The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent, Henry L. Penia, engaged in acts of immorality or immoral conduct, in that during the month of July, 1978, he improperly touched a female student in an indecent or improper manner on school grounds during school hours in violation of Sections and 231.09, Florida Statutes, and Section 6B-1, Rules of the State Board of Education. Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following:
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Henry L. Penia, holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 044411, Graduate, Rank III, which by its terms is valid through June 30, 1981, for the areas of elementary education, history and political science. Respondent began his employment with the Hillsborough County School Board in February, 1952, and continued to be so employed until he was discharged on May 10, 1979. Respondent was assigned to LaVoy Elementary School (LaVoy) in 1974, where he taught nursery operations for the trainable mentally retarded (TMR) classified students. By way of background, the Florida Professional Practices Council, Petitioner, received a report from Hillsborough County school officials on May 24, 1979, indicating that Respondent had been charged with immoral conduct with a female student. Pursuant thereto, and under authority contained in Section 6A-4.37, Rules of the State Board of Education, staff of the Department of Education conducted a professional inquiry into the matter, and on September 10, 1979, reported the matter to the Petitioner's Executive Committee. The Executive Committee found that probable cause existed to believe that Respondent is guilty of acts which provide grounds for revocation of his teaching certificate. The Commissioner of Education found probable cause on October 1, 1979, and directed that Petitioner file a petition to revoke Respondent's teaching certificate pursuant to the authority contained in Rule 6A-4.37 of the State Board of Education and the guiding authority in Section 231.28, Florida Statutes. The material allegations of the Petition as filed by Petitioner are that during the month of July, 1978, Respondent committed an act of immorality in that he improperly touched a female student in an indecent manner during school hours on the school grounds of LaVoy. Concluding, the Petition alleged that the Respondent had violated Sections 231.28 and .231.09, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1, Rules of the State Board of Education, in that based on the above-cited alleged conduct by Respondent, he committed acts of immorality which were inconsistent with good morals and the public conscience and failed to set a proper example for students. The Petition adds that Respondent's conduct as alleged was sufficiently notorious to bring the education profession into public disgrace and disrespect and seriously reduced his (Respondent's) effectiveness as a School Board employee. Michael Sails, presently the head custodian at Foster Elementary School, Hillsborough County, was, during times relevant herein, a custodian at LaVoy. During a school day in July of 1978, Mr. Sails, while standing at the rear of Mrs. Evans', a teacher at LaVoy, portable observed Respondent's arm around the neck of Irene (last name unknown) while Respondent and the other students were standing around the agricultural area at LaVoy. Kennedy Watson, the head custodian at Dickinson Elementary School, was, during times material herein, employed as a custodian at LaVoy. During July of 1978, Messrs. Watson and Sails were seated in Mrs. Evans' portable where they could view the agricultural area at LaVoy. Mr. Watson was situated a distance of approximately seven feet from Respondent and Miss Martin when he observed Respondent with his hands and arms around student Irene Martin's breast and crotch areas. Student Martin, according to Watson, is a "very developed teenager". Watson's view was not obstructed when he observed Respondent's hands draped around Miss Martin's crotch and breast. (See location "X" on Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) Mr. Watson, to get a better view of the acts by Respondent toward student Martin, situated himself at the rear of Mrs. Bennett's pod. Mr. Watson observed Respondent and student Martin for approximately ten minutes. Mrs. Bennett, who was in her classroom at the time, observed that something unusual was happening outside her classroom and inquired of Mr. Watson as to what was occurring. Mr. Watson declined to discuss the incident then but agreed to do so later since he was, at that time, very upset about what he had observed. On July 13, 1978, Mrs. Sandra Kilpatrick, a staffing specialist for exceptional education for the Hillsborough County School System and formerly a teacher at LaVoy, sent Mrs. Bennett a message that student Irene Martin was in Respondent's class. Mrs. Kilpatrick confirmed that Irene Martin is a TMR student with an I.Q. of less than 50. Mary Bennett, an employee of the Hillsborough County School System for approximately thirteen years, is presently the Director of the Mentally and Profoundly Handicapped Program for students. Mrs. Bennett serves as diagnostician for student placement. Mrs. Bennett knows Kennedy Watson and recalled the day that Mr. Watson entered her room in July, 1978, when he appeared to be upset. Mrs. Bennett observed Respondent from a distance of approximately sixty feet from her pod with his body closely against Miss Martin in a "bumping, grinding manner" which lasted approximately several minutes. She observed Respondent touch Miss Martin in a few places in the breast area with one of his hands down along side Miss Martin's. Mrs. Bennett emphasized that no training was taking place while Respondent and student Martin were engaged in the conduct as described herein. When questioned specifically about the incident, Mrs. Bennett made certain the fact that no instructional activity was taking place and that Respondent made no attempt to free himself of Miss Martin if indeed that was his claim. She also indicated that no shovel was being used by Respondent for a training activity. After observing the incident, Mrs. Bennett discussed it with Mrs. Kilpatrick later that afternoon and made an attempt to contact Ms. Davidson, the Principal at LaVoy. Mrs. Bennett was sure that the date was July 13 because she left for Ohio to celebrate her parents' fiftieth wedding anniversary on Friday, July 14, 1978. Mrs. Bennett has great distance vision and was not mistaken as to what she observed by Respondent relative to student Martin. Conceding that she was not an expert on guessing distances and that she could be mistaken as to the exact distance that her pod is situated from the area in which she observed Respondent and Miss Martin, Mrs. Bennett was unequivocal in her testimony charging that what she witnessed was not any attempt by Respondent to train or otherwise instruct student Martin. Millicent Davidson, the Principal at LaVoy, is familiar with student Irene Martin. Principal Davidson was formerly a teacher at LaVoy and noted that student Martin has an I.Q. range of a four year old. Student Martin is unable to judge "right" from "wrong" and reacts to physical stimuli differently than a person with a normal I.Q. Principal Davidson also confirmed that student Martin has a habit of grabbing the wrists or hands of persons to gain their attention. (Testimony of Millicent Davidson.) On July 24, 1978, Principal Davidson contacted school security as she observed Respondent in the agricultural area from portable No. 371. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 2.) On that date, while she observed Respondent and Miss Martin, Principal Davidson's view was not obstructed. Irene Martin and the other students were potting plants with Respondent when Respondent grabbed one female student on her buttocks. Principal Davidson observed Respondent's arm draped around student Martin from the time that they left the agricultural area until they reached the portables, at which time the hugging ceased. Principal Davidson related (during the hearing) that physical contact with students was banned at LaVoy. On that day, July 24, 1978, Principal Davidson had a conference with Respondent and security employees Dossinger and Tyrie, wherein Respondent denied that he engaged in any physical touching of students. He was at that time suspended pending the outcome of the School Board hearings which ultimately resulted in Respondent's dismissal from employment. Based on Principal Davidson's observance of Respondent on July 24, and subsequent unfavorable press accounts of the incident relative to the school, she would not want Respondent to return as a teacher at LaVoy. S. E. Dobbins, the Personnel Services Director for the School Board, read several newspaper articles in the "Tampa Times", the "Florida Sentinel Bulletin" and other local newspapers respecting the subject incident between Respondent and student Irene Martin. Veda Bird, the former Principal at LaVoy and a teaching professional for more than forty-seven years, retired from the Hillsborough County School System during 1978. Principal Bird recommended Respondent for employment by the School Board. She observed him on a daily basis and was unaware of any character charges having been leveled against Respondent during his tenure of employment. Principal Bird is also familiar with student Irene Martin. She recalled that student Martin had a habit of grabbing teachers and was generally very vocal and hyperactive while at school. Principal Bird remembered student Martin as being a very strong student who constantly had to be counselled about grabbing instructors and other students to gain their attention. Finally, Principal Bird recalled that Respondent and Mr. Kennedy Watson had personality clashes and that she considered that Mr. Watson thought that Respondent was "out to get his (Watson's) job." RESPONDENT'S DEFENSE Respondent appeared on his own behalf and generally denied all of the material allegations of the Petition for Revocation filed herein. Specifically, Respondent denied that student Irene Martin attended his class on the date of July 13, 1979. He related his policy of not permitting students to attend his classes when they were not assigned to be there. Respondent recalled one occasion wherein he was showing a student how to dig with a shovel. At that time, he stood in front of the student and demonstrated how to dig a hole with a shovel. Respondent denied that there was any body contact between himself and the female student while he gave the digging instructions. Respondent also denied that there was any body contact between himself and a female student during July of 1978, as testified by Mrs. Davidson and Mrs. Bennett. He related that on one occasion he struggled to get Irene Martin back to the classroom area and that he had to, in essence, pull her back from the agricultural area to the class pod. Respondent believed that Mr. Watson's testimony herein was motivated and stemmed from a disagreement he had with Watson concerning the disappearance of approximately two hundred azalea plants that Respondent had given Watson to plant for the school.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's Teaching Certificate No. 044411, be REVOKED. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of August, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1980.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated sections 1012.795(1)(f), (1)(g), and (1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: 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 (2016). § 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. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 1128573, covering the areas of Elementary Education, English, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum, which is valid through June 30, 2021. During the 2013-2014 school year, until her voluntary resignation effective June 3, 2015, Respondent was employed as a language arts teacher at Gulf Breeze High School. Since that time, Respondent has been employed as a third-grade teacher at a private Christian academy in Pensacola, Florida. Material Allegations The material allegations upon which the alleged violations are predicated are, in their entirety, as follows: On or about July 19, 2008, Respondent illegally operated a boat while under the influence of alcohol. As a result of conduct, she was arrested and charged with Boating Under the Influence. On or about February 18, 2009, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of Boating Under the Influence. In or around January 2015 through March 2015, Respondent provided a forum where underage students illegally consumed alcohol and/or consumed alcohol in the presence of students. This conduct includes, but is not limited to, instances: in or around February 2015, wherein Respondent provided alcohol to underage students; and on or about March 20, 2015, when Respondent drove to J.H.'s, a student's, home, while under the influence of alcohol, and thereafter, attempted to drive J.H. while so inebriated. On or about April 24, 2015, Respondent illegally operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. On or about May 26, 2015, as a result of the aforementioned conduct, Respondent was arrested and charged with DUI-Second Conviction More Than Five (5) Years After Prior Conviction. On or about April 7, 2016, Respondent pled nolo contendere to an amended charge of Reckless Driving; adjudication was withheld. Count 1 Count 1 alleged a violation based upon Respondent having “been convicted or found guilty of, or entered a plea of guilty to, regardless of adjudication of guilt, a misdemeanor, felony, or any other criminal charge, other than a minor traffic violation.” The Count was based on the two incidents described in paragraphs 3 and 5 of the Amended Administrative Complaint as follows: Boating Under the Influence -- 2008 On or about July 19, 2008, Respondent was maneuvering a boat onto a trailer at the Navarre Beach boat ramp. Her husband was driving their vehicle, and had backed their trailer into the water. As a result of actions at that time, Respondent was placed under arrest for Boating Under the Influence (BUI), a misdemeanor (her husband was arrested for Driving Under the Influence). Respondent entered a plea of no contest to the BUI offense and, on February 18, 2008, was adjudicated guilty. Subsequent to the final hearing, counsel for Petitioner researched the issue and discovered that the incident occurred prior to Respondent’s initial certification as a teacher. As a result, Petitioner correctly concluded and stipulated “that no disciplinary action should be taken as a result of this conviction.” Driving Under the Influence -- 2015 On April 24, 2015, Respondent and a friend drove, in the friend’s car, to Pensacola Beach for drinks. Respondent left her car in a Publix parking lot. Upon their return, Respondent correctly perceived that she was not fit to drive home. Her phone was dead, so she got into her car and started it in order to charge the phone. She called her son and asked that he come pick her up. At some point after calling her son, Respondent called her soon-to-be ex-husband, from whom she was in the process of a bitter divorce, and engaged in a heated and animated discussion with him. A complaint was called in, and Officer Kidd was dispatched to the scene. Upon his arrival, Officer Kidd observed Respondent in her car, with the engine running, “yelling at someone on the phone.” He noticed a bottle of Crown Royal in the center console. Respondent refused to perform field sobriety tasks. Office Kidd’s observations of Respondent while she was in the car and upon her exiting the car led him to believe that she was impaired. Respondent had been in the car, with the engine running, and was clearly in control of the vehicle regardless of her intent to drive. Although Respondent’s son arrived on the scene to take her home, Respondent was arrested and transported to jail.2/ Respondent was charged with DUI. The charges were reduced, and she entered a nolo plea to reckless driving. The trial judge withheld adjudication. Count 2 Count 2 alleged a violation based upon Respondent having “been found guilty of personal conduct that seriously reduces that person’s effectiveness as an employee of the district school board.” The Count was based on the incidents described in paragraph 4 of the Amended Administrative Complaint. March 20, 2015 -- The Garage On or about March 20, 2015, over spring break, Joshua Hartley was at Pensacola Beach with friends, including Respondent’s son. He had his father’s car. Apparently, Joshua’s father, Jon Hartley had been trying for some time to reach Joshua and have him return the car. Joshua and his group of friends had plans to stay at the beach into the evening. Respondent’s son suggested that Respondent, who he knew to be at the beach, could follow Joshua home, and then return him to his friends at the beach. Respondent was called, and she followed Joshua from the beach to his house, a drive of perhaps 15 minutes. When Joshua and Respondent arrived at the house, Mr. Hartley, Ms. Barrett, and a third man were sitting and drinking in the open garage. Other than agreement