The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Ricky Lynn Sapp (Sapp), was nonrenewed for his annual teaching contract for constitutionally permissible reasons.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was first employed by the Escambia County School Board for the 1984-85 school year in the compensatory education program at Bellview Middle School and later that school year he took the place of an eighth grade math teacher who was out on maternity leave. Sapp holds a Florida Teaching Certificate in elementary education and is not certified to teach in middle school. He has a bachelors degree. Sapp was asked by the School Board to take the courses necessary to become certified in middle school math, but did not do so because he was working at another job at the time. Petitioner was hired on annual contract by the principal of Bellview Middle School to teach seventh grade math during the 1985-86 school year and to teach sixth grade for the 1986-87 school year. For the most part, Sapp received excellent performance evaluations from the Bellview principal. In September, 1986, a mother of a Bellview Middle School student complained to the principal regarding what she believed to be unacceptable contact between Sapp and her son. The principal told Sapp to stay away from the student, but the parent's complaints continued. The student had been in Sapp's seventh grade math class the prior school year. On November 7, 1986, Sapp was arrested for lewd and lascivious assault on that student. As a result of these charges the Superintendent of the Escambia County School District recommended to the School Board that Sapp be suspended without pay. The School Board voted to disapprove the Superintendent's recommendation. Instead, Sapp was reassigned to administrative duties at the Hall Center. In the fall of 1986, Sapp was also notified by the Department of Education, Professional Practices Services (PPS), that an investigation of the allegations involved in the criminal charge had been instituted. On April 1, 1987, Sapp received the standard memo from the School Board, signed by the Bellview principal, indicating that his annual contract was going to expire at the end of the 1986-87 school year. The memo also indicated that the school district would move as rapidly as possible on the reappointment of the annual contract teachers recommended to the Superintendent for reappointment for the 1987-88 school year, but "personnel assignments resulting from the closing of the Beggs Center and the redistricting of all middle school boundaries greatly obscures the timeline for such reappointments." During the summer of 1987, Sapp talked to Dr. Roger Mott, the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Services of the school district, and others in his office regarding appointment to an annual contract for the 1987-88 school year. Sapp claims he was told by Mott that he would not be rehired until after his criminal trial. Mott denies telling this to Sapp. Because Sapp's testimony was very confused and contradictory regarding these alleged statements by Mott, Sapp's version is given little weight. Instead, it is found that Mott did not tell Sapp that he would be rehired after the criminal trial. During the discussions between Sapp and Mott in the summer of 1987, Mott did tell Sapp that he was free to interview with any principals in the district for open annual contract positions, however those principals who inquired would be told that there was a Professional Practices Services investigation. Sapp expressed interest only in employment at Bellview. During 1987 the middle schools of Escambia County were redistricted. As a result of redistricting, Bellview Middle School anticipated losing approximately 300 students and 10 teaching positions for the 1987-88 school year. After the jury found him not guilty on August 12, 1987, Sapp again inquired regarding employment. According to Charles McCurley, principal of Bellview Middle School, there were no positions available at Bellview. By letter dated August 21, 1987, Sapp was advised that the Professional Practices Services was investigating two complaints. The first related to the charge of lewd and lascivious assault on a child. The second complaint was that Sapp had received his teaching certificate by fraudulent means because he failed to disclose two criminal convictions on his applications. Mott became aware of the PPS investigation and he discovered that Sapp had apparently falsified the applications for his teaching certificate and the applications for employment with the Escambia County School District. Mott then informed Sapp that the chances of reemployment were not good and that he could not be considered for employment until the PPS investigation was complete. Mott also testified that Sapp was not reemployed because of the information that formed the basis of the second PPS investigation. While this is not the place to determine whether or not Sapp falsified these applications, it is necessary to determine what facts the Respondent acted on in not renewing Sapp's annual contract. Sapp's applications to both the school district and the state showed that he answered "no" when asked if he had ever been convicted of a felony or first degree misdemeanor or other criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation. Sapp has, in fact, been convicted of at least two such violations which were not disclosed. Sapp approached Robert Husbands, Executive Director of the Escambia Education Association, for assistance in getting employment. Husbands talked to Mott. Mott informed him that Sapp could not be rehired until the PPS investigation was resolved. Husbands found that there were seven teaching positions in the whole county which were vacant at the beginning of the 1987-88 school year. Two of those positions were located some distance from Pensacola. Only one of those positions was known to have been filled by an annual contract teacher. There were 37 annual contract teachers in the school district who were not renewed for the 1987-88 school year. Eight others who were not renewed at the beginning of the school year were rehired during the year. Because of redistricting, Bellview had only one opening for an annual contract teacher after it placed its continuing contract teachers. That one opening was for reading and was filled by a reading teacher with a masters degree. Sapp was not qualified for that position. After the 1987-88 school year had begun, Bellview experienced increased enrollment and a resulting increase in teaching positions. Those positions were filled by teachers who were teaching in their field of certification and who were at least as qualified as Sapp. It was very important that Bellview have teachers working in their area of certification because the school was to be audited for accreditation in the 1987-88 school year. Sapp's former position at Bellview was filled by a continuing contract teacher who had previously taught seventh grade and who was certified to teach in both middle and elementary school. The teacher who took over Sapp's class in the 1986-87 school year was not rehired. During the first week of the 1987-88 school year, Sapp sought employment at Bellview and the principal correctly told him there were no jobs. Later, in October, 1987, a position opened up at Bellview and a continuing contract teacher with a masters degree in reading and 18 years of experience was transferred in at her request. Sapp believes he was not renewed as retaliation for the School Board's rejection of the Superintendent's recommendation for suspension on January 27, 1987. This allegation is based only on Sapp's personal feeling and no evidence was presented to substantiate his belief. Sapp also believes he was not renewed because of the arrest itself. Again, no evidence was presented to substantiate his belief. By letter of September 18, 1987, the School District, through counsel, advised Sapp's attorney that Sapp would not be considered for reemployment until the PPS investigation was concluded and the District was advised of the results. The PPS has not filed any complaint against Sapp based on either of its investigations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Ricky Lynn Sapp, be DENIED relief from the nonrenewal of his annual contract and that his request for relief be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5059 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Finding's of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Ricky Lynn Sapp Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(10); 3(12); 4(14); 5(2); 6(2); 8(3); 9(3); 11(4); 12(5); 13(8); 15(6); 16(7); 18(23); 20(20); 21(24); 22(26); 23(26); and 25(27). Proposed findings of fact 7, 17, 28 and 29 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed finding of fact 10 is rejected as irrelevant. Propose findings of fact 14, 19, 24, 26, 27, and 30 are rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, School Board of Escambia County Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(9); 2(1 and 10); 3(11); 4(25); 5(25); 6(13); 7(14 and 16); 8(15 and 22); 9(18); 10(22 and 23); 11(6); 12(19); 13(29); 14(30 and 31); 15(32); 16(33); 18(19); 19(27); 20(28); 21(33); 22(34); and 23(35). Proposed finding of fact 17 is rejected as being unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 24 is subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: G. James Roark, III, Esquire 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Philip J. Padovano, Esquire Post Office Box 873 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mike Holloway Superintendent of School Board Escambia County 215 West Garden Street Post Office Box 1470 Pensacola, Florida 32597-1470 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent should be subject to discipline as a result of the violations of section 1012.795(1)(j) and rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)4., as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the nature of the sanctions.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes (2020). § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. (2020). Stipulated Facts Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 766965, covering the areas of Educational Leadership, Elementary Education, and School Principal, which is valid through June 30, 2023. During the 2017-2018 school year, Respondent was employed as a Principal at GES in the LCSD, where he had been employed since 2008. During the 2017-2018 school year, Brooke Jahn (now Brooke Solz) was employed as a classroom teacher at GES, and, therefore, under the Respondent’s supervision. Ms. Jahn was married to a LCSD employee assigned to another school. Ms. Jahn was an adult during all times material to this complaint. On June 11 and 12, 2018, Respondent and Ms. Jahn attended the Instructional Leadership Team Summer Institute hosted by the Florida Department of Education at the Innisbrook Resort & Golf Club in Palm Harbor, Florida. On or about July 11, 2018, Ms. Jahn requested a transfer from GES to another school within the LCSD. On or about July 12, 2018, Mr. Solz reported to LCSD Superintendent Rocky Hanna that he was involved in a romantic relationship with Ms. Jahn. On July 18, 2018, Superintendent Hanna placed Respondent on administrative leave with pay pending the pending the outcome of an investigation. On August 31, 2018, Leon County Schools Superintendent Rocky Hanna issued Respondent a letter of reprimand. On August 31, 2018, Mr. Solz was reassigned to the LCSD Department of Teaching and Learning, effective September 4, 2018. On September 17, 2018, Professional Practices Chief John Hunkiar reported Mr. Solz to the Office of Professional Practices Services. On November 8, 2018, the Florida Department of Education, Office of Professional Practices Services, initiated an investigation into alleged misconduct by Respondent. On or about July 9, 2019, Mr. Solz was reassigned as the principal at Astoria Park Elementary School in Leon County.1 Evidentiary Findings The following findings of fact are supported by the record. Contrary testimony and evidence has been considered and rejected. David Solz Mr. Solz is, by all credible accounts, a “wonderful” principal and administrator, with a solid reputation as an LCSD administrator. Prior to this proceeding, he had not been the subject of any previous complaints or disciplinary actions during his 20-plus years in education. Testimony and recorded statements that Mr. Solz gave preferential treatment to others, including Ms. Jahn, that he targeted or “formally” wrote up teachers that were not on his preferential list, or