The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists to discipline Respondent based on allegations that she used inappropriate language when talking to students in violation of the Code of Ethics and/or the Principles of Professional Conduct, and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is responsible for hiring, firing, and overseeing all employees for public schools within Duval County. In addition to the regular K-12 classes, the School Board has created the Bridge for Success program. The Bridge operates at eight sites within the Duval County school system. One of those sites is Ribault High School (“Ribault”). The Bridge is a new program, created to assist students who have fallen behind their chronologically-aged peers due to academic or other problems. The program is an innovative approach aimed at helping students who have fallen behind catch up with their peers and graduate from high school at about the same time as others of their same age. Many of the students in the Bridge program have behavioral issues as well as academic struggles. They can be a difficult group of students to teach. The goal of the Bridge program is “to promote and graduate” those students, to improve their attendance, and to teach them how to function as students. At its inception, there were 864 students in the program, distributed among the eight campuses. There were 108 students assigned to Ribault. By the end of the first school year, only 75 to 80 students remained in the program at Ribault. Some students had dropped out of school, some had moved to a different school, and it was difficult midway through the school year to replace those who had left. At all times relevant hereto, Quiller was a math teacher in the Bridge program at the Ribault location. She was hired for that position just prior to the 2013-2014 school year, the final year of the Bridge program. She had been teaching in the Duval County school system as a mathematics teacher for 21 years. Quiller is a graduate of Ribault and has very strong ties to the school. Quiller was chosen as a teacher for the Bridge program for many reasons: she was a graduate of Ribault and held a special place in her heart for the school and its students; she was certified in grades six through 12 for math, a less than common certification; she had a master’s degree in Guidance, giving her a better background and training for facing the Bridge students; she had been previously assigned to an alternative school for behavioral problem students; and, she demonstrated the kind of caring personality necessary for the challenges of teaching such students. When Quiller was hired, she mistakenly thought her position would be in the area of guidance. However, she was hired to teach math, partly in recognition of her status as a certified teacher in that area. She was hired to teach several math classes in the Bridge program, including Algebra I and II, Math for College, and Geometry. At the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year, the Bridge was not entirely ready for implementation at Ribault. There was a shortage of books and other materials and the program had not yet filled all the required staff positions. The start- up of the program was a challenge for both the teachers and school administrators. Also, the students in the Bridge program were not always cooperative or interested in school. No one denies that it was a difficult situation for all involved. Despite the lack of materials and adequate staff, Quiller’s classes began relatively well. She was a very strict teacher, demanding participation by all students regardless of their level of interest. She expected and required each student to be fully prepared when they entered the classroom. For example, the students were expected to have pen/pencil and paper, to have their homework completed, and to be ready for class. She was, however, very frustrated at times because many of the students seemed to ignore the fact that they were being given a second chance. They continued to demonstrate the kind of behavior that caused them to fall behind in the first place. As a result of their behaviors, many of the students in her classes were failing. Most of the students who testified at final hearing were in agreement that the classroom was fairly unruly, but agreed that Quiller was a stern disciplinarian and reacted promptly to quell any disruptions. Conversely, one student said the class was always quiet and that Quiller would make anyone making noise leave the classroom. Principal Davis began getting some complaints about Quiller beginning in September 2013, a month or so after commencement of the school year. The first complaints were relayed to her from assistant principal Micheau. During the first pep rally of the year (in late August), Micheau had been sitting with a group of students who were being disciplined and therefore, could not attend the rally. The students brought up unsolicited complaints about Quiller, saying that Quiller had used profanity towards her students. Micheau relayed these allegations to Principal Davis and Davis instructed Micheau to meet with Quiller and remind her that such language was not acceptable. Micheau met with Quiller and attempted to explain-- without being accusatory--that it was improper to use such language in front of students. Quiller