Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent Michael Eric Pose, age fifteen, was a student at West Miami Junior High School (West Miami) in Dade County, Florida. Respondent's academic performance during the 1986-1987 school year was very poor. He received the grade of "F" in every class. His grades for conduct were also mostly "Fs." In addition, he received the lowest grade for effort (3). Respondent's poor academic performance, lack of effort, and unacceptable conduct resulted in his rot being promoted to the next grade. During the first three marking periods of the 1986-1987 school year, Respondent was enrolled in Louise Johnson's math class, where he was marked absent about 58 times and late 12 times. When Respondent did attend classes he would come without materials and refused to do work when materials were provided by his teacher. He failed to complete 99 percent of his homework assignments and refused 95 percent of the time to perform any class work. On at least two occasions, Respondent was caught sleeping in class by Ms. Johnson. The grades he received in that class for academic performance, effort and conduct were "F- 3-F" (scholarship-effort-conduct). Ms. Harriet Wade, physical education teacher, also had Respondent as a student during the 1986-87 school year. In that class, he was absent 60 times and late 8 times. He refused to wear his gym clothing to the physical education class, refused to participate in games or perform exercises, and frequently engaged in activities which disrupted the class, such as talking to other students and wandering over to talk to other groups. He earned "F-3-F". Ms. Wade's normal form of discipline is to assign detentions and/or the running of laps. Respondent refused to serve either punishment on each occasion it was assigned. Respondent's mother offered as an excuse for Respondent's failure to meet the physical education requirements that he had dislocated his hip when he was four years old. However, she also stated that the surgery was deemed successful and it is clear that the proper medical excuses or records were never submitted to school personnel. There is no competent medical opinion that Michael is presently disabled from normal sports or participation in other school activities. In the same school year, Respondent was also a student of Ms. Tania Martinez-Cruz, English teacher. He was absent from her class 64 times and late 6 times. He refused to do classwork 98 percent of the time and never turned in any homework assignments. After it became apparent that Respondent would not bring materials to class, Ms. Martinez-Cruz kept materials in her classroom for him so that he would have no excuse to avoid working in her class. This method failed. Moreover, during the times he did attend class, Respondent spent 90 percent of the class period sleeping, even though she placed him in the front of the class and required him to participate in classwork as much as possible. Student Case Management Referral Forms (SCMRFs) generally reserved for serious behavior problems, were issued on Respondent's behavior by Ms. Johnson, Ms. Wade, and Ms. Martinez-Cruz due to his lack of interest in school, poor behavior, absences, and tardies. In addition, Respondent received five other SCMRFs from different teachers and/or administrators, all of whom complained of his disinterest in school and unacceptable behavior. One such complaint involved breaking in to a teacher's automobile. Because Respondent was frequently engaged in conflicts of a disruptive nature, he was suspended five times during the 1986-87 school year. Mr. Sotolongo, Assistant Principal, had numerous conversations with Respondent's mother regarding his excessive absences, poor behavior and lack of progress. However, to date the mother has not been able to improve Respondent's interest in school. After numerous attempts at counseling the mother and Respondent, a child study team report was made and conference thereon was held. This report and conference resulted in the administrative assignment of Respondent to J.R.E. Lee Opportunity School. The opinions of the Assistant Principal and the other teachers and administrators who had conferences regarding Respondent was that the more structured environment of an opportunity school would be better for him, as opposed to permitting him to remain in the regular school program where he was making no progress.
The Issue Whether respondent should be dismissed from his employment with the School Board of Dade County and his teaching certificate disciplined for alleged incompetency, gross insubordination, immorality and misconduct in office.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a continuing contract teacher with the Dade County Public Schools. During the 1979-80 school year, he was employed at Miami Killian Senior High School. He had been invited to teach at that school by Principal Harold Knott, who had known him in the past and had been impressed with his abilities as a physical education teacher. Commencing in the fall of the 1979-80 school year, respondent did not properly record student grades. The Killian teacher's handbook required teachers to, weekly, record two grades in their grade books for each student. As of November 29, 1979, respondent had recorded no grades for any student, although November 2 was the end of the nine-week grading period and all teachers were expected to have their grades recorded by that time. The result of this omission was that no grades could be reported on the progress reports which were sent to the parents of respondent's students. Several parents called the school, complaining that their children's progress reports contained no grades for respondent's class. As a result of respondent's omission, Principal Knott directed him to call each of the parents and explain why the grades were absent. Mr. Knott then went to each of Williams' classes and graded the students himself based upon what the students told him and on the available records. Respondent was the only teacher during that time who failed to record his grades at Miami Killian Senior High School. 1/ A conference was called to discuss this matter on December 3, 1979. At that time, respondent stated that his grades would be turned in the next day. They were not. Because of respondent's failure to record grades and because of other difficulties he was having in fulfilling his obligations as the head of the Physical Education ("PE") Department, Mr. Knott assigned Assistant Principal Robert Snyder to monitor his performance. Mr. Snyder met with respondent between eight and twelve times regarding his failure to record grades and asked him several times to bring copies of his grade cards and records for his (Snyder's) review. Respondent failed to comply with this request and on January 28, 1980, Mr. Snyder wrote him a memorandum directing him to bring his grade books and attendance cards to his (Snyder's) office at the end of the week. Respondent did not comply with this written directive and Mr. Snyder never saw his grade cards. On one occasion when Mr. Snyder was discussing respondent's grade cards with him, respondent stated that the grade cards were in his (respondent's) office. They both proceeded to the office, and, when they arrived at the office respondent stated that the grade cards had been stolen. In addition to his failure to report grades, respondent failed to attend department head meetings and often did not attend faculty meetings. Many of the teachers in the PE department were concerned that he was not working with them. In March, 1980, respondent planned a field trip to attend track relays at Winter Park, Florida, without first obtaining the principal's permission. This was another violation of school policy. (Petitioners' Exhibits Nos. 10 and 11). There were times when respondent was absent from his regular teaching duties but, after the school day was over, he would report to handle his coaching responsibilities. Mr. Knott began to suspect that respondent's coaching responsibilities were more important to him than his teaching duties. During the course of the 1979-80 school year, respondent was gradually relieved of many of his duties because of performance deficiencies. On November 29, 1979, he was removed as PE Department head. On June 10, 1980, he was relieved of his assignment as head track coach. At the end of the school year, Principal Knott evaluated him as unacceptable in the areas of assessment techniques and professional responsibility. (Petitioners' Exhibit No. 13) Respondent maintains that he was the object of a vendetta because he refused to assist Principal Knott in an alleged effort to transfer or terminate several coaches at Miami Killian. This alleged effort to transfer or terminate other coaches, however, took place during the 1978-79 school year, when respondent received an acceptable evaluation from Principal Knott. In any case, the coaches who respondent alleges were the subject of Principal Knott's efforts still coach at Miami Killian Senior High School. Mr. Knott's denial that he made an effort to transfer or dismiss them is persuasive. Mr. Knott stated that the students were sometimes afraid of respondent. One incident took place between Joseph Bellow, a student, and respondent in the spring of the 1979-80 school year at Miami Killian Senior High School. An argument had ensued between them. Respondent screamed at the student, suddenly grabbing him and throwing him up against a gate or wall. He taunted the student to hit him back but Joseph refused, stating "I can't fight you. I'm a kid. I mean, you will hurt me." Joseph suffered minor injuries from the assault, including back, head and neck pains. Of more concern to Joseph, however, was the fact that he had been embarrassed. He dropped out of high school soon after the incident. One of his reasons for leaving was that he did not wish to confront respondent again, although his resolve to finish high school at that time was not particularly strong. Beginning with the 1980-81 school year, respondent was transferred to Redland Junior High School under the supervision of Principal Norman Lindeblad. Mr. Lindeblad had been aware of the outstanding job done by Williams with students in the Richmond Heights community from 1969 to 1972. However, when respondent arrived at Redland, he (respondent) appeared to be a bitter and angry person. During the 1982-83 school year, Principal Lindeblad observed what appeared to be irrational behavior by respondent. On October 11, 1982, respondent was involved in an incident with student James Santana. Respondent and James were arguing in the locker room, when respondent said, "Let's get down with it", or words to that effect. Respondent and James walked toward the adjacent elementary school parking lot, with respondent leading. At the lot they exchanged punches. Respondent then grabbed James by each side of his head and threw him up against a car. James' shirt was ripped, and there was blood on his mouth. James proceeded to Principal Lindeblad's office where he described the incident. He stated that he and respondent had exchanged words in the school locker room and that respondent had invited him to leave the school grounds so they could handle the problem "man-to-man"--where respondent was not a teacher, and James, not a student. Respondent was summoned to the office where he admitted that he had directed James to go to the elementary school parking lot. This is a violation of school rules in that students are not permitted to leave the school premises without signing out at the central office. Respondent also admitted that he had picked up James and "put him on a car." 2/ Principal Lindeblad observed that a few days earlier, respondent had made a similar statement to another student, to wit: "Let's go out in the street, where I am not a teacher and you are not a student, and we will settle this like men." Mr. Lindeblad felt that a psychiatric evaluation was necessary before respondent could continue his teaching duties. As a result of the incident and Mr. Lindeblad's recommendation, Dr. Desmond Patrick Gray, Executive Director of the School Board's Division of Personnel Control, arranged for a psychiatric evaluation of respondent by Dr. Robert Wainger. It was explained to respondent that, should he wish to obtain a second medical opinion, the School Board would consider it in addition to Dr. Wainger's. The examination was scheduled for October 26, 1982, but respondent did not keep the appointment. Instead, he called Dr. Gray and argued about his right to obtain a second opinion. Since he had not yet obtained the first opinion, this appears to have been an effort to delay or forestall the examination by Dr. Wainger. Respondent was finally evaluated by Dr. Wainger on November 9, 1983. Dr. Wainger concluded that respondent was suffering from a mixed personality disorder with a variety of problems, including insecurity and fears of inadequacy. Dr. Wainger found that respondent's ability to respond to stress was impaired and that he would, at times, engage in erratic behavior when under stress. He concluded that respondent needed psychiatric help on an ongoing basis, since his ability to function had deteriorated over the last couple of years. Without this therapy, Dr. Wainger concluded, further incidents of the type which had led to the medical evaluation would inevitably recur. He recommended that, should the School Board reinstate respondent, such reinstatement be concurrent with psychiatric treatment. Respondent was advised of these psychiatric findings and that his return to work was conditioned upon his initiation of an ongoing psychiatric treatment program. He was given full discretion as to the professional with whom he would initiate treatment and the type of treatment. On December 16, 1982, he agreed to undergo the necessary psychiatric treatment program. Yet, as of December 29, 1982, he had not obtained any such psychiatric help and notified Dr. Gray's office that he would not do so until he was so ordered in writing. Dr. Gray sent respondent the requested written order on January 5, 1983. 3/ Dr. Gray also advised him at that time that he was absent without leave, since he had not complied with the agreed upon condition for his return to work and he was no longer drawing sick leave. He had been advised, however, that he could request a leave of absence and that failure to do so (or to return to work upon satisfying the precondition) would constitute absence without leave. Respondent eventually decided to attend counselling sessions with Dr. Evalina Bestman. At his initial appointment with her on January 13, 1983, she obtained background information. This was approximately a one-half hour meeting. Based on the fact that he had scheduled another appointment, Dr. Bestman advised the school system that he was being treated by her, he returned to work on January 18, 1983. Subsequently, respondent was 45 minutes late for his first one-hour appointment with Dr. Bestman. Another appointment was scheduled, and again he arrived 45 minutes late. Dr. Bestman scheduled a third meeting for February 2 at 4:30, and he did not attend. Dr. Bestman then wrote a letter to the Division of Personnel Control stating that Leo Williams was no longer receiving treatment from her. Although Dr. Bestman stood ready to provide psychiatric counselling for respondent, he received no counselling from her because he failed to attend the sessions. (Dr. Bestman concluded that Mr. Williams may have been resistant to counselling.) When confronted with his failure to attend Dr. Bestman's counselling sessions, respondent stated that he had not attended the sessions because of transportation problems. He acknowledged, however, that he resisted receiving counselling at that time. On March 14, 1983, two further incidents involving respondent occurred at Redland Junior High School. Early in the morning on that date, respondent encountered a 13-year-old female student, Crysta Mullis, in the hallway of the school. He directed her to go to his office. When she arrived, he asked her about her parents and her school work. Then, he physically embraced her. She left the office and went to her PE class. When she arrived at the basketball court, respondent motioned her to come to the back door of the boys' locker room. She complied, and the two of them walked back into his office. He then shut the door, hugged her, and kissed her on the lips. He tried to insert his tongue in her mouth. He then warned her not to say anything to the other students about the matter. She did not want to be hugged or kissed by respondent and she was frightened. She is still afraid of him. During her lunch hour, Crysta told Assistant Principal Dobson of the incident, and subsequently reduced the matter to writing. That same day, Assistant Principal Judy Cobb tried to talk to him about his refusal to write out a referral regarding two students who had been in a fight and his failure to be in his assigned class when a male student shoved a female student. The parents of the female student had complained of improper supervision. At first respondent refused to speak with Ms. Cobb unless a union representative was present. When the attendance of the union representative was secured, he decided to come for a conference while he had a class, although Ms. Cobb had said that they should confer after school when it would not interfere with his class activities. Respondent proceeded to the main office where he yelled, "Don't have Ms. Cobb say anything