that he “only hires young, attractive teachers,” were neither credible nor persuasive. The more credible testimony demonstrated that Mr. Solz was even-handed in his approach to the teachers at GES. If someone showed an interest in moving up in the academic system, he was willing to support them. If they wanted to 1 The Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation identified the date as July 9, 2018. The date was corrected to 2019 on the record at the hearing. stay in the classroom, he was accepting. If they felt they needed time away, even up to a year, he was accommodating. He did not show favoritism, and he did not “punish” those who disliked him. By the 2017-2018 school year, Mr. Solz had been divorced for several years. By April of 2018, he was apparently dating a woman who taught at either Ft. Braden Elementary School or Riley Elementary School. That person may have thought that she had some “power” because she was dating a principal, but there was no evidence that she did. More to the point, that person was not Ms. Jahn. Mr. Solz was an “open door” administrator. His office was in plain view, and he made it a practice to never be alone in his office with another teacher with the door closed. There was no evidence that he ever did so. The evidence unequivocally established that Mr. Solz was a good leader at GES, that he was purposefully respectful of his female colleagues, and avoided situations that could be misconstrued. Brooke Jahn Ms. Jahn was a teacher at GES starting in August 2013. By all credible accounts, Ms. Jahn was ambitious and a go-getter. She knew that she wanted to move from being a classroom teacher into administration. She set high goals, and was willing to take on the work necessary to advance in her career in education, work that others were not willing to do. During the 2017-2018 school year, in addition to her duties as a GES teacher, Ms. Jahn was taking classes to earn her Master’s Degree in Education Leadership. Holding a Master’s Degree in Education Leadership allows one to take a position as a dean, an assistant principal, a principal, or a leader at the school district in some capacity. As part of the curriculum for her degree, Ms. Jahn was required to serve an internship. Ms. Sumner supervised Ms. Jahn, which required Ms. Jahn to spend “lots of time” in the office, generally during her planning period or after school. Ms. Wyatt documented her progress. Mr. Solz was not overly involved with Ms. Jahn’s internship. Upon her completion of her Master’s program, Ms. Jahn became one of only three teachers or counselors at GES holding that degree, the others being Mr. McKhan and Ms. Wyatt. In addition to receiving her Master’s Degree in Education Leadership, Ms. Jahn took and passed the Florida Educational Leadership Exam (FELE) during the 2017-2018 school year, which qualified her to be considered for a position in education administration. During the period at issue, she had not yet applied to the administrator pool. During the 2017-2018 school year, Ms. Jahn taught third grade at GES. In previous years, Ms. Jahn taught kindergarten. Ms. Jahn wanted to move to the third-grade classroom for several reasons. She wanted experience in detecting early reading deficits. Her kindergarten students were “learning to read.” By third grade, students are “reading to learn.” Therefore, reading deficits by third grade can affect student achievement. In addition, third grade is a Florida Statewide Assessment (FSA) standardized test grade. Ms. Jahn recognized that experience in administering the FSA was almost a requirement for assignment as an assistant principal.2 During the 2016-2017 school year, Ms. Jahn was selected by her kindergarten teacher peers to be the team leader for the kindergarten section. Mr. Solz had no role in that process. Ms. Jahn’s selection as kindergarten team leader earned her a spot on the SITE Committee. The SITE Committee consists of grade-level team leaders, as well as persons representing paraprofessionals, custodians, cafeteria workers, ESE students, parents, and other school functions. As a SITE-based school, the SITE Committee serves to decentralize decision 2 Respondent suggested that Ms. Jahn’s transfer from kindergarten to third grade was evidence of favoritism. There was no evidence that the transfer was anything other than a normal and routine transfer, and showed no more favoritism than Ms. Vasquez teaching kindergarten and second grade at GES, Ms. Baggett being assigned to teach second, third, and fourth grades over the years at GES, or Ms. O’Brien teaching third and first grades at GES. making away from the Principal, and allows for a collaborative process by representatives of all segments of GES employees. Ms. Jahn was thereafter nominated and selected by the other members of the SITE Committee as the SITE Facilitator. That position required a great deal of work and effort, which Ms. Jahn gladly took on, realizing the career benefits derived from the experience. Mr. Solz had no role in that process. Ms. Jahn was also selected to serve on the Teacher Education Center (“TEC”) as a professional learning advocate. As a TEC representative, Ms. Jahn provided teachers with opportunities for training to maintain their teaching certifications and assisted them in making their way through the certification process. The TEC is also engaged in managing the professional development budget for the school. Ms. Jahn had to be involved in professional development as part of her Master’s Degree internship, and the TEC helped to fill that requirement. The TEC representative is open for any teacher who wants to apply. Other than complaints from several witnesses that they were not solicited by school-wide email, or by personal entreaty from Mr. Solz “and offered for nomination or from, you know, veteran teachers who have that experience,” there was no evidence that any teacher other than Ms. Jahn, including the complaining witnesses, had the interest, drive, or commitment to apply for the TEC. There was no evidence that the position was required to be advertised by email or subject to personal invitation. Ms. Jahn sought out the position, and applied. The process of appointment was somewhat vague, except that Mr. Solz did not unilaterally appoint Ms. Jahn to the position.3 3 Ms. Baggett, despite averring that Mr. Solz appointed Ms. Jahn to the TEC, admitted at the hearing that she had no information that Mr. Solz appointed Ms. Jahn to that position “[o]ther than it's just, I guess, common knowledge that the principal of the school would, you know, would approve these positions.” Supposition, speculation, and “common knowledge” are not substitutes for competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence. The team leader, SITE facilitator, and TEC representative positions were subject to a modest stipend, but the duties involved work that far exceeded the pay -- “probably cents on the hour” -- she received for serving. However, Ms. Jahn understood that having experience in various areas would benefit her in achieving her long term goals. Ms. Jahn was also selected to serve on the District Advisory Council (“DAC”), a group of teachers, parents, administrators, and school board members that meet to discuss issues that affect students and classrooms. It is an unpaid, volunteer position that meets after school hours. Dr. Smith asked Mr. McKhan, Ms. Wyatt and Ms. Jahn to share the role. Since Mr. McKhan and Ms. Wyatt had previously served, Ms. Jahn took on most of the duties. Mr. Solz had no role in that process. Ms. Jahn was part of a group of teachers invited by Dr. Smith to observe other schools in the District in order to implement the “Leader in Me” program at GES. Ms. Jahn was exposed to leadership techniques that she would not have been exposed to as a classroom teacher. Mr. Solz had no role in that process. Ms. Jahn routinely attended monthly faculty meetings, which were open to all faculty at GES. She was able to apply some of the faculty meetings into credit for her Master’s Degree. She was required to mark attendance and document credit for every faculty meeting. There was no evidence that Mr. Solz was involved in that process. Ms. Jahn was an active participant in the faculty meetings, which may have rubbed some less participatory teachers the wrong way, with witnesses complaining that Mr. Solz gave undue weight to Ms. Jahn’s contributions, but was dismissive of their comments, failing to take them “seriously.” The evidence, such as it was, that Ms. Jahn was given some sort of preferential treatment at the faculty meetings was not supported by a single specific instance, but was “supported” by the fall-back phrase that “it was, again, another one of the school-wide known fact.” Even if it was established that Mr. Solz valued Ms. Jahn’s input, such would not establish preferential treatment. It is just as easy to draw the inference that Ms. Jahn’s statements were more pertinent than others. The more credible testimony established that Mr. Solz was not dismissive or disrespectful to any of the staff at faculty meetings.4 The testimony that Mr. Solz afforded preferential treatment to Ms. Jahn at faculty meetings lacked even basic credibility, and is not accepted. Ms. Jahn also trained a teaching intern, Ms. Hobbs. Ms. Hobbs was effusive in her praise of Ms. Jahn, crediting her success and her teaching style to Ms. Jahn’s tutelage. Because of Ms. Jahn’s success in mentoring Ms. Hobbs, Ms. Hobbs was, by the end of the 2017-2018 school year, able to handle the class on her own, which is the goal of a successful internship. While the class was under Ms. Hobbs’ instruction, Ms. Jahn was able to leave the classroom -- though not the campus. The evidence firmly established that Ms. Jahn set her goals high, and took steps that were not easy to achieve those goals. There was no credible evidence to suggest that she expected to be given anything by Mr. Solz or anyone else. She was not, as intimated by others, appointed to her duties by Mr. Solz. By all credible accounts, she earned her accolades. Though others reacted negatively, there was nothing to suggest that others were willing to put in the effort, or that they had earned the respect necessary to be selected by their peers to one of the many available positions. Allegations in the Administrative Complaint During the 2017-2018 school year, Respondent engaged in a sexual relationship with Brooke Jahn, a married teacher who was a direct report to Respondent. 4 Mr. Solz was more forceful; stating that the allegation he was dismissive or rude during faculty meetings “is a lie, a purposeful lie.” As described, during the 2017-2018 school year, Ms. Jahn took on a steady stream of jobs designed to advance her career. As a result, she met often with members of the GES administration, including primarily Ms. Wyatt and Ms. Sumner. The previous year she met frequently with Dr. Smith. She also met with Mr. McKhan and Mr. Solz. There was nothing in any of those meetings that contained even a whiff of impropriety. The 2017-2018 school year ended for teachers the first week of June 2018. Teacher contracts end on the second day after the last day of school. If a teacher’s contract is renewed, the contract renewal becomes effective on the first day of school in August for teachers. Ms. Jahn was not under contract and did not work at GES over the summer.5 Ms. Jahn was not seeing Mr. Solz in anything other than a professional capacity during the 2017-2018 school year. Despite the rumors, gossip, and innuendo bandied about by several witnesses, there was absolutely no competent, substantial, and credible evidence to support that Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn were engaged in any sort of romantic, much less sexual, relationship at any time prior to the last day of classes during the 2017-2018 school year. By the time the 2017-2018 school year ended, Ms. Jahn had received her Master’s Degree in Education Leadership and passed the FELE. She had been a classroom teacher for eight years, and was starting to look for other opportunities. However, for reasons related to the LCSD summer teacher transfer policy and postings, she had not yet done so. During this same period, difficulties in Ms. Jahn’s marriage began to come to a head. The reasons are unimportant, except for the fact that they had nothing to do with Mr. Solz. 5 Ms. Jahn had signed a contract for the coming school year, but it was pending board approval. She was not working as a teacher at GES, but was slated to teach private swimming lessons over the summer “to make extra summer money.” In late May 2018, Mr. Solz became aware that the 2018 Instructional Leadership Team Summer Institute was to be held over the weekend of June 11 and 12, 2018, in Tampa, Florida. The conference was limited to 25 principals from around the state. Mr. Solz applied, and was accepted. He then realized that he could bring a qualified teacher leader from his school. Since it was a leadership conference, leadership experience was a prerequisite. The only people at GES who were not already administrators and who were qualified were Ms. Wyatt and Ms. Jahn.6 Ms. Wyatt was already slated to attend the Superintendent’s Leadership Academy in Tallahassee. She did not want to pass it up because she had applied for the assistant principal pool that year. People who were interviewing applicants for the pool were leading that meeting, creating a good networking opportunity for Ms. Wyatt. Mr. Solz invited the other leadership candidate, Ms. Jahn. He extended the invitation for her family to attend as well, a common practice. Ms. Jahn accepted the invitation. She had to rearrange swimming lessons and child care in order to attend, but did so because it was important to her efforts to professionally advance. Her husband could not attend for professional reasons. Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn travelled separately to Tampa. By the time of the conference, Ms. Jahn had come to the conclusion that her marriage was heading for divorce. She took the opportunity to visit her sister in the Tampa area. It was a stressful period. Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn arrived separately at the convention hotel on Friday evening. Other than Mr. Solz assisting Ms. Jahn in getting checked in, they had no contact with one another that evening. After the conference sessions on Saturday, Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn had dinner as part of a group. It was, according to both, the first time they had 6 By this time, Mr. McKhan had been appointed and was serving as an assistant principal at Pineview Elementary School. ever been alone with one another. There was no evidence to the contrary. During dinner, Ms. Jahn disclosed to Mr. Solz that she was having marital difficulties, but no more. The next morning, after a difficult conversation with her husband the night before, Ms. Jahn came down from her room in obvious distress. She indicated that she was having a “panic attack.” Mr. Solz walked with her to get coffee, talked with her, told her it would be OK, and gave her an “awkward side-ways hug.” He made sure she was engaged in the Sunday conference sessions, which eased her anxiety. After the Sunday session was over, Ms. Jahn went back to Tallahassee. Mr. Solz stayed for a while to meet with principals he knew who were coming in for a separate Florida school administrators conference. He had dinner with several of his colleagues, and drove home. Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn did not see each other for several weeks after. Mr. Solz visited family in Savannah for a week and, upon his return, had his children for a week which entailed a trip to Disney World. Although Ms. Jahn’s divorce was moving forward, she took a pre-planned cruise with her then-husband and her children. However, during that period, Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn had begun to text one another and spoke on the phone. They started to realize they had things in common, and might like to pursue a relationship. Before they did anything to advance any sort of sexual relationship, they mutually decided that Mr. Solz should self-report their interest to the Superintendent. At that time, the “relationship” was all verbal and through texts. Other than the “awkward side-ways hug,” there had been no physical component to the relationship. Mr. Solz testified credibly that when he met with Superintendent Hanna on July 12, 2018, “I felt like we [he and Ms. Jahn] had a friendship that was easily blossoming into a romantic relationship.”7 Prior to their decision to self-report, Ms. Jahn had already decided she needed to move from GES to diversify her experience to ultimately move out of the classroom into administration. For a person holding an Education Leadership degree, it is common knowledge that in order to advance, a teacher must move around to different schools. Ms. Jahn had been researching other opportunities with the LCSD, and had applied to be a reading coach at Griffin Middle School, as well as several other less desirable positions. On July 11, 2018, and again on July 12, 2018, Ms. Jahn requested, in writing, a transfer from GES. In describing her interview with Ms. Jahn on July 12, 2020, Ms. Kraul testified that: She indicated again that she wants an administrative experience. She used the figure 150 percent leaving Gilchrist of her own free will. That she wants a middle school experience and she was very aware that she would not be eligible for an assistant principal position straight out of the classroom. That this was her ticket to get more experience. Ms. Jahn also believed it would be easier for her to stand out professionally at Griffin Middle School. Ms. Kraul testified that Ms. Jahn was waiting out the LCSD teacher transfer period and “that's, I believe, where she was when I met with her in July.” There is not a shred of competent substantial evidence to suggest that Ms. Jahn’s desire to transfer from GES was based on anything other than her desire to pursue her long-held goal of moving from a classroom position into a position in administration. There is no evidence that Ms. Jahn was pressured 7 Though not relevant to the specific allegations of this proceeding, it merits acknowledgement that Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn have since married, and were married as of the date of the final hearing. into seeking the transfer, or that her request had anything to do with Mr. Solz. On July 12, 2018, Mr. Solz reported to Superintendent Hanna that he and Ms. Jahn were involved in a relationship that was becoming romantic. They had not been “caught.” There was no evidence that they knew of the purported “anonymous emails.”8 Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn were early in their “romance,” having not yet passed out of the talking and texting stage. The decision to report was a volitional act designed to avoid gossip and innuendo, and establish a path forward without “direct report” conflict. Mr. Solz was not even certain that he was required to report, since the LCSD fraternization policy prohibited contact between staff and students, and the sexual harassment policy dealt with “unwelcomed” conduct. Nonetheless, Mr. Solz decided to report their blossoming interest because it “just felt like it was the right thing to do.” The evidence conclusively established, despite the suppositions and gossip of others, that there was no sexual relationship between Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn prior to the July 12, 2018, self-report. On July 18, 2018, Superintendent Hanna placed Mr. Solz on administrative leave with pay. There was no competent, substantial, or persuasive evidence to support a finding that, at the time of Mr. Solz’s suspension, he and Ms. Jahn had commenced a sexual relationship. 8 The first “anonymous email” was not received in evidence. The alleged recipient, Ms. Paul, had no recollection of it, other than she forwarded it to Ms. McAllister. Ms. McAllister had no recollection of receiving, reviewing, or forwarding the first email. Its contents are a mystery. That alleged email has no evidentiary value. The second “anonymous email” came to Ms. Paul on July 15, 2018, and she forwarded it to Ms. McAllister and Superintendent Hanna on July 16, 2018. The anonymous “former [formal?] complaint by teachers” could not have come from anyone with much knowledge of Ms. Jahn, since the “teachers” could not even manage to get her name right, calling her “Mrs. Garret.” Garrett is the first name of Ms. Jahn’s ex-husband. As with the illusory first email, the second “anonymous email” has no evidentiary value. On August 31, 2018, Superintendent Hanna issued Respondent a letter of reprimand which included reassignment of Mr. Solz as a Principal on alternative assignment in the Department of Teaching and Learning.”9 The allegation that “[d]uring the 2017/2018 school year, Respondent engaged in a sexual relationship with Brooke Jahn, a married teacher who was a direct report to Respondent,” was not proven. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent committed the acts alleged as a material allegation in paragraph 3. of the Administrative Complaint. During the course of their relationship, Respondent afforded Teacher Jahn preferential treatment as compared to similarly situated employees thereby creating a hostile work environment. Respondent’s preferential treatment of Teacher Jahn included . . . training not offered or made available to other teachers. This allegation is predicated on there having been a “relationship.” Since there was no relationship, the allegation was not proven. However, in addition, there was no evidence that Respondent afforded Ms. Jahn preferential treatment as compared to similarly situated employees. There were only two other “similarly situated” employees who had the education and the ambition to be considered for leadership roles at GES, Mr. McKhan and Ms. Wyatt. By the time the more serious allegations in this case were alleged to have occurred, Mr. McKhan had been assigned as Assistant Principal at Pineview Elementary School. 9 Respondent appears to argue that a negative inference should be drawn from Mr. Solz’s failure to file a grievance regarding the reprimand. A review of the letter shows it to have involved an allegation of conduct in April 2018, which Ms. Kraul testified “was nobody’s business what he did in his personal time, after hours,” and an allegation of use of electronic media for non-educational purposes,” which was not an issue in this proceeding at all. Why Mr. Solz elected not to grieve the reprimand was not explained, but no inference of wrongdoing can be drawn. If anything, the decision not to grieve the letter could just as easily be explained by its giving notice of his transfer as Principal that he had already determined to be an acceptable alternative to allow his “blossoming interest” in Ms. Jahn to move forward. The testimony established that many of the opportunities provided to Ms. Jahn came from Ms. Wyatt, her mentor; Dr. Smith and Ms. Sumner, GES assistant principals; and from her peers, including her fellow grade-level teachers and those on the SITE committee. Except for the Instructional Leadership Team Summer Institute, which came after the close of the 2017- 2018 school year, and after Ms. Wyatt’s election to attend a different conference, Mr. Solz made no assignments or invitations to Ms. Jahn. Ms. Jahn earned the opportunities to advance her career. She was not “given” those opportunities by Mr. Solz or anyone else at GES. Much of the testimony critical of the “relationship” between Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn came from employees who either could not or would not put in the work to qualify for leadership positions. They did not seek to earn degrees in Education Leadership, did not actively seek out extracurricular leadership positions, and were not elected by their peers to leadership positions, including SITE Facilitator. The evidence established that the witnesses who provided many of the statements that precipitated this proceeding were irritated by Mr. Solz for any number of reasons: that they were “angry” at Mr. Solz for being assigned to teach in a portable classroom; that Mr. Solz was monitoring their Facebook posts; that Mr. Solz used the iObservation system “against” them; that they were “formally written up” for infractions when other (non-comparable) teachers were not; or that they simply were not evaluated as highly as they believed they deserved.10 Much of the evidence provided in support of Petitioner’s case consisted of statements and testimony that were directed 10 It is not overlooked that the three primary witnesses offered by Petitioner to substantiate wrongdoing by Mr. Solz were clearly antagonistic towards him, which pre-dated anything alleged in this case. Ms. Vasquez testified that she and Mr. Solz “had a history of -- very, very hostile history,” and she “did not feel comfortable talking to Mr. Solz.” Ms. Baggett exhibited obvious animosity, feeling the Mr. Solz “was very dismissive,” and that “[p]rofessionally I don't respect his practice.” Ms. O’Brien testified that during the period from 2008 through May of 2018, “Mr. Solz and I did not see eye-to-eye most of the time.” The witnesses’s antipathy towards Mr. Solz is not a primary basis for assigning their testimony little weight. However, it does nothing to bolster their credibility. towards Mr. Solz’s previous relationships, that were imprecise and unsubstantiated gossip, or that were pure uncorroborated hearsay. The allegations that Mr. Solz “appointed” Ms. Jahn to “TEC Rep., SITE Facilitator, DAC, and Kdg. Team Leader” were either based on ignorance of the process or, more likely, a conscious misrepresentation of the criteria by which those positions are filled. As to the only allegation that had any basis in fact -- Ms. Jahn’s attendance at the Instructional Leadership Team Summer Institute -- the complaining teachers simply lacked the requisite leadership qualifications. That was not the fault of either Mr. Solz or Ms. Jahn. There was not a speck of competent, substantial evidence to establish that Mr. Solz afforded Ms. Jahn preferential treatment as compared to similarly situated employees, including training not offered or made available to other teachers. Given the facts of this case, it is found that no rational person could reasonably conclude that training opportunities provided by GES administrators, including Mr. Solz, created a hostile work environment. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent committed the acts alleged as a material allegation in paragraph 3.a) of the Administrative Complaint. During the course of their relationship, Respondent afforded Teacher Jahn preferential treatment as compared to similarly situated employees thereby creating a hostile work environment. Respondent’s preferential treatment of Teacher Jahn included ... [having] Jahn accompany him on at least one school related out of town trip without making the opportunity available to other teachers. This allegation has been addressed in detail herein. In addition to the fact that there was no “relationship” when Mr. Solz invited Ms. Jahn to attend the Instructional Leadership Team Summer Institute, the evidence in this case established, conclusively, that Mr. Solz did not afford Ms. Jahn preferential treatment as compared to similarly situated employees. Attendance at the conference was offered to Ms. Jahn as the only qualified attendee since Ms. Wyatt had a conflicting leadership-based conference that drew her attention, and was based on absolutely no improper motive. Given the facts of this case, it is found that no rational person could reasonably conclude that Mr. Solz’s offer to Ms. Jahn to attend the conference (with her family) created a hostile work environment.11 Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent committed the acts alleged as a material allegation in paragraph 3.b) of the Administrative Complaint. During the course of their relationship, Respondent afforded Teacher Jahn preferential treatment as compared to similarly situated employees thereby creating a hostile work environment. Respondent’s preferential treatment of Teacher Jahn included ... [r]ules regarding supervision of students [being] relaxed for Jahn as compared to other teachers. In addition to the fact that there was no “relationship,” the evidence in this case established, conclusively, that rules for supervision of students were not relaxed for Ms. Jahn as compared to other teachers. The evidence demonstrates that Ms. Jahn went to various administrative offices -- primarily those of Ms. Wyatt (her mentor) and Ms. Sumner (her education leadership internship supervisor), as well as that of Dr. Smith the preceding year -- before school, at lunch, or during her planning period. It is common for intern/student teachers to earn the right to “solo” teach a class. As Ms. Jahn’s intern, Ms. Hobbs, gained in competency, she 11 On a practical note, the conference was held in June of 2018, after the conclusion of the 2017-2018 school year for teachers. By the time teachers returned to campus in the fall, Mr. Solz had been transferred from GES. If Mr. Solz was able to create a hostile work environment at GES from his post at the Department of Teaching and Learning, it would have been quite a trick. was allowed to take on more of the teaching responsibilities for Ms. Jahn’s class on her own, as was the goal. Finally, Ms. Jahn was able to leave the classroom for periods of time, which gave Ms. Hobbs valuable experience and confidence. However, the evidence establishes that Ms. Jahn did not abuse her time during those periods, but was working at necessary and requested school-related activities. The suggestion that there was some impropriety involved when Ms. Jahn left Ms. Hobbs in charge is simply not supported. Ms. Baggett complained that she was “formally written up” (by the Assistant Principal, not Mr. Solz) because she “left [her] students unsupervised.” Why she was disciplined is a matter between Ms. Baggett and the Assistant Principal. However, that disciplinary matter (which might also explain her complained-of, less-than-stellar evaluation) does not establish that Ms. Jahn violated any rules regarding supervision of students, does not establish any other teacher as a valid comparator, and does not lend support to the allegations in this case. Ms. Vasquez testified that Ms. Jahn left her class during the school day, and “made it known that she was getting her dog groomed” on one occasion, and on another occasion “she told me she was getting her hair done.” Ms. Hobbs openly scoffed at the idea, a rejection that is supported by the record. Despite the hearsay nature of Ms. Vasquez’s testimony, it might have retained some thin thread of credibility if it did not directly conflict with her written statement provided during the investigation, in which she stated: I had been made aware of, several years ago, a relationship with Jessica Scully. She was seen in [Mr. Solz’s] office quite frequently-and would talk openly about the special treatment she was getting from David. How David would allow her to leave school to run her errands. She left school to get her dog groomed and told several teachers that David knew where she was and approved it. (emphasis added). Either Mr. Solz is attracted to women with poorly-groomed dogs, or the testimony regarding Ms. Jahn’s personal off-campus errands, including dog- grooming, was a fabrication. The evidence supports the latter. There is no competent, substantial, and credible evidence to support a finding that Ms. Jahn ever left her students with inadequate supervision, that she ever left campus to perform personal errands, or that she violated any disciplinary standard regarding student supervision. There was not a shred of evidence that Mr. Solz relaxed or disregarded any rules regarding the supervision of students for Ms. Jahn as compared to other teachers. Given the facts of this case, it is found that no rational person could reasonably conclude that Mr. Solz relaxed any rules regarding supervision of students for Ms. Jahn so as to create a hostile work environment. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent committed the acts alleged as a material allegation in paragraph 3.c) of the Administrative Complaint. Summary The tone of the Administrative Complaint gives the impression that Respondent and Ms. Jahn were carrying on a torrid sexual relationship from the confines of Respondent’s office, and that Mr. Solz was lavishing Ms. Jahn with perquisites as the 2017-2018 school year was ongoing. Nothing could be further from the truth. The facts show that Ms. Jahn had high professional goals, and worked hard -- on her own -- to achieve them. The suggestion that Respondent favored Ms. Jahn to advance his prurient interest in her, or that Ms. Jahn was using Respondent as a stepping stone to some higher goal are equally unsupported, and equally fallacious. The allegation that Mr. Solz engaged in harassment or discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interfered with any GES employee’s performance of their professional or work responsibilities, or with the orderly processes of education, or that he undertook any action vis-a-vis Ms. Jahn that created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment is simply not supported by the facts of this case.12
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of September, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 21st day of September, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Stephen G. Webster, Esquire Law Office of Stephen G. Webster, LLC Suite 5 1615 Village Square Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32309 (eServed) Lisa M. Forbess, Program Specialist IV Education Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street, Room 316 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Bonnie Ann Wilmot, Esquire Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue Whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, Respondent is guilty of having been convicted of a crime of "moral turpitude" and thereby subject to having her employment terminated for just cause by the Petitioner in accordance with Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, Respondent is guilty of having been absent without authorized leave in violation of Section 231.44, Florida Statutes, and thereby subject to having her employment terminated for just cause by the Petitioner in accordance with Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Charles F. Blalock, Jr., was the duly elected Superintendent of Schools of Suwannee County, Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Janette Walls was a member of the instructional staff of the Suwannee County School District, employed by the District School Board of Suwannee County, Florida (Board) under an annual contract. While a written annual contract had not been executed between the Board and the Respondent for the 1989-1990 school year due to Respondent's being on maternity leave the first 9 weeks of the 1989-1990 school year, the contractural relationship was the same as set forth in the 1988-1989 annual contract (except for salary which is not in dispute) executed by the Board and the Respondent which provided for dismissal for just cause during the term of the contract as required by Section 231.26(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The Respondent plead Nolo Contendere to the charge of passing worthless checks to Pic N Save in the amount of $50.10, Jiffy Food Store in the amount of $35.00, Suwannee Pack in the amount of $25.00, Suwannee Pack in the amount of $40.53 and Jiffy Food Store in the amount of $21.47 in Case Numbers 89- 1103 MN, 89-1127 MN, 89-1128 MN, 89-1135 MN and 89-1203 MN in the County Court, Suwannee County, Florida. The court in each case adjudicated the Respondent guilty and ordered restitution and assessments in the total amount of $712.10 and placed the Respondent on supervised probation for a period of 12 months in each case. There was no evidence presented as to whether the Respondent paid any of the restitution and assessments ordered in these cases. 4. In Case Numbers 89-1170 MN, 89-1171 MN, 89-1172 MN, 89-1173 MN (orders dated June 5, 1989), 89-1179 (order dated June 6, 1989), 89-1211 MM, 89-1212 MN (orders dated June 14, 1989), 89-1798 MN (order dated August 21, 1989) and 89- 1799 MN (order dated August 23, 1989) in the County Court of Columbia County, Florida the Respondent plead guilty to the charges of passing worthless checks in the amount of $37.42 to Suwannee Swifty on May 5, 1989, $47.63 to Suwannee Swifty on May 6, 1989, $49.86 to Suwannee Swifty on May 5, 1989, $13.00 to Suwannee Swifty on May 9, 1989, $35.00 to Suwannee Swifty on Nay 8, 1989, $6.86 to S & S Store #5 on May 16, 1989, $8.70 to S & S Store #5 on May 9, 1989, $25.00 to Suwannee Swifty on May 9, 1989 and $37.52 to Suwannee Swifty on May 16, 1989. As a result of her plea in the above-cited cases the court adjudicated the Respondent guilty, ordered her to pay restitution and court costs and placed her on probation. There was no evidence presented to show whether the Respondent paid the restitution and assessments ordered in these cases. 