that Respondent and Joshua showed up at the house at the same time, the description of the events by Joshua Hartley, Mr. Hartley, and Ms. Barrett were so divergent that the three might well have been in different places. Ms. Barnett described the incident as occurring between 8:00 and 8:30 p.m., when it was dark. She testified that Joshua and Respondent pulled up in separate vehicles, and that Mr. Hartley initially approved of Joshua returning to the beach with Respondent as a good deed, since Joshua purportedly indicated that “she’s really drunk.” She indicated that Joshua got into the passenger seat of Respondent’s vehicle, whereupon Respondent put the vehicle in gear, and lurched forward, almost hitting Mr. Hartley’s vehicle. At that time, Ms. Barrett indicated that Mr. Hartley ran down, startled by the driving error, told Joshua that he could not go with her, and offered to let Respondent stay with them until she sobered up. Ms. Barrett further described Respondent as essentially falling out of her bathing suit, barefoot, staggering, with slurred and vulgar speech, and highly intoxicated. After about an hour, and as Respondent was preparing to leave, Ms. Barnett testified that Joshua, who had remained with the adults in the garage since his arrival, went to his room. Ms. Barnett testified that Respondent then excused herself to use the restroom. Ms. Barnett testified that after 15 minutes or so, she went inside, and found Respondent “exiting Joshua’s bedroom.” Her description of the event is not accepted, and her veiled insinuation that something improper occurred -- for which no evidence exists -- did not go unnoticed. Mr. Hartley described the incident as occurring between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. He testified that Joshua and Respondent arrived at the house in Respondent’s car with Joshua as the passenger. He was “positive” that Joshua was not driving because he was 15 years old and did not have a driver’s license. When they pulled into the driveway, Mr. Hartley testified that he walked down to the vehicle and that Joshua got out of the car. Mr. Hartley was unsure if Joshua stayed in the garage at all, but at most went to his room after a matter of minutes. Respondent joined the adults in the garage. Mr. Hartley indicated that Respondent “looked like she had been at the beach” and, though her speech was not slurred, he could tell she had been drinking because he could smell alcohol and by “the way she was speaking.” His description of Respondent was far from the florid state of intoxication as described by Ms. Barnett. Mr. Hartley offered no description of Respondent’s vehicle lurching forward, Respondent staggering, or of Joshua asserting that Respondent was really drunk. Finally, his concern that “the grown, intoxicated woman [as described by counsel in his question] was in your 15 year old son’s bedroom” was based solely on Ms. Barnett’s description of what she claimed to have seen. Joshua testified that he drove to his house in his father’s black Lincoln Aviator, and that Respondent followed in her white Ford Expedition. It was daylight, around 4:00 in the afternoon. Upon their arrival, Respondent pulled onto the grass next to the driveway. Mr. Hartley was mad, possibly about Joshua having the car, would not let him return to the beach, and sent him to his room within a minute of his arrival. Joshua testified that Respondent was in typical beach attire. He had no complaint as to Respondent’s actions either at the beach or at his house, and did not see her drinking. He did, however, indicate that “they” told him that “she might have been drunk or something.” He testified that after Respondent spent some time with the adults in the garage, she then went inside to use the restroom. Joshua’s door was open, and Respondent stood at the door and apologized if she had gotten him into trouble. She then left. Given the dramatic divergence in the stories of the witnesses, the evidence is not clear and convincing that anything untoward occurred when Respondent agreed to give Joshua a ride to his house to return his father’s car, and offered to return him to his friends at the beach. Though credible evidence suggests that Respondent had alcohol on her breath, there was no evidence that she was “under the influence of alcohol,” that she was not able to lawfully drive a vehicle, or that Joshua suspected that she had been drinking. Ms. Barrett’s more dramatic testimony that Respondent was drunk and staggering, falling out of her clothes, with her speech slurred and profane, and the intimation that she was in Joshua’s bedroom in that condition, is not accepted. The evidence adduced at the hearing was not clear and convincing that, on March 20, 2017, Respondent engaged in personal conduct that seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the district school board. February 15, 2015 -- Mardi Gras There was a good bit of evidence and testimony taken that Petitioner was seen drunk and staggering down the street at the 2015 Pensacola Mardi Gras, and was seen and assisted by students in that condition. However, the basis for the Amended Administrative Complaint was not that Respondent was publically intoxicated, but that she “provided alcohol to underage students.” Pensacola has a Mardi Gras event with a parade and floats. In 2015, “Fat Tuesday” was on February 17. The big 2015 Mardi Gras parade was on Sunday, February 15. Respondent had a group of friends that were in a Mardi Gras Krewe and she had been helping them with the float. She apparently drank a good bit. By the time her friends were ready to join the parade, around noon to 1:00 p.m., Respondent determined that she was drunk enough that she should go to the hotel room the group had rented. Unlike the evidence for the “Garage” incident, the evidence was convincing that Respondent was very intoxicated. Ms. Smith testified that Respondent joined a group of alumni and students at a Subway parking lot where they had gathered to watch the parade. The evidence is persuasive that Respondent came upon the scene by happenstance, and that the parking lot was not her destination. While there, Respondent very likely consumed one or more “Jello-shots.” However, the suggestion that Respondent was in any condition to have brought the Jello-shots with her to the parking lot is rejected. Rather, the evidence supports that the shots were there, and that she partook. It would not have been out of character for Respondent to have taken them and handed them around. Furthermore, the testimony that Respondent was distributing beers to students is, for the same reason, simply not plausible. After a while, Ms. Smith, followed but not assisted by Mr. Brayton, assisted Respondent to her hotel. Respondent was, by this time, in a state colloquially known as “falling-down drunk.” She could not walk unassisted, and at one point laid down on a picnic table. It was at this time that Respondent and Ms. Smith were photographed, a picture that received some circulation. Ms. Smith finally delivered Respondent to her hotel, where Respondent’s son saw them and relieved Ms. Smith of any further duties. Mr. Brayton’s testimony that he thereafter entered Respondent’s hotel room was not supported by Ms. Smith or others. His testimony regarding Respondent’s son and his friends at the hotel was not clear and convincing. January 2015 -- The House Party Amelia Smith testified to an alleged incident in the fall of 2014 in which she was at Respondent’s house and students were having a party in the garage at which students were drinking. There was no allegation in the Amended Administrative Complaint as to any event in the fall of 2014. Ms. Klisart testified to an incident involving students drinking at Respondent’s house around the Martin Luther King holiday, which in 2015 was on January 19. That corresponds to Petitioner’s statement that she returned to her house after an evening celebrating her birthday,3/ to find her son and his friends having a party in the garage at which students were drinking. The allegation in the Amended Administrative Complaint that Respondent provided a forum where underage students illegally consumed alcohol in January 2015 was adequately pled. The evidence supports a finding that Respondent had been drinking when she arrived at her house. The evidence is not clear and convincing that she joined the students in the garage, but she clearly knew the party was ongoing, that it involved high school students, that the students were drinking, and that she made no effort to put a halt to the party. Notoriety of the Incidents The evidence is clear and convincing that the incidents described herein were widely known by students at Gulf Breeze High School, by other teachers, and by the school administration. Counts 3 and 4 Count 3 alleges that “Respondent has violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education rules.” Count 4 alleges “that Respondent has failed to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to student's mental health and/or physical health and/or safety.” Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) “does not require evidence that Respondent actually harmed [a student’s] health or safety. Rather, it requires a showing that Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to protect the student from such harm.” Gerard Robinson, as Comm’r of Educ. v. William Randall Aydelott, Case No. 12-0621PL, RO at 76 (Fla. DOAH Aug. 29, 2012; EPC Dec. 19, 2012). Under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner proved that Respondent, by allowing, if not condoning, student drinking at her home in January 2015, failed to make reasonable effort to protect students from harm.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated sections 1012.795(1)(g) and (1)(j), and rule 6A- 10.081(3)(a). It is further recommended that Respondent be placed on probation for a period of five years, and be required to obtain treatment through the Recovery Network Program at a frequency and for a duration deemed appropriate by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 2017, 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 7th day of June, 2017.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a classroom teacher on an annual contract basis. For the 1988-89 school year, Respondent was assigned to teach algebra and general math at Miami Agricultural School, one of the schools in the Dade County public school system. During a part of the 1988-89 school year, Respondent lived with Sandra Wilkenson and with the child they had parented. The child was two years old at the time of the hearing. On November 21, 1988, Respondent and Ms. Wilkenson met at her place of employment at the Aventura Mall in Miami, Florida. Respondent was in a hurry because he had several errands to run in preparation for his planned trip to St. Croix, Virgin Islands, to visit his family and to attend to a family business matter. Respondent and Ms. Wilkenson planned for Respondent to return to the mall so that he could drive her to the apartment they shared after she had completed heir work day. Later in the day of November 21, 1988, Respondent returned to the Aventura Mall to take Ms. Wilkenson to their apartment. Ms. Wilkenson met Respondent in the public parking area of the Mall where he had parked. For reasons unknown to Respondent, Ms. Wilkenson refused to ride to their home with him. This refusal made Respondent very angry and started a loud argument between them that lasted between five and ten minutes. Respondent tried to lead Ms. Wilkenson to the car by pulling her hand, but there was no evidence that he injured her in any way or that he committed any criminal act during the course of the incident. When she continued to refuse to accompany him, Respondent got in his car and left the parking area. A man in a uniform observed the dispute, but he did not speak to Respondent or attempt to intervene in the dispute. After the incident at the Aventura Mall, Respondent travelled to St. Croix as he had planned. While in St. Croix, Respondent spoke to Ms. Wilkenson by telephone, but she did not indicate that she considered anything to be wrong. While Respondent was in St. Croix, criminal charges stemming from the incident at the Aventura Mall were brought against him by Ms. Wilkenson. Respondent was charged with aggravated assault with a firearm, using a firearm during the commission of a felony, and battery on the person of Sandra Wilkenson. While Respondent was still in St. Croix, three police officers visited the campus of Miami Agricultural School searching for Respondent. Two of the police officers were in plainclothes and one was in uniform. The police officers spoke to the Principal, Mr. Lewis and to the Secretary, Ms. Scott, in private. While the visit of the police officers aroused the curiosity of a one or two faculty members and a few students, the visit did not cause a disturbance or disrupt the educational process. When Respondent returned to Miami from St. Croix, he found a note on his automobile asking that he contact the police detective who had left the note. Upon calling the police detective, Respondent learned that he was to be arrested. Respondent voluntarily surrendered himself to the police. Respondent spent four days in jail before he was arraigned. At arraignment, he entered a plea of not guilty. Respondent was released from jail after Ms. Wilkenson posted his bond. Respondent informed the principal of Miami Agricultural School of his whereabouts while he was in jail. After his release from jail, Respondent was transferred from his classroom to an administrative assignment away from the campus of Miami Agricultural School. Several students and faculty members at Miami Agricultural School became curious because of Respondent's absence. Although one student indicated to the principal that he knew that Respondent had been in jail and the administration at the school had information as to what had happened, the incident and subsequent arrest did not become common knowledge at Miami Agricultural School or in the community. Respondent's conduct was not sufficiently notorious to bring either Respondent or the education profession into public disgrace or disrespect. His conduct did not impair his service to the community. On March 22, 1989, Petitioner suspended Respondent without pay and instituted proceedings to terminate his annual contract. Respondent timely demanded a formal hearing of the matter On April 25, 1989, all of the criminal charges that had been filed against Respondent were nolle prossed and the criminal case against him was closed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a final order which finds Respondent, Michael Durrant, not guilty of immorality, and which reinstates his annual contract for the 1988-89 school year with back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 f Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-1725 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 1 of the Recommended Order. Those proposed findings of fact not adopted are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraph 2 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in part by paragraph 4 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are adopted in material part by paragraph 4 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are adopted in material part by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are adopted in part by paragraphs 5 of the Recommended Order and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are adopted in part by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order and are rejected in part as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made or as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 11 are adopted in part by paragraph 9 of the Recommended Order and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 12 are adopted in part by paragraph 14 of the Recommended Order, are rejected in part as being subordinate to the findings made, and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 13 are adopted in material part by paragraph 8 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 14 are adopted in part by paragraph 10 of the Recommended Order, and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 11 and 14 of the Recommended Order. 16.-18. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 16, 17, and 18 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board of Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Jaime C. Bovell, Esquire 1401 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Lorraine C. Hoffman, Esquire 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mr. Tee Greer Acting Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Office of Professional Standards 1444 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 215 Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Respondent Robert L. Collins has been employed by the School Board of Dade County, Florida as a teacher for the last twenty-four years and is on continuing contract. For approximately the last seven of those years, Respondent has been teaching Industrial Arts at Miami Killian Senior High School. Between late September 1983, and November 23, 1983, Jonathan Wright was a student in Respondent's Plastics class. On November 23, 1983, Wright came into Respondent's Plastics class wearing a hat, which is against school rules. Respondent directed Wright to remove his hat which he did. Later in that same class Respondent saw Wright sitting by the engraver again wearing that hat. Respondent removed the hat from Wright's head and advised Wright that if he put the hat on another time Respondent would send him to the principal's office. At approximately 5 minutes before the end of the class period, Respondent instructed the students that it was time to clean up the shop area. Wright and some of the other students began gathering at the door. Respondent motioned to those students to come back into the classroom and away from the door, which some of them did. Wright, however, did not. Respondent then specifically directed Wright to get away from the door. Instead of obeying, Wright put up a hand and a foot in a karate type posture but clearly in a playful manner. As a normal reaction in the context of the situation, Respondent did likewise. Respondent then turned back toward the class at which time Wright grabbed him by the legs and pulled him down to the floor. Respondent and Wright were rolling around on the floor in a small alcove area, and Respondent was unable to get loose from Wright's grip. Respondent was afraid that he, Wright, or the other students might be severely injured in the small alcove by the door or on some of the machinery located in the Plastics shop classroom. Unable to free himself, Respondent bit Wright on the back. Wright released Respondent and got up off the floor. After the bell rang, Wright left the classroom. Wright was transferred to the Plastics class of teacher Gerald Krotenberg where he remained for the rest of the school year. On several occasions Krotenberg was required to admonish Wright because Wright often resorted to "horse play" with other students. On occasion Wright would come into the classroom and would "bear hug" the girls, "jostle" the boys, and be disruptive so that Krotenberg could not take attendance or conduct the class. Although Krotenberg followed his normal technique of chastising the student in public, and then chastising the student in private, those techniques did not work and Krotenberg was required to exclude Wright from class on probably two occasions, for two days each, due to Wright's inappropriate behavior with other students. During the two months that Wright was in Respondent's class, Wright had come up behind Respondent on one or two occasions and lightly put his arms around Respondent in the nature of a bear hug. Respondent counseled Wright that that was not appropriate behavior. The only touching of Wright that was initiated by Respondent himself occurred in the form of Respondent placing his hand on Wright's shoulder while discussing a project being worked on at the moment or perhaps a light slap on the back in the nature of encouragement or praise for a job well done. Not all teachers, however, agree that it is appropriate to occasionally give a student an encouraging pat on the back. Although Wright had on one or two occasions given Respondent a playful hug and although Respondent had on several occasions given Wright an encouraging pat on the back or touch on his shoulder, no physical combat ever occurred between them. Although Wright often engaged in "horse play" with other students, no "horse play" occurred between Wright and Respondent. None of Respondent's annual evaluations during the years he has been teaching in the Dade County public School, including the annual evaluation for the the 1983-1984 school year, indicates that Respondent has had any problems with either maintaining good discipline in his classes or that Respondent is anything other than acceptable in the area of classroom management.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered reversing Respondent's suspension, reinstating him if necessary, and reimbursing him for back pay-if he was suspended without pay. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of July, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas H. Robertson, Esquire 111 SW Third Street Third Floor Miami, Florida 33130 Michael D. Ray, Esquire 7630 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 202 Miami, Florida 33138 Phyllis 0. Douglas Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issues in this case are (1) whether an education paraprofessional made salacious and vulgar comments to a female student and, if so, (2) whether such conduct gives the district school board just cause to suspend this member of its instructional staff for 30 workdays, without pay.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, Respondent Alfredo Regueira ("Regueira") was an employee of Petitioner Miami-Dade County School Board ("School Board"), for which he worked full time as a physical education paraprofessional. At the time of the events giving rise to this proceeding, Regueira was assigned to Miami Senior High School ("Miami High"), where he led exercise and fitness classes in the gymnasium. As of the final hearing, A. M., aged 17, was a senior at Miami High. She had met Regueira in the spring of her sophomore year at the school, in 2005, outside the gym. Thereafter, although never a student of Regueira's, A. M. would chat with "Fred"——as she (and other students) called him——about once or twice per week, on the gymnasium steps, during school hours. As a result of these encounters, A. M. and Regueira developed a friendly relationship. At some point, their relationship became closer than it prudently should have, moving from merely friendly to (the undersigned infers) nearly flirty. A. M. gave Regueira a picture of herself inscribed on the back with an affectionate note addressed to "the prettiest teacher" at Miami High. Regueira, in turn, spoke to A. M. about sexual matters, disclosing "what he did with women" and admitting a proclivity for lesbians. Notwithstanding this flirtatious banter, there is no allegation (nor any evidence) that the relationship between Regueira and A. M. was ever physically or emotionally intimate. As time passed, however, it became increasingly indiscreet and (for Regueira at least) dangerous. At around eight o'clock one morning in late February or early March 2006, A. M. and her friend E. S. went to the gym to buy snacks, which were sold there. Regueira approached the pair and, within earshot of E. S., made some suggestive comments to A. M., inviting her to get into his car for a trip to the beach. Later, when E. S. was farther away, Regueira spoke to A. M. alone, using vulgar language to communicate his desire to have sexual relations with her. In A. M.'s words, "Mr. Fred me dijo en English 'I want to fuck you.'" (Mr. Fred told me in English "I want to fuck you.")1 At lunch that day, while conversing with E. S., A. M. repeated Regueira's coarse comment. A. M. did not, however, report the incident contemporaneously either to her parents, being unsure about how they would react, or to anyone else in authority, for fear that she would be disbelieved. After the incident, A. M. stopped going to the gym because she was afraid and embarrassed. A few weeks later, A. M. disclosed to her homeroom teacher, whom she trusted, what Regueira had said to her. The teacher promptly reported the incident to an assistant principal, triggering an investigation that led ultimately to the School Board's decision to suspend Regueira. Thus had the candle singed the moth.2 That this incident has diminished Regueira's effectiveness in the school system is manifest from a revealing sentence that Regueira himself wrote, in his proposed recommended order: "Since this situation has been made public[,] . . . my peers have lost all respect for me." An employee who no longer commands any respect from his colleagues is unlikely to be as effective as he once was, when his peers held him in higher regard. Ultimate Factual Determinations Regueira's sexually inappropriate comments to A. M. violated several rules and policies that establish standards of conduct for teachers and other instructional personnel, namely, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e)(prohibiting intentional exposure of student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement), Rule 6B-1.006(3)(g)(forbidding sexual harassment of student), Rule 6B-1.006(3)(h)(disallowing the exploitation of a student relationship for personal advantage), School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 (banning unseemly conduct); and Board Rule 6Gx13-4-1.09 (proscribing unacceptable relationships or communications with students). Regueira's misconduct, which violated several principles of professional conduct as noted above, also violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.001(3)(employee shall strive to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct). This ethics code violation, it should be mentioned, is secondary to the previously described misdeeds, inasmuch as sexually inappropriate behavior in the presence of, or directed toward, a student necessarily demonstrates a failure to sustain the "highest degree of ethical conduct." Regueira's violations of the ethics code and the principles of professional conduct were serious and caused his effectiveness in the school system to be impaired. In this regard, Regueira's admission that his colleagues have lost all respect for him was powerful proof that, after the incident, he could no longer be as effective as he previously had been. Based on the above findings, it is determined that Regueira is guilty of the offense of misconduct in office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order suspending Regueira from his duties as a physical education paraprofessional for a period of 30 workdays. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 2007.