denied ever having used inappropriate language with students; Micheau took Quiller at her word at that time. Sometime later, Micheau heard loud talking emanating from Quiller’s classroom area. When she investigated, she saw Quiller standing in the hallway next to her room. She was yelling loudly at a student and was obviously very upset. Micheau attempted to call her over and calm her down, calling out her name over and over, “Ms. Quiller. Ms. Quiller. Ms. Quiller.” Quiller yelled at Micheau to reprimand the student rather than her, saying, “You [Micheau] need to talk to these damn kids!” Micheau, shocked at Quiller’s language and her anger, removed the student from the classroom, and went back to her office. A few weeks later, Micheau was in her office adjacent to Quiller’s classroom. She and Rita Franklin, who was at the school that day as a School Improvement Coach, heard a loud commotion outside the office and went to investigate. When they came out of the office, they saw the school security guard already moving toward the sounds emanating from Quiller’s classroom. Upon arrival at the classroom, Micheau and Franklin heard Quiller talking very loudly to her students. She threatened to throw one student’s test paper into the trash. She told the students that the work they were being asked to do was third-grade work and they still could not get it right. She referred to the students as “hooligans” or “hoodlums.” When Quiller saw Micheau and Franklin outside her door, she reduced the volume and changed the content of her comments to the students. Quiller’s demeanor and actions were inconsistent with professional behavior by a teacher. Quiller denies making any of the alleged statements, except for the comment about some of the work being third-grade level. According to Quiller, that comment was made about some supplemental work she had assigned to an algebra project; she told the students it was third-grade work so they should not be intimidated by it. As to the comments about being flunkies, Quiller maintains that all she said was that the boys were flunking her class, although that would not have been an appropriate thing to say in front of other students. While Quiller seems to be generally honest and forthright, the most credible evidence is that she made remarks to the students along the lines of what Franklin and Micheau reported. Crimley, the security guard who was also present during one of the outbursts, heard Quiller say something about “getting this kid out of my damn class.” Crimley usually went into Quiller’s classroom three-to-five times a day but never heard her curse at students during those visits. Crimley attempted to testify at final hearing that some students had recanted their accusations against Quiller because “it had gone too far” and they did not want Quiller to be sanctioned. That testimony was not allowed due to its hearsay nature, but it is also inconsistent with the testimony of the students who testified at final hearing. On another occasion, Quiller was talking loudly to a student named Wayne and one or two other male students. The boys were doing some sort of vulgar dance and were attempting to enter the classroom at about the time the tardy bell was ringing. Quiller said something to the effect of “you are a bunch of flunkies and you need my class” and “your dirty ass can’t come into my class.” Both Micheau and another teacher, Ms. Crowden- Richardson, heard those comments. By the end of the first semester, i.e., about the time of the winter break from school, Principal Davis began getting additional complaints from students and their parents about Quiller. T.C., who was likely about to fail Quiller’s class, remembers hearing Quiller saying such things as “you kids can’t remember [sh--],” and “[N---s] always coming into my class and sleeping,” and she said students were coming into her class when high on drugs. C.F., who had a D and C on his first two grade reports from Quiller's class, heard Quiller say, “Y’all don’t do [sh--],” and also that students had been “smoking weed.” A.P., a D and F student in Quiller’s class, reported that Quiller told the class to “shut the [f---] up,” told kids to get their “ass” out of the classroom, and referred to students as “[N---s].” A.P. said these things were not yelled in anger, but in a normal tone of voice. F.H., an admittedly problem student, remembers Quiller telling a student to “Sit your ass down and come to class on time.” She also heard Quiller say, “[N---], please,” or some such comment. None of the aforementioned students’ testimony was individually very persuasive. Each of the students was struggling in class and had received their poor grades just prior to the time of the comments they reported hearing. It is certainly possible they had an axe to grind with Quiller. One student (D.R.) who testified that he never heard Quiller make such comments was passing the class, had regular attendance, and generally commended Quiller for being strict and stern with problem students. Nonetheless, the students’ description of Quiller’s comments and behavior was fairly consistent. The things they reported Quiller saying were very similar to contemporaneously written statements from them and other students. The alleged remarks were similar in nature to one another but not exactly the same, so the comments did not