5. In Case Numbers 89-478 MN, 89-479 MN, 89-480 MN, 89-647 MN, 89-648 MN, 89-649 MN, 89-650 MN, 89-651 MN. 89-652 MN, 89-653 MN and 89-702 MN in the County Court of Hamilton County, Florida the Respondent plead guilty to the charge of passing worthless checks in the amount of $30.34, $60.00, $60.00, $57.00, $68.91, $62.00, $55.29, $72.45, $65.00, $52.48 and $46.32. On August 4, 1989 the court adjudicated Respondent guilty in Case Numbers 89-478 MN, 89-479 MN and 89-480 MN and ordered the Respondent to pay restitution plus $300.00 in court costs. The Court also placed Respondent on 6 months probation in each case. On December 1, 1989 the court adjudicated the Respondent guilty in Case Numbers 89-647 MN through 89-653 MN and 89-702 MN and sentenced her to 4 months in the Hamilton County Jail with a condition for her release upon her serving 30 days and paying costs and restitution in the amount of $1,279.45. Respondent was incarcerated from on or about December 1, 1989 until on or about December 18, 1989. Respondent was granted personal leave for December 1, 1989. During the school week of December 4 - 8, 1989 Respondent's mother called in to advise the school that the Respondent was sick and that her father was either ill or had died and Respondent would not be in to teach and requesting sick leave for the Respondent. Sometime during the following week of December 11 - 15, 1989 Respondent's mother called again and requested further sick leave for Respondent. On all occasions when sick leave was requested, it was made clear that Respondent would have to fill out a request for sick leave. On December 19, 1989 when Respondent returned to school she completed and signed three Claim For Leave Compensation forms requesting sick leave for the periods of December 4-8, 1989, December 11 & 12, 1989 and December 13 - 15 & 18-19, 1989. It is apparent that Charles M. Sweat, Principal of Suwannee Elementary West signed the Respondent's leave requests recommending approval without paying any attention to who was requesting the sick leave because upon learning that he had signed Respondent's leave request knowing of her incarceration in the Hamilton County Jail prior to his signing the leave requests, he attempted to "white-out" his signature. The request for leave was never approved by the Petitioner, which is required, although such approval may be in some cases after the fact. Respondent may have been paid for this leave time by the Board and, if so, could be considered as approval of the requested leave after the fact; however, there is insufficient evidence to show that the Board did in fact pay the Respondent for this leave time. The Respondent was absent from her work at Suwannee Elementary West without authorized leave for the period of time of December 4 - 8, 11- 15 and 18-19, 1989.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Suwannee County District School Board enter a Final Order terminating Respondent, Janette Walls' employment with the Suwannee County School District effective January 9, 1990, the date Respondent was suspended without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 25th day of April, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Charles F. Blalock, Jr. District School Superintendent, Suwannee County, Florida 224 West Parshley Street Live Oak, Florida 32060 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 J. Victor Africano Post Office Box 1450 Live Oak, Florida 32060 Ms. Janette Walls 843 Alderman Road # 531 Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue The issue is whether, as the district school board alleges, an elementary school teacher choked one of her students in class——an allegation which, if proved, would give the district just cause to dismiss the teacher from her position.
Findings Of Fact The Broward County School Board ("School Board" or the "district"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Broward County Public School System. At all times relevant to this matter, Respondent Ava E. Williams ("Williams"), who holds an active Florida Educator Certificate, was employed as a third-grade teacher at Watkins Elementary School. She had taught at that school for the preceding 13 years and been an employee of the district since 1998. During the 2018-2019 school year, one of the students in Williams's class was a boy named P.P. After school on Friday, September 14, 2018, P.P. told his mother that, earlier during the day, Williams had choked him in class. P.P.'s mother and sister accompanied P.P. to school later that day, or the following Monday, to report this allegation to Assistant Principal Shereen Reynolds. P.P. claims that when he returned to class after the meeting with Ms. Reynolds, Williams called P.P. a "lying, fat pig" for turning her in. The undersigned rejects this allegation, which is uncorroborated, as not credible. Sometime later, on September 17, 2018, Ms. Reynolds told Williams about P.P.'s allegation that she (Williams) had choked P.P. the Friday before. The next day, Tuesday, Williams encountered her colleague, Shawony Russell, in the hallway. Williams——who was acquainted with, but not close to, Ms. Russell——knew that Ms. Russell had been P.P.'s teacher the previous school year, when P.P. was in the second grade. There is no dispute that Williams spoke briefly to Ms. Russell at this time. Ms. Russell asserts, however, that Williams admitted to her that she had choked P.P., whereas Williams adamantly denies having made such a confession. For reasons that will be discussed, the undersigned deems Williams's account of this conversation to be the more credible and thus rejects Ms. Russell's testimony to the contrary. After conducting an investigation, the district determined that Williams was guilty of having choked P.P. while screaming at him, "Do you hear me?"——or words to that effect. On this basis, the district seeks to terminate Williams's employment. Although the district advances several theories in support of its intended decision, Williams concedes that the allegations against her, if proved, would afford the district just cause for dismissal. Her defense is that the allegations are untrue. At hearing, only two witnesses to the alleged incident testified, namely Williams and P.P. Their respective accounts differ in material respects. Williams was by far the more credible witness, and her testimony is accepted over P.P.'s. Although, as the fact-finder, the undersigned is not obligated to explain why he has found one witness to be more believable than another, in this instance a few comments are in order, given that the School Board largely grounded its case on P.P.'s testimony. To begin——and this is undisputed——P.P. is a liar. That is a harsh word, "liar," one that the undersigned does not use lightly, especially with reference to a child witness. But here it is an accurate description. P.P. admitted under oath that he tells lies quite often, including to teachers. He has lied to get other students in trouble, among other things. This, alone, was enough to make the undersigned hesitate to take P.P.'s word about a charge that, if true, would cost a person her job——and might even end that person's professional career. Beyond that, P.P.'s description of the incident makes little sense and is difficult to imagine. P.P. claims that on the morning in question, Williams lined up the students in her class to walk with them to the cafeteria for lunch, except for P.P., who stayed behind because Williams, who thought P.P. had thrown a chair, was walking quickly towards him, after telling the other students to go. According to P.P., after everyone else had left, Williams stood in front of him and touched his throat with her open hand for one second, never squeezing, pushing, or making any movement at all——nor causing any pain—— before withdrawing. The undersigned does not believe that this is likely what happened. Williams's account, in contrast, is easy both to follow and to picture occurring. She recalls telling the children to clean up for lunch that morning, which all of them proceeded to do, except for P.P., who just sat at his desk and refused to move. Another student said something to P.P. that made P.P. mad, and he pushed a chair at the student. At this, Williams walked over to P.P. and asked him to get in line for lunch, but P.P. would not budge. Without touching P.P., Williams raised her voice and said to him loudly, "Do you hear me now?" She instructed the other students to leave for lunch and began walking towards the door herself. P.P. followed Williams and then exited the classroom ahead of his teacher, who had waited at the door for him. At this point, the incident was over. The undersigned credits Williams's testimony and finds that the incident likely took place as described in this paragraph. Apart from the eyewitness testimony, the only other significant evidence that the district offered was Williams's alleged admission. As mentioned above, P.P.'s second-grade teacher, Ms. Russell, testified that, during a conversation in the hallway on September 18, 2019, Williams confided to Ms. Russell that she had "choked" P.P. The undersigned does not believe that Ms. Russell's testimony is historically accurate in this regard. Credibility determinations such as this are the undersigned's prerogative to make without elaboration, but, as promised, a brief explanation will be given. There are three main reasons why the undersigned has found it unlikely that Williams said to Ms. Russell, "I choked him." First, Ms. Russell was not a confidant of Williams. Ms. Russell acknowledged this, saying she was surprised that Williams would tell her such a thing and agreeing that it "[m]ade no sense." Indeed, it makes so little sense that Ms. Russell's description of the confession strains credulity. Why on earth would Williams tell someone whom she had no particular reason to trust that she had choked a student——a gratuitous confession that could have ruinous consequences, including potentially a criminal prosecution? Stranger things happen, of course, but the odds are against an unsolicited, unexpected admission of this nature. Second, Ms. Russell claims that Williams said she had "choked" P.P. This is the word P.P. used in making his allegation against Williams, and it is the term that the district has used in charging and prosecuting Williams. Yet, if P.P.'s testimony were true (which it probably isn't), the contact that Williams made with P.P.'s throat could not reasonably be described as "choking." The term "choke" in this context obviously denotes the application of pressure around the victim's neck or throat to impede breathing and blood flow. What P.P. described, in contrast, was a brief (one second), painless touch without any constriction about his neck whatsoever. Thus, if Williams had touched P.P. (she probably didn't), and if, further, she had confessed as much to Ms. Russell (which is unlikely), it is highly improbable that Williams would have admitted doing something far worse than that which P.P. claims happened——which was, again, that Williams merely brushed the boy's neck with the palm of her hand.1/ Finally, Ms. Russell did not act like Williams had admitted having attacked a student. Imagine that you are an elementary school teacher and that one day, out of the blue, a colleague of yours, someone whom you do not know well, tells you that she has choked a third-grade student. Wouldn't you want to know what had happened? Ms. Russell didn't. More important, wouldn't you feel the need to report this potential child abuse to appropriate authorities for investigation, right away? Ms. Russell didn't. Ms. Russell did not take any immediate action because "[w]e were heading out to recess. I like to go outside and get my sun and just relax." Therefore, Ms. Russell testified, "I didn't call anyone. I didn't do anything. I was going back outside to relax." In fact, Ms. Russell never reported Williams's alleged admission to the school administration or the Department of Children and Families, even though she knew that, as a teacher, she had a legal duty to report child abuse upon becoming aware of reasonable cause to suspect that such has occurred. See § 39.201, Fla. Stat. Promptly going outside to relax in the sun and forget the matter is not the response one reasonably would expect from a teacher whose co-worker has just confessed to choking a student. Williams's description of the hallway encounter between her and Ms. Russell rings true. As stated, Williams knew that Ms. Russell had taught P.P., and she wanted to find out what Ms. Russell's experience with P.P. had been like. Seeing Ms. Russell in the hallway, Williams took the opportunity to inquire. There is no dispute that Ms. Russell told Williams that P.P. performed below grade level academically, had behavioral issues, and lied a lot.2/ Williams recalls telling Ms. Russell that, indeed, P.P. is a liar "because he said I choked him." The undersigned finds that the alleged "admission" is nothing but a truncated version of this statement, in which Williams described P.P.'s charge, not her own conduct. Determinations of Ultimate Fact The district has failed to prove its allegations against Williams by a preponderance of the evidence.