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to suspend and terminate the Respondent's employment on the basis of allegations of misconduct set forth in a Notice of Specific Charges. The allegations of misconduct charge the Respondent with immorality, misconduct in office, and gross insubordination.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Chico J. Arenas, was employed as a teacher by the Dade County Public Schools pursuant to a professional services contract. At the time of the hearing in this case, K. F. was a fifteen-year-old student in the 10th grade. She is a former student of the Respondent. At the time of the hearing, E. W. was a fifteen-year-old student in the 10th grade. She is also a former student of the Respondent. Both K. F. and E. W. are females. Shortly after Halloween in 1990, one day when the Respondent and K. F. were alone in a classroom, the Respondent asked K. F. whether a male student named M. was "getting action." At that time M. was a close friend of K. F. The term "getting action" was a reference to sexual intercourse. When K. F. answered the question in the negative, the Respondent repeated the question and also made statements to the effect of, "M. is lucky," that he had "heard Jamaicans are wicked in bed," and that "older guys will show you more." The Respondent also told K. F. that she made him "excited." K. F. construed these statements as being sexual in nature. As a result of these statements by the Respondent, K. F. lost the trust she had in her teacher and never went back to his class. The incident involving K. F. resulted in the Respondent being made formally aware of the School Board's policies with regard to inappropriate statements to female students containing expressed or implied sexual references and the Respondent was specifically directed to avoid sexual harassment of female students. Beginning in February of 1992, on three separate Saturdays, at approximately 11:00 a.m. on each of those days, the Respondent telephoned E. W. at her home. At that time E. W. was one of the Respondent's students. On each of those occasions the Respondent's statements to E. W. were of a personal nature and had nothing to do with the fulfillment of Respondent's duties as a teacher. On the first of the three telephone calls to E. W., the Respondent identified himself, but there was very little other conversation. Shortly after the Respondent identified himself to her, E. W. told him that she was doing something and asked if he could call back later. During the course of the second telephone call, the Respondent made statements to E. W. to the effect that he "liked" her and that he had "feelings" for her. The Respondent also told E. W. that she was "a beautiful young lady" and that she "had a nice shape." After just a few such statements, E. W. told the Respondent to call back later and she hung up. The Respondent's statements during the second telephone conversation led E. W. to believe that the Respondent had a romantic or sexual interest in her. During the course of his third Saturday telephone call to E. W., the Respondent repeated statements to the effect that he liked her, that she had a beautiful shape, and that she was a beautiful young lady. He went on to also tell her such things as that "he wanted to wrap his hands around [her] and hold [her] tight," that "he wanted to give [her] things," that her boyfriend "didn't have to know what was going on," and he also told her "not to tell her mamma [she] was talking to him on the phone." The Respondent also asked E. W. to meet him in the library near her home and to otherwise skip school so that she could be with him. The Respondent also made comments to the effect that he could do more for E. W. than her boyfriend could and that she was "a beautiful young lady, and [she] deserved beautiful things." As a result of the statements during the third Saturday telephone call, E. W. became convinced that the Respondent wanted to have a sexual relationship with her and she began taking steps to avoid the Respondent. As a student, E. W. was doing well in the Respondent's class. If she had had any personal problems that came to the attention of the Respondent, it would have been his responsibility to have referred her to one of the school counsellors. The Respondent is not certified as a counselor or as a psychologist. At the time of the telephone calls to E. W. described above, the Respondent did not have any school related business which required him to call E. W. at home, nor was he trying to reach E. W.'s mother. When the events described above were reported to school officials, the Respondent was removed from a school based employment site and reassigned to work elsewhere. The reassignment and the reasons for it became known to a number of administrators, teachers, parents, and students. The disclosure of information about the matter resulted in part from statements the Respondent made to others. The Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher has been impaired as a result of his conduct with E. W. and his prior principal would be reluctant to rehire him as a teacher. The Respondent's conduct with E. W. also constitutes misconduct in office and is a breach of his professional relationship of trust with students because it exposed a student to embarrassment and disparagement. The Respondent's conduct with E. W. also constitutes immorality.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order in this case concluding that the Respondent is guilty of immorality, misconduct in office, and gross insubordination as charged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, on the basis of those conclusions, terminating the Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January 1994. APPENDIX The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties: Findings of Fact submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3: Accepted in substance with some details modified in the interest of clarity. Paragraph 4: Rejected as irrelevant because the conduct described here was not charged in the Notice of Specific Charges. Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, the unnumbered paragraphs following 7, 8, and 9: Accepted in substance with some details modified in he interest of clarity and accuracy. Paragraphs 10 and 11: The essence of these paragraphs has been accepted, but most details have been omitted as unnecessary. Findings of Fact submitted by Respondent: By way of clarification, it is noted that the Respondent submitted two post-hearing documents in support of his positions on the issues: one titled RESPONDENT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS PROPOSED ORDER RECOMMENDING REINSTATEMENT, and the other titled RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER. The first of these two documents includes an extensive summary of the testimony, which summary has been carefully reviewed by the Hearing Officer. However, because those summaries do not constitute proposed findings of fact, they are not specifically addressed below. Here, as in the usual course of events, it would serve no useful purpose to recite at length the extent to which the summaries are or are not accurate and to do so would add to this Recommended Order voluminous subordinate and unnecessary details; details which have been carefully considered during the fact-finding in this case. Specifically addressed below are the paragraphs contained in the "Findings of Fact" portion of the RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (This disposition of the proposed findings is, in any event, irrelevant in view of the Hearing Officer's disposition of the immorality charge). Paragraph 4: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The evidence is sufficient to prove the acts alleged by a preponderance of the evidence. Paragraph 5: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as constituting a proposed conclusion of law, rather than proposed findings of fact. (On the basis of Johnson v. School Board of Dade County, 578 So.2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), the Hearing Officer has reached a conclusion different from the one proposed here.) COPIES FURNISHED: David Rothman, Esquire Thornton, Rothman and Emas, P.A. 