Respondent on a walk-through of his area and describing in minutiae each duty Respondent was expected to perform. This was not just mopping but dusting desks, chalkboards, and computers, and scrubbing sinks. The Respondent asked to have a neutral person present. The Assistant Principal stated the walk-through was not discipline requiring a union representative and that he wanted to proceed. The Respondent asked to go to the restroom. The Assistant Principal asked Mr. Bradley to go with Respondent so that Respondent would not leave the building. Respondent returned and, as the three men walked along the hall, Respondent stopped a student friend of his who was still on campus and asked him to telephone Respondent's wife and ask her to call Assistant Superintendent Dukes for him. The Assistant Principal told the student to move along and asked Respondent not to involve the students. Respondent repeated this situation with another student who was both Respondent's nephew and godson, and the Assistant Principal threatened Respondent with an insubordination charge. Respondent threatened to go to others about what he perceived as harassment. The Assistant Principal asked, "Are you threatening me?" Respondent responded, "You can take it as you want to, but it's not over yet." The Assistant Principal was called away and, as a result, Respondent and Mr. Bradley were briefly left alone. They got into a verbal dispute when Respondent accused Mr. Bradley of siding with the Assistant Principal. However, Mr. Bradley's testimony regarding Respondent's use of profanity to him is utterly incredible.9 When the Assistant Principal returned, he tried to continue walking the Respondent through his duties. The Respondent tried to walk ahead or even leave on occasion and had to be ordered by the Assistant Principal to wait or stay. Then, as the others would proceed along, the Respondent would not move and had to be ordered by the Assistant Principal to come with them. A verbal dispute arose over this and escalated into career threats on both sides. Finally, the Assistant Principal stated there was no sense in going through the rest of the school rooms, but he reiterated he wanted the work done that night. Respondent said he was not feeling too good. The Assistant Principal told him that if Respondent were going home, to come by his office first. When Respondent got to the office, the Assistant Principal handed him a notice to attend a disciplinary conference the next morning. Respondent signed the paper and left. He checked out at the time clock. On February 21, 1997, the Assistant Principal wrote up the last incident and recommended five days' suspension without pay as a disciplinary action against Respondent. On February 28, 1997, Assistant Superintendent Synester P. Jones met with the Respondent, his union representative, and the staff attorney to discuss the events of February 19-20. The Respondent brought up some issues that needed further exploration, including schedule changes and whether the schedule was outside the Respondent's work restrictions. The Respondent was also given an opportunity to put into writing his version of what had occurred. Following the meeting on February 28, 1997, Ms. Jones investigated the Respondent's work schedule and his assigned duties, and determined that the proposed work schedule was not outside his current medical restrictions. For example, the Respondent was not to do constant mopping, so his schedule had been arranged for mopping only the restrooms on one floor of B wing each day. By all professional health care accounts, Respondent's minimum physical functioning would permit him to mop 33 percent of his work day; lift 35 pounds occasionally; lift 15 pounds frequently; lift 7 pounds constantly; reach up to 33 percent of his work day; push with a force of 65 pounds occasionally; push with a force of 46 pounds frequently; and push with a force of 21 pounds constantly. On March 11, 1997, a follow-up conference was held with the Respondent. Based on the information she had obtained since February 28, and on the written statement and comments from the Respondent, Ms. Jones recommended to the Superintendent that the Respondent be suspended with pay until the March 18, 1997, meeting of the School Board, when he would be recommended for suspension without pay and termination. The Respondent was so informed on March 11, 1997, and the written termination letter was prepared following the meeting and delivered on March 13, 1997. Principal Childs concurred with Assistant Superintendent Jones' recommendation for termination because in each of her conferences with Respondent she had perceived that he had a great deal of difficulty accepting directions and/or following directions given by a legitimate supervisor, the Assistant Principal. She also believed his argumentative, uncooperative, and verbally abusive behavior was inappropriate, disruptive, and dangerous in the workplace, created a hostile work environment, and constituted an ineffective and inefficient use of everyone's time. Respondent presented several witnesses to the effect that he was a good and cooperative worker and two to the effect that the Assistant Principal was more vigilant about checking up on Respondent's work activities than those of any other custodian. However, none of these witnesses had any clear knowledge of changes made in Respondent's schedule and work assignments to accommodate his injury and restrictions, and none of them ever had to direct him as a supervisor.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board terminate Respondent effective upon the dates contained in its termination letter, but only for gross insubordination, misconduct, and overall unsatisfactory job performance. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 1998.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in misconduct by making inappropriate comments to a student as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed on his Florida Educator’s Certificate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 716042 covering the areas of emotionally handicapped, mathematics, general science, and psychology, which is valid through June 30, 2005. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as a mathematics teacher at Young Middle Magnet School in the Hillsborough County School District (School District). Young Middle Magnet School is a school specializing in the areas of math, science, and technology. During his career, Respondent has been employed by the Pasco County and Hillsborough County School Boards. He has been teaching for 11 years. During his career in Hillsborough County, he has taught mathematics. Respondent explains that he teaches because he loves teaching. The testimony of his co-workers and administrators confirm that Respondent loves teaching and is an excellent teacher. During the 2000-2001 school year, A.S. was a seventh grade student at Young Middle Magnet School in Tampa, Florida. He was a good student who earned A’s and B’s. At that time, it was fashionable for music performers and other young celebrities to grab at their crotch areas. Many of the students at Young Middle Magnet School, including A.S., emulated that behavior. In or about September or October of 2000, on one particular occasion, while standing in line in the lunchroom at school, A.S. placed his hand on his groin area. Respondent saw A.S. touch himself in this manner, pulled him out of the line, and asked him if he knew what he had done. When A.S. said no, Respondent told him "that was picking your dick" or “you picked your dick” or some similar comment. A day or two after the comment in the lunch line, there was an "incentive" party being given for all students who had straight A's in conduct. A.S. had received one B in conduct, apparently for talking too much, and, therefore, was not going to the party. Instead A.S. was assigned to a class and/or study hall that was being supervised by Respondent. During this class period, Respondent assigned A.S. a variety of projects, all of which A.S. completed without difficulty. At some point during the class session, Respondent asked A.S. to come into the hall so they could talk. The purpose of the conversation was to discuss why A.S. was in the class and not in the party, given that A.S. was the type of student who should have been at the party. Respondent and A.S. talked about homework and the need for A.S. to be thorough in his work for his regular math teacher. At some point, sexual topics came up during the conversation. A.S. maintains that he did not instigate any conversations about sexual topics and, thus, asserts that Respondent initiated the conversation. Respondent does not recall how the topic arose. The reasonable conclusion is that Respondent introduced the topic dealing with sexual issues. The testimony of A.S. is found to be credible. Respondent asked A.S. if he knew about safe sex. A.S. responded that his mother told him abstinence was the only safe sex. Respondent said that there was another way, to which A.S. asked, "Are you talking about whacking off?" Respondent told A.S. that the correct terminology was "masturbation." A.S. contends that Respondent then stated that as a single man he had to do this. Respondent adamantly denies making this statement. Respondent and A.S. then talked about sports. In fact, most of their conversation centered around sports. During this conversation, Respondent became aware that both he and A.S. enjoyed tennis. Respondent asked A.S. if he wanted to play tennis. A.S. indicated that he did. Respondent told A.S. that he would contact his parents to arrange a tennis game. During the following weekend, Respondent called the home of A.S. and spoke with A.S.’s mother about the tennis game. A.S.’s mother said she would check with A.S. and her husband and would get back in touch with him. Respondent called again the next day and was told by A.S.'s mother that, subject to certain conditions, A.S. could play tennis with Respondent. However, the tennis game never materialized. A.S. felt uncomfortable about the conversation involving sexual topics which he had with Respondent. A.S. was not used to having such conversations with a teacher, and after the conversation, for a brief time, he was worried that he might become a homosexual. Initially, A.S. only told his older sister about the conversation, and his sister advised his mother of what A.S. had shared with her. Subsequently, A.S.'s mother talked to A.S. about the conversation that he and Respondent had at school. On the Monday following the weekend that Respondent called A.S.'s mother about A.S. playing tennis and after A.S. had told his mother about his conversation with Respondent, A.S.'s parents complained to School District officials about the incident. Based on the complaint from A.S.’s parents, School District investigators spoke with Respondent about the conversation with A.S. The School District had concerns about the nature of the conversation and sought medical opinions about Respondent’s fitness as a teacher. Respondent saw two medical professionals. He saw Sidney J. Merin, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist. Dr. Merin conducted interviews with Respondent and performed psychological testing. Dr. Merin