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 exonerating Ava E. Williams of all charges brought against her in this proceeding, reinstating Williams to her pre-dismissal position, and awarding Williams back salary as required under section 1012.33(6)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 14th day of January, 2020.
Conclusions This cause coming on to be heard before THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, at its meeting conducted on August 16, 2011, to consider the Recommended Order, entered on June 21, 2011 by the Honorable Claude B. Arrington, Administrative Law Judge of the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, having considered the Recommended Order, to which neither party filed exceptions, and being fully advised in the Premises: IT IS THEREUPON ORDERED AND ADJUDGED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. The Recommended Order is adopted in its entirety and incorporated herein by reference; and 2. RACHEL VON HAGEN’S professional service contract with The School Board of Broward County, Florida is terminated. Filed September 13, 2011 8:54 AM Division of Administrative Hearings Broward County School Board vs. Rachel Von Hagen DOAH Case Number: 11-0567 SBBC AGENDA 081611H02-Final Order aa AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida this \ ( aay of hag » 2011. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD Za Aa By: ia iW. Williams, Chair COPIES FURNISHED: CHARLES T. WHITELOCK, ESQ. Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. 300 Southeast 13" Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 MARK HERDMAN, ESQ. Herdman and Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater Florida 33761 STATE OF FLORIDA, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Broward County Schoo! Board vs. Rachel von Hagen DOAH Case Number: 11-0567 SBBC AGENDA 081611H02-Final Order APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER Pursuant to Section 120.68, Fla. Sta., a party to this proceeding may seek judicial review of this Final Order in the appropriate district court of appeal by filing a notice of appeal with Noemi Gutierrez, Agency Clerk, Official School Board Records, The School Board of Broward County, Florida, 600 Southeast Third Avenue — 2"! Floor, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301, on or before thirty (30) days from the date of this Final Order. A copy of the notice and a copy of this Final Order, together with the appropriate filing fee, must also be filed with the Clerk, Fourth District Court of Appeal, 1525 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-2399. If you fail to file your notice of appeal within the time prescribed by laws and the rules of court, you will lose your right to appeal this Final Order. fritz/allwork/doah/employment/vonhagen Rachel final order-final
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's professional services contract with the Hernando County School Board should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is the agency responsible for the administration of the school system in Hernando County. The School Board has employed Mr. Ellison almost continuously since 1979. In addition to teaching, he has coached students in various sports. Until September 16, 2005, he taught pursuant to a professional services contract at Central High School. On September 15, 2005, Mr. Ellison's 1996 Dodge truck was located at the school's auto shop. Mr. Ellison had driven it there. Students studying automobile repair were to attempt to repair his truck's air conditioner, which was not functioning. Mr. Ellison had provided the truck to the auto shop personally after having made arrangements with the automobile repair teachers the previous day. He was aware that the repair job was to be accomplished by students. Peter Koukos, the vocational instructor, informed Mr. Ellison, that in order to repair the air conditioner the glove box would have to be removed. Mr. Ellison assented to this procedure. While attempting to remove the glove box, students discovered a loaded Power Plus .38 special revolver in it. The students who found it duly reported its presence to Mr. Koukos, who took custody of it. It was eventually delivered to the school resource officer, Deputy Sheriff Debra Ann Miles, who placed it into evidence in accordance with Hernando County Sheriff's Office procedures. It is found as a fact that the revolver was owned by Mr. Ellison and it was he who had placed the weapon in the glove box of the truck and it was he who had driven it onto the Central High School grounds on September 15, 2005. Mr. Ellison had experienced a previous incident with this weapon on January 21, 2002. This incident was precipitated when a citizen reported to the Hernando County Sheriff's Office that a man was standing by a parked pick-up truck in the Fort Dade Cemetery with a handgun in the left front pocket of his jacket. A deputy was dispatched to the cemetery. The deputy stopped a truck as it exited the cemetery. The truck the deputy stopped was being driven by Mr. Ellison and it was the same 1996 Dodge that was involved in the September 15, 2005, incident. On the prior occasion Mr. Ellison related to the deputy that he was having domestic difficulties and the deputy, with Mr. Ellison's permission, seized the weapon which was in his possession. The weapon seized by the deputy was the very same .38 special revolver found at Central High School on September 15, 2005. The weapon was released to Mr. Ellison on February 12, 2002, because his actions with it on January 21, 2002, were completely lawful. He thereafter placed the weapon in the glove box of the 1996 Dodge. He forgot that it was there and if he had thought about it, he would not have left it in the glove box of the truck when he delivered it to the students in the auto repair shop on September 15, 2005. There was no intent to bring the weapon on campus. Mr. Ellison is aware of the harm that can ensue from carelessly leaving weapons in an environment where curious students might retrieve it and harm themselves or others. He has never denied that the gun was his or that anyone other than himself was responsible for the weapon being brought to the campus. Mr. Ellison knew that School Board Policy 3.40(6) provides that no one except law enforcement and security officers may possess any weapon on school property. This was explained to all of the teachers in a pre-school orientation session conducted August 1-5, 2005, which Mr. Ellison attended. Procedures to be followed in the event a gun or other dangerous weapon was found on campus were reviewed during this orientation session. These procedures are contained in the Central High School Blue Book, 2005-06 and Mr. Ellison knew this at the time he drove his truck onto school property. Mr. Ellison was and is familiar with the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct that addresses the behavior of teachers. He is aware that he has a duty to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions that may be harmful. Ed Poore, now retired, was an employee of the School Board for 31 years. He served in the district office as administrator of personnel and human resources, and specifically, was involved with the administration of discipline and the enforcement of School Board policy. Mr. Poore stated that intent was not a factor in determining whether a violation of School Board Policy 3.40(6) had occurred. He further noted that the Policy does not provide for a sanction for its violation. He testified that in determining a sanction for a violation of this section, he had observed in the past that the School Board had considered the sanction imposed on others in similar situations, the individual person's time and service as a teacher, and any other pertinent mitigating circumstances. Mr. Ellison's character was described by several witnesses as follows: Brent Kalstead, the Athletic Director at Hernando High School, who has been a teacher for 18 years, stated that he had coached with Mr. Ellison and that he had entrusted his son to him so that he could teach him baseball. He said that Mr. Ellison was dedicated to the youth of Hernando County. Marietta Gulino, is Mr. Ellison's girlfriend and a school bus driver. She stated that Mr. Ellison often takes care of children after working hours. Richard Tombrink has been a circuit judge in Hernando County for 17 years. He has known Mr. Ellison for 15 years as a baseball coach and at social events. He said that Mr. Ellison is committed to educating children and has great character. Lynn Tombrink is the wife of Judge Tombrink and is a teacher at Parrott Middle School and has known Mr. Ellison for 20 years. Ten years ago she taught in the room next to him. She would want him to teach her children. Regina Salazo is a housewife. She stated that Mr. Ellison was her son's pitching coach and that he loves children and they love him. Timothy Collins, a disabled man, said that his grandson and Mr. Ellison's grandson play baseball together and that he knows Mr. Ellison to be professional, a no nonsense type of person, and a gentleman. It is his opinion that the School Board needs people like him. Gary Buel stated that Mr. Ellison was his assistant baseball coach and that Mr. Ellison was dedicated and motivated. He described him as selfless. The parties stipulated that if called, the following witnesses would testify that they know Mr. Ellison to be a good, decent, honorable man; that they know him to be a good educator and coach; that they are aware of the circumstances surrounding the gun being in his truck on School Board property; that they do not believe that termination is the appropriate action in this case; and that he would remain an effective teacher: Carole Noble of Ridge Manor; Rob and Vickie Fleisher of Floral City; Vinnie Vitalone of Brooksville; Tim Whatley of Brooksville; Rick Homer of Brooksville; Rob and Candy Taylor of Spring Hill; Robbie Fleisher; Mark Frazier of Brooksville; Miya Barber of Brooksville; Nate Dahmer of Brooksville; Hank Deslaurier of Spring Hill; John and Mary Jo McFarlane of Brooksville; Pete Crawford of Brooksville; Patrick Ryan of Tampa; Ed Bunnell of Spring Hill; and Alan and Cecilia Solomon of Brooksville. It is found as a fact, based on the record of hearing, that Mr. Ellison is an excellent teacher who works well with children and whose character is above reproach. He is not the type of person who would consciously bring a weapon onto school grounds or commit any other purposeful act which might endanger students. Mr. Ellison has not been the subject of prior disciplinary actions.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Final Order imposing a 30-calendar-day suspension without pay be imposed as a penalty in this cause, and that Respondent, Michael Ellison, be reinstated to a teaching status and be awarded back pay and benefits to which he would have otherwise been entitled since November 15, 2005, less the 30-calendar-day suspension without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Paul Carland, II, Esquire Hernando County School Board 919 North Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Wendy Tellone, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Hernando County School Board 919 North Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601-2397
The Issue Whether the Superintendent of Hamilton County Schools recommended that the Respondent enter into a professional services contract with the Petitioner, Gene Starr?