seem rehearsed or planned. The students were very direct and unwavering when testifying at final hearing. The greater weight of the evidence supports the contention that Quiller used inappropriate language in her classroom. In the letter notifying Quiller of her termination from employment, it is alleged that Quiller made the following inappropriate communications: “Kids do not do [sh--],” “You all should know this [sh--] already,” “Shut the [f---] up,” “Get out of my [f---ing] class,” “You do not do your [f---ing] work,” “You little [N---s],” and “You are all some lazy [N---s] for coming to class late.” There was not enough credible testimony to support all of the allegations that each of those things was said to students or in the presence of students. There was, however, sufficient evidence to support that some of those statements had likely been made. The contemporaneous written statements by students and staff support the verbal recollections made at final hearing, at least in part. While the students were making disparaging comments about Quiller, she was in turn making complaints to school administration concerning the program. She lamented the lack of materials and raised concerns about her own safety in the classroom. More than once, Quiller walked out of her classroom as she became too frustrated to teach. It was undoubtedly a very difficult situation for Quiller and other teachers. All in all, the Bridge program had elements of success as well as some problems. Some of the students were able to graduate with their classmates, some were able to catch up to those in their age cohorts, and some came to the realization that school simply would not be appropriate for them. The program gave students a good chance to make up for past failures. But it was not a panacea and did not work for everyone. Quiller asked that certain students be removed from her classes because she believed they were poisoning the other students. Some were removed, some were not. Quiller gave far more D's and F's to her students than other teachers in the program. Many of her students began to receive passing grades after Quiller was replaced, however. Quiller maintains that the low grades were given because the students earned them, i.e., they were not issued as punishment or retribution for bad behavior. But the students’ subsequent success under a different teacher suggests otherwise. Quiller appeared unemotional and stoic when discussing the allegations against her. Some of her responses to questions at final hearing seemed to be aimed at avoiding the allegations rather than denying them. She had undeniably been placed in a very trying and vexatious situation and tried to make the best of it, but she very well may have crossed the line at times with her words and behavior. It is impossible to place oneself in the environment in which Quiller was working, but it is easy to see that the classroom problems she faced could drive a person to outbursts on occasion. As opined by Davis and Micheau, there is never a valid reason to curse at students, but there are times when doing so could be more understandable. Quiller had been reprimanded in the past for using profanity in the presence of students. She received discipline on two separate occasions for her language. While she denied the allegations, there is some support for the premise that Quiller, on occasion, used profanity around or directly to her students. Even those who support her recognized that Quiller would sometimes use profanity, albeit fairly innocuous and restrained in nature. There is a strong suggestion in the testimony that Quiller was using such language in the hopes it would resonate with these students, described as the worst of the worst. However, there is no acceptable rationale for using such language around students. Quiller was placed in an almost untenable situation with the students assigned to her classes. They were unruly and generally well behind academically. She did not have all the tools needed to work with the students and her classes were too large. Nonetheless, she was expected to maintain her composure and professionalism. While that is easy to say without “walking a mile in her shoes,” it is still a prerequisite for teaching that the teacher act professionally and not do anything to disparage the students. Quiller was by all accounts a good teacher prior to her involvement in the Bridge for Success program. She received a most difficult teaching certification and had favorable annual reviews for most of her time as a teacher. She was sought and hired as a teacher at Ribault on the basis of her distinguished career and training. She is not a bad person or a bad teacher. However, she succumbed to a harsh situation and failed to maintain her decorum. Quiller’s prior disciplinary history included the following: December 2001--A written reprimand (Step II discipline) for using profanity in the presence of students; April 2013, 11 years later--A verbal reprimand (Step I) for making an inappropriate comment to a student; October 2013--A written reprimand (Step II) for using profanity and derogatory language in the presence of students; and February 26, 2014--The notice of termination at issue in the present case (Step IV). The School Board began its recent discipline of Quiller with a Step I verbal reprimand followed by a Step II written reprimand. Due to the nature of Quiller’s conduct, the School Board did not believe it had to follow the Step II discipline with Step III discipline, i.e., suspension without pay. Rather, it went directly to the most severe and extreme level of discipline, Step IV--Termination of employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Duval County School Board, rescinding its termination of the employment of Joyce Quiller and, instead, suspending her for a period of time without pay and reassigning her to a less-challenging position. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of July, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 16th day of July, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Wendy Byndloss, Esquire Assistant General Counsel City of Jacksonville Office of the General Counsel 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Stephanie M. Schaap, Esquire Duval Teachers United 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Dr. Nikolai P. Vitti, Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Pam Stewart, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Respondent, George L. Johnson (Johnson), has been continuously employed as a teacher by Petitioner, School Board of Dade County (School Board), since 1982. 1/ The 1982-83 School Year In August 1982, Johnson was employed by the School Board as an occupational specialist, and assigned to Jan Mann Opportunity School. During the course of that employment, two events transpired which foreshadowed Johnson's conduct during the 1985-86 school year, and which precipitated this disciplinary proceeding. The first event occurred on March 9, 1983, when Johnson struck Pierre Sylla, an 8th grade student. On that date, Pierre had been disruptive in class, and had referred to Johnson by the nickname of "Flash". Pierre's conduct apparently offended Johnson's sense of decorum since he excused the class, called Pierre into a smaller room and, upon stating "this is why they call me Flash", punched Pierre in the left eye. The second event occurred on April 27, 1983, when Johnson struck Derrick Corner, a 14 year old student. On that date, Johnson was on leave, but reported to the school to pass out lunch cards. When Derrick approached Johnson to retrieve his card, he smelled alcohol on Johnson's breath and announced "I smell some Bacardi" rum. At that time, Johnson backhanded Derrick across the face, knocking him over a chair to the floor. On July 13, 1983, a conference was held between the School Board and Johnson to discuss the battery committed upon Pierre Sylla and Derrick Corner, as well as any disciplinary action to be taken against Johnson. The School Board concluded that Johnson would be referred to the employee assistance program, transferred to a regular school setting, and that no further disciplinary action would be taken. Johnson was, however, directed to comply with School Board rules for handling disruptive student behavior, and to discontinue the use of his hand in disciplining students. 2/ Notwithstanding Johnson's battery upon Pierre Sylla and Derrick Corner, Johnson's annual evaluation for the 1982-83 school year rated his performance acceptable in all categories, and recommended him for continued employment. The annual evaluation did note, however, that: Mr. Johnson's techniques for handling disciplinary problems need to be improved. Otherwise, he has potential for becoming a good teacher. The 1983-84 and 1984-85 School Years During the 1983-84 school year, Johnson was employed by the School Board as a physical education teacher at McMillan Junior High School. Johnson's annual evaluation for the 1983-84 school year rated his performance acceptable in all categories, and recommended his continued employment. The only negative remark contained on his evaluation was: Although your overall performance during the past year has been acceptable, I would recommend that you carefully self-evaluate your performance with regard to your professional responsibilities, i.e., punctuality. During the 1984-55 school year, Johnson was employed by the School Board as a physical education teacher at Riverside Elementary School and Douglas Elementary School. Johnson's annual evaluation for the 1984-85 school year rated his performance acceptable in all categories, and recommended his continued employment. The only negative remark on his evaluation was: You need to be on time every day and the same applies to lesson plans and reports. Adherence to school board policies is of the utmost importance -- also getting along with your peers. The 1985-86 School Year For the 1985-86 school year, Johnson was employed under a continuing contract with the School Board, and assigned to Silver Bluff Elementary School as a physical education teacher. The proof establishes that during the course of that school year Johnson reacted violently toward students for minor breaches of discipline, and that he failed to comply with lawful orders to refrain from the use of physical force to discipline students. That Johnson was fully cognizant of Silver Bluff's policy against the use of physical force is not disputed. At the school's first faculty meeting of August 28, 1985, Johnson was specifically advised that teachers were not to hit or paddle a child, and that they were not authorized to inflict corporal punishment. On