to me. I don't want to hear anything from that lady." Secretaries and students were present and listening. Principal Lindeblad asked him to go into his office, but he refused. Respondent then asked if he was being insubordinate and Lindeblad replied, "Yes"; respondent replied, "Good." Respondent was directed three times to go into the principal's office, and refused--three times. Finally, respondent entered the principal's office where he was asked to close the door. He said he was not the principal's flunky and would not close the door. Ms. Cobb entered and closed the door. Respondent's conduct during the conference was unprofessional and rude. He began to shout that Ms. Cobb was a flunky and was working for the devil; that he was not going to take directions from her. Principal Lindeblad told him that Ms. Cobb was the assistant principal and had the authority and responsibility to handle the duties of that office. Due to respondent's behavior, Mr. Lindeblad relieved him of his duties for the rest of the school day. Respondent demanded the directive in writing and Mr. Lindeblad complied. Dr. Gray told respondent not to report to Redland the next day, but to report directly to Dr. Gray's office for a conference. The scheduled conference took place in Dr. Gray's office on March 15, 1983. Shortly after the meeting began, respondent announced that he was resigning. His union representative asked to speak to him privately first. Respondent replied, "No, you don't tell me what to do," (TR-I, 144, 207, TR-II, 38) and left the conference. (TR-I, 144, 207, TR-II, 38) He subsequently rescinded the oral resignation. On March 30, 1983, the School Board suspended respondent and instituted dismissal proceedings against him. Subsequently, Dr. Gray was informed that respondent was visiting the school campus and threatening the staff. Accordingly, he wrote respondent a letter dated May 6, 1983, advising him that requests for information should come to his office and that respondent should remain off the grounds of Redland Junior High School. Respondent was advised that he would be subject to arrest if he entered school grounds again. One of the actions precipitating Dr. Gray's letter was respondent's visit to the campus on May 5, 1983. At that time, Principal Lindeblad attempted to speak to him. Respondent ignored him, stating that he would speak to him only through his lawyers. Mr. Lindeblad then told him not to come on the school grounds again and that, if he did, he would be arrested. Respondent responded that he had been in jail before and was not afraid of the police. An argument ensued, with respondent challenging Mr. Lindeblad by saying, "If you come across the street, we can settle this now. We can settle this man to man." He further stated, "When I get through with you, you will be very sorry. I'm going to throw off all of your pretty tricks." Then he turned to Assistant Principal Cobb, who was also present, and stated, "And you too, if you don't stop being his flunky." (TR-I, 146-148, 208, 209) Later on that day, Officer Douglas Reese and her partner responded to reports of an aggravated assault and burglary. Upon arriving at the scene, the officers encountered a group of eight to ten people who were Jehovah's Witnesses. They said he had approached them in a vehicle and called them prostitutes. He said he was going to kill all the prostitutes, and attempted to run them over with his vehicle, which subsequently crashed into a parked motorcycle next to the side of a house. He exited his vehicle and attempted to enter two residences, then entered a third residence which belonged to the Salle family. Kathleen Salle was in her home at the time and heard a loud noise outside, as though one car was colliding with another. A few moments later, there was a loud, frantic banging on her front door. She went to the front window to see who was outside. She saw no one at the door, but saw respondent knocking on the bedroom window. He came back to her front door and told her that she was a prostitute and operated a prostitution ring in her house. He also stated that there was a black man in bed in her bedroom. He yanked the door out of her hand and entered her house. He continued to call her a prostitute and said that he knew that the neighborhood was a prostitution ring. She asked him to leave, but he did not. Although Ms. Salle had never seen respondent before, he advised her that he was "Coach Williams." When respondent headed toward her bedroom, Mrs. Salle picked up her three-year-old daughter and ran out of the house. Respondent took a pillow with a Star Wars pillowcase and a Star Wars poster from her son's bedroom, along with a racoon tail. After he yanked the pendulum off a clock, he left the house. Respondent then proceeded to the nearby Patton residence. He wrapped a garden hose around Mr. Patton's boat and was going through the glove compartment of his (Patton's) vehicle when Mr. Patton came on the scene and asked him what he was doing. Respondent stated, "I'm going to blow your ing boat up." Mr. Patton said he didn't know who respondent was but demanded that he get off his property. Respondent continued to rant about blowing up the boat and killing the prostitutes, and told Mr. Patton that the whole thing was being filmed. Mr. Patton became alarmed. He went inside his house, and returned with his 38-caliber handgun. He told respondent that if he did not get off his property, he would call the police. Respondent replied that guns did not scare him, then charged Mr. Patton, who shot him in the left leg. At approximately this time, the police officers approached and respondent warned, "Don't ----ing touch me. Just get the ---- away from me or I'll ----kill you." He continued to shout obscenities and threatening violence toward prostitutes and others in the vicinity. Finally, he stated, "I'm going to have one hundred ----ing niggers here tonight and we'll burn this ing town down. We're going to have a ----ing riot, worse than you've ever seen." Although Officer Reese placed him under arrest, respondent continued to resist. Officer Reese did not institute Baker Act proceedings against respondent because he felt respondent understood everything that was going on at the time. There were approximately 50 citizens watching this entire incident. (TR-II, 70-79) Ms. Salle was shocked that a public school teacher would act in this manner. Respondent did not come on the grounds of Redland Junior High School again until June 8, 1983. In the interim he made numerous harassing telephone calls to the school and finally attempted to confront Vice Principal Cobb at her home at night. Ms. Cobb was frightened by him and still is. On June 8, 1983, respondent again entered the grounds of Redland Junior High School, where he again challenged Principal Lindeblad to come across the street and settle their differences. Officer John Truitt had been assigned to the Redland Junior High School school grounds because of past threats made by respondent toward the school faculty. He was called by Principal Lindeblad at approximately 2:40 P.M. on that day and was advised that respondent was on school property. Officer Truitt went to the rear of the school and saw respondent in the school driveway. When he approached, respondent went across the street and refused to speak to him. At that point, respondent threatened Principal Lindeblad, and challenged him to come across the street. Respondent was then taken into custody and became unruly, using profanity toward Principal Lindeblad. He was placed in the back of a Metro Dade police car because he had kicked the door of Officer Truitt's car, and the car did not have a protective device to separate the officer from respondent. While respondent was shouting obscenities across the street from the school, the school was letting out and students were present. At one time, respondent was a good teacher. For almost 20 years he served the Dade County School System as a capable and responsible teacher. He became recognized as a pillar of the community (Richmond Heights), and his accomplishments, particularly in the field of PE, were many. However, due to numerous personal and other problems, his performance began to deteriorate during the 1979-80 school year. By his own admission, in November of 1979, he was diagnosed as suffering from "burnout" or stress. It was about this time that he was also having marital problems, resulting in a divorce. He has been hospitalized numerous times, including one at Miami Mental Health Center and Crisis Intervention, which resulted from Baker Act proceedings instituted by his wife. He was, however, promptly released from the Center. He was also hospitalized at P. L. Dodge Memorial Hospital for emotional problems in August of 1981. He once checked himself into Highland Park Hospital for four days. He is currently seeing a Dr. Miller, whom he first saw when ordered by a criminal court after his arrest on May 5, 1983. Subsequent to that first meeting, he has had three sessions with Dr. Miller. One of these sessions involved a social worker and nurse, and Dr. Miller was not present. Respondent now acknowledges that he has mental or emotional problems. Yet he resists accepting responsibility for his actions. And he has failed to actively seek and obtain psychiatric help. The school system has made reasonable efforts to help him with his emotional and other problems. These efforts, however, have been to no avail. Dr. Gray testified that respondent presently lacks the ability and fitness to discharge the required duties of a school teacher, an opinion which is supported by the evidence and accepted as persuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the teaching certificate of respondent be revoked by the Education Practices Commission; and That suspension of respondent by the School Board of Dade County be sustained and that he be dismissed from his employment and forfeit all back pay. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of June, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. L. CALEEN, JR. Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1984.
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 The issue in this case is whether just and good cause exists to terminate Respondent from his employment as an educational support employee with Miami-Dade County Public Schools.
Findings Of Fact The Parties At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner was a duly- constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise free public schools within Miami-Dade County, pursuant to article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the District as an electrician at Maintenance Service Center 4 (hereafter, "MSC4") in Miami-Dade County, Florida. As such, Respondent was subject to applicable Florida Statutes, applicable State Board of Education rules, Petitioner's policies and procedures, and the Dade County Schools Maintenance Employees Committee ("DCSMEC") Contract.2 Charges in the Amended Administrative Complaint The Amended Administrative Complaint alleges that between May and July 2019, Respondent misrepresented his working time on daily status forms and forged the signatures of worksite administrators on daily status forms. The Amended Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with having violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-5.056(2) and 6A- 10.081 and School Board Policies 4210, 4210.01, and 8700. The Amended Administrative Complaint alleges that the conduct in which Respondent is alleged to have engaged, and the violations with which he has been charged, constitutes just cause to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate him from his employment position with the District. 2 The version of the DCSMEC Contract in effect between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2021, was in effect at the time of the alleged conduct giving rise to this proceeding, and, therefore, applies to this proceeding. Evidence Adduced at the Final Hearing Background Respondent was hired by the District as an electrician in February 2007. He worked at Maintenance Service Center 3 until September 2008, when he was reassigned to MSC4. MSC4 is one of four District maintenance service centers that the District operates. MSC4 is several acres in area and contains trucks, storage facilities, a fueling station, and dumpsters. The geographic service area for which MSC4 is responsible stretches from Southwest 168th Street, in Miami, southward to the Miami-Dade County/Monroe County line. District employees assigned to MSC4 perform work at District facilities within the MSC4 service area. Respondent's work hours at MSC4 were from 6:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. He worked at MSC4 from September 2008 until December 2020, when he was suspended without pay and Petitioner took agency action to terminate his employment with the District. Respondent's home is located approximately 21 miles north of the northern boundary, and over 30 miles north of the southern boundary, of the MSC4 service area. During his employment at MSC4, Respondent engaged in the typical tasks performed by electricians who work for the District. Specifically, he handled work orders sent to MSC4 from District school facilities, entailing a wide range of electrical issues that arose, including loss of power, lighting issues, air conditioning, kitchen equipment, electrical wiring, damaged motors, and other tasks. Electricians are—and, at the time of Respondent's alleged conduct giving rise to this proceeding, were—assigned work by a foreman at MSC4. Work orders for specific jobs at specific facilities would be given by the foreman to the electrician, who would travel to the facility and perform the requested work. An electrician could be given several work orders on a given day, and if the work assigned through a work order was not completed that day, the electrician would return the following day to complete the work. If the electrician finished all of the work assigned through a work order, he or she was to contact the foreman, who would dispatch the electrician to another location to complete another work order. Electricians kept track of their work each day on a Daily Status Form ("DSF"), which (as the name indicates) was required to be completed by the electrician and submitted to the foreman on a daily basis. On each DSF, the electrician would provide a brief description of the work performed; enter the amount of time spent on a particular job; state whether the job was completed; and obtain the signature of the principal or authorized representative, who, by signing the DSF, verified that the work described on the DSF for that facility was, in fact, performed. At the time of the alleged conduct giving rise to this proceeding, Respondent's supervisors were Michael Thomas and a person referred to in the record as "Mr. Hetzer."3 At that time, and at the time of the final hearing in this proceeding, Timothy Jones was the director of MSC4, so was the supervisor for Thomas, Hetzer, and Respondent. At the time of Respondent's alleged conduct giving rise to this proceeding, he was assigned a District work vehicle having Vehicle Number 202209. Telogis Vehicle Tracking Software Installed in District Vehicles In 2016, the District purchased new Ford trucks for MSC4. The vehicles came equipped with global positioning system ("GPS") hardware and Telogis software, a Verizon Connect software product. Via cellular signal, the Telogis software tracks, among other things, the location and speed of 3 The record does not refer to Mr. Hetzer's first name. Hetzer died in January 2020, so was unavailable to testify at the final hearing. equipped District vehicles. The software enables the District to efficiently manage its fleet of vehicles. Respondent, along with the other MSC4 employees and the members of the DCSMEC union, was informed by Jones that the District vehicles used by employees at MSC4 were equipped with the Telogis software. The work vehicle assigned to Respondent, Vehicle Number 202209, was equipped with the Telogis software. The evidence establishes that Respondent knew his vehicle was equipped with the Telogis software. The data for each District vehicle is gathered by the Telogis software and electronically stored by Verizon Connect in a records storage and maintenance platform called Fleet. Verizon Connect customers have access to the data stored in the Fleet platform for purposes of monitoring the location and performance of their vehicles, and they can print out reports of their vehicle data that is stored in the Fleet platform. The competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence establishes that the Telogis software functions accurately in recording the vehicle location, speed, and other monitored features. No competent or persuasive evidence was provided showing that the Telogis software was generally unreliable or that it had a significant error rate.4 Respondent's Alleged Conduct Giving Rise to this Proceeding On or about July 12, 2019, Hetzer, who was Respondent's immediate supervisor at the time, and Jones found Respondent sleeping in his work vehicle. This incident caused Jones to investigate Respondent's work-related records for the preceding few months, because, as Jones put it, "I just wanted to see what Mr. Fleites had been up to." Jones testified, credibly, that had he found other employees sleeping on duty, he also would have accessed the Telogis software reports for their vehicles. 