concluded, in part, that the conversation with A.S. appeared to be a function of this man’s natural gregariousness without any malevolent intent. Dr. Merin’s overall impression of Respondent was as follows: On the basis of the above examinations and the observations made, it is this examiner's opinion Mr. Setter is free of any debilitating psychological symptoms. Of particular note, and the concerns that would be addressed, there are no indications of pedophilia or sexual perversions. Rather, Mr. Setter is a bright man, gregarious, friendly, trusting, and even naive. The latter is in particular reference to his reported comments to Andrew and the plans that the two play tennis. Such behavior would be in keeping with teaching principles as related to sexual behavior, and also in keeping with his high degree of sociability. Given those characteristics in today's social climate wherein parents are understandably alert to adult and even teacher behavior they may question, it would not be out of keeping for responsible parents to question the behavior of Mr. Setter in relation to their son. Mr. Setter's teaching experiences and his sociability, need for admiration, and the ease with which he can socialize can obscure for him interpretations made by others of his behavior. That is, what he may consider to be appropriate, not offensive, educational, and innocent may not be interpreted in a like manner by others. Mr. Setter knows his intent as he relates his comments, but his thinking is often so directed toward his own interests, he fails to recognize that others may perceive his comments and his behavior with great suspicion. On the basis of what Mr. Setter related to this examiner, this entire matter may come down to the normal and understandable concerns by parents who are alert to behavior they may view as being questionable and out of place. From there, the authorities would understandably be alerted, with a subsequent investigation that, according to this examiner's understanding of Mr. Setter's comments, brought out little, if anything, that would be pointedly incriminating or descriptive of a sexually deviant personality. It would be well if Mr. Setter would be educated in the direction of understanding how sensitive healthy parents can be concerning their offspring, and to limit his comments, which he may view as being material for a casual conversation and thus innocent, as carrying ominous interpretations for others. Unless other examiners or investigators have contrary, substantive, relevant, and proven information contrary to this examiner's psychological findings, Mr. Setter would do well to return to his work, having been significantly educated now in the potency of his comments, even though they may be expressed innocently and naively. Respondent also saw James R. Edgar, M.D., P.A., who conducted similar psychological testing and interviews, and concluded in relevant part, “. . . currently I believe Mr. Setter is able to make sound personal and professional judgments and to safely instruct minor children.” Following these reports, Respondent was transferred to another school and has maintained his career in Hillsborough County. However, for the above-described incident, the School District also issued a reprimand to Respondent. The evidence establishes that Respondent had a conversation with A.S. that briefly centered on sexual topics that were inappropriate under the circumstances. Respondent's discussion of these topics with A.S., a seventh grade student, were not only inappropriate, but exposed A.S. to conditions harmful to his mental health, and exposed him to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. After the conversation he had with Respondent, A.S. did not want to see Respondent and, in December 2000, A.S. transferred to a different school. Also, after the conversation with Respondent, A.S. had to attend at least three counseling sessions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Education issue a final order finding that Respondent violated Section 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2000), and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), Florida Administrative Code, but did not violate Section 231.2615(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2000). It is further RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered issuing a reprimand to Respondent, with a copy to be placed in his certification file. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 2nd day of July, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Bruce Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 131 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, a determination of the appropriate penalty for such violations.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation of the public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to the facts of this case, the Respondent was a teacher employed by the School Board and was assigned to a public school within the district, Hialeah Senior High School (Hialeah High). The Respondent has been a teacher employed by the School Board for years. Respondent possesses a professional service contract pursuant to Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. The Respondent is a business education teacher. Prior to the incident giving rise to this case, the Respondent had not been the subject of any disciplinary action by his employer. Prior to teaching at Hialeah High, the Respondent had been teaching adult students at another school. The adult students were highly motivated to learn and provided little in the way of classroom discipline problems. In December of 