September 16, 1985, following a complaint from a mother that Johnson had grabbed and shaken her son, the principal, Margarita Alemany, again cautioned Johnson that she did not approve of physical discipline, and that he was not to touch his students in any way. Notwithstanding the lawful directives of his principal, the evidence establishes that Johnson routinely relied upon physical and verbal abuse to discipline students for minor transgressions. From late September 1985 to December 1985, the proof establishes that Johnson committed the following abuses toward fourth grade students in his charge: Estany Carballo, who should have been standing in line, was playing in a mud puddle with a toy car. Johnson approached Estany from behind, grabbed his neck, and forced his head downward toward the water. Johnson pulled Estany up by the neck, admonished him "not to do that again", and returned Estany to his place in line. The force exerted by Johnson upon Estany was sufficient to traumatize his neck, inflict pain and limitation of movement, and require the treatment of a physician. Noah Verner and Aramis Hernandez were standing out of line and talking. Johnson grabbed each by the hair with a clenched fist, banged their heads together, and ordered them back into line. Robert Diaz, while standing in line, was talking to a girl behind him. Johnson approached Robert from behind, grabbed him by the hair and, exerting enough force to almost lift him from the ground, stated "who do you think you are asshole?" James Worthington was leaning against a fence, an apparent violation of a Johnson directive. Johnson grabbed his head between his hands and, shaking the child violently enough to induce pain, admonished James not to lean on the fence. Roberto Sanchez was attempting to perform an exercise with the rest of the class, but was unsuccessful. Johnson noted Roberto's failing to the class and opined vocally that if a boy couldn't do an exercise when he was in school, the whole class would beat the boy up. Johnson also embarrassed Roberto by referring to him as "fatso" in the presence of the class. While not exhaustive of the litany of incidents established at the final hearing in this case, the events related in paragraph 11, supra, establish Johnson's failure to abide by lawful directives of his superior, as well as a penchant toward a violent behavior which was harmful to the health and safety of his students. Due to the notoriety of his conduct, Johnson's service in the community, as well as his effectiveness in the school system, was severely impaired. In addition to its claims of insubordination and misconduct in office, the School Board also seeks to discipline Johnson under a claim of incompetence. The predicate for the School Board's charge are the results of three formal observations of Johnson's performance at Silver Bluff Elementary School between October 17, 1985 and January 10, 1986. On October 17, 1985, Ms. Catherine Day, assistant principal of Silver Bluff Elementary School, conducted a formal observation of Johnson's 1:30 p.m. - 2:00 p.m., second grade physical education class. It is worthy of note that the impetus for the October 17, 1985, observation was Johnson's request that the 1:30 - 2:00 p.m. class be observed. That class was a double class, over 60 students, and unwieldy. Ms. Day found that the session taught by Johnson did not comport with the mandatory objectives or activities contained in his lesson plan, that he did not explain to the students the objectives or activities for that day, that he provided no feedback to the students regarding their performance that day, that he allowed students to stand idle for 10 minutes and dismissed them 10 minutes early, and that his class record book contained no grades. Accordingly, Ms. Day rated Johnson's performance as unacceptable in the categories of (1) preparation and planning, (2) knowledge of subject matter, (3) classroom management, (4) techniques of instruction and (5) assessment techniques. Ms. Day reviewed the results of her observation with Johnson, provided Johnson with a prescription for improvement, agreed to provide Johnson with an assistant for the 1:30 - 2:00 p.m. class, and established a deadline of November 1, 1985, to correct the deficiencies. On November 20, 1985, the principal, Ms. Alemany, conducted a formal observation of Johnson's 10:15 a.m. second grade class and 10:45 a.m. sixth grade class. Ms. Alemany found, inter alia, that the lesson plan for Johnson's sixth grade class contained no objectives, that he failed to provide feedback or suggestions to improve performance, and that after 9 weeks his grade book for the sixth grade class failed to indicate the activity graded and for the second grade class failed to show any grades -- the grade book should have reflected one grade per week for a designated activity. Accordingly, Ms. Alemany, as did Ms. Day, rated Johnson's performance as unacceptable in categories (1) preparation and planning, (4) techniques of instruction, and (5) assessment techniques. On January 10, 1986, Ms. Alemany conducted the final observation of Johnson's performance. While Johnson's overall performance had improved, he was still rated unacceptable in categories (1) preparation and planning, since he failed to have lesson plans available, (4) techniques of instruction, since he