Findings Of Fact Gene A. Starr has been continuously employed by the School Board of Hamilton County as an agriculture teacher since the 1985-1986 school year. On March 18, 1988, the principal of Hamilton County High School recommended to the Superintendent of the Respondent that the Respondent enter into a professional service contract with Mr. Starr. At a meeting of the Respondent held on April 12, 1988, the Superintendent made recommendations to the Respondent concerning reappointment of a number of employees. The Superintendent specifically recommended that Mr. Starr receive a professional service contract. A motion was made and seconded by members of the Respondent to accept the recommendations of the Superintendent. The following events took place, as reported in the minutes of the Respondent's April 12, 1988, meeting: At the Board's request, Mr. Lauer [the Superintendent] appeared to discuss the recommendation of Gene Starr. The consensus of the Board was that the agriculture program has not progressed as per expectations, and that Mr. Starr's coaching duties conflict with his duties as an agriculture teacher. It was the opinion of some members that there should be more emphasis on crop production and harvesting and on supervision of home projects. Following the discussion of the Superintendent's recommendation concerning Mr. Starr, the Superintendent "asked for and was granted permission to withdraw his recommendation on & Mr. Starr and to resubmit another recommendation on him at a subsequent meeting." The Superintendent then "amended his recommendation to omit Mr. Starr" and the motion to accept the Superintendent's recommendations was amended to reflect this change. The Respondent then approved the Superintendent's recommendations, as amended. The Respondent did not consider whether there was "good cause" to reject the Superintendent's recommendation concerning Mr. Starr. At a May 10, 1988, meeting of the Respondent the Superintendent recommended that Mr. Starr be reappointed to an instructional position for the 1988-1989 school year and that Mr. Starr serve in the instructional position for a fourth year on annual contract instead of being granted a professional services contract. The recommendation was withdrawn on advice of counsel for the Respondent. At a May 23, 1988, meeting of the Respondent Mr. Starr and the Respondent agreed that Mr. Starr would agree to a fourth year on annual contract, "subject to and without prejudice to a formal hearing on his right to a professional services contract." Mr. Starr was informed of this action in a letter dated May 31, 1988. Mr. Starr filed a Petition for a Formal Hearing challenging the Respondent's action with regard to the Superintendent's recommendation to the Respondent that Mr. Starr receive a professional services contract. In the Petition, Mr. Starr specifically requested the following relief: That the matter be assigned to the State of Florida Division of Administrative hearings [sic] for the assignment of a hearing officer. That a formal hearing be held on this particular petition pursuant to Sec. 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. as to Petitioner's entitlement to employment under a professional services contract.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the recommendation of the Superintendent of Hamilton County Schools be accepted by the School Board of Hamilton County unless the School Board of Hamilton County concludes that there is good cause for rejecting the recommendation. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 18th day of April, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4116 The Petitioner has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 3-9. 3 10. 4-8 Statement of events which occurred at the formal hearing and some of the arguments advanced by the parties at the formal hearing. COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin B. Browning, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer 652 Madison, Florida 32340 Donald K. Rudser, Esquire Post Office Drawer 151 Jasper, Florida 32052 Owen Hinton, Superintendent Hamilton County School Board Post Office Box 1059 Jasper, Florida 32052 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2018), as charged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.1 1 Respondent’s alleged conduct occurred in September 2018. The 2018 version of chapter 1012, and related statutes, was in effect at the time of the alleged conduct, and, therefore, applies to this proceeding. See Orasan v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., 668 So. 2d
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner, the Commissioner of Education, is responsible for determining whether there is probable cause to warrant disciplinary action against an educator’s certificate and, if probable cause is found, for filing and prosecuting an administrative complaint pursuant to chapter 120. Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 1124072. Respondent’s certificate is valid through June 30, 2024, and covers the areas of educational leadership, elementary education, English for speakers of other languages (ESOL), and reading. During the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent was employed as a reading teacher at Dr. Phillips High School (DPHS) in the Orange County School District (OCSD). Respondent has been a licensed educator since 1995 and admits to understanding that she is a “mandatory reporter” in instances where a child has been abused or where abuse is suspected. Section 1012.795(1)(b) authorizes the Education Practices Commission to discipline an educator “for knowingly failing to report actual or suspected child abuse as required in s. 1006.061 or report alleged misconduct by instructional personnel or school administrators which affects the health, safety, or welfare of a student as required in s. 1012.796.” Section 39.201, Florida Statutes (2018), requires any person who knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is abused by a person responsible for the child’s welfare to immediately report the knowledge or suspicion to the Department of Children and Families (DCF) Abuse Hotline. Several OCSD policies also mandate that a teacher immediately report any suspected child abuse to the DCF Abuse Hotline. The Complaint The Complaint alleges that “[o]n or about September 11, 2018, A.C., an eleventh[-]grade female student, reported to Respondent that [she] was being physically abused by her mother, [and that] Respondent failed to timely report the suspected abuse to [DCF] as required by law.” As a result of this alleged conduct, the Complaint charges Respondent with having violated section 1012.795(1)(b). Evidence Adduced at the Final Hearing Respondent first met A.C. at or near the beginning of the 2018-19 school year, which commenced sometime around the latter part of August 2018. As to her initial encounter with A.C., Respondent testified as follows: Q. And when did you first meet A.C.? A. I believe she may have been absent the first few days of school, but upon her first day of entry to my classroom she asked me, when we were greeting each other at the door, do you know who I am? And I said, A.C. And she goes, well, do you know about me? And I said, no, A.C. Hi, nice to meet you. She goes, well don’t you know about my history, don’t you know anything about me? I know your son and I’m in ROTC and, well, DCF used to be here all the time in ninth and tenth grade, don’t you know anything about me? I thought you would know all about me. And I mentioned to her that I knew nothing about her except her name and her grades and welcome to my class. And I said, let me show you where you’re sitting this year. And I showed her her seat. Q. When she said, DCF used to come to school all the time, what was she talking about? A. I have no idea. I think she was telling me about her personal history. Her behavior was a little flamboyant and very attention seeking and it was very extroverted, wanting to get to know me on a personal basis. And I -- it was just a little different from what I’m used to. And but she definitely did stand out in my vision as somebody that was seeking attention. (Tr. pp. 103-104). Within seconds of meeting A.C., Respondent, by her own admission, thought of A.C. as an extreme extrovert who was prone to engage in flamboyant and attention-seeking behavior. On the morning of September 6, 2018, Ms. Shuster included Respondent on an email that was sent to several individuals regarding A.C. The email informed recipients of the need to schedule “a team meeting … in reference to [A.C.’s] sporadic attendance.” Respondent, in response to the email from Ms. Shuster, stated the following with respect to A.C.: She is extremely bright and multi-lingual. She mentioned the school had to call DCF (A4) on her several times last year because her mom is really mean. The last few absences she had ROTC commitments. I would check with them to verify. 8/24 was the ROTC field day, 9/5 was the Club Fair. She probably shouldn’t be in reading; however, she fell asleep on the FSA last year. The question may be why isn’t she getting enough sleep? I hope this helps. Although A.C. had only briefly mentioned to Respondent during their initial interaction that she had encounters with DCF during the previous school year, it is obvious that A.C.’s reference to DCF resonated with Respondent given that several days later Respondent thought the information was of such significance that it needed to be included in Respondent’s reply to the email from Ms. Shuster. As of September 6, 2018, Respondent knew that A.C.’s school attendance was sporadic; that something in A.C.’s life was causing her to not get enough sleep; and that A.C. reported having a “really mean mom” whose purported conducted resulted in several visits from DCF during the previous school year. September 11, 2018 According to Respondent, prior to the commencement of her fifth period class on September 11, 2018, she was greeting students at the doorway of her classroom when A.C. arrived. Because A.C. had recently been absent from Respondent’s class, Respondent asked A.C. “where you been.” In response to her question, A.C., according to Respondent, stated that she “got arrested and I can tell you all about it.” Respondent testified that she then told A.C. to go to her seat and “we can talk about that later.” Respondent testified that she then instructed A.C. to sit down, but A.C. continued talking and said to Respondent “I can show you pictures.” Respondent then instructed A.C. to “put [her] phone away and sit down.” A.C. complied with Respondent’s directive, but before doing so persisted in trying to show Respondent the pictures on her phone. Respondent said that she was about 20 feet from A.C. when A.C. attempted to show her the pictures. Because of the distance between her and A.C., Respondent testified that she was unable to discern what was reflected in the pictures, but she recalled that A.C. said “I can show you pictures, I can show you, you know, these bite marks.” (Pet. Ex. 18, pp. 22-23). Respondent testified that at the conclusion of the fifth period class, she told A.C. to remain in the classroom. According to Respondent, as reflected in Petitioner’s Exhibit 18, pages 18 and 19, the following events then transpired over a period of about 10 to 15 minutes: Q. Okay. So now you and A.C. are in the room. A. Yes. Q. And you say to A.C. or she says to you, what? A. I said, hey, A.C., you said you were arrested. Can you tell me about that? What’s going on? She goes, well, if you really want to know, I wanted to get it on with my boyfriend and so my mom didn’t like it, we got into it and I called the police on her and they arrested me. And I said, oh wow, A.C. I was like, why did they take you. And she goes, well, the cops said that they were calling DCF and that they found me -- that I was the one not listening to my mom. And I said, well, A.C., I can tell you this. I have a teenage daughter. She graduated from here a few years ago and, I said, I’m going to talk to you as a teacher and I’m going to talk to you as a mom. I said, as a mom, maybe try to put your foot in the other shoe. Maybe your mom doesn’t want a little A.C. running around in nine months. Did you ever think about that perspective? And she goes, no. She goes, oh I don’t want to have kids. She goes -- I said, well, are you planning on going to the military and she said no, I don’t want to do that either. And she goes, I want to do something in art, graphic arts. Create -- I’m very creative. And I said okay. Then we spoke about, you know, what else did we speak about? We spoke about, you know, trying to