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 James C. Bovell, Esquire 75 Valencia Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Dr. Joyce Annunziata, Director Office of Professional Standards Dade County Public Schools 1444 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33132 Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue #403 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33122 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Fred J. Miller, currently holds Florida teaching certificate number 150969, covering the areas of elementary education, business education and administration, which is valid through June 30, 1992. At all times material hereto, respondent was employed as a teacher at Miami Park Elementary School in the Dade County School District. In the summer of 1990, S.L., a minor female student, was in respondent's fourth grade class at Miami Park Elementary School. On one occasion during such term, respondent observed that S.L. was not doing her school work and was instead drawing, contrary to instructions he had given earlier in the day. In response, respondent grabbed the paper upon which S.L. was drawing, crumpled it up and directed S.L. to stand in the corner. S.L. then opened the top of her desk to put her books away, and while her head was under the desk top respondent pushed the top down striking the back of S.L.'s head. Such contact apparently hurt S.L., since she then began to cry, but there was no compelling proof offered at hearing from which any reasonable conclusion could be drawn regarding the severity of the blow or any injury sustained. S.B. a minor male student, was also in respondent's fourth grade class at Miami Park Elementary School during the summer of 1990. On two occasions during such term, respondent made physical contact with S.B. The first occasion arose when S.B. and the other students in the class were lined up to go to lunch. During such time, S.B. was apparently talking and whispering to other students and respondent grabbed him by the arm, above the elbow, yanked him out of the line, and made him walk on the side of the line. S.B. averred at hearing that such action hurt and embarrassed him; however, there was no compelling proof regarding the severity of any harm or the degree of any embarrassment beyond what one would reasonably expect from having been disciplined. The second occasion arose when S.B. was apparently not doing his school work and was instead drawing. In response, respondent tore up the drawing, grabbed S.B. by the ear, pulled him up from his seat, and made him stand in the corner. Again, there was no compelling proof regarding the degree of harm, if any, occasioned by such contact, and S.B. offered no testimony that such action on respondent's part caused him to suffer any embarrassment. A.S., a minor male student, was also in respondent's fourth grade class at Miami Park Elementary School during the summer of 1990. At hearing, A.S. offered testimony regarding two occasions on which respondent made physical contact with him. The first occasion arose when A.S. was talking when he should not have been, and respondent pulled him by the ear and made him stand in the corner. There was, however, no proof at hearing that such conduct harmed or embarrassed A.S. The second occasion arose when the respondent "jacked up" A.S.; a phrase used to describe respondent grabbing the front of A.S.'s shirt and pulling him up. No proof was offered regarding the circumstances which surrounded this incident, and no showing of harm or embarrassment to A.S. In addition to the foregoing incidents, S.B. and A.S. also offered testimony regarding other occasions during the summer of 1990 when respondent made physical contact with other students in their fourth grade class. In this regard, S.B. offered testimony that respondent "snatched . . . [E.W.] . . . out of line about two times and yanked his ear too." And, A.S. offered testimony that respondent also "jacked up" other students when they misbehaved in class. There was, however, no proof offered regarding the circumstances surrounding these incidents, and no showing that such students were harmed or embarrassed by respondent's conduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered which finds respondent guilty of having violated the provisions of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and thereby Section 231.28(1)(h), Florida Statutes, with regard to his conduct toward S.L.; which imposes the penalty recommended in paragraph 5 of the foregoing conclusions of law; and, which dismisses all other charges against respondent. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of February 1992. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 27th day of February 1992.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this proceeding are whether Respondent has committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Respondent, Seneka Rachel Arrington, holds Florida Educator's Certificate 1012300, which is valid through June 2009. Respondent was employed as a Language Arts Teacher at Matanzas High School in the Flagler County School District during the 2006/2007 year. On or about October 9, 2006, Respondent was terminated from her teaching position with the school district. On or about April 3, 2007, Respondent removed merchandise from a retail establishment without paying for it and with the intention of converting it to her own use. Respondent was arrested and charged with one count of retail theft. On or about May 29, 2007, Respondent entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the state attorney's office with regard to the charge of retail theft. Findings of Fact Based Upon Evidence Presented at Hearing Dr. Hugh Christopher Pryor is the principal at Matanzas High School (Matanzas). Dr. Pryor hired Respondent in May 2006 for a position as an English teacher, to begin work in August 2006. During her employment at Matanzas, Respondent also worked as an assistant cheerleading coach. K.M. was a freshman at Matanzas during the 2006-2007 school year. She was on the cheerleading squad and knew Respondent as one of her coaches. She was not a student in any of Respondent's classes. M.H., K.M.'s boyfriend at all times material to the allegations in this case, was a 14-year-old freshman on the Matanzas football team and a student in one of Respondent's classes. C.J. was another freshman member of the football team and a friend of M.H.'s. He was not a student in any of Respondent's classes. Respondent was well-liked by students at the high school. Although K.M. testified that she was authoritative and strict with the girls on the cheerleading squad, she got along with all of the girls and "kind of was like us." K.M. regarded her more as a friend than as a teacher. On occasion, K.M. used Respondent's cell phone. On October 6 or 7, 2006, Donald Apperson Jr., the school's resource officer, was approached by a friend at a social outing who suggested he check into whether "the black cheerleading coach" at Matanzas was having a sexual relationship with some of the football players. Respondent was the only teacher who could fit this description. On Monday, October 9, 2006, Mr. Apperson reported this information to Ken Seybold, who was an assistant principal and the athletic director at Matanzas. The principal was notified and an investigation was initiated. Respondent was notified of the allegations, which she denied, and was sent home pending completion of the investigation. The investigation consisted of speaking with several members of the football team and was completed in a single day. At the end of the day, the principal determined that Respondent's employment would be terminated because she was still under a 97- day probationary period wherein she could be terminated without