The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's behavior toward an assistant principal violated the prohibitions against misconduct in office, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(2), and gross insubordination, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(4), so as to constitute just cause for Respondent's dismissal, pursuant to section 1012.33(6)(a)2., Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has employed Respondent as a teacher since 2001. He has taught English at North Dade Middle School for the past nine years. For the 2015-16 school year, Respondent was supervised by principal Fabrice Laguerre and assistant principal Kayla Edwards. Following an observation of Respondent, Ms. Edwards submitted to the principal a report citing several teaching deficiencies. The principal, who is now a principal at another school, decided that Respondent was or might be in need of professional assistance in the form of a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). Placing a teacher on a PIP requires the principal to provide Respondent with notice of a Support Dialogue Meeting. The record does not reveal whether the purpose of the Support Dialogue Meeting is to determine whether Respondent shall be placed on a PIP, to prepare the PIP, or to deliver an already- prepared PIP. Earlier, the principal had agreed with Respondent not to conduct any disciplinary meetings with Respondent without Respondent's union representative in attendance. Respondent wanted a witness to what might transpire during such a meeting, and the principal understood that this was the purpose of having a witness at each such meeting. Toward the end of the school day on December 15, 2015, the principal summoned Respondent to his office. Respondent did not know why he was being summoned to the principal's office. Respondent tried unsuccessfully to have the school's union representative in attendance, so Respondent reported to the principal's office without a representative. When Respondent arrived at the principal's office, he asked if he needed a union representative or other witness. The principal replied that Respondent could have a representative, but this meeting was merely to provide Respondent with notification of the "real" meeting, which was to be within 48 hours of delivery of the notice. The meeting to which the principal referred was a Support Dialogue Meeting. Despite the principal's assurance to the contrary, the December 15 contact seems to have involved more than merely delivering a notice of a Support Dialogue Meeting in a day or two. As the principal testified, as soon as Respondent entered the office, implicitly assenting to sufficient contact to receive the notice described by the principal, the principal invited Respondent to sit down at a table, at which Ms. Edwards was already seated. The mere delivery of a notice would not have required that Respondent take a seat and probably would not have required the attendance of Ms. Edwards, unless the principal wanted a witness to his delivery of the notice to Respondent. Still standing, Respondent read some papers in front of him on the table and correctly concluded that they reflected unfavorably on his teaching performance and the source of the information was Ms. Edwards. It is impossible to sort out exactly who said what at this juncture. Respondent testified that his first comment was that he could not attend the meeting without a witness, and Ms. Edwards replied, "boy, get in here, stop your drama, and sign these papers." The reference to "boy" is implausible. It seems unlikely that Ms. Edwards would have uttered such an insult and, if she had, it seems as unlikely that Respondent would have remained in the office after hearing this disrespectful appellation. Ms. Edwards may have spoken the remaining words, but they are inconsequential--direct and plainspoken, but not unprofessional or disrespectful. The principal testified more plausibly that Respondent looked up after examining the paperwork and announced that this better not be about his teaching because he had taught a "perfect" lesson to the class that Ms. Edwards had observed. The principal again invited Respondent to take a seat. Instead, Respondent characterized the PIP as part of a "witch hunt" and averred that Ms. Edwards did not know what she was doing when observing Respondent. This testimony of the principal is credited. Past observations of Respondent performed by other administrators were satisfactory. Respondent and Ms. Edwards appear to have had some difficulties in the past. Most importantly, as noted above, Respondent had good cause to doubt that the sole purpose of the December 15 meeting was to deliver a notice of a Support Dialogue Meeting. Even the Notice of Specific Charges characterizes the December 15 meeting as the Support Dialogue Meeting itself. Respondent thus could reasonably believe that he could still prevail upon the principal not to implement a PIP or to design a less-elaborate PIP. On these facts, in a meeting attended exclusively by himself, the principal, and Ms. Edwards, Respondent's questioning the qualifications of Ms. Edwards did not constitute just cause for any adverse employment action, as long as he did not do so in bad faith, and nothing in the record indicates that he did. The principal testified that Ms. Edwards refrained from insulting Respondent and, more specifically, said nothing about where he went to college. Ms. Edwards' testimony candidly does not bear out the principal's testimony on this