follow house rules so that she doesn’t get in this situation again, whatever. And she goes, yeah, yeah, I know. She goes, I’m over it. And I said, well, you know, lunch is about to end, you better hurry on. And so, then she left for lunch and then when she left I called Ms. Graves and I called Ms. Shuster. I did not get Ms. Shuster. I didn’t leave a message. Ms. Graves, I left a message. Ms. Graves called me back sixth period and when I told her, hey, A.C. reported that she got arrested, what’s going on, she goes, oh, every teacher has told me already. We know. And I said, okay, great, thanks. In addition to the above, Respondent testified that the following events also occurred during her 10 to 15-minute discussion with A.C: Q. During that period, did A.C. show you any photos? A. I don’t recall having any photo opportunities except the time that she -- when she was walking into the room trying to show me the phone from across the room. Q. Okay. So, while she is having the conversation with you during the lunch period, she didn’t try to show you the photos that she had previously tried to show you; is that correct? A. I don’t believe so. I remember I asked her about the photos and stuff like that. She goes, I can show you photos and I was like, no, I don’t want to see your photos. Because I just didn’t. A.C. testified that on September 11, 2018, she reported to Respondent’s class and informed Respondent that she had been abused by her mother. According to A.C., she showed Respondent several pictures of bruising and bite marks on her body, which A.C. attributed to having resulted from the conduct of her mother. A.C. testified that the images reflected in Petitioner’s Exhibit 4 are copies of the pictures that she showed Respondent on September 11, 2018. Bates stamped page 9 of Petitioner’s Exhibit 4 is an image that clearly shows bite marks on A.C.’s hand. A.C. testified that the bite marks reflected in this exhibit were still visible on her hand when she met with Respondent on September 11, 2018, and that she showed her injured hand to Respondent. A.C. could not recall if she showed the pictures to Respondent upon entering Respondent’s classroom or immediately following Respondent’s fifth period class. While A.C. was uncertain as to when she discussed the details of her situation with Respondent, her testimony regarding her interaction with Respondent on September 11, 2018, was without equivocation or hesitancy, she recounted the events in question with precision, and her testimony was not otherwise impeached by Respondent. A.C. was a credible witness, and her testimony is appropriately credited. September 13, 2018 Thursday, September 13, 2018, was open-house day at DPHS, and teachers were required to remain at school until 8:00 p.m. At approximately 4:30 p.m., Respondent and her colleague, Ms. Rosa Martinez-Rodriguez, were conversing in Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez’s classroom when the administrative dean, Ms. Tamie Shuster, appeared in the doorway of the classroom. According to Ms. Shuster, she needed to speak with Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez about ESOL-related matters. Ms. Shuster finished her conversation with Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez, and before exiting the classroom, she was hailed by Respondent who informed her that student A.C. reported to Respondent that she had been bitten by her mom, and that A.C. had shown her cellphone pictures of the bite marks. When asked by Ms. Shuster if she had told anyone else about A.C.’s complaint, Respondent indicated that she had not. Ms. Shuster informed Respondent that the incident involving A.C. had to be reported, and after meeting with Respondent, Ms. Shuster promptly reported the incident involving A.C. to the DCF Abuse Hotline. In the narrative section of the reporting form completed by Ms. Shuster on September 13, 2018, she noted the following: “The student [A.C.] reported to her teacher Ms. Camacho Szeto that her mother got mad at her [and] left bite marks on her.” As a follow up, Ms. Shuster, on September 14, 2018, prepared a written statement outlining the events of the previous day. In all material respects, Ms. Shuster’s written statement on September 14, 2018, is consistent with her testimony and the information that she included in the narrative section of the abuse reporting form that she prepared on September 13, 2018. Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez was in earshot of the conversation between Respondent and Ms. Shuster and testified to the following: Q. Okay. And then what did you hear during that conversation between Ms. Szeto and Ms. Shuster? A. So they were talking about, as I said, a student that they both seemed to know about. The student seemed to have a lot of absences. And I heard Ms. Szeto tell Ms. Shuster that the student had said that her parent bit her and had shown her some pictures on the phone, but that she hadn’t reported anything because she had not observed bite marks on the student in person, on her person. And she wasn’t sure, also, if it was true as -- because there was a question about whether the pictures were of the student. To my understanding. Q. Okay. So, it’s your testimony that Mrs. Szeto told Ms. Shuster that she didn’t report it to DCF because she wasn’t sure if the student was telling the truth; is that correct? A. I’m not sure who she was referring to as not reporting it. I’m not sure if it was DCF or administration. That was unclear to me. But, yes, it was clear that she said that she wasn’t sure if it was true. Q. Ms. Camacho saying she wasn’t sure if it was true. If what was true? A. What the student was alleging that her parent had bit her and that the marks were actually the student’s. (Tr. pp. 60-61) Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez, approximately two weeks after witnessing the conversation between Respondent and Ms. Shuster, prepared a “witness statement,” which reads as follows: On September 13, 2018, Ms. Camacho-Szeto visited my office. She remained here for about an hour. It was Open House day, so we had to be in school until 8 p.m. We were having a conversation about personal matters. At some point during the visit, Ms. Tamie Shuster stopped by the door. Ms. Camacho-Szeto informed her that one of her students was stating that her mom bit her and the student had shown her pictures of the bite marks on her phone. I do not recall the name of the student, nor if it was an ESOL student. Ms. Camacho-Szeto stated that she had not reported anything because she wasn’t sure if the student was saying the truth as she never saw the bite marks on the student, only pictures on her phone and she didn’t know if they were really pictures of her. Ms. Tamie Shuster said she would investigate and left. Ms. Camacho-Szeto left to get her meal before Open House began. Respondent, when recalling her conversation with Ms. Shuster on September 13, 2018, testified as follows: Q. What did you say to Ms. Shuster? A. I said, hey, Ms. Shuster, last week you sent an email about A.C. and regarding the attendance child -- that you were spearing up the Child Study Team and I needed to talk to you. I called you the other day, but you weren’t at your desk. I said, I have this girl, A.C., she’s a little bit, you know, she’s a handful, I said, but I need to tell you, she told me she was arrested and she said these things. She’s trying to show me a phone from across the room and she mentioned some bite marks. I see no evidence of bite marks. I see nothing but the behaviors that’s exhibited tell me this child needs some type of counseling or whatever… . She goes, oh, gee, thanks. Now I have to call it in. And I said, well, I don’t know, Tamie, I’m not -- I don’t see any signs of abuse here whatsoever, she just said she was arrested, but I don’t have her history. You have her history, you’re starting the Child Study Team. I said, if I call in a report to DCF, I have nothing to show except that she was arrested and they’re not going to take the report … . * * * Q. Okay. Now you said you mentioned to Ms. Shuster that A.C. said something about bite marks. A. Yes. Q. But what did you tell Ms. Shuster about what A.C. said about bite marks? A. I said, she was trying to show me a cellphone from across the room of a -- looked like an x-ray with bite mark -- not bite marks, sorry. Teeth -- like x-ray teeth. And I said, and I see no evidence here of any bite marks or anything on this child. But I was just trying to calm her down and to start my class and I’ve not spoken to her about it anymore. And I said, could you follow up with her? (Pet. Ex. 18, pp. 38-41). Ms. Shuster and Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez both testified that Respondent, when speaking with Ms. Shuster on September 11, 2018, stated that A.C. had been bitten by her mother and had shown Respondent pictures of the bite marks. Neither Ms. Shuster nor Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez testified, nor did they note in their written statements, that Respondent stated that A.C. was “trying to show Respondent pictures from across the room.” Furthermore, neither Ms. Shuster nor Ms. Martinez-Rodriguez testified that Respondent mentioned “x-ray like pictures of teeth” when discussing A.C. with Ms. Shuster. In addition to the above, Respondent’s purported statement to Ms. Shuster that she had “not spoken to her (A.C.) about it anymore,” when read in context, is in direct conflict with other testimony where Respondent states that she met with A.C. for 10 to 15 minutes after class to discuss with A.C. the situation involving A.C. and her mother. It is not entirely clear from the evidence why Respondent would not disclose to Ms. Shuster that she had met with A.C. for 10 to 15 minutes, and thus mislead Ms. Shuster about the extent of her interaction with A.C. on September 11, 2018. Also, Respondent’s testimony that she did not have an opportunity to review the pictures on A.C.’s phone during her after-class meeting with A.C. is problematic, and not worthy of belief. While it may have been reasonable under the circumstances for Respondent to forestall A.C.’s attempts to show Respondent the pictures at the beginning of the class period, it defies logic and reason that Respondent would meet with A.C. for 10 to 15 minutes after class, ask A.C. about the pictures, and then refuse to view them when given the opportunity to do so. Respondent’s evasive, misleading, and inconsistent testimony undermines her credibility to the point to where her version of the events in question cannot be believed. Dr. Knight is the principal at DPHS and testified that it is not required that an employee have actual knowledge that a child has been abused. According to Dr. Knight, employees are trained that, when dealing with issues of suspected child abuse or neglect, “it’s not your job to determine if you think it’s factual or not. You call it in and then DCF is the organization that determines whether it’s factual or not. Your job is to just report it and they take it from there.” Dr. Knight’s testimony accurately states Respondent’s obligation as a “mandatory reporter.” Findings of Ultimate Fact On September 11, 2018, A.C., who was then an eleventh-grade student, reported to Respondent that she had been physically abused by her mother. A.C., when discussing the events with Respondent, presented pictures of her injuries and also showed Respondent bite marks that were then present on A.C.’s hand. The fact that A.C. verbally informed Respondent that she was abused by her mother was, in itself, sufficient to trigger Respondent’s reporting obligation to DCF. The fact that A.C. showed Respondent pictures of injuries to her body was, in itself, sufficient to trigger Respondent’s reporting obligation to DCF. Although Respondent understood her obligation to report known or suspected child abuse to DCF, she failed to do so with respect to A.C.’s allegations of abuse. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order that: 1) suspends Respondent’s educator’s certificate for a period of two days; 2) places her educator’s certificate on probation for a period of two years from the date of the final order, with conditions determined by the Education Practices Commission; 3) requires Respondent, during her period of probation, to attend and successfully complete, at her expense, training related to her reporting obligations under section 1012.795(1)(b); and, 4) pay a fine in the amount of $480.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol R. Buxton, Esquire Florida Education Association Suite 109 1516 East Hillcrest Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