4 See paragraph 66, below. As part of the investigation, Jones or Hetzer accessed, and printed out, the Telogis software reports for Respondent's work vehicle for the period from May 1 to July 12, 2019.5,6 Also as part of the investigation, Jones reviewed Respondent's DSFs for the period from May 1 to July 12, 2019. Jones compared the Telogis software reports for Respondent's vehicle with the DSFs that Respondent had completed for the period from May 1 to July 12, 2019. Based on the information provided by the Telogis software for Respondent's District vehicle, Jones determined that on numerous days during the period between May 1 and July 12, 2019, Respondent either was not at the specific location he had recorded on the DSF for that day, or he was not present at a specific location for the amount of time he had stated for that day. Specifically, on May 1, 2019, Respondent's DSF stated that he was at Redondo Elementary School ("Redondo") for eight full hours; however, the Telogis report indicated that he was not at Redondo at all that day. Rather, the Telogis report showed that he drove to his home, as indicated by "JF" in 5 Jones testified that either he or Hetzer printed out the Telogis software reports for Respondent's work vehicle. He could not specifically recall whether he personally printed out the reports, but he testified, credibly, that he was trained in how to read and analyze the vehicle data in the reports, and he was authorized to print such reports. 6 The Telogis reports admitted into the record fall within the business records exception to hearsay rule codified in section 90.803(6), Florida Statutes. Petitioner presented the testimony of Avram Polinsky, a records custodian employed by Verizon Connect, who is directly involved in the preparation and storage of the Telogis records and in making them available in report-form for customer use. Polinsky authenticated the Telogis records and his testimony established that the records were made at or near the time the data comprising the records was compiled by the Telogis software system; that these records were kept in the ordinary course of Verizon Connect's business; and that it was a regular practice of Verizon Connect to keep such records and make them available for use by customers. Accordingly, the Telogis records constitute business records pursuant to section 90.803(6). See Jackson v. State, 877 So. 2d 816, 817 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)(computer printouts generated at the request of a party in connection with litigation fall within the business records exception). Moreover, the Telogis reports are directly relevant to the charges against Respondent, and, therefore, are admissible in this de novo proceeding. the report, which, as found above, was approximately 21 miles north of the northern boundary of the MSC4 service area, and spent close to an hour there. He also drove to unidentified locations in Miami-Dade County, to the District's Redland vehicle fueling station, to the MSC4 facility, and then back to the fueling station. Respondent's DSF for May 2, 2019, stated that he worked eight hours at the South Dade Skills Center ("SDSC"). However, the Telogis report shows that he was only at SDSC for approximately 17 minutes. Had Respondent completed the work ordered at SDSC in that amount of time, as discussed above, he was supposed to contact his foreman to receive another work assignment for that day—which he did not do. The Telogis report also shows that Respondent drove to his home, to unidentified locations in Miami-Dade County, to the Redland fueling station, and to the MSC4 facility. Respondent's DSF for May 3, 2019, stated that he spent eight hours at Miami Heights Elementary School. However, according to the Telogis report for that day, he did not go to the school, but instead, went home and also drove to the Redland fueling station and the MSC4 facility. Respondent's DSF for May 7, 2019, stated that he was at the Air Base K-8 Center for eight hours; however, the Telogis report for that day shows that he was not at that facility at any time on that date. The Telogis report shows that he went home, went to various unknown locations in Miami-Dade County, went to the Redland fueling station multiple times, and went to the MSC4 facility. Respondent's DSF for May 8, 2019, stated that he was at the Peskoe K-8 Elementary School for eight hours; however, the Telogis report for that day shows that he was not at that facility at any time on that date, but, instead, went home, went to unknown locations in Miami-Dade County, went to the Redland fueling station multiple times, and went to the MSC4 facility. Respondent's DSF for May 9, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at the MSC4 facility. However, the Telogis report for that day showed that, in addition to being present at the MSC4 facility for two short periods of time, he drove 68 miles that day, to several unknown locations in Miami-Dade County, and to the Redland fueling station five times. Respondent's DSF for May 13, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at Redland Elementary School; however, the Telogis report for that day shows that he was only present at that location for slightly over seven minutes. The Telogis report shows that he made several stops at the Redland fueling station, three stops at the MSC4 facility, and three stops at unknown locations in Miami-Dade County. Respondent's DSF for June 3, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at Miami Heights Elementary School. However, the Telogis report for that day shows that he did not go to that school at all on that date, but, instead, went home, drove to the Redlands fueling station several times, and drove to unknown locations in Miami-Dade County. Respondent's DSF for June 4, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at Redondo. However, the Telogis report for that day indicates that he did not go to the school at all on that date, and that instead, he drove home, made four stops at the Redland fueling station, and made two stops at unknown locations in Miami-Dade County. Respondent's DSF for June 5, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at South Miami Heights Elementary School. The Telogis report for that day shows that Respondent did not go to this school at all on this date, but instead went to Redondo, drove home, made four stops at the Redland fueling station, and made two stops at the MSC4 facility. Respondent's DSF for June 6, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at Gulfstream Elementary School; however, the Telogis report for that day shows that he did not go to that school at all on that date, but instead drove home; went to various locations in Miami-Dade County, including a busway station; made five stops at the Redland fueling station; and made multiple stops at the MSC4 facility. Respondent's DSF for June 10, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at South Dade Middle School. However, the Telogis report for that day shows that he did not go to that school, but instead made two very brief stops at two other schools, and made stops at the Redland fueling station and the MSC4 facility. Respondent's DSF for June 11, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at South Dade Middle School. However, the Telogis report for that day shows that he was only present at that school for slightly over 41 minutes. The Telogis report shows that he went to three unknown locations in Miami- Dade County, made five stops at the Redland fueling station, and multiple stops at the MSC4 facility. Respondent's DSF for June 13, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at Laura Saunders Elementary School. However, the Telogis report for that day shows that he was at the school for slightly over 42 minutes, and that he made stops at unknown locations in Miami-Dade County, at the Redland fueling station, and at the MSC4 facility. Respondent's DSF for June 17, 2019, states that Respondent worked eight hours at Homestead Elementary School. However, the Telogis report for that day shows that he did not go to that school on that date, and instead stopped at McArthur South High School—for which no work had been requested—for slightly over 26 minutes. He also made stops at an unknown location in Miami-Dade County and two stops at the Redland fueling station. Respondent's DSF for June 18, 2019, states that Respondent worked eight hours at Redondo. However, the Telogis report for that day shows that he did not go to that school on that date, and instead briefly stopped at South Miami Heights Elementary and Herbert A. Ammons Middle School, although no work had been requested for either school. He also drove home, made five stops at the Redland fueling station, and made two stops at the MSC4 facility. Respondent's DSF for June 19, 2019, states that Respondent worked eight hours at Miami Heights Elementary School. However, the Telogis report for that day shows that he did not go to that school, or to any other school, on that date. He made three stops at unknown locations in Miami- Dade County and two stops at the Redland fueling station. Respondent's DSF for June 24, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at the Medical Academy for Science and Technology. However, the Telogis report for that day shows that he was on site at this school for slightly over 21 minutes. The Telogis report also shows that he made a brief stop at Redland Elementary School, despite no work order being issued for that school that day; and that he made stops at three unknown locations in Miami-Dade County, three stops at the Redland fueling station, and stops at the MSC4 facility. Respondent's DSF for June 25, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at Whigham Elementary School; however, the Telogis report for that day shows that he did not go to that school on that date. The Telogis report shows that Respondent stopped at Redland Elementary School for slightly over 28 minutes, notwithstanding that no work had been requested for that school on that day. The Telogis reports also shows that he made five stops at the Redland fueling station and two stops at unknown locations in Miami- Dade County. Respondent's DSF for June 26, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at Air Base Elementary School; however, the Telogis report for that day shows that he did not go to that school on that date. The Telogis report also shows that he made two stops at unknown locations in Miami-Dade County. Respondent's DSF for June 28, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at Air Base Elementary School; however, the Telogis report for that day shows that he only was present on site at that location for approximately 53 minutes. The Telogis report shows that Respondent drove home, stopped at three unknown locations in Miami-Dade County, and made four stops at the Redland fueling station. Respondent's DSF for July 8, 2019, states that he worked 6.5 hours at Caribbean K-8 Center; however, the Telogis report for that day shows that he did not go to that school on that date. The Telogis report shows that Respondent drove home, made three stops at unknown locations in Miami- Dade County, and three stops at the Redland fueling station. Respondent's DSF for July 9, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at R.R. Morton Elementary School; however, the Telogis report for that day shows that he was at that location for slightly over one hour and 36 minutes, and that he briefly stopped at Redland Elementary School, notwithstanding that no work had been requested for that school on that day. The Telogis report also shows that he made four stops at the Redland fueling station and four stops at unknown locations in Miami-Dade County. Respondent's DSF for July 10, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at Campbell K-8 Center; however, the Telogis report for that day shows that he was at this location for slightly over 39 minutes. The Telogis report shows that Respondent drove home, made three stops at the Redland fueling station and two stops at unknown locations in Miami-Dade County. Respondent's DSF for July 11, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at Caribbean K-8 Center. However, the Telogis report for that day shows that he was only present at that location for one hour and 36 minutes. The Telogis report shows that Respondent made two brief stops at Miami Heights Elementary School, notwithstanding that no work had been requested for that school on that day, and that Respondent made two stops at unknown locations in Miami-Dade County. Respondent's DSF for July 12, 2019, states that he worked eight hours at Redland Elementary School; however, the Telogis report for that day shows that he was present at that location for a total of three hours and 21 minutes. The Telogis report shows that Respondent stopped at the Caribbean K-8 Center, notwithstanding that no work had been requested for that school on that day. The Telogis report also shows that he made four stops at the Redland fueling station, three stops at unknown locations in Miami-Dade County, and one stop at the MSC4 facility. As discussed above, when maintenance work is performed at a District facility, the employee must fill out the DSF, describing the work and stating the number of hours of work performed at the facility, and the employee must obtain the signature of the school's principal or authorized designee. The purpose of obtaining that signature was to verify that the work addressed on the DSF was performed. Here, the persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent falsified or forged signatures on some of the DSFs he submitted. Specifically, Respondent's DSF for May 8, 2019, contains the employee number of James Tuning, a foreman at MSC4, and a signature purported to be Tuning's. Tuning testified, credibly, that the employee number on the form was his, but was not written in his handwriting, and the signature on the DSF was not his. He further testified that, under any circumstances, he would not have been authorized to sign DSFs for work performed at the facilities serviced by employees at MSC4. Respondent's DSFs for June 17, 26, and 28, 2019, contain the employee number of Melissa Vincenti, the principal's secretary at Air Base Elementary School, and a signature purported to be Vincenti's. Vincenti testified, credibly, that the DSFs did contain her employee number, but that the number was not written in her handwriting, and the signature on the DSFs was not hers. The evidence establishes that she did not give permission for Respondent, or anyone else, to sign the DSF for her. Respondent's DSF for July 8, 2019, contains the employee number of Darryl Lyles, the head custodian at Caribbean K-8 Center, and a signature purported to be Lyles's. Lyles testified, credibly, that the employee number on the DSF was his, but the signature was not his. The evidence establishes that he did not give permission for Respondent, or anyone else, to sign the DSF for him. Respondent's Prior Disciplinary History Respondent previously has been disciplined by Petitioner. Specifically, in 2010, Respondent was suspended from his employment with the District for eight days without pay for having left work early, which constituted payroll fraud. In addition to being suspended without pay, Respondent entered into a settlement agreement with Petitioner under which he agreed to reimburse the District for 20 work hours. Respondent's Defenses Michael Thomas, a retired supervisor who worked at MSC4 in 2019, testified that when the Telogis software was installed in District vehicles, he repeatedly assured the District employees at MSC4 who were using the Telogis-equipped vehicles that the data generated by the software system would "never be used against them in a derogatory or disciplinary manner." Thomas testified that he was authorized by his supervisor, Timothy Jones, to tell the employees that the data gathered by Telogis for their vehicles would not be used for disciplinary purposes. However, Jones directly contradicted Thomas's testimony on this point. Jones testified that he did not direct anyone, including Thomas, to tell employees that the Telogis data would not be used for disciplinary purposes. Rather, he told his foremen that he was not using the data for disciplinary purposes at that time. On questioning, Thomas acknowledged that he never had given written assurances to employees that the Telogis data would not be used to support disciplinary action. Furthermore, in any event, there is nothing in the DCSME Contract— which establishes the terms and conditions of employment for those to whom the contract applies, including Respondent—that provides that the Telogis data would not be used as a basis of, or to support, disciplinary action against District employees who violate School Board policies.7 Thomas also testified that the Telogis system had a 20 percent inaccuracy rate. However, on questioning, Thomas acknowledged that this assertion was "anecdotal," and that he did not have any data to support this assertion. He also acknowledged that he was aware of only one vehicle, out of the 21 vehicles dispatched from MSC4, that ever had any Telogis software accuracy issues. He further testified that that particular vehicle was not assigned to Respondent, and that to his knowledge, the Telogis software installed on Respondent's vehicle did not have any accuracy issues. Respondent testified that on July 12, 2019, the day that Jones and Hetzer found Respondent in his vehicle at the MSC4 facility, he