point. Ms. Edwards testified that she and Respondent each inquired of the other where he or she went to college, implying an inferiority in the other's school of higher learning. However, the parties' "questions" as to academic pedigrees are found to have been intended as nothing more than mild insults--that is, slights--and, as such, insubstantial. The principal also testified that, during this exchange, Respondent pointed a finger at Ms. Edwards with a "relaxed hand." This testimony is credited, but any implication that such a gesture was intended or perceived as threatening is rejected. Respondent's gesture was for mild emphasis: textually, this emphasis would be expressed by underlining, not boldface. This marks the end of the portion of the December 15 incident alleged as proof of misconduct in office. Interestingly, the testimony of Ms. Edwards and the principal set forth in the preceding two paragraphs does not describe Respondent in terms suggesting any loss of composure, but rather in terms not inconsistent with an employee unapologetically advocating for himself. The principal next asked Ms. Edwards to make a copy of a document, which necessitated her leaving the office for a few moments. But even this seemingly innocuous act proved fraught. Returning, Ms. Edwards did not see Respondent standing behind the door, and, when she opened it, the door struck Respondent harmlessly. Trying to seize a potential advantage, Respondent, implying that the act had been intentional, asked the principal if he had seen what had happened. The principal sensibly replied that Ms. Edwards could not see Respondent through the solid door, and the bump was accidental. The principal then ushered Ms. Edwards and Respondent out of the office. Up to this point, there had been no other witnesses because the office door had been closed--or, as to the last matter, closing. Once the unhappy trio left the office, the principal and Ms. Edwards testified that Respondent "kept going after" Ms. Edwards, now loud enough for others to hear, and caused much embarrassment. Ms. Edwards added that she was crying. Even though not alleged as grounds for adverse employment action, from Petitioner's perspective, this testimony from the principal and Ms. Edwards is important because it could provide a basis for inferring an earlier lack of composure on Respondent's part. However, as assessed by the Administrative Law Judge, this testimony is important because it is untrue and undermines the credibility of the principal and Ms. Edwards as witnesses. Three independent witnesses to the exit of the edgy ternion from the principal's office uniformly portrayed Respondent as not agitated. The first of these witnesses was a secretary, who was in her office two doors down from the principal's office. The secretary heard absolutely nothing, even though she was close enough to hear anything that might have been said, even if not loudly. Her testimony is credited. Ms. Edwards approached Respondent to give him the papers that she had copied. Ms. Edwards testified that she did not want Respondent to see that she was crying, so she extended her arm out in Respondent's direction and released her grip. It is hard to understand how, with her eyes averted from Respondent, Ms. Edwards would have known if Respondent was looking at her to receive the papers. In her version, Ms. Edwards released the papers and, for whatever reason, Respondent did not grasp them before they fell to the floor. Ms. Edwards' testimony is not credited, except for the papers falling to the floor. For his part, Respondent testified that he was the one crying because Ms. Edwards employed a phrase that reminded him of his recently deceased mother. Based on the testimony of the three independent witnesses, which omits any mention of tears and, to varying degrees, is inconsistent with such emotion, the crying testimony of Ms. Edwards and Respondent is rejected as melodramatic embellishment. Respondent testified that Ms. Edwards thrust the papers into his chest, leading with her closed hand. This testimony, which is credited, is corroborated by two custodians who witnessed the attempted exchange. The exchange was attempted because everyone agrees that the papers fell to the ground where the principal gathered them up. One custodian testified that Ms. Edwards, who was visibly agitated, walked quickly up to Respondent and, without much force, pressed the papers into the chest of Respondent, who grinned in response. The other custodian testified that Ms. Edwards, with her hand leading, "very strongly" "snapped" the papers into Respondent's hands "and stomach area," but this custodian thought that the two of them were playing around. Despite minor discrepancies in their testimony, the three independent witnesses clearly establish that Respondent had not lost his composure. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner failed to prove misconduct in office. Specifically, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent failed to treat Ms. Edwards with dignity or exercised poor judgment by insulting her and objecting to her supervisory qualifications. Each party slighted the other's academic pedigree; this inconsequential lapse, committed in the presence of only the principal, did not render objectionable Respondent's behavior in the incident. His questioning of Ms. Edwards' qualifications to observe his teaching would raise a different factual issue if directed toward his students or even uttered in the presence of his students, but raising this issue with the principal was appropriate and raising it in the presence of Ms. Edwards, whom the principal had included in the meeting, was forthright and timely. Respondent raised this issue at what he might have reasonably assumed was his Support Dialogue Meeting--meaning that this might have been his last chance to avoid a PIP or at least avoid a more elaborate PIP. Petitioner failed to prove any aggression by Respondent--unwarranted or warranted--or that Respondent was intimidating, abusive, harassing, and offensive toward Ms. Edwards. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent made malicious and untrue statements in defending this case. His testimony that Ms. Edwards referred to him as "boy" has been discredited, but the record fails to establish that this testimony was a knowing falsehood. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent's effectiveness has been impaired by anything that he said or did in connection with the December 15 meeting. Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent committed gross insubordination. As alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges, this count fails even to state a claim of gross insubordination under the rule for the reasons set forth in the Conclusions of Law.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Notice of Specific Charges and reinstating Respondent with "back salary," as provided in section 1012.33(4)(c). DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 2016.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Angel Guzman, committed the violations alleged in a Notice of Specific Charges filed by the Petitioner, the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, on November 14, 2001, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Miami-Dade County School Board (hereinafter referred to as the "School Board"), is a duly- constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Angel Guzman was employed as a teacher by the School Board and assigned to Miami Edison Middle School (hereinafter referred to as "Edison"). Mr. Guzman is and has been employed by the School Board pursuant to an annual service contract. Prior to his employment by the School Board, Mr. Guzman was employed by New York City as a teacher assistant for three years and as a teacher for four years. He has been employed as a graphic communications teacher by the School Board since 1998, approximately two and a half years. Prior to the incidents that are the subject of this proceeding, Mr. Guzman had never been the subject of a School Board personnel investigation. The February 16, 2001, Incident On February 16, 2001, Mr. Guzman was handing out reading logs in a FCAT preparation class at Edison. The students in the class were seventh graders. Sherwin JeanPierre, a student in the class, and another student asked their fellow student, Maurice Barnhill to get their reading logs from Mr. Guzman. Maurice picked up the logs, but was confronted by Mr. Guzman who, when he learned that Maurice was picking up logs for others, snatched the logs out of his hands and told him to return to his seat. An argument between Mr. Guzman and Maurice ensued. The teacher and student yelled at each other, Mr. Guzman forcefully pushed Maurice on the shoulder, and Mr. Guzman said "coño" to Maurice, which means "damn" in Spanish. Mr. Guzman eventually became so angry that he grabbed a wooden stool located between him and Maurice, swung it toward Maurice, and hit Maurice on the leg with the stool. While the stool hurt Maurice, he suffered no significant injury. The Second February 2001 Incident Following the February 16, 2001, incident, Mr. Guzman and another student were involved in a verbal confrontation. The situation was defused by Theron Clark, an Assistant Principal at Edison, and a security monitor. Following the confrontation, Mr. Clark and Dr. Peggy Henderson Jones, another Assistant Principal, met with Mr. Guzman. At this meeting, Mr. Guzman indicated that he was very stressed and did not want to return to his class. Mr. Guzman was allowed to go home the day of the incident and was subsequently referred to the Employee Assistance Program. Disciplinary Action Against Mr. Guzman for the February 16, 2001, Incident A conference-for-the-record (hereinafter referred to as the "conference") was held with Mr. Guzman on March 6, 2001, by Ronald D. Major, the Principal at Edison. The conference was attended by Mr. Major, Mr. Theron, Eduardo Sacarello, a United Teachers of Dade representative, and Mr. Guzman. The purpose of the conference was to discuss Mr. Guzman's non-compliance, during the February 16, 2001, incident with Maurice Barnhill, with school rules, School Board Rules 6Gx13-5D-1.07, dealing with corporal punishment, and 6Gx13-4A-1.21, dealing with employee conduct, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade. During the conference, Mr. Guzman was advised that a letter of reprimand would be issued, and he was directed to immediately implement procedures for the removal of disruptive students consistent with the faculty handbook. Mr. Guzman was also warned that any recurrence of the type of violation committed by him during the February 16, 2001, incident would result in further disciplinary action. A written reprimand to Mr. Guzman was issued on March 7, 2001, by Mr. Major. In the reprimand, Mr. Major again warned Mr. Guzman that any recurrence of the infraction would result in additional disciplinary action. The April 25, 2001, Incident On April 25, 2001, during a class under Mr. Guzman's