2003, the Respondent was assigned to teach English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) classes to high school age students at Hialeah High. At Hialeah High the Respondent's classes were populated primarily by students who had very limited proficiency in the English language and who, for the most part, had very limited experience in an American classroom setting. Many of the students had only recently arrived from a variety of Spanish-speaking countries, including Mexico and many Central and South American countries. These students, both because of their limited English language skills and their limited exposure to an American classroom, presented more than the usual discipline challenges. At the time of the incident giving rise to this case, the Respondent had been teaching the ESOL classes at Hialeah High for only a few weeks. A frequently recurring problem in the Respondent's classroom was that some of the students would use the classroom computers to play music CDs and would interrupt the rest of the class by turning up the volume through the external speakers on the computers. This problem apparently came to a head on January 27, 2004, when an honor student asked the Respondent if it was necessary for the class to be interrupted by the students who were playing music CDs on the classroom computers. After school on January 27, 2004, the Respondent decided to solve the music problem by cutting the audio wires that ran from the monitor to the external speakers on each of the classroom computers. The Respondent chose to cut the audio wires because the wires were hardwired into the computer monitors and could not readily be unplugged. He cut the speaker wires on at least 25 of the computers in his classroom. The Respondent's conduct in this regard was not for the purpose of damaging school equipment, but was a misguided and poorly thought out effort to prevent further music playing by the misbehaving students. The cutting of the speaker wires was an inappropriate way in which to address student misconduct in the classroom. More appropriate ways to have prevented such misconduct or to have addressed such misconduct after it occurred would have been to take such measures as implementing and enforcing classroom rules when he first began teaching the ESOL classes, making disciplinary referrals, seeking assistance from the school administration, or assigning misbehaving students to indoor suspension. Although the computers are operable, they have no external speakers and, therefore, cannot make loud sounds. The inability to make loud sounds compromises the extent to which the computers can be used for certain applications. The Respondent's acts of cutting the speaker wires were intentional acts that damaged the computers. Damage to the computers caused by intentional acts is not covered by the warranties on the computers. A representative of the Dell computer company examined the damage to the computers and stated that Dell did not make repairs to that type of damage. The best solution the Dell representative could propose was to replace all of the monitors with cut speaker wires with new monitors that had new external speakers attached. The Dell representative stated that such replacement would cost $129.00 per computer. The damage caused by the Respondent's cutting of the computer wires can be readily and inexpensively repaired. The parts necessary to repair the computers cost about $2.00 for each computer. The time necessary to repair the damaged computers is approximately five minutes per computer. The Respondent has already purchased with his own funds the parts necessary to repair all of the computers in his classroom, and he has delivered those parts to the principal at Hialeah High. The Respondent volunteered on several occasions to perform the work necessary to repair the computers he damaged. The Respondent's offers to perform the repair work were declined. For reasons not adequately explained in the record in this case, the computer technicians at Hialeah High have not yet repaired the subject computers. It would take approximately two hours of technician time to repair all of the computers in the Respondent's classroom. The damage to the computers caused by the Respondent could have been repaired within a very few days of the date on which the damage occurred. When asked about the damage to the computer wires, the Respondent readily admitted what he had done and readily acknowledged that it was a foolish and inappropriate thing for him to have done. He did not hesitate to accept responsibility for the consequences of his conduct and, as mentioned above, bought the necessary parts and offered to do the necessary repair work. Respondent’s intentional destruction of School Board property failed to reflect credit upon himself and on the school system, and showed a lack of professional judgment. On September 21, 2004, the Respondent’s principal and the assistant superintendent who had authority over Hialeah High recommended a 30-work day suspension without pay. The School Board, at its regularly scheduled meeting of December 15, 2004, took action to suspend the Respondent without pay for 30 workdays.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case suspending the Respondent without pay for one week and requiring the Respondent to pay for the cost of the repairs made necessary by his foolish conduct. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 12th day of April, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Rudolph F. Crew, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable John Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