failed to provide feedback or suggestions to improve performance, and (5) assessment techniques, since he failed to have any grades for the second, third, fifth or sixth grade classes. Ms. Alemany reviewed the results of her observation with Johnson, provided a prescription for improvement, and established a deadline of January 16, 1986, to correct the deficiencies. On January 17, 1986, a conference-for-the-record was held between Ms. Alemany and Johnson. At that time, Johnson's performance assessments were reviewed and he was advised: It should be noted for the record that you were advised that noted deficiencies must be remedied by your next observation which (sic) approximate date is 1-24-86. Failure to do so ... will have an adverse impact upon your employment. We will continue assisting you as we have in the past. Johnson was not, however, to be accorded any further observations. As events transpired, January 17, 1986, was his last day of employment at Silver Bluff Elementary School; thereafter, he was assigned to the South Central Area office pending School Board action. On February 19, 1986, the School Board suspended Johnson and initiated these dismissal proceedings. Johnson resists the School Board's suspension and proposed dismissal for incompetency on several grounds. First, he avers that Ms. Alemany harbored some animosity toward him because of his service as a United Teachers of Dade union representative. The proof fails to support such a finding. Second, Johnson avers that his request for an independent observation following Ms. Alemany's observation of November 20, 1985, should have been granted. While it may have been better practice to grant such a request, the School Board was bound to no such requirement. Finally, Johnson avers that the School Board's failure to accord him an independent observation following two unacceptable "summative observations" requires that his suspension and proposed dismissal for incompetence not be sustained. 3/ Johnson's final assertion is also without merit. While the proof established that the School Board routinely employed an independent observation following two unacceptable summatives before it recommended dismissal for incompetence, Johnson's removal from the classroom prevented further observation. Where, as here, the School Board removes a teacher from the classroom for cause, i.e.: battery upon a student, it is not thereby barred from seeking the suspension and dismissal of a teacher for incompetence even though an independent observation was not performed. While the School Board is not precluded from maintaining its charge of incompetence, it has failed to demonstrate that Johnson's unsatisfactory performance, observed on three occasions, deprived the students in his charge of a minimal educational experience, or that such performance failed to comply with the rules of the School Board or the terms of the parties' contract. Johnson's deficiencies, absent such proof do not demonstrate incompetence by reason of inefficiency. Further, the physical and verbal abuses Johnson was shown to have visited upon students, while improper, do not establish a lack of emotional stability. Therefore, the School Board also failed to demonstrate that Johnson was incompetent by reason of incapacity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension of Respondent, George L. Johnson, from his employment, and dismissing Respondent, George L. Johnson, from his employment with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 30th day of December, 1986.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner has cause as set forth in the notice of specific charges to order that the Respondent's professional services contract not be renewed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Petitioner was a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools with the school district of Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Constitution of the State of Florida, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. North County Elementary School (North County) and Myrtle Grove Elementary School (Myrtle Grove) are public schools in Dade County, Florida. Respondent graduated from North Eastern Illinois University in 1978. She began her employment with the Petitioner at North County at the beginning of the 1987/88 school year. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a classroom teacher pursuant to a professional services contract. Teachers employed by the Petitioner are evaluated pursuant to the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). This system provides for periodic observations of a teacher's performance that is followed by an evaluation of that performance. The evaluator records what he or she considers to be observed deficiencies in the teacher's performance and provides a plan, referred to as a prescription, for performance improvement. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the TADS method was used to evaluate the Respondent's performance. Respondent taught at North County during the 1987/88 school year. The principal of North County for that school year was Gertrude Pope. Ms. Pope evaluated Respondent's performance based on the TADS method and rated her overall performance as acceptable. Ms. Pope testified that Respondent had difficulty in classroom management during the 1987/88 school year, and that she tried to help Respondent improve her classroom management by giving her materials, having her observe other teachers who were good in classroom management, and by having her view a videotape on assertive discipline. Ms. Pope wanted Respondent to develop and use in her classroom an assertive discipline plan, which consists of strategies to maintain discipline in the classroom and specifies behavioral standards and the consequences for failing to adhere to those standards. Respondent's TADS assessment for the 1988/89 school year was acceptable. In August 1989, Dr. Ruthann Marleaux became the principal at North County, a position she retained at the time of the formal hearing. On October 27, 1989, Respondent's left knee and left instep were injured at school when a child accidentally stepped on her foot. After that injury, Respondent had a significant number of absences from the classroom caused by pain and the buildup of fluid in her left knee. In February, 1990, Respondent underwent surgery to repair the damage to her knee and was placed on worker's compensation leave. Following that injury, Respondent used a cane or crutches to walk. On May 11, 1990, Respondent returned to her teaching duties at North County. This return to work was approved by the Petitioner's worker's compensation department. Following a conference with the Respondent, Dr. Marleaux, and a coordinator of the worker's compensation department, it was agreed that certain modifications would be made to accommodate Respondent's knee problem. Dr. Marleaux arranged for someone to escort the children in Respondent's class back to the classroom after lunch and after physical education. An aide was assigned to assist Respondent during the first week of her return to work. Respondent's TADS assessment for the 1989/90 school year was acceptable. Following several days of absences towards the beginning of the 1990/91 school year, Dr. Marleaux notified Respondent by memorandum dated October 10, 1990, that her absences were adversely impacting the educational environment and the progress of the children assigned to her class. The memorandum contained the following directives pertaining to future absences: Intent to be absent must be communicated directly to me or in my absence, Mr. Peter Harden, assistant principal. This is in accordance with procedures delineated in the site book. Absences for illness must be documented by your treating physician and a written medical note stating an unconditional medical release to return to full duties presented to me upon your return to the site. Site procedures for provision of lesson plans and materials for substitute teacher when absent must be adhered to in the event of any absence from the site. If it is determined that future absences are imminent, leave must be requested and procedures for Board approved leave implemented. There are 180 days in a school year. During the 1990/91 school year, Respondent was absent a total of 101 days. Despite those absences, Respondent's TADS assessment for the 1990/91 school year was acceptable. Respondent underwent surgery again on her left knee in March, 1992. After another worker's compensation leave, Respondent was assigned a teaching position at Myrtle Grove under the supervision of Cecil Daniels, the school principal. Petitioner was advised that, as of June 4, 1992, the following restrictions were placed on Respondent's activities: No weight bearing for more than 20 minutes at one time on the left knee. No squatting. No kneeling. No climbing. No lifting more than 25 pounds at one time. The duties assigned to Respondent were within the medical restrictions delineated by Respondent's doctor. On June 11, 1992, Respondent refused to assume her assigned duties at Myrtle Grove. Respondent asserted that she was entitled to light duty employment and that she had been assigned too many children. As a result of Respondent's refusal, Mr. Daniels dismissed her for the day and employed a substitute teacher for the day. On June 12, 1992, Mr. Daniels held a conference-for-the-record with Respondent concerning this incident. There was no evidence as to Respondent's TADS assessment for the 1991/92 school year. 1992/93 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent was again assigned to Myrtle Grove for the beginning of the 1992/93 school year. Shortly after school began, Mr. Daniels discovered that Respondent had failed to follow school procedures at the end of the 1991/92 school year pertaining to the records that are kept for students. Mr. Daniels had a conference for the record with Respondent on September 30, 1992, at which he discussed this deficiency with her and also discussed with her two concerns he had about her class management. One concern was the result of a complaint he had received from a parent who reported that Respondent had not attended to an injury to a student. The second concern was that there had been several fights between students in her class. On or about October 8, 1992, Respondent was transferred from Myrtle Grove back to North County. Mr. Daniels had asked the district office to make this transfer. By memorandum dated October 16, 1992, Dr. Marleaux advised Respondent in writing that the directives pertaining to absences from the work site as set forth in her memorandum dated October 10, 1990, were still in effect. Petitioner maintains an employee assistance program (EAP) as a resource for employees who have personal or family problems that may be impacting an employee's job performance. On October 23, 1992, Dr. Marleaux referred Respondent to the EAP because of marked changes in Respondent's mood. Respondent had been seen crying in the classroom and in the teacher's lounge. She was visibly upset and physically shaking. Respondent testified that she was seen by a mental health professional as a result of that referral, but there was no evidence that Respondent benefited by the referral. Respondent testified that she did not think she needed help at the time the referral was made. Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Marleaux on October 26, 1992. There was no evidence that the timing of this observation, in light of Respondent's behavior that resulted in the EAP referral, was inappropriate. Dr. Marleaux's observation was between 11:30 a.m. and 12:20 p.m. while Respondent was teaching her third grade class mathematics. Following her observation, Dr. Marleaux prepared an observation report that rated Respondent's performance as unacceptable in the category of classroom management. Respondent began the instructional activities of the class 20 minutes late and ended the instruction 15 minutes early. There were a number of off-task students to whom Respondent did not respond either verbally or non-verbally. Although Respondent had classroom rules, it was Dr. Marleaux's observation that the behavioral expectations had not been made clear to the students and that Respondent was not implementing her assertive discipline plan. There was a contention that Dr. Marleaux was overly critical in her observations of Respondent. Based on the evidence presented, including the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Dr. Marleaux fairly and accurately evaluated Respondent's performance on October 26, 1992. Dr. Marleaux's observation report included a prescription to remediate Respondent's unsatisfactory performance. This prescription consisted of a number of assignments that Respondent was to complete by a date certain. She was to observe a teacher with a successful assertive discipline plan, develop five strategies used by that teacher to improve classroom management, and review her assertive discipline plan with the assistant principal. She was also to complete activities in the TADS Prescription Manual and to develop lesson plans which required full periods of instruction. The respective deadlines for completing these assignments were between November 6 and November 16, 1992. These prescribed assignments are found to be reasonable and formulated to assist Respondent to improve her job performance. Peter Harden was assistant principal at North County during the 1992/93 school year. Mr. Harden formally observed Respondent in the classroom on November 24, 1992. His observation was between 1:30 p.m. and 2:11 p.m. while Respondent was teaching her third grade class mathematics. Following his observation, Mr. Harden prepared an observation report that rated Respondent's performance in classroom management as unacceptable. Mr. Harden observations were similar to those of Dr. Marleaux during her observation the previous month. Mr. Harden observed that off-task students were neither verbally nor non- verbally redirected. Respondent began the instructional activities 20 minutes late and ended the lesson 19 minutes early. Respondent did not make behavioral expectations clear to the students. The students did not appear to be aware of the class rules and regulations. The observation report contained prescribed assignments that Mr. Harden believed would help Respondent improve her deficiencies in classroom management. A deadline of December 14, 1992, was set for Respondent to complete these assignments. Based on the evidence presented, including the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Mr. Harden fairly and accurately evaluated Respondent's performance on November 24, 1992. It is further found that the prescribed assignments were reasonable and formulated to assist Respondent improve her job performance. On December 14, 1992, a midyear conference-for-the-record was conducted by Dr. Marleaux with the Respondent and her union representative in attendance. Respondent's TADS evaluations following the formal observations by Dr. Marleaux in October, 1992, and by Mr. Harden in November, 1992, were discussed. Respondent had not completed her prescribed assignments at the time of this conference because she had been ill. Dr. Marleaux extended the deadlines for completing the remaining assignments. Respondent was given notice that if she ended the 1992/93 school year in a prescriptive status, there could be possible employment consequences such as a return to annual contract status or termination of employment. During the conference, Respondent asked permission to observe a handicapped teacher. In response to that request, Dr. Marleaux arranged for Respondent to observe a teacher at Kelsey Pharr Elementary School who had to use crutches to walk. Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Marleaux on January 13, 1993, between 12:55 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. while Respondent was teaching her third grade class mathematics. Following her observation