supervision, Mr. Guzman caused a document to be printed from a class computer. A student took the paper and gave it to another student in the class, Ian Lightbourne, who asked for the paper. Ian placed the paper, even though it did not belong to him, in his book bag. When Mr. Guzman came to retrieve the paper he had printed, found it was gone, and asked if anyone knew what had happened to it. Although no one answered, Mr. Guzman suspected Ian and asked him to open his book bag. Ian complied and Mr. Guzman found the paper. Mr. Guzman became irate and began yelling at Ian to "not touch my things." Mr. Guzman then grabbed Ian by the arm and started to pull him toward the front of the classroom. Ian, who was sitting on a stool, lost his balance and fell to his knees. Mr. Guzman continued to pull Ian, who began to cry and yell, "Let me go," the length of the classroom on his knees. Mr. Guzman pulled Ian to a corner of the classroom where he banged Ian's arm against a metal darkroom door. Ian had previously broken the arm that Mr. Guzman grabbed and had only recently had the cast removed. Although the incident did not result in any serious injury to Ian, it was painful and caused his mother to seek medical attention for her son. On April 27, 2001, as a result of the April 25, 2001, incident, Mr. Guzman was assigned to alternative work at his residence, with pay. Mr. Guzman was not allowed to have any contact in his assignment with students. On August 14, 2001, the County Court in and for Dade County, Florida, entered a "Stay Away Order" in Case No. M0130143 requiring that Mr. Guzman stay away from, and have no contact with, Ian. Disciplinary Action Against Mr. Guzman for the April 25, 2001, Incident On August 29, 2001, another conference-for-the-record (hereinafter referred to as the "second conference") was held. The second conference was attended by Julia F. Menendez, Regional Director, Region IV Operations of the School Board; Sharon D. Jackson, District Director; and Mr. Guzman. The second conference was held at the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. The second conference was conducted to discuss Mr. Guzman's performance assessments, non-compliance with School Board policies and rules regarding violence in the workplace and corporal punishment, insubordination, noncompliance with site directives regarding appropriate use of discipline techniques, violation of the Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities, and Mr. Guzman's future employment with the School Board. At the conclusion of the second conference, Mr. Guzman was informed that his alternative work assignment would be continued, that his actions would be reviewed with the Superintendent of Region IV Operations, the Assistant Superintendent in the Office of Professional Standards, and Edison's principal, and he was directed to refrain from touching, grabbing, hitting, or dragging any student for any reason. Subsequent to the second conference, the School Board's Office of Professional Standards concluded that Mr. Guzman had violated School Board and state rules. Therefore, an agenda item recommending dismissal of Mr. Guzman was prepared for the School Board to consider. That agenda item was discussed with Mr. Guzman on October 16, 2001, and was considered at the School Board's meeting of October 24, 2001. At its October 24, 2001, meeting, the School Board suspended Mr. Guzman without pay and approved the initiation of dismissal proceedings against him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the decision of the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, suspending Angel Guzman without pay be sustained and that his employment with the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, be terminated. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 27th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Frank E. Freeman, Esquire 666 Northeast 125th Street Suite 238 Miami, Florida 33161 Merrett R. Stierheim, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent's employment as a teacher without pay for one day.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Broward County. The School Board hired Respondent on September 1, 1981. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a middle school social science teacher and department head at Whiddon-Rogers Education Center ("Whiddon-Rogers"). At all times material to this case, Respondent's employment with the School Board has been governed by Florida law and the School Board's policies. The conduct giving rise to the School Board's proposed one-day suspension of Respondent occurred on October 1, 2019, during the 2019-2020 school year. On the morning of October 1, 2019, M.G., an eighth grade male student at Whiddon-Rogers, received a telephone call regarding some family members who had died that morning. Due to the deaths in his family, M.G. was upset and in a "bad mood" throughout the morning and later that day when he arrived in Respondent's fourth period social studies class. During Respondent's fourth period class, M.G. did not want to be disturbed. He had a "hoodie over his head," his head down on his desk, and he was not doing any work. M.G. was often picked on in class by other students. On this particular occasion in Respondent's fourth period class, M.G. was being picked on by other students as he laid his head down on his desk. At some point, M.G. picked his head up from his desk and made a verbal threat to other students that he was going to shoot up the school. Respondent did not hear M.G. make the