was not sleeping, but was instead waiting for rain to pass so he could pick up materials and return to the school to complete the work. However, as found above, this testimony was directly contradicted by Jones, who testified that on that day, he, along with Hetzer, found Respondent sleeping in his vehicle. Thus, Respondent's testimony on this point was not credible. Respondent also testified that Tuning, Vincente, and Lyles gave him their employee numbers and gave him permission to sign the DSFs on their behalf. Respondent's testimony was directly contradicted by the testimony of Tuning, Vincenti, and Lyles, all of whom testified that they had not given Respondent their employee numbers; had not signed the DSFs; and had not authorized Respondent to do so on their behalf. Thus, Respondent's testimony on this point was not credible. Respondent also testified that on the days he had driven home during the work day, he had done so in order to take medication for pain he 7 To that point, any verbal representations made to employees regarding the use of the Telogis software would not, and did not, supersede the DCSME Contract. experienced due to medical issues.8 He testified that he had been given permission to do so by a former supervisor, William Barroso, and that he did not know if his subsequent supervisors were aware that Barroso had given him such permission. In any event, Jones testified that permission to return home for personal reasons, such as to take medication, during work hours could only have been granted by a current supervisor. During the operative time period of May 1 through July 12, 2019, Barroso was not Respondent's supervisor. Therefore, in order for Respondent to have been excused from his job duties during his work hours, he would have needed to obtain permission from his supervisor at the time. There was no evidence presented showing that Respondent had obtained such permission, and the most plausible inference from Respondent's own testimony is that he did not obtain such permission. Respondent also asserts that in using the Telogis records for his District vehicle in support of its proposed disciplinary action at issue in this proceeding, Petitioner has singled out Respondent and treated him disparately as compared to other employees, who have not been subjected to discipline on the basis of Telogis records for their District vehicles. However, this assertion is undercut by the credible testimony of Carlos Diaz, Director of Professional Standards for the District, who stated that Telogis records have, in fact, been used to impose discipline on other District employees. IV. Findings of Ultimate Fact As noted above, Petitioner has charged Respondent with misconduct in office under rule 6A-5.056(2) for having violated specified provisions of rule 6A-10.081, Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession; School Board Policy 4210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; School 8 Respondent testified that he kept his pain medication at home, rather than with him at work, so that he would not be tempted to take more than the prescribed amount. Board Policy 4210.01, Code of Ethics; and School Board Policy 8700, Anti- Fraud.9 Whether an offense constitutes a violation of applicable statutes, rules, and policies is a question of ultimate fact to be determined by the trier of fact in the context of each violation. McKinney v. Castor, 667 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(whether particular conduct violates a statute, rule, or policy is a factual question); Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(whether the conduct, as found, constitutes a violation of statutes, rules, or policies is a question of ultimate fact); Holmes v. Turlington, 480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)(whether there was a deviation from a standard of conduct is not a conclusion of law, but is instead an ultimate fact). The competent, substantial, credible, and persuasive evidence presented in this proceeding establishes that on multiple occasions, Respondent submitted, to his supervisors, DSFs on which he had intentionally misrepresented the description of the work that he ostensibly had performed and the number of hours he had worked. As further discussed below, Respondent's conduct in this regard violated School Board Policies 4210, 4210.01, and 8700. The competent, substantial, credible, and persuasive evidence also establishes that on several occasions, Respondent falsified or forged signatures of persons, without their permission, on DSFs that he submitted to his supervisors for the purpose of representing that he had performed the work described on the DSF and/or had worked the number of hours represented on the DSF. 9 As further discussed below, it is determined that rules 6A-5.056 and 6A-10.081 do not apply to Respondent, who is not a Florida educator and has no interaction with students in the District. As further discussed below, Respondent's conduct in this regard violated School Board policies 4210, 4210.01, and 8700.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 For Respondent: Teri Guttman Valdes, Esquire 1501 Venera Avenue, Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33146 1 All references to chapter 120 are to the 2021 version. All other statutory references are to the 2019 and 2020 versions of Florida Statutes, which were in effect at the time of the alleged conduct giving rise to this proceeding. As a practical matter, none of the substantive statutory provisions applicable to this proceeding were amended in the 2020 legislative session, so the 2019 and 2020 versions are the same.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board, enter a Final Order suspending Respondent without pay and terminating his employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 22nd day of November, 2021. Anastasios Kamoutsas, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Teri Guttman Valdes, Esquire Teri Guttman Valdes LLC 1501 Venera Avenue, Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33146 Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Bay County School Board (School Board), had just cause under Subsection 1012.67, Florida Statutes (2008), to terminate the employment of Respondent, Thomas Walker, because of his absence without leave.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is employed under a Professional Services Contract and teaches at Bozeman School in Bay County. Respondent, without approval or notice to the administrator or staff of Bozeman School, failed to appear for his teaching assignment in the latter part of November 2008. After repeated attempts to reach Respondent, Dr. Tommye Lou Richardson, Director of Human Resources for Bay District Schools, ascertained that Respondent was incarcerated in the Coffee County Jail in New Brockton, Alabama, for his failure to pay child support. Respondent's absence was willful and without approved leave.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Respondent and finding that he has forfeited any compensation since January 14, 2009, the date of his suspension without pay by the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2009, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Franklin R. Harrison, Esquire Harrison, Sale, McCloy Duncan & Jackson Post Office Drawer 1579 Panama City, Florida 32402-1579 J. E. Sawyer, Esquire 203 South Edward Street Enterprise, Alabama 36330 Thomas Walker 26802 Highway 69A, North Altha, Florida 32421 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 William V. Husfelt, Superintendent Bay County School Board 1311 Balboa Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401-2080
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Marion County School Board (“Petitioner” or “Board”), had just cause to discipline Respondent for misconduct as alleged in the Administrative Complaint (“Complaint”) dated March 10, 2020.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Marion County. See Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32(2), Fla. Stat. Petitioner is authorized to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. See § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. At the time of the alleged incident, Respondent was employed as a testing coordinator at Dunnellon Middle, pursuant to a professional services contract with the Board. During the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent served as a dean of discipline at Dunnellon Middle. As dean, she had dealt with discipline of students possessing drugs on campus, as well as students suspected of smoking marijuana either on a school bus or at the school bus stop. Leah Grace is a guidance counselor at Dunnellon Middle. Michelle Reese is the guidance office clerk. On January 30, 2020, student L.L. came to the guidance office and told Ms. Reese he wanted to speak with Ms. Grace about enrollment in a magnet program for the following school year. However, when L.L. entered Ms. Grace’s office, he sat down and began crying. L.L. confided in Ms. Grace that he “had something he was not supposed to have at school.” L.L. stated that he did not know who to trust. L.L. was distraught and Ms. Grace was unable to calm him. She decided to contact his mother to pick him up from school. Aware that L.L.’s mother does not speak English, Ms. Grace sought help from someone at the school who spoke Spanish. Respondent speaks Spanish. Ms. Grace contacted Respondent and asked her to come to the guidance office to help her with a student. When Respondent arrived at Ms. Grace’s office, she observed L.L. visibly upset, sobbing with his face in his hands, rocking back and forth. Ms. Grace relayed to Respondent what L.L. had shared with her—that he “had something he was not supposed to have at school.” Respondent recognized L.L. and asked him three questions in quick succession: Do you have a weapon? L.L. shook his head “no” in response; Do you plan to hurt yourself or someone else? L.L. shook his head “no” in response; and Do you have weed? L.L. nodded his head in response to the third question, indicating that he did have marijuana. L.L. confided that another student, D.G., had given the marijuana to L.L. in the cafeteria that morning to “hold on to” for him. L.L. had grown anxious during the school day about having the drugs in his possession and had come to the guidance office for help. When L.L. nodded in the affirmative that he had weed on him, Respondent stated something to the effect of “that is no reason to go home.” Respondent suggested L.L. just flush the marijuana down the toilet. L.L. promptly went into a small restroom attached to Ms. Grace’s office, flushed the toilet, washed his face, and began to compose himself. Afterward, Respondent told L.L. he needed to find better friends. As Respondent was no longer needed for translation, she left the guidance office and returned to her duties in the testing lab. Ms. Grace allowed L.L. to go to his next class, a grade-recovery course for which he was already late. Julia Roof teaches the class and had been concerned that L.L. was not in class on time. L.L. arrived at the classroom toward the end of the class period, and Ms. Roof observed that L.L. was upset. L.L. initially insisted that he was “fine,” but Ms. Roof pressed him because he was visibly upset. L.L. confided in Ms. Roof about the incident. He admitted that he had marijuana in his possession at school that day, that another student had asked him to hold it, and that he had been to the guidance office where the marijuana had been “flushed.” Neither Ms. Grace nor Respondent reported the incident to the school resource officer or anyone in school administration. Nor did either of them notify L.L.’s mother. Ms. Roof reported the incident to Delbert Smallridge, principal at Dunnellon Middle, at the end of the school day. Principal Smallridge’s Investigation Mr. Smallridge has served as principal at Dunnellon Middle for nine years, and has worked in the Marion County school system in various positions for 31 years. Ms. Roof reported the incident to Mr. Smallridge after school at car pickup. Before he left the school for the day, Mr. Smallridge contacted the school resource officer to notify him that there was a situation with drugs on the school campus that day. He also notified Brent Carson, director of professional practices (i.e., human resources) for the Marion County School District (“the District”), with the limited information he had obtained. The following morning, Friday, January 31, 2020, Mr. Smallridge began an internal investigation into the incident. He first interviewed L.L., in the presence of Ms. Roof; took notes of the events L.L. related; reviewed the notes verbally with L.L.; as well as having L.L. read them to himself. Afterward, he asked L.L. to sign his name at the bottom of the page as his statement of the incident. The next person he interviewed, Ms. Reese, came to him directly. She reported to Mr. Smallridge that she had information she felt he should know. She told Mr. Smallridge that Ms. Grace had confided in her that morning that she had allowed a student to flush marijuana in plastic bags down the toilet in her office the prior day, and that she was concerned that they may come back up or otherwise cause a plumbing problem. Ms. Reese provided and signed a written statement to that effect. Mr. Smallridge also interviewed, and took a written statement from, Ms. Roof regarding the incident. Before the school day ended, he also spoke to Mr. Carson, who instructed him to complete the school-level investigation by interviewing and getting written statements from Respondent and all witnesses, and do his best to determine what had happened. Mr. Smallridge interviewed Ms. Grace the following Monday, February 3, 2020, in the presence of his confidential secretary. Mr. Smallridge took notes of his interview with Ms. Grace, and Ms. Grace provided a written statement of her own. During his interview with Ms. Grace, Mr. Smallridge noted that “both [Ms. Grace and Respondent] were aware [L.L.] had drugs.” In Ms. Grace’s written statement, she stated that she “couldn’t remember” whether it was she or Respondent who told L.L. to flush the marijuana, “but I think it was me.” She stated that L.L. went to the small bathroom attached to her office, “then came out and told me he flushed it, bag and all.” Ms. Grace’s statement also confirmed that both she and Respondent were in her office when L.L. went to the bathroom. Ms. Grace later resigned from Dunnellon Middle. On August 26, 2020, after her resignation, she gave a second written statement regarding the incident. In that statement, Ms. Grace claimed responsibility for telling L.L. to flush the marijuana and called it a “momentary lapse in judgement.” She felt sorry for L.L. and did not want him to get in trouble, either with the school or with law enforcement. Mr. Smallridge also interviewed Respondent, who stated that, when L.L. nodded his head in response to her question, “Do you have weed,” she understood L.L. to mean that he had marijuana in his system, not on his person. Further, she claimed to have left Ms. Grace’s office shortly after she asked those questions and was not aware that L.L. had drugs on his person or that he flushed drugs in Ms. Grace’s office. Respondent also gave Mr. Smallridge a written statement. In her written statement, Respondent described the events of January 31, 2020. She said that when she first observed L.L. in Ms. Grace’s office, “The kid seemed sick, rocking, sobbing and not speaking.” She continued, “I thought he might be intoxicated as to why he would want to go home and not to the nurse. I asked him if he had weed as if in smoked it, had it in his system. He nodded and continued to cry. I said, that is no reason to go home.” Mr. Smallridge gathered all the statements and notes from his investigation, scanned and sent them to Mr. Carson. Jaycee Oliver is the executive director of employee relations for the District and is responsible for disciplinary issues with District employees, including hearings, grievances, mediations, and arbitrations. Ms. Oliver reviewed the documents from Mr. Smallridge, and discussed the incident with Mr. Carson and Mr. Smallridge. Ms. Oliver determined that the incident warranted a District-level investigation. District Investigation and Discipline The District investigation was conducted by Dawana Gary, director of equities and ethics, who worked with Tyson Collins, an investigator in her department. Ms. Gary was present for the interviews of both Ms. Grace and Respondent. Mr. Collins interviewed the remaining witnesses. Their interviews were recorded. Following the investigation, Ms. Gary prepared an investigative report containing written findings and conclusions. Based on the investigation, Ms. Gary concluded that both Respondent and Ms. Grace violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., which provides that the educator’s obligation to the student requires that the educator “[s]hall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental and/or physical health and/or safety.” She also concluded that both Respondent and Ms. Grace violated School Board Policy 6.27 I., which requires school board employees to comply with rule 6A-10.081. Ms. Gary sent her investigative report to Ms. Oliver, along with a recommendation that both Ms. Grace and Respondent receive a written reprimand, three-day suspension without pay, and mandatory training. Ms. Oliver reviewed the report and recommendation, and was surprised the