cause. Respondent was notified of the decision to terminate her employment the next day, October 10, 2006. Because she was terminated within the statutory probationary period for the initial contract for employment, no cause was listed. While Dr. Pryor testified that he was generally dissatisfied with her performance, his testimony regarding why was sketchy at best, and there was nothing in her personnel file to indicate that she was counseled in any way with respect to her performance. Teachers in the Flagler County School District are generally admonished not to transport students in a teacher's personal vehicle. Transporting students is only condoned where the student's parent has been notified and permission granted, and where an administrator has been notified of the need to transport the student. This procedure is apparently covered during orientation for new employees. However, no written policy regarding the transport of students was produced or cited, and Dr. Pryor indicated that Respondent was late to the orientation session prior to the beginning of the school year. It cannot be determined from the record in this case whether Respondent was aware of this policy. Respondent transported students in her personal vehicle on two occasions. On the first occasion, Respondent took K.M. and one other cheerleader to the Volusia Mall in order to look for dresses for a dance at school. K.M. testified that her mother had given permission for K.M. to go with Respondent on this outing. Respondent and the two girls were accompanied on this outing by Respondent's mother and sister. The second outing also involved shopping for clothes for the school dance. On this trip, Respondent took K.M. as well as M.H. and C.J. in her car after football and cheerleading practice. The four went first to the St. Augustine outlet mall and then to the Volusia Mall to shop for clothes. K.M. testified that her mother had given her permission to go with Respondent, but probably would not have given permission if she had known the boys would also be going. Neither M.H. nor C.J. had permission from a parent to ride in Respondent's car. The boys testified that they both drove Respondent's car while on this trip, although the testimony is inconsistent as to who drove when, and is not credible. Neither boy had a learner's permit to drive. No evidence was presented regarding the dates of these two shopping trips, other than they both occurred prior to September 29, 2006, which was the date identified for the dance. This same date is identified as the date for a football game in Cairo, Georgia, discussed below. After the conclusion of the second shopping trip, Respondent dropped K.M. off at her home. At this point, the boys testified, and stated as part of the district's investigation, that Respondent offered to take them back to her apartment to spend the night. According to M.H. and C.J., they went with Respondent back to her apartment where they ate fast food and watched television. They claimed that Respondent told them they could sleep in her bed while she slept on the couch. At some time during the night, Respondent allegedly crawled in the bed between the two boys, ground her hips against M.H.'s crotch, and took his hand and placed it outside her shorts against her vaginal area. M.H. claimed this made him uncomfortable and he moved to the floor, while Respondent continued to sleep in the bed with C.J. In the morning, the boys claim that Respondent woke them up and drove them to school. M.H. testified that he was in Respondent's English class and that she treated him differently than the other students. He, along with other boys at school, fantasized about the "fine, black English teacher." He thought it was cool to spend extra time with her and led others to believe he was having sex with her until one of his friends questioned the propriety of doing so. He testified that he "freaked out" while on a bus going to an out-of-state football game September 29, 2006, because Respondent kept calling him on his cell phone and he did not want to talk to her. Juxtaposed against the testimony of C.J. and M.H. is the testimony of Monica Arrington and Karastan Saunders. Monica Arrington, Respondent's younger sister, testified that during the period of time Respondent was employed at Matanzas, she shared Respondent's apartment and sometimes helped her out with the cheerleaders. Monica was a freshman at Bethune Cookman College and did not like living on campus, so instead lived with her sister. Ms. Arrington did not have her own transportation and relied on her sister to drop her off at school each day. Ms. Arrington confirmed that she went with Respondent, her mother and two female students to Volusia Mall to shop for clothes on one occasion, but did not identify any other time where students were at Respondent's apartment. Karastan Saunders also testified that during the fall of 2006, he lived at Respondent's apartment in exchange for paying a portion of the utilities. Mr. Saunders testified that he spent every night at the apartment because he did not have the funds to go elsewhere, and that he did not recall anyone coming over to the apartment other than family and mutual friends. After considering all of the evidence presented, the more credible evidence is that while Respondent took students shopping on at least one occasion, the testimony of M.H. and C.J. that they spent the night at Respondent's apartment is not credible. M.H. admitted that he has lied to his dad "because everybody lies to their dad sometimes." He claimed he lied to Respondent to avoid going to Orlando with her and about having a learner's permit to drive, and that he lied to his father about where he was the night he claims to have been at Respondent's apartment. M.H. also insinuated to his friends that he had a sexual relationship with Respondent, and that all of the boys thought she was the prettiest teacher at the school. However, he did not want Respondent to be arrested and would not cooperate with authorities. Even during the course of the hearing, his testimony was inconsistent regarding whom he told about his relationship with Respondent and what he told them. Significantly, C.J.'s testimony did not corroborate the alleged inappropriate touching M.H. claimed. C.J. did not witness any inappropriate touching or M.H. and Respondent having sex. While M.H. claimed that Respondent kept calling him while on the bus to Georgia for a football game, no phone records were produced and no one else's testimony was presented to support the claim. K.M. admitted that M.H. has lied to her on occasion and that he has had some issues with drugs and alcohol.1/ C.J.'s testimony is also not very credible. Like M.H., C.J. lied to his father about his whereabouts on the night in question. While he testified that he sometimes drove his dad's car to school without permission, his father testified that he only has one car and uses it every day to get to work. While M.H. claimed C.J. told him that Respondent and C.J. had sex the night they were allegedly at the apartment, C.J. denied it. He also stated that he was suspended for five days for bringing a laser to school during the timeframe related to this case, a suspension that his father knew nothing about. Likewise, C.J.'s claim that he went with Respondent on some unspecified weekend to Orlando while she got her cheerleading certification is not credible. By contrast, both Monica Arrington and Karastan Saunders were candid, consistent, calm and forthright while testifying. While both C.J. and M.H. were not where they were supposed to be on the night in question, they were not at Respondent's apartment. After Respondent was terminated from her employment, the allegations that she engaged in an appropriate relationship with a student were reported by local media. The publicity was extensive. Because the allegations involved alleged sexual conduct with a minor that would have occurred in Volusia County as opposed to Flagler County, the matter was referred to authorities in Volusia County. However, no criminal charges were ever brought against Respondent because neither M.H. nor his father wished to cooperate with authorities.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding that Respondent violated Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count 1, and dismissing Counts 2-7 of the Amended Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the Commission reprimand Respondent, impose a $500 fine and place her on one year of probation in the event that she works as a teacher in a public school setting. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 2009.