threat. One of the other students that heard M.G.'s threat went to Respondent during class and told him M.G. had threatened to shoot up the school. Respondent did not report M.G.'s threat to school administration. Respondent did not consider M.G.'s comment to be a dangerous threat. Respondent did not want to embarrass M.G. and told him during his fourth period class on October 1, 2019, that he could not say things like that. M.G., who was angry, did not respond to Respondent and walked out of the classroom. Respondent instructed M.G. to return to the classroom, but M.G. ignored him. On October 2, 2019, M.G. did not attend school. On the morning of October 3, 2019, Assistant Principal Sabrina Smith received a text message from another teacher at Whiddon-Rodgers, N'Kenge Rawls, notifying her of M.G.'s threat on October 1, 2019, to shoot up the school. Ms. Smith notified the other assistant principals of the threat and assembled the mandatory members of the Behavioral Threat Assessment ("BTA") team to collaboratively analyze available data, determine the level of risk, and develop appropriate interventions. As part of the threat assessment, Ms. Smith spoke to M.G. on October 3, 2019, who admitted he had threatened to shoot up the school. Ms. Smith also spoke to Respondent, who admitted he did not report M.G.'s threat to administration on October 1, 2019. Respondent admitted to Ms. Smith that he should have reported M.G.'s threat and that he made a mistake in not reporting the threat. Based on the behavioral threat assessment, the BTA team determined M.G.'s risk level to be "Medium/Serious Substantive." A "Medium/Serious Substantive" risk level means that the student "does not appear to pose a threat of violence at this time but exhibits behaviors that indicate a continuing intent to harm and/or potential for future violence." By all accounts, Respondent is a good teacher and well respected by his colleagues as evidenced by his team leader role at Whiddon-Rodgers. However, on this particular occasion, Respondent used poor judgment and erred in not reporting M.G.'s threat to shoot up the school on October 1, 2019. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent failed to report M.G.'s threat to shoot up the school, which constitutes misconduct in office in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056. By failing to report M.G.'s threat to shoot up the school, Respondent violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., by failing to make reasonable effort to protect the students from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the students' mental and/or physical health and/or safety. Respondent's conduct also constitutes "[i]ncompetency" and "[i]nefficiency," in violation of rule 6A-5.056(3) and (3)(a)1., by failing to discharge the duty to report such a threat as prescribed by law and "[i]nefficiency" in violation of rule 6A- 5.056(3)(a)3., by failing to communicate appropriately with and relate to administrators. Respondent's conduct also violates School Board Policy 2130, which requires School Board employees "to report to school administration any expressed threat(s) or behavior(s) that may represent a threat to the community, school, or staff," and School Board Policy 4008, which requires Respondent to comply with the "Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida," and "all rules and regulations that may be prescribed by the State Board and by the School Board." Respondent has only received prior discipline on one occasion. On September 19, 2007, Respondent received a written reprimand for inappropriate discipline of a student.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order upholding the one-day suspension of Respondent's employment without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Andrew Carrabis, Esquire Broward County School Board 600 Southeast 3rd Avenue, 11th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (eServed) Melissa C. Mihok, Esquire Melissa C. Mihok, P.A. 201 East Pine Street, Suite 445 Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Robert W. Runcie, Superintendent Broward County Public Schools 600 Southeast 3rd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Daniel Presmy, committed the violations alleged in the Recommendation for Suspension and Termination for Employment, and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Daniel Presmy (hereinafter "Presmy" or "Respondent") has been a teacher for six years with Palm Beach County School Board (hereinafter "School Board"). He has always taught elementary students. Presmy has had no prior disciplinary action taken against him by the Superintendent of Palm Beach County School Board or the School Board. Presmy was a certified teacher in the School Board of Palm Beach County. On December 11, 2006, while in his classroom Presmy was teaching his third-grade class, and three students who were not students in his classroom showed up and disrupted the class. Presmy requested that the students leave his room. The students did not leave upon the initial request. One student informed Presmy that a student in the class had his eraser. Presmy then asked his class who had the eraser. Subsequently, an eraser flew to the front of the classroom and fell on the floor. Presmy picked up the eraser and handed the eraser to the student who had requested it. Presmy turned back to his class and was hit on the temple with the eraser. Presmy turned back around toward the student who he had given the eraser to and the student raised his hand. Again, Presmy