recommendation was so lenient. Ms. Oliver characterized the violations as “egregious” and recommended to the superintendent that both Respondent and Ms. Grace be terminated. At the final hearing, Ms. Oliver testified that Respondent’s behavior was egregious because, not only did she fail to report the incident or take other measures to protect L.L., but also that allowing the student to dispose of the drugs prevented a proper investigation into distribution of drugs on campus. She maintained that Respondent’s behavior allowed both D.G., who was allegedly selling drugs on campus, and students who may purchase or otherwise obtain drugs from him, to remain in harm’s way. Without the drugs themselves as evidence, any potential investigation was jeopardized. Ms. Oliver discussed the recommendations for discipline at length with the superintendent. The superintendent made the final decision to impose a written reprimand and a five-day suspension, and require Respondent to take a course on “Reasonable Suspicion Drug Training” upon her return to work. L.L.’s statement that Respondent told him to flush the drugs is the only credible evidence on which to base a finding that Respondent did in fact do so.1 Respondent attempted to discredit L.L.’s testimony by introducing evidence (all of which was hearsay) that L.L. had previously been untruthful to teachers and had a penchant for drama. This evidence was neither credible nor reliable. L.L.’s testimony was clear: he acknowledged he had “weed;” he showed Respondent and Ms. Grace the weed; Respondent instructed him to 1 L.L.’s statement is an exception to the hearsay rule as an admission of a party opponent. See § 90.803(18), Fla. Stat. flush the weed; and he flushed the weed down the toilet in Ms. Grace’s private restroom. Ms. Grace’s testimony that she was the one who instructed L.L. to flush the marijuana is also not accepted as credible. Ms. Grace’s original statement to Mr. Smallridge (repeated in her first written statement) that she could not remember whether it was she or Respondent who told L.L. to flush the marijuana, was simply not credible. A middle school guidance counselor in her situation would have a clear memory of instructing a student to flush drugs down the toilet. Likewise, her memory that a teacher instructed the student to do so in her presence would likewise be significant enough to remember clearly. Further, Ms. Grace and Respondent were close colleagues, frequently having lunch together, and socializing outside of school on at least one occasion. Ms. Grace’s subsequent statement accepting responsibility for telling L.L. to flush the drugs was likely an attempt to protect Respondent. When she gave her second statement, Ms. Grace had already resigned from Dunnellon Middle; therefore, she could not be disciplined for falsely accepting responsibility for instructing L.L. to flush the marijuana. Finally, Ms. Grace’s testimony at the final hearing was too well- rehearsed to be credible. Notably, Ms. Grace had a well-rehearsed explanation for why Respondent would not have heard her tell L.L. to flush the drugs while they were sitting in her very small office, and she inserted that explanation in answer to a wholly-unrelated question. She attempted to explain Respondent’s state of mind, which she could not have known. In sum, Ms. Grace’s testimony was unreliable and was insufficient to establish that she, rather than Respondent, instructed L.L. to flush the marijuana down the toilet. Respondent’s testimony that she understood L.L. to mean he had marijuana in his system, rather than on his person, was not credible. L.L. had stated that he “had something he wasn’t supposed to have at school.” Respondent asked him if he “had weed” after asking him if he “had a weapon,” clearly seeking knowledge of what he possessed at school that he knew was off limits. Further, L.L.’s testimony that he showed Ms. Grace and Respondent the weed is accepted as true. Even if Respondent’s testimony that she understood L.L. to mean that he had marijuana in his system was accepted as true, that fact, coupled with her description of him as appearing ill, and possibly intoxicated,2 created a responsibility to take some step to protect the student’s health and well- being. If she understood L.L. to mean that he had ingested marijuana, and he appeared to her to be ill, her statement “that is no reason to go home,” was completely unprofessional. L.L.’s mother should have been contacted to pick him up from school, and administration should have been notified so that the situation could be avoided in the future to secure L.L.’s health and safety, as well as other students potentially involved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Marion County School Board enter a final order upholding both the charges and the discipline imposed against Respondent, Maria Acosta. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark E. Levitt, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. Suite 100 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 (eServed) Eric J. Lindstrom, Esquire Egan, Lev, Lindstrom & Siwica, P.A. Post Office Box 5276 Gainesville, Florida 32627 (eServed) Heidi S. Parker, Esquire Egan, Lev, Lindstrom & Siwica, P.A. 2nd Floor 231 East Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Dr. Diane Gullett, Superintendent Marion County School Board 512 Southeast 3rd Street Ocala, Florida 34471 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue Whether there was “just cause” for the termination of Respondent’s employment, as that term is referred to in section of the Policies and Procedures Manual of the School Board of Manatee County, Florida, by: Respondent’s using school district property for personal gain, by working on tasks related to a student-based educational European trip through Education First (EF) during her district duty hours in the spring of 2009. Respondent’s consuming excessive alcoholic beverages in the presence of students and parents of Buffalo Creek Middle School (BCMS) during an EF trip in the summer of 2009. Respondent’s reporting to BCMS on August 14, 2009, in order to collect her personal belongings, and appearing to be inebriated Respondent’s contacting witnesses to the investigation to discuss details of the investigation. Respondent’s coming on school grounds on December 7, 2009, while under the influence of alcoholic beverages.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Manatee County, Florida, is the duly-authorized entity responsible for providing public education in Manatee County, Florida. Respondent, Tammy M. Johnson, has been employed with the School District of Manatee County since February 8, 2000. She was most recently employed as the senior secretary at BCMS. As the senior secretary to the principal of BCMS, Respondent served as the point person for the principal of the school, working hand-in-hand with the principal. Her duties included screening the principal’s mail and phone calls, handling substitute teachers, performing payroll duties, handling leave forms, coordinating clerical office staff, and handling emergency situations as they arose within the school. Respondent was exposed to confidential school information on a regular basis, such as complaints regarding faculty and staff and policy changes being considered within the district. Respondent was employed on an annual contract basis, which was renewed from year to year. Her employment contract was for a term of 11 months and lasted typically from early August to June of the following year. While employed full-time as the senior secretary, in the fall of 2008 and the spring of 2009, Respondent organized a trip to Europe through the student-based educational travel company EF. Respondent sought to recruit BCMS students and their family members to sign up for the trip by placing fliers on campus, posting a sign-up board at the incoming students’ open house, and placing a notice about the trip in the school newsletter. Respondent routinely included a signature line in her school-assigned email address that identified her not only as a Senior Secretary but as an EF tour guide in every email that she sent from her school account. Announcements about informational meetings related to the EF trip were made over the school intercom and these meetings occurred on school property in the evenings. Respondent made fliers at BCMS advertising the EF trip on at least two occasions using school equipment. On one occasion, she made 750 fliers using school paper. During the time Respondent was conducting these activities, her principal was Scott Cooper. Cooper knew of Respondent’s activities in promoting the trip, and that she was using school resources to accomplish it. He did not object or tell Respondent to stop doing so; in fact, he encouraged such trips. Respondent ultimately recruited 10 student participants for the EF trip, all of whom were students at BCMS. The trip also included 15 adult participants, all of whom were family members of BCMS students. In exchange for her work organizing, promoting and chaperoning the EF European trip, Respondent was to receive, and did receive a free spot on the trip to Europe. Respondent served as the group leader for the EF group of BCMS students and parents. Three other BCMS teachers became involved in the EF trip as chaperones: Joseph Baker, Malissa Baker and Jessica Vieira. They also used school resources to promote the trip. The EF trip to Europe took place from June 22, 2009, to July 1, 2009. On June 17, 2009, the Office of Professional Standards (OPS) received a complaint that Respondent was misusing school resources for personal gain. OPS opened an investigation into these allegations. Shortly before Respondent left for Europe, Scott Cooper was replaced as principal. The newly-appointed BCMS Principal Matt Gruhl, met with Respondent to discuss his concern that she included an EF tagline in the signature block of all of her school emails. Gruhl asked Respondent to remove the EF tagline from her email, take the EF poster off of her door, make any necessary copies at a non-school location, and pay standard rates in the future for any advertising done in the school newsletter. Respondent complied with the directive. On June 22, 2009, the flight for the EF trip left from Tampa. Prior to the flight’s departure, Respondent purchased several small bottles of vodka in the airport duty-free shop. Several students observed Respondent doing so. Respondent drank two vodka-and-cranberry drinks on the flight to Europe in the presence of BCMS students and parents. Upon arrival in London, Respondent went with several other parents to a pub across the street from the hotel. While there, Respondent had too much to drink that evening and became intoxicated. Several BCMS students said that Respondent was speaking so loudly that they were able to hear her all the way across the street and up to the fifth story of the hotel. These students were upset by Respondent’s behavior. Respondent was very loud when she returned from the pub. BCMS parents had to help Respondent into the lobby, as she was falling over and laughing loudly. The adults tried to persuade Respondent to go to bed, but she insisted on ordering another drink in the lobby. Respondent was finally coaxed to go upstairs to bed, and she began banging on all the doors to the hotel rooms in the hallway. Respondent had to be physically restrained from banging on the doors. On more than four occasions Respondent was observed mixing vodka-and-cranberry juice drinks in a Styrofoam to-go cup before leaving the hotel with students for the day. The BCMS students on the EF trip commented on multiple occasions about Respondent’s drinking on the trip. The students did not want to go off alone with Respondent because they did not feel safe with her. The students also made observations that Respondent was drunk and stumbling around. On the return plane ride from Europe to Tampa, Respondent again was drinking alcoholic beverages to excess and exhibiting loud and boisterous behavior. While Respondent was in Europe with the EF trip, she had received a text message notifying her that she may be under an OPS investigation. Shortly after Respondent returned, she approached Gruhl and asked him whether there was an investigation concerning her being conducted by OPS. When Gruhl declined to comment on any pending OPS investigations, Respondent then called Debra Horne, specialist in the Office of Professional Standards, and asked whether there was an investigation being conducted. Horne confirmed that there was an open investigation and told Respondent that it might not be resolved until after school started because it involved students and parents. After speaking to Horne, on or about July 20, 2009, and being made aware that she was involved in an open investigation, Respondent called Vieira and told her that they needed to get their stories straight. Respondent also left messages for Joe and Malissa Baker stating that she heard that there was an OPS investigation and wanted to know if they had any information or had heard anything about the investigation. Respondent was only partially aware of a School Board rule which prohibited contacting potential witnesses during an investigation, although she was aware that she was expected to abide by all School Board rules. Gruhl spoke to Horne and reported Vieira and Malissa Baker’s concerns. Horne expanded her open investigation to include the allegations about Respondent’s behavior on the trip. Effective August 3, 2009, Respondent was removed from her position and placed on administrative leave with pay pending the completion of an investigation of her conduct by the Petitioner’s Office of Professional Standards. During the time of paid leave she was required to report daily to her principal and could not travel outside the country without permission. After Respondent was placed on paid administrative leave, she came to the BCMS campus on August 14, 2009, to pick up her belongings from her office. She met Gruhl and Assistant Principal Nancy Breiding at the school. Gruhl observed that Respondent smelled strongly of alcohol. She had difficulty keeping her balance and ran into walls, ran into doorways and almost fell when she tried to adjust her flip-flop. Respondent also had great difficulty following the line of conversation when she was speaking with Gruhl and repeated herself numerous times. Concerned, Gruhl permitted Respondent to leave campus after observing that her husband was driving her. He did not seek to send her for drug or alcohol testing, as provided in school board rules. Respondent testified that she had “just one” vodka and grapefruit drink at lunch earlier that day. She denied that Gruhl’s observations were accurate, but also alleged that she was on a prescription medication, Cymbalta, and stated that it caused her to be increasingly emotional and somewhat dizzy. However, she testified that she was completely unaware that combining the medication with alcoholic beverages would have an adverse effect on her. Respondent’s testimony in this regard is not credible. Gruhl’s observations of Respondent’s behavior on August 14, 2009, were incorporated into the OPS investigation. Horne interviewed Respondent on August 20, 2009, regarding the allegations made prior to the trip and the allegations made concerning her behavior on the EF trip. On September 1, 2009, the results of the OPS investigation was presented within the chain-of-command, who recommended to Superintendant Tim McGonegal that Respondent’s employment be terminated. The Superintendant concurred with their recommendation, and on September 21, 2009, the Superintendant notified Respondent that he intended to seek termination of her employment, or, should she request an administrative hearing, suspension without pay pending the outcome of that hearing. Respondent requested an administrative hearing. At their meeting on October 13, 2009, the School Board suspended Respondent without pay. While on unpaid suspension, Respondent had no duties, was not required to report to anyone, and was not limited in her ability to travel. However, she was still a School District employee. On December 7, 2009, while on suspension without pay, Respondent returned by car to the BCMS campus while school was in session to check her son out early for a doctor’s appointment. Aware that she was under investigation for excessive drinking, Respondent admitted that she nonetheless had a drink at lunchtime before going to pick up her son from school around 2 p.m. While on campus, Respondent’s eyes were glassy, she smelled of alcohol, and she was unkempt, which was out of keeping with her usual appearance. When Gruhl learned of the incident on December 7, 2009, he recommended to the Superintendant that Johnson not be permitted to return to the BCMS campus On December 7, 2009, the OPS opened an addendum investigatory file on Respondent concerning the events of December 7, 2009. The addendum OPS investigation alleged that, on December 7, 2009, Johnson entered the BCMS campus while under the influence of alcohol. The testimony of Horne, Keefer, Vieira, Hosier and Gruhl is credible. Respondent’s testimony is found to be unreliable.