told the student to leave. The student continued to stand in the middle of the doorway to Presmy's classroom and would not leave. While Presmy remained in his classroom, he used his fingertips to push the student's head and told the student (hereinafter "student victim") to "leave and don't come back here." Presmy "didn't think that [he] was doing anything wrong by telling him to leave with a gesture to leave." Presmy's reaction of touching the student was inappropriate. However, no evidence was demonstrated that the student was hurt during the incident. Presmy did not press the buzzer or contact and ask for any assistance regarding the incident because he didn't think it was necessary. On December 11, 2006, Officer Price was paged regarding the incident and she returned the call. She was informed that a student reported that he had been hit by a teacher at Roosevelt. Price interviewed the student victim and witnesses regarding the incident with Presmy. The School Board initiated an investigation into the incident. During the investigation, Respondent met with Detective Walton. Presmy told the investigator that he pushed the student victim in the head and told him to leave.2 The investigator concluded his investigation and presented the case to the State Attorney’s Office for review. As a result, Daniel Presmy was criminally charged with Battery as a violation of Florida Statutes. On August 2, 2007, Presmy pled guilty to the battery charge as a negotiated plea agreement so as not to put himself and his family through a lengthy trial and under the advice of his lawyer. His sentence was 45 hours community service, 12 weeks of anger management, 12 months of probation with early termination after six months and a $595 court fee. Petitioner alleges Respondent, by his conduct, violated School Board Policies 0.01, 1.013 and 3.12, and State Board of Education Rules 6B-1.001 and 6B-1.006. Subsequently, the School Board of West Palm Beach County at a meeting on October 24, 2007, voted to suspend Presmy without pay effective October 25, 2007, and initiated dismissal proceedings.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that Palm Beach County School Board find Presmy had inappropriate physical contact with a student but apply the progressive disciplinary policy to determine his punishment. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY 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 11th day of August, 2008.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Lake County School Board, had just cause to terminate Respondents for the reasons specified in the agency action letters dated April 17, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Lake County School Board, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Lake County. See Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner is authorized to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. See § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Mr. Rosier has been employed at Groveland Elementary School (Groveland) in Lake County, Florida, for three years. During the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years, Mr. Rosier was the Instructional Dean. One of Mr. Rosier’s duties was to assist teachers with students who have behavioral problems and liaison with parents of these students. Mr. Rosier also conducted in- school suspension of students. Mr. Rosier also had a contract supplement to assist with students who were on campus after school hours because they either missed the bus or were not picked up by their parent or guardian on time. Mr. Rosier assisted by keeping the student safe and contacting the emergency contact on file for the student to find a way to get the student home. Ms. Lassen has taught at Groveland for four years. She taught first grade during the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years. Petitioner Lassen is an “inclusion teacher,” meaning her classroom is a combination of students receiving Exceptional Student Education (ESE) services and students with no need for services. Ms. Lassen has no special training in ESE services for children with behavioral challenges. ESE students in her classroom are “push in, pull out,” meaning an exceptional education teacher comes in to work with some of the students in the classroom, and other students are pulled out of the classroom to work with an exceptional education teacher. Ms. Lassen was not happy at Groveland. She enjoyed teaching and was passionate about her students achieving their learning potential. However, she was frustrated by what she saw as a lack of needed services for her ESE students. Ms. Lassen applied for a transfer during the 2016 school year, but the transfer was denied. During the 2017-2018 school year, Ms. Lassen had eleven ESE students in her classroom, four of whom had severe behavioral issues. Some of her students were violent, even trying to harm themselves. She found it stressful to corral children who were throwing things in the classroom, especially at other children, while trying to teach the required lessons. She often found herself dealing with parents who were upset about their ESE child being disciplined for their behaviors, or who were upset about the treatment of their child by an ESE student. To address these concerns, Ms. Lassen frequently met with Mr. Rosier. Toward the end of the 2017-2018 school year--in March 2018 particularly--they met roughly twice a week. The two met once in Mr. Rosier’s office and sometimes in the portable where Mr. Rosier conducted in-school suspension; however, they met most frequently in Ms. Lassen’s classroom. The meetings usually occurred around 4:00 p.m., after students were dismissed at 3:30 p.m. and Mr. Rosier’s after- school responsibilities ended. Ms. Lassen usually left the school between 4:15 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. to pick up her own children from school and daycare and take them to after-school activities. During the meetings, Ms. Lassen discussed with Mr. Rosier the behavioral challenges she faced with students in her classroom, as well as the issues with parents. Mr. Rosier had the responsibility to deal with parents, often conducting parent conferences to address issues arising in the classroom. Ms. Lassen and Mr. Rosier became friends, and occasionally discussed personal matters, in addition to classroom and parent issues. Sometimes Ms. Lassen would become emotional. Mr. Rosier assured her he would work to get the help the students needed. Kimberly Sneed was the Groveland Principal during the 2017-2018 school year. On April 2, 2018, Mr. Sneed entered Ms. Lassen’s classroom shortly after 4:00 p.m. Assistant Principal Joseph Mabry had suggested to Ms. Sneed that she should look into why Mr. Rosier was in Ms. Lassen’s classroom at that time. When Ms. Sneed arrived, she observed that the lights were turned off and the classroom was empty. She walked to the classroom supply closet, inserted her key, and opened the door, which opens inward. Just as she was pushing the door open, Ms. Lassen pulled the door open to exit the closet with her purse and supply bag in hand. Ms. Sneed did not try the closet door handle first to determine whether the closet was locked. She simply inserted the key in the lock and pushed open the door. She testified that she was not certain the closet door was actually locked. The closet light was off when Ms. Lassen opened the closet. Ms. Lassen testified that she had just switched the light off before opening the door to exit the closet. Ms. Sneed turned the light switch on as she entered the closet. Ms. Lassen was surprised to see Ms. Sneed and asked if she could help her find something. Ms. Sneed asked Ms. Lassen why she had been in a dark closet. How Ms. Lassen replied to Ms. Sneed’s question was a disputed issue. Ms. Lassen maintains she said, “Ms. Sneed, you don’t understand, all it was, it was just a kiss, a kiss on the cheek, nothing more.” Ms. Sneed maintains Ms. Lassen said, “We were only kissing, we weren’t doing anything, no sex or nothing.” Ms. Lassen promptly left to pick up her children. Ms. Sneed entered the closet and observed Mr. Rosier standing at the back of the L-shaped closet, with his back to the door. Mr. Rosier was fully clothed, but his shirt was untucked and his glasses were off. Ms. Sneed did not question Mr. Rosier. Instead she quipped sarcastically, “Really, Mr. Rosier? Really?” Mr. Rosier did not turn toward Ms. Sneed or otherwise respond to her immediately. As Ms. Sneed exited the closet and proceeded to leave the classroom, Mr. Rosier called after her and asked if he could talk with her in her office. What else Mr. Rosier said to Ms. Sneed at that time was also a disputed issue. Ms. Sneed testified that Mr. Rosier stated, “I’ll admit we were kissing, and it turned into touching, but nothing else.” Mr. Rosier was not certain what exactly he said, but admitted that he did use the word “kiss.” He testified that everything happened quickly. He was embarrassed and Ms. Sneed was angry. The following day, Ms. Sneed reported the incident to the School Board Employee Relations Supervisor Katherine Falcon. That same day, both Ms. Lassen and Mr. Rosier were interviewed separately by Ms. Falcon. Ms. Falcon drafted an interview questionnaire based solely on her telephone conversation with Ms. Sneed that morning. The questionnaire contained the following seven questions: For the record state your name. What is your current position? How long have you been in your current position? Yesterday, Ms. Sneed found you and another teacher in a locked dark closet. Can you explain? Is this the first time you have engaged in this activity on campus? Did you share any information about this incident with anyone else? Is there anything else you would like to say? Ms. Falcon asked the questions, and David Meyers, Employee Relations Manager, typed Respondents’ answers. Ms. Falcon printed the interview record on site and presented it to each respective Respondent to review and sign. The report states Ms. Lassen’s response to Question 4 as follows: The closet was unlocked. It is always unlocked. I just kissed him. It didn’t go any further. There was no touching or clothing off. Nothing exposed. Nothing like that has ever happened before. Yesterday was more, like a kiss goodbye. I was getting ready to leave and getting my stuff. He was standing by the door. He was standing by my filing cabinet. Nobody ever comes in there during the day. Sneed wanted to know what we were doing in there. We told her we were fooling around a little bit, kissing. Ms. Lassen signed her interview report without asking for clarifications or changes. Ms. Lassen testified that she did not review the interview report before signing, did not understand it to be any form of discipline, and was anxious to return to her classroom because her ESE students do not do well in her absence. At the final hearing, Ms. Lassen denied stating anything about “fooling around a little” with Mr. Rosier. In response to the same question, Mr. Rosier’s report states the following: The closet wasn’t locked. This teacher, Katie Lassen and I have become good friends. Yesterday we caught ourselves being too close, kissing, hugging . . . . We were first in the main classroom. When we began to kiss we went in the closet. There was a knock on the door. It was Ms. Sneed. My clothes were kind of wrangled. Mr. Rosier also signed his interview report without asking for clarifications or changes. At the final hearing, Mr. Rosier denied stating that he and Ms. Lassen were “kissing and hugging” or that “when we began to kiss we went into the closet.” As to his statement that “we caught ourselves becoming too close,” he testified that he meant they had begun discussing personal issues in addition to Ms. Lassen’s concerns with her ESE students. Ms. Lassen and Mr. Rosier testified as follows: they were discussing her concerns about a particular ESE student who was very disruptive and threatened to harm himself. Ms. Lassen was emotional. Ms. Lassen proceeded into the closet to get her things so she could leave to pick up her children and get them to after-school activities. Just inside the closet, Ms. Lassen broke down crying again. Mr. Rosier entered the closet, closing the door behind him (allegedly to keep anyone from seeing Ms. Lassen cry), put his hands on her shoulders and told her to get herself together and not let anyone see her crying when she left the school. She collected herself, thanked him, gave him a hug and they exchanged kisses on the cheek. Respondents’ stories at final hearing were nearly identical, a little too well-rehearsed, and differed too much from the spontaneous statements made at the time of the incident, to be credible. Based on the totality of the evidence, and inferences drawn therefrom, the undersigned finds as follows: Mr. Rosier was consoling Ms. Lassen and the two adults became caught up in the moment, giving in to an attraction born from an initial respectful working relationship. The encounter was brief and there is no credible evidence that Respondents did anything other than kiss each other. Both Respondents regret it and had no intention to continue anything other than a professional relationship. This incident occurred after school hours, sometime between 4:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. on April 2, 2018. The only students on campus were at an after-school care program in a different building across campus. No one witnessed Respondents kissing or entering the closet together. Only Ms. Sneed witnessed Respondents emerging from the closet. Both Respondents were terminated effective April 23, 2018. Administrative Charges The school board’s administrative complaints suffer from a lack of specificity. Both employees are charged with “engaging in sexual misconduct on the school campus with another school board employee which is considered Misconduct in Office,” in violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for Educators (Principles). The administrative complaints do not charge Respondents with any specific date, time, or place of particular conduct which constitutes “sexual misconduct.”2/ Moreover, the School Board introduced no definition of sexual misconduct. The School Board inquired about some specific conduct during the Employee Relations interviews with Respondents. Ms. Falcon asked Respondents about being found together in a “locked dark closet.” The School Board failed to prove that the closet was either locked or dark while Respondents were in the closet. It appears the School Board bases its charge of Misconduct in Office, in part, on an allegation that the Respondents had “engaged in this activity on campus” on dates other than April 2, 2018. When Ms. Sneed went to Ms. Lassen’s room on April 2, 2018, she was acting upon a report that Mr. Rosier went to Ms. Lassen’s room every day at 4:00 p.m. There is no reliable evidence in the record to support a finding to that effect. The report that Mr. Rosier “went to Ms. Lassen’s classroom every day at 4:00,” was hearsay to the 4th degree,3/ without any non-hearsay corroborating evidence. Petitioner did not prove Respondents were ever together in a closet, much less a dark closet, on campus any date other than April 2, 2018. Finally, it appears the School Board bases its charges, in part, on an allegation that Mr. Rosier was not fulfilling his after-school duties because he was spending too much time with Ms. Lassen. To that point, Petitioner introduced testimony that on the Friday after spring break in March, Mr. Rosier was not to be found when the administration had to deal with a student who had either missed the bus or was not picked up on time. Ms. Sneed testified that Mr. Rosier came through the front office, observed the student there with herself and Mr. Mabry, and left through the front office. Ms. Sneed assumed Mr. Rosier had left for the day, but that when she left the school she saw his car in the parking lot. Mr. Rosier recalled that particular day, and testified that, as two administrators were attending to the student, he did not see the need for a third. He chose instead to keep his appointment with Ms. Lassen to discuss her difficult students. Petitioner did not prove that Mr. Rosier neglected either his after-school or any other duties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lake County School Board enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondents Katie Lassen and Alan Rosier, and award back pay and benefits retroactive to April 23, 2018. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 2018.