The Issue Whether the School Board of Dade County has cause to terminate Respondent's employment on the grounds that Respondent was "willfully absent from duty without leave," within the meaning of Section 231.44, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed in the instant case? If not, what relief should Respondent be afforded?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Respondent was employed as a teacher by the Dade County School Board during the 1988-89 school year on an annual contract basis. His employment commenced on August 31,1988. At all times he was assigned to the ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) program at Carver Middle School. The principal of Carver Middle School, and Respondent's immediate supervisor, was Samuel Gay. Simine Heise was one of Gay's assistant principals. In Gay's absence, Heise served as acting principal. At around 12:00 p.m. on Monday, January 30, 1989, following a meeting with Gay, Respondent became physically ill at school. He left school for the day after notifying Gay and securing his authorization. Respondent was placed on sick leave for the remainder of the school day. At no time thereafter did Respondent report back to work. Various substitute teachers covered Respondent's classes during the period of his absence. Effective April 20, 1989, he was suspended by the School Board and it initiated action to terminate his employment on the ground that he had been willfully absent without authorization. During the period of his absence, Respondent was under the care of a psychiatrist, Dr. Adolfo M. Vilasuso. He was suffering from depression, insomnia, stress, anxiety and stress- induced gastrointestinal distress. He was treated by Dr. Vilasuso with psychotherapy and medication. Respondent's condition was primarily the result of personal problems involving his son and former wife. He was obsessed by these matters. He paid very little attention to anything else, including his teaching responsibilities. Although he was physically able to report to work, he was so distracted and preoccupied by his personal problems that he could not effectively discharge his teaching duties. The School Board requires that, in order to continue to obtain sick leave, a teacher absent because of illness must contact his immediate supervisor or the supervisor's designee by 2:00 p.m. of each day of absence and give notice that he will be out sick the following day. Teachers are advised of this "2:00 p.m. notification" requirement in the teacher handbook, a copy of which Respondent had received prior to his absence. Throughout the period of his absence, Respondent was capable of understanding and complying with this requirement. A teacher who complies with the "2:00 p.m. notification" requirement, but has exhausted all of his accrued sick leave credits, will automatically be placed on authorized leave without pay for illness for a maximum of 30 days, without the necessity of formal School Board approval. The leave will be extended beyond 30 days only if the teacher submits an appropriate application for an extension, accompanied by a "statement from [the teacher's] physician explaining why such [extended] leave is necessary." After leaving school on January 30, 1989, Respondent did not contact any member of the Carver Middle School administration or its staff concerning his absence until Saturday, February 11, 1989, when he telephoned Principal Gay's secretary, Maria Bonce, at her home and left a message with her daughter that he would not be at work the following Monday. On February 15, 1989, Dr. Vilasuso telephoned Carver Middle School and spoke with Assistant Principal Heise. Dr. Vilasuso told Heise that Respondent was under his care. He was vague, however, regarding the nature of Respondent's illness and he did not indicate when Respondent would be able to return to work. On February 21, 1989, not having heard anything further from either Respondent or Dr. Vilasuso, Principal Gay sent Respondent the following letter: The purpose of this communication is to determine your intentions for the balance of this school term. You've been absent from your teaching position at Carver Middle School since 12:00 a.m [sic] on January 30, 1989. On Saturday, February 11, you called my secretary, Mrs. Bonce, indicating you would return to work next week. On February 15, an individual identifying himself as your doctor called Carver Middle School and spoke to the assistant principal, Mrs. Heise. When he was requested [to provide information] about your illness, medical status and your ability to return to work, he stated he would not give further information without your approval. Until now we have not heard from you since February 11 when you contacted Mrs. Bonce at home. Also, the phone number and address we have on record obviously are no longer yours, therefore, I am unable to ccntact you. In addition to the above, we have no lesson plans, roll books, grade books for your students. It has been reported to me by custodial staff that you are frequently observed in the building after duty hours yet you have failed to communicate with me personally or the assistant principal or speak with your department head or the assistant principal for curriculum. I must call your attention to the contract between Dade County Public Schools and UTD and the teacher handbook which has information whiih addresses teachers' absences. You are clearly in violation of these documents. Finally, may I remind you of a memorandum given to you on January 27. A written response was due to me on February 1st. In addition, a conversation for the record was scheduled for February 1st. That conference will be held. You simply need to tell me when. I must remind you that failure to comply with district and local rules can result in non-reappointment for the 1989-90 school year. After receiving the letter, Respondent, on Thursday, February 23, 1989, telephoned Carver Middle School and spoke with Gay. Although he did not indicate to Gay when he was going to return to school, he did leave Gay with the impression that his condition was improving. Respondent also intimated during the telephone conversation that Gay would be receiving a letter from Dr. Vilasuso concerning Respondent's illness. The following Monday, February 27, 1989, at around 9:00 p.m., Respondent telephoned Secretary Bonce at her home and told her that he would be absent from school the remainder of the week due to illness. On Wednesday, March 8, 1989 Respordent telephoned Gay at school. He told Gay that he wanted to apply for sick leave and asked how he would go about doing so. Gay responded that he had referred Respondent's case to the School Board's Office of Professional Standards and that therefore the matter was "out of his hands" and Respondent would have to contact that office. On no occasion other than during the foregoing telephone conversations of February 11, 23 and 27, 1989, and March 8, 1989, did Respondent communicate with Gay or any member of Gay's administrative staff concerning his absence. Respondent's failure to so communicate with either his immediate supervisor or anyone on his immediate supervisor's administrative staff was willful. On March 28, 1989, Dr. Joyce Annunziata, the head of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, sent Respondent a letter, which provided in pertinent part as follows: The Office of Professional Standards has been advised that you have been absent without authority from your duties as an employee in the Dade County Public Schools. During this period you did not obtain authorized leave from your supervisor. Florida Statute 231.44 provides: Any District school board employee who is willfully absent from duty without leave shall forfeit compensation for the time of such absence, and his employment shall be subject to termination by the school board. Your absence without authorized leave constitutes willful neglect of duty and subjects your employment with the Dade County Schools to immediate termination. Please be advised that unless you provide within five days from receipt of this letter a written notification to the Office of Professional Standards, 1444 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 215, Miami, FL 33132, of your resolution of your unauthorized leave status, your termination will be submitted to the School Board for final action at its meeting of April 19, 1989. Respondent received Dr. Annunziata's letter on April 10, 1989. He did not provide the Office of Professional Standards with the requisite "written notification" within five days of his receipt of the letter. Accordingly, the matter was considered by the School Board at its April 19, 1989, meeting. Thereafter, Respondent submitted to the Office of Professional Standards a written request for leave without pay for illness. The request sought leave for the period from February 8, 1989, through June 19, 1989. Although the form on which Respondent made his request noted that a "[d]octor's statement indicating diagnosis [and] length of time required for leave" was required, no such statement accompanied Respondent's request. A letter from Dr. Vilasuso concerning Respondent's condition was subsequently received by the Office of Professional Standards on April 28, 1989.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment as an annual contract teacher pursuant to Section 231.44, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of January, 1990. STUART M. LERNER 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 2nd day of January, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3231 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: School Board's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. First, second and third sentences: Rejected because they add only unnecessary detail; Fourth and fifth sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: To the extent that it suggests that Respondent "never" complied with the "2:00 pm. notification requirement," it has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Second sentence: Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that it suggests that Respondent was absent without authorization during a portion of the period from January 30, 1989, to April 19, 1989, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that it suggests that he was absent without authorization during the entire period, it has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it is irrelevant and immaterial. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Rejected because it is a summary of testimony, rather than a finding of fact based upon such testimony. Rejected because it is a summary of testimony, rather than a finding of fact based upon such testimony. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Rejected because it is a summary of rather than a finding of fact based upon such testimony. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second sentence: Rejected because it is a summary of testimony, rather than a finding of fact based upon such testimony. Rejected because it is more in the nature of argument than a finding of fact. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Rejected because it is more in the nature of argument than a finding of fact; Remaining sentences: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent it suggests that a teacher need not comply with the "2:00 p.m. notification" requirement to obtain authorized leave for illness and that Respondent was on such authorized leave during the first 30 days of his absence. Otherwise, they have been accepted and incorporated in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Jaime C. Bovell, Esquire 1401 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134 William DuFresne, Esquire 2929 Southwest Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33134 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County School Board School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was a duly constituted school board, charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Dade County, Florida. The Petitioner has rule making authority and the authority to enter into collective bargaining agreements. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the parties were bound by the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between the United Teachers of Dade and the School Board. Pursuant to Section 1 of Article V, Petitioner has the exclusive right to suspend, dismiss, or terminate an employee for "just cause." The term "just cause" as defined by Section 3(D) of Article XXI of the contract: . . . includes, but is not limited to, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, immorality, and/or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Such charges are defined, as applicable, in State Board Rule 6B-4.009 (Florida Administrative Code). Pursuant to its rule making authority, Petitioner has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, which sets forth the expected conduct of employees as follows: All persons employed by The School Board of Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students is expressly prohibited. Pursuant to its rule making authority, Petitioner has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4C-1.02, which sets forth the expected conduct of non-instructional personnel as follows: The Board recognizes and appreciates the important supporting role played by non- instructional personnel in the school system's educational program. For that reason the Board endeavors to select persons of the highest quality to fill vacancies as they occur. One of the important functions served by the non-teaching staff is that of demonstrating good citizenship in the community. The Board reaffirms the wish that all employees of the schools enjoy the full rights and privileges of residency and citizenship in this community and in the state. Because of its high regard for the school system's non-teaching staff, the Board confidently expects that its employees will place special emphasis upon representing the school system ably both formally and informally in the community. Pursuant to its rule making authority, Petitioner has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4-1.08, which prohibits violence in the workplace as follows: Nothing is more important to Dade County Public Schools (DCPS) than protecting the safety and security of its students and employees and promoting a violence-free work environment. Threats, threatening behavior, or acts of violence against students, employees, visitors, guests, or other individuals by anyone on DCPS property will not be tolerated. Violations of this policy may lead to disciplinary action which includes dismissal, arrest, and/or prosecution. Any person who makes substantial threats, exhibits threatening behavior, or engages in violent acts on DCPS property shall be removed from the premises as quickly as safety permits, and shall remain off DCPS premises pending the outcome of an investigation. DCPS will initiate an appropriate response. This response may include, but is not limited to, suspension and/or termination of any business relationship, reassignment of job duties, suspension or termination of employment, and/or criminal prosecution of the person or persons involved. Dade County Public School employees have a right to work in a safe environment. Violence or threats of violence by or against students and employees will not be tolerated. Article VIII of the collective bargaining agreement addresses the subject of a “Safe Learning Environment.” Section 1(A) of Article VIII provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “A safe and orderly learning environment is a major priority of the parties. ” At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a school security monitor. The job description of a school security monitor provides the following basic objectives and responsibilities: BASIC OBJECTIVES Under general direction from the school principal, he/she performs duties to monitor student activity in promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment and insures the appropriate standards of conduct are followed. JOB TASKS/RESPONSIBILITIES Visually observes student behavior during school hours, on school property. Reports serious disturbances to the school administration and resolves minor altercations. Physically patrols all school buildings, grounds, and determines reason for the presence of outsiders. Stops and questions all students not in class during class time. Monitors parking lots and student gatherings (before, during, and after school hours). Reports any safety or security problems to the administration. Performs any other duties set by the school principal or his/her designee. Respondent was initially employed by Petitioner as a temporary custodian in February 1988, and assigned to Madison Middle School (Madison). In June 1988, Respondent was employed as a school security monitor at Madison, where he remained until December 1993. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Thelma Davis was the principal of Madison. In December 1993, Respondent's assigned post was near a gate in close proximity to the chorus room. J. B. and K. A. were female students at Madison during the school year 1993-94. J. B. was born March 8, 1981. In December 1993, J. B. was a twelve year-old seventh grader and a member of the chorus class taught by Edward G. Robinson. In early December 1993, Respondent made a series of inappropriate comments and gestures of a sexual nature to J. B. when she passed his assigned post. Respondent winked at J. B. as she passed his post and blew her kisses. On one occasion, he asked if she was a virgin. On another occasion he asked her the color of her underwear. On another occasion, he made a statement as to how warm they would be under covers together. K. A. overheard Respondent say to J. B. that he and she would be warm under the covers together. J. B. became visibly upset the day Respondent asked her the color of her underwear. Mr. Robinson observed J. B. crying. J. B. thereafter told Mr. Robinson about Respondent's comments and behavior. Mr. Robinson reported the information to the principal. A day or two later, J. B., accompanied by K. A., again complained to Mr. Robinson about Respondent's comments and behavior. Mr. Robinson again reported the information to the principal, and an investigation was instigated. The investigation was conducted under the supervision of Captain Arnie Weatherington, an experienced law enforcement officer employed by the Dade County School Police. In December 1993, Respondent was removed from the school campus and reassigned to the Region III office. The investigation was closed in May 1994 as being substantiated. In light of the substantiated findings, Ms. Davis recommended that Respondent's employment with the Petitioner be terminated. Louise Harms of the Petitioner' Office of Professional Standards conducted a Conference for the Record (CFR) with Respondent on May 3, 1994. During the CFR, Ms. Harms advised Respondent as to the findings of the investigation. Respondent remained assigned to the Region III office until February 1995, when he was involuntarily transferred to Westview Middle School. The investigation into this incident was closed by Respondent’s reassignment to Westview. There was no formal recommendation at that time by the Superintendent or by the Office of Professional Standards that Respondent’s employment be terminated for his misconduct at Madison. At Westview, Respondent had the responsibility to patrol the outdoor areas of the campus. He was given a walkie- talkie and a golf cart to assist him in performing his duties. Respondent’s instructions as to the cautious and safe use of the golf carts included the explicit instructions that children were not permitted to ride in a golf cart or to sit in a parked golf cart. During the school year 1996-97, Respondent's assigned responsibilities included patrolling the physical education area. During the 1996-97 school year, John McHale was a physical education teacher at Westview. His responsibilities included taking attendance, maintaining control of the class, and following the district curriculum. In November 1996, Mr. McHale's physical education class and three other classes that were taught by a Ms. Roque, Patricia NewKirk, and Nathaniel Stephens were held on an outdoor basketball court. On November 13, 1996, Mr. McHale was in charge of his own class and, in her absence, Ms. Roque's class. Mr. McHale's class and Ms. Roque's class were assembled on the basketball court so Mr. McHale could take roll. In addition, Mr. Stephens' class was assembled on the basketball court so Mr. Stephens could take roll. While Mr. McHale was in the process of taking roll, Respondent began joy riding in his golf cart. He rode onto the basketball court around and between the two classes under Mr. McHale's supervision. Students jumped on the golf cart. Respondent talked to students. Mr. McHale approached Respondent, told Respondent that he needed to get the classes under control, and asked Respondent to get the golf cart off the basketball court so he could do his job. In response, Respondent stated: "Take your ass back to your class. No bald-headed white man telling me what to do."2 Tempers flared, Respondent got off the golf cart, and the two men approached one another. Mr. Stephens, who is larger than either Respondent or Mr. McHale, stepped between the two men with his back facing Respondent. Respondent struck out at Mr. McHale with a closed fist, making contact with Mr. McHale’s shoulder. Mr. Stephens separated the two men and took Mr. McHale to the locker room. Respondent did not have any justification for driving the golf cart onto the basketball courts while the physical education classes were using the courts. That conduct disrupted the classes that were using the courts. Mr. McHale reported the incident to Darrel Berteaux, the school principal. Mr. Berteaux requested that the DCSP conduct an investigation. The investigation into this incident was conducted by Lieutenant Oryntha Crumity, an experienced law enforcement officer employed by the Dade County School Police. During the course of the investigation, Respondent contacted several of the student witnesses and asked each student whether the student was on his side. By making such contact, Respondent attempted to intimidate these student witnesses. Approximately a month after the incident, Mr. Berteaux received reports that Respondent had approached several student witnesses. He immediately requested that Respondent be transferred from Westview. Respondent was thereafter transferred from Westview. Proceedings to terminate his employment were initiated following a review of these matters by the Petitioner's legal staff.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is further recommended that the final order terminate Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1998
The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists for the suspension and termination of the employment of Respondent, Curtis Sherrod, for failing to correct teaching deficiencies sufficient to warrant a satisfactory performance evaluation.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Palm Beach County School Board (hereinafter referred to as the "School Board"), is responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) and support facilities within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Palm Beach County School District (hereinafter referred to as the "School District"). Respondent, Curtis Sherrod, at all relevant times, was licensed by the State of Florida to teach Social Studies for grades five through 12. Mr. Sherrod's certification authorized him to teach political science, economics, psychology, U.S. history, cultures, world geography, and contemporary history. Mr. Sherrod received a Bachelor of Arts degree, with a major in history and a minor in education, from Winston-Salem State University, formerly known as Winston-Salem State Teacher's College. At all relevant times, Mr. Sherrod was employed as a classroom teacher by the School Board. He was employed initially by the School Board from 1980 to 1983. He returned to employment with the School Board in January 1993 and received a Professional Services contract in August 1996. Mr. Sherrod's Employment at Olympic Heights High School. Beginning with the 1995-1996 school year, Mr. Sherrod was employed by the School Board at Olympic Heights High School (hereinafter referred to as "Olympic Heights"). Francis P. Giblin served as principal of Olympic Heights during the times relevant to this case. Until his last evaluation for the 2001-2002 school year, Mr. Sherrod received overall satisfactory performance evaluations. For the 1999-2000, 1996-1997, and the 1995-1996, school years, Mr. Sherrod, while receiving overall satisfactory ratings, had a few "areas of concern" noted. The deficiencies in those noted areas of concern were, until the 2001-2002 school year, corrected by Mr. Sherrod. During the 2001-2002 school year, Mr. Sherrod taught a world history class. After the school year began, several letters were received by Mr. Giblin from parents expressing concern over the content of the material being taught in Mr. Sherrod's world history class and documents which Mr. Sherrod had sent home to parents.1 Mr. Giblin requested that Dr. Christine Hall, an assistant principal at Olympic Heights look into the parental complaints concerning Mr. Sherrod's class. Dr. Hall was responsible for the Social Studies department, of which Mr. Sherrod was a teacher, at Olympic Heights. Dr. Hall spoke with Mr. Sherrod about the complaints. Dr. Hall met with Mr. Sherrod on September 4, 2001, and summarized their conversation in a memorandum of the same date. See Petitioner's Exhibit 27. The complaints, however, continued, with some parents requesting a class change for their children. Dr. Hall again discussed the matter with Mr. Sherrod, but the complaints continued. In approximately October 2001 Dr. Hall began to make informal observations of Mr. Sherrod's class in a further effort to resolve the problem. Toward that end, on October 10, 2001, Mr. Giblin visited Mr. Sherrod's class.2 Dr. Hall also observed a class during which Mr. Sherrod gave a standardized examination.3 At the conclusion of the test, Dr. Hall collected the "Scantrons" and determined the grade each student should have received. These grades were then compared to the final grades given the students by Mr. Sherrod. Due to a significant number of discrepancies in the grades given by Mr. Sherrod and the grades which they should have received based upon the Scantrons, Mr. Sherrod was asked to produce the Scantrons for his other classes. Mr. Sherrod was unable to produce the requested Scantrons because he had, contrary to School Board policy, disposed of them. As a result of his failure to produce the Scantrons Mr. Giblin became even more concerned about Mr. Sherrod's performance and ordered further observations of his classes.4 On November 27, 2001, Dr. Hall informed Mr. Sherrod in writing that she intended to conduct an observation of his class sometime during the "week of December 3-7." Mr. Sherrod wrote back to Dr. Hall and indicated that any day that week was fine, except for December 3 because "I will be collecting homework that day." Dr. Hall conducted observations on December 3 and 5, 2001. She conducted the observation on December 3rd despite Mr. Sherrod's suggestion because she did not believe it would take the entire class for Mr. Sherrod to collect homework. By memorandum dated December 11, 2001, Dr. Hall provided Mr. Sherrod with a discussion of her observations and suggested improvement strategies. Dr. Hall found deficiencies in the areas of management of student conduct; presentation of subject matter; human development and learning; learning environment; communication; and planning.5 On December 18, 2001, Mr. Giblin, Dr. Hall, Mr. Sherrod, Jerilyn McCall, Jeanne Burdsall, and Diane Curcio- Greaves participated in an "investigative meeting" to "discuss concerns regarding failure to perform professional duties, insubordination and unprofessional behavior." That meeting was summarized in a Meeting Summary provided to Mr. Sherrod. See Petitioner's Exhibit 32. On January 7, 2002, Mr. Giblin, Dr. Hall, Mr. Sherrod, Ms. Burdsall, Ms. Curcio-Greaves, Esther Bulger, Margaret Newton, and Debra Raing met "to provide information on benchmarks, curriculum and to insure [sic] students are prepared with information to take the district exam." A Meeting Summary was provided to Mr. Sherrod. On April 30, 2002, Mr. Giblin again observed Mr. Sherrod's class. Mr. Giblin's written observations are contained in Petitioner's Exhibit 34. Mr. Giblin found concerns in the areas of presentation of subject matter, communication, and learning environment. A summary of his concerns and recommendations for improvement were provided in writing to Mr. Sherrod on or about May 15, 2002.6 On May 16, 2002, Mr. Sherrod was given an overall unsatisfactory performance evaluation. Seven areas of concern were noted. Under Section A, Teaching and Learning, the following areas of concern were noted: presentation of subject matter; communication; learning environment; and planning. Under Section B, Professional Responsibilities, the following areas of concern were noted: record keeping; working relationships with coworkers; and policies/procedure/ethics. Mr. Giblin did not specifically review the grades of students in Mr. Sherrod's classes before giving Mr. Sherrod his final evaluation. On May 29, 2002, Mr. Sherrod was provided with a School Site Assistance Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "SAP"), "to be initiated August 7, 2002." The SAP was scheduled by agreement to begin at the beginning of the next school year (2002-2003), because the 2001-2002 school year was about to end. Mr. Sherrod was also provided at the same time that he was given the SAP with "workbooks" by Dr. Hall which she indicated were "to be used for fulfilling your plan's suggested activities." During the 2001-2002 school year, Mr. Sherrod was adequately advised of his areas of concern and, despite being given sufficient time to do so, failed to remedy them. Olympic Heights administrators complied with all procedural requirements for the issuance of the SAP. Mr. Sherrod's Employment at Suncoast High School. Prior to the end of the 2001-2002 school year, as the result of meeting with School District Assistant Superintendents, Mr. Sherrod was transferred from Olympic Heights to Suncoast High School (hereinafter referred to as "Suncoast"), on September 23, 2002. For the school year 2002-2003, Kay Carnes was the principal of Suncoast. Kathleen Orloff served as an assistant principal. Upon his transfer to Suncoast, Mr. Sherrod was provided with a two-week orientation period before being assigned teaching responsibilities. Following this orientation period, classes, including some honors classes, were assigned to Mr. Sherrod. On September 30, 2002, a meeting was conducted "to discuss the status of Curtis Sherrod's Assistance Plan." The meeting was attended by, among others, Ms. Carnes and Ms. Orloff. While the Conference Notes of the meeting indicate that Ms. Orloff was to "create a school-site assistance plan" the evidence failed to prove that a "new" SAP was developed.7 On October 21, 2002, the SAP developed at Olympic Heights was modified primarily to reflect that the SAP would be administered at Suncoast (hereinafter referred to as the "Suncoast SAP"). The dates of the SAP were modified to reflect that it had been agreed to in October 2002 with the names of relevant individuals modified. Finally, the improvement strategies of videotaping and audio-taping a lesson were eliminated.8 The Suncoast SAP was provided to Mr. Sherrod during a School-Site Assistance Plan Meeting. During the meeting, which was memorialized in Petitioner's Exhibit 1, additional assistance review days (October 31, November 12, and November 22, 2002) were agreed upon. The second School-Site Assistance Plan Meeting was held on October 31, 2002.9 Mr. Sherrod was informed that Ms. Orloff would observe his class on November 5, 2002, at 1:00 p.m., and that Ms. Carnes would observe him on November 13, 2002. That meeting was memorialized in a Meeting Summary, Petitioner's Exhibit 38. Ms. Orloff, who was primarily responsible for implementing the Suncoast SAP, had been conducting informal observations of Mr. Sherrod's class before scheduling formal observations. The next School-Site Assistance Plan Meeting was held on November 12, 2002. The meeting was memorialized. Mr. Sherrod was informed that planning, presentation of subject matter, communication, learning environment, record keeping, and polices/procedures/ethics were still areas of concern. He was also told that working relations with co-workers was no longer an area of concern. Ms. Orloff conducted observations of Mr. Sherrod on November 5, 2002, and on November 7, 2002. Her observations were summarized in a memorandum to Mr. Sherrod dated November 12, 2002. She noted concerns in the areas of presentation of subject matter, communication, planning, and learning environment. Recommended actions to be taken with regard to each area of concern were also suggested. Although the Suncoast SAP was only required to last for a minimum of 30 days, the plan was continued until February 2003. School-Site Assistance Plan Meetings were held on November 22, 2002, January 7, 2003, and January 16, 2003. Observations of Mr. Sherrod's classes were also conducted by Ms. Orloff and summaries of her findings were provided to him along with suggestions on how to improve. Observations were conducted on November 19, 2002, January 15, 2003, January 27, 2003, and February 6, 2003. From the moment the Suncoast SAP was initiated, Suncoast personnel, including Ms. Carnes and Ms. Orloff, evaluated Mr. Sherrod and attempted to assist him to improve in the areas of concern they noted. Mr. Sherrod was allowed to observe other teachers, the chair of his department worked with him on planning, a teacher who also taught American History worked with him, he was allowed to attend workshops, he was provided the assistance of a peer assistance and review, or "PAR," teacher, and he was provided with documentation as to what was expected of teachers at Suncoast. He was also allowed to teach Contemporary History in substitution for American History. The curriculum of the teacher who had previously taught the class was provided to Mr. Sherrod for his use. At no time did Mr. Sherrod complain to anyone involved in the implementation of the Suncoast SAP that the assistance he was being provided was inadequate or that he desired any additional help. Nor did Mr. Sherrod or his union representative suggest at any time that the procedures required to be followed up to that point were not being adhered to. While a SAP is required to last 30 days, the Suncoast SAP began October 21, 2002, and did not end until February 6, 2003. During this time, he was observed on six different occasions. Additionally, after beginning to teach at Suncoast, Mr. Sherrod was informally observed until the Suncoast SAP began. While Mr. Sherrod corrected the concern over his interaction with co-workers which had been noted at Olympic Heights, Ms. Carnes found through her observations that he continued to be deficient in the areas of presentation of subject matter, communication, learning environment, planning, record keeping, and policies/procedures/ethics. Therefore, on February 6, 2003, Ms. Carnes gave Mr. Sherrod an overall unsatisfactory Classroom Teacher Assessment System (CTAS) evaluation noting these areas of concern. Ms. Carnes informed Arthur C. Johnson, Ph.D., the Superintendent of the School District, of the remaining areas of concern and concluded that "a sufficient number of these deficiencies still exist to warrant an unsatisfactory evaluation." She requested, therefore, by letter dated February 6, 2003, that Mr. Sherrod be placed on Performance Probation for 90 calendar days (hereinafter referred to as the "90-Day Plan"). Mr. Sherrod was provided with a copy of the letter. The basis for the unsatisfactory evaluation and the continuing deficiencies in the areas of concern noted are accurately summarized in the various School-Site Plan Meeting Summaries and the memoranda summarizing observations conducted during the 2002-2003 school year. Some of the most significant problems involved Mr. Sherrod's excessive and inappropriate use of R-rated videos, his failure to timely post student grades,10 and his failure to provide instruction in a manner which was consistent with time-lines suggested for teachers to complete instruction on all materials that were supposed to be covered. By letter dated February 10, 2003, Superintendent Johnson notified Mr. Sherrod in writing that he was being placed on a 90-Day Plan and that it would begin February 20, 2003, and conclude on June 4, 2003. Assistance reviews were scheduled to be held on March 31, May 5, and June 4, 2003, the last day of the 90-Day Plan. Dr. Johnson's letter was provided to Mr. Sherrod on February 19, 2003, at a School-Site Assistance Plan Meeting. The first observation to be conducted pursuant to the 90-Day Plan was to be conducted the week of February 24-28, 2003, by Diane Curcio-Greaves, Instructional Specialist, Professional Standards. This observation was made by Ms. Curcio-Greaves on February 27, 2003. A summary of the observation was provided by Ms. Curcio-Greaves to Mr. Sherrod on March 7, 2003. Ms. Curcio- Greaves noted deficiencies and recommended improvement strategies in the areas of presentation of subject matter, communication, learning environment, and planning. The second observation to be conducted pursuant to the 90-Day Plan was to be conducted the week of March 10-14, 2003, by Wanda Hagan, Area 5 Coordinator. This observation was made by Ms. Hagan on March 13, 2003. A summary of the observation, dated March 25, 2003, was provided by Ms. Hagan to Mr. Sherrod on March 28, 2003. Ms. Hagan noted deficiencies and recommended improvement strategies in the areas of presentation of subject matter, communication, planning, policies/procedures/ethics, and record keeping. She commended him in the area of learning environment. Mr. Sherrod did not attend, due to illness, the first Assistance Review meeting which had been scheduled as part of his 90-Day Plan for March 31, 2003. The remaining scheduled observations did not take place either. On April 14, 2003, Mr. Sherrod broke his knee cap. As a consequence, he did not return to Suncoast High for the remainder of the 2002-2003 school year. By memorandum dated April 30, 2003, he informed Ms. Carnes that he would not be returning to Suncoast that school year and requested a transfer to a school closer to his home. Mr. Sherrod, for the first time, also raised a number of concerns he had not previously expressed about his perceived lack of assistance and fair treatment at Suncoast. While the evidence proved that Mr. Sherrod may have had a genuine belief that he was not being provided effective assistance, the evidence failed to support his perception. Mr. Sherrod's Employment at Roosevelt Middle School. Mr. Sherrod was reassigned to Roosevelt Middle School (hereinafter referred to as "Roosevelt") effective October 3, 2003, after Marcia Andrews spoke with Gloria Crutchfield, principal of Roosevelt, about the availability of a position for him.11 Mr. Sherrod was assigned to teach 7th grade social studies classes, a couple of which were honors classes. On November 3, 2003, Ms. Curcio-Greaves, from Professional Standards, reviewed the 90-Day Plan with Ms. Crutchfield. Ms. Crutchfield did not, however, immediately institute the Plan. Rather, because Mr. Sherrod had begun teaching in mid-term and was new to Roosevelt, Ms. Crutchfield gave him additional time to become familiar with the new school before reinstating the remainder of the 90-Day Plan. A District Assistance Plan Meeting, which Mr. Sherrod attended, was held on December 2, 2003, to discuss reinstatement of the 90-Day Plan. It was necessary to revise the Plan to reflect Mr. Sherrod's unavailability to complete the Plan at Suncoast. It was agreed by all in attendance at the meeting, including Mr. Sherrod, that Mr. Sherrod had 44 more days to complete the 90-Day Plan, and that the Plan would be restarted December 3, 2003. The "evaluation from February 6, 2003, the assistance plan, the original calendar of 90 days, the revised calendar, and the 90-day timeline" were distributed during the December 2, 2003, meeting. The 90-Day Plan, as revised (hereinafter referred to as the "Revised Plan), provided that the "1st Assistance Review" would be held on December 2 and 5, 2003,12 the "2nd Assistance Review" would be held on January 6, 2004, and the "3rd Assistance Review" and "Final Evaluation Conference" would be held on the 90th day, February 6, 2004. Having had two formal observations under the 90-Day Plan, additional formal evaluations were scheduled for the week of December 8-12, 2003, and January 12-16, 2004. The first evaluation under the Revised Plan was conducted on December 12, 2003, by Frank Rodriguez, Assistant Principal, Forest Hill Community High School. His observation notes and suggested strategies were provided to Ms. Crutchfield and Mr. Sherrod by Memorandum dated December 15, 2003. Mr. Rodriguez noted deficiencies in the areas of presentation of subject matter, classroom management, planning, and assessment. Mr. Sherrod submitted a written rebuttal to Mr. Rodriguez's Memorandum. The next scheduled formal evaluation was conducted on January 21, 2004, by Dr. Mary Gray. Ms. Gray's written observations were provided to Mr. Sherrod on or about January 29, 2004. Dr. Gray noted deficiencies in the areas of presentation of subject matter, learning environment, and planning. Mr. Sherrod provided a verbal rebuttal to Dr. Gray. The "2nd Assistance Review" meeting, which had been scheduled to be held on January 6, 2004, was held on January 29, 2004. The meeting was held late because Mr. Sherrod had been absent between January 6 and 12, 2004 (four school days), due to the passing of his mother. It was not held until January 29th out of respect for his loss. The meeting was memorialized in a Meeting Summary, Petitioner's Exhibit 56. During the January 29, 2004, meeting, Ms. Crutchfield suggested to Mr. Sherrod and his representative that he agree to an extension of the Revised Plan to February 10, 2004,13 due to Mr. Sherrod's absence. Mr. Sherrod agreed. The evidence failed to prove whether Ms. Crutchfield had the authority to grant this extension. The next and final evaluation conference was scheduled for February 10, 2004. The same day the "2nd Assistance Review" meeting was held, January 29, 2004, Ms. Crutchfield informed Mr. Sherrod verbally and in writing that she would conduct a formal and final evaluation during the week of February 2-6, 2004. This observation had been scheduled originally for the week beginning January 27, 2004, but was moved back due to Mr. Sherrod's absence during January and Ms. Crutchfield's absence. When informed verbally of the observation, Mr. Sherrod indicated that it was likely that he would be going out on leave in the near future and asked if Ms. Crutchfield could specify the exact date of his evaluation. Ms. Crutchfield indicated she could not. Petitioner's Exhibit 56. By letter dated February 20, 2004, Ms. Curcio-Greaves informed Mr. Sherrod by letter that the final evaluation conference scheduled for February 10, 2004, was being rescheduled to February 16, 2004. Although Ms. Crutchfield had indicated that she would wait until February 10, 2004, to complete the Revised Plan, Mr. Sherrod, as he had advised, left Roosevelt on leave before that date and before Ms. Crutchfield was able to conduct a formal evaluation of him. Based upon her informal evaluations of Mr. Sherrod conducted during the 2003-2004 school year and the formal observations conducted by others during the 90-Day Plan and the Revised Plan, she issued a final evaluation of Mr. Sherrod on February 9, 2004. This reduced the amount of time that Mr. Sherrod had been given to improve his noted deficiencies from approximately 94 days to 93 days: 44 under the 90-Day Plan at Suncoast; 46 under the Revised Plan at Roosevelt; and an additional three days from February 6 to February 9, 2004, at Roosevelt. Ms. Crutchfield found in her final evaluation of Mr. Sherrod that he still had the following areas of concern: presentation of subject matter; communication; learning environment; planning; record keeping; and policies/procedures/ethics. Four of the areas of concern were in "Teaching and Learning" and two were in "Professional Responsibilities." Three concerns in Teaching and Learning alone is sufficient for an overall evaluation of unsatisfactory. Mr. Sherrod's overall evaluation was unsatisfactory. Ms. Crutchfield provided her evaluation of Mr. Sherrod to Dr. Johnson and recommended that his employment be terminated. By letter dated February 25, 2004, Dr. Johnson informed Mr. Sherrod that he would be recommending to the School Board that Mr. Sherrod's employment be terminated. A copy of Ms. Crutchfield's letter of recommendation and Mr. Sherrod's final evaluation were provided to Mr. Sherrod with Dr. Johnson's letter. Mr. Sherrod was also informed of his right to request an administrative hearing, which he exercised. Mr. Sherrod's Performance was Unsatisfactory. Beginning with the 2001-2002 school year and ending with his final evaluation on February 9, 2004, Mr. Sherrod was formally evaluated by nine different School District employees, all of whom were professionally trained to conduct evaluations of teaching personnel on behalf of the School Board. All of those evaluators, while finding Mr. Sherrod deficient in a number of areas, attempted to offer assistance to him which, if followed, could have corrected his deficiencies. During the three school years for which Mr. Sherrod was found to be deficient, all required assistance was provided to Mr. Sherrod to assist him in correcting his deficiencies. Indeed, more assistance than was required was provided to Mr. Sherrod. Mr. Giblin concluded that Mr. Sherrod, for his final evaluation, had evidenced four areas of concern under Teaching and Learning: presentation of subject matter; communication; learning environment; and planning. Except for planning, Dr. Hall found the same areas of concern. Mr. Giblin also concluded that Mr. Sherrod evidenced the following areas of concern under Professional Responsibilities: record keeping; working relationships with coworkers; and policies/procedures/ethics. At the conclusion of the SAP, Ms. Carnes concluded that Mr. Sherrod, for his final evaluation, had evidenced the same areas of concern under Teaching and Learning found by Mr. Giblin: presentation of subject matter; communication; learning environment; and planning. Ms. Orloof had found the same areas of concern during two prior evaluations. Ms. Carnes also concluded that Mr. Sherrod evidenced two of the same areas of concern under Professional Responsibilities found by Mr. Giblin: record keeping; and policies/procedures/ethics. At the conclusion of the 90-Day Plan, Ms. Crutchfield concluded that Mr. Sherrod, for his final evaluation, had evidenced the same areas of concern under Teaching and Learning found by Mr. Giblin and Ms. Carnes: presentation of subject matter; communication; learning environment; and planning. Ms. Crutchfield also concluded that Mr. Sherrod had evidenced the same areas of concern under Professional Responsibilities found by Mr. Giblin and Ms. Carnes: record keeping and policies/procedures/ethics. Ms. Crutchfield, while performing informal evaluations of Mr. Sherrod, did not perform a formal final evaluation of Mr. Sherrod. Instead, she relied heavily upon her informal evaluations and the evaluations of Ms. Curcio-Greaves, Ms. Hagan, Mr. Rodriguez, and Ms. Gray. Those evaluators, while all finding that presentation of subject matter and planning were areas of concern, were not consistent in their findings concerning the areas of communication and knowledge of subject matter. Ms. Hagan commended Mr. Sherrod in the area of knowledge of subject matter and Mr. Rodriguez failed to note the area of knowledge of subject matter as an item of concern. Ms. Gray and Mr. Rodriguez, the last two individuals to formally evaluate Mr. Sherrod before Ms. Crutchfield's evaluation failed to conclude that communication was an area of concern. It is, therefore, found that Ms. Crutchfield's conclusion that Mr. Sherrod had not corrected his deficiencies with regard to the areas of communication and knowledge of subject matter was arbitrary and not supported by the weight of the evidence. Despite the foregoing finding, Ms. Crutchfield's overall evaluation that Mr. Sherrod's performance was unsatisfactory was reasonable and supported by the weight of the evidence. Mr. Sherrod continued since the 2001-2002 school year and, more importantly, throughout the 90-Day Plan to evidence concerns in the areas of presentation of subject matter, planning, record keeping and policies/procedures/ethics. Thus, he evidenced two areas of concern in Teaching and Learning and two areas of concern in Professional Responsibilities, which were not corrected during the 90-Day Plan, despite efforts to assist him to improve. Ms. Crutchfield's final evaluation, with the exceptions noted, accurately reflected Mr. Sherrod's areas of concern and his unsatisfactory performance at the end of the Revised Plan despite the reasonable assistance provided to him. Those areas of concern were consistently found by nine evaluators over three school years and at three different schools. No credible evidence was presented to counter the conclusions reached by the individuals who evaluated Mr. Sherrod or to prove that their conclusions were based upon anything other than their professional judgments concerning Mr. Sherrod's performance. Failure to Prove Bias on the Part of the School Board. While at Olympic Heights, Mr. Sherrod wrote to Dr. Johnson once, the chairman of the School Board twice, and filed a "petition" with the School Board. The subject of the correspondence was Mr. Sherrod's perception of his treatment by officials at Olympic Heights. He believed that he was being harassed and discriminated against. It has been suggested that Mr. Sherrod's correspondence accurately reflects why his performance was found unsatisfactory at Olympic Heights and evidences a bias toward him on the part of all those who evaluated him. This suggestion is not supported by the evidence. At best, Mr. Sherrod's correspondence evidences the poor working relationship between Mr. Sherrod and some of his coworkers. This poor working relationship was noted as an area of concern on his final evaluation by Mr. Giblin. It is not necessary to decide who was the cause of the poor relationship between Mr. Sherrod and others at Olympic Heights. First, the area of concern, to the extent it was Mr. Sherrod's fault, was corrected by Mr. Sherrod and formed no basis in the ultimate finding that Mr. Sherrod's performance, uncorrected by the 90-Day Plan and the Revised Plan, was unsatisfactory. Additionally, the evidence failed to prove that anything which occurred while Mr. Sherrod was teaching at Olympic Heights had any influence on the conclusions concerning his performance at the two schools to which he transferred for the two school years after he sent the correspondence to Dr. Johnson and the School Board. Indeed, the fact that he did not send any further correspondence after the 2001-2002 school year further supports this conclusion. Dr. Dunn's Conclusions. Dr. Dunn opined at the final hearing that Mr. Sherrod did not over-infuse African-American history into his course materials. Dr. Dunn's opinions, however, are entitled to little weight. Most importantly, Dr. Dunn, unlike the nine individuals who evaluated Mr. Sherrod, did not actually observe Mr. Sherrod teaching during the times relevant to this case. In fact, Dr. Dunn has never observed Mr. Sherrod. Additionally, the content of Mr. Sherrod's classes, while the catalysts of the greater scrutiny afforded Mr. Sherrod's classes, was not the basis for the conclusion of those who evaluated Mr. Sherrod that his performance was unsatisfactory. The School District's Appraisal System. The School District's Instructional Performance Appraisal System was approved the then-Commissioner of Education in 1999. The Appraisal System has not been further reviewed since 1999.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered ratifying Mr. Sherrod's suspension and discharging him from further employment in the Palm Beach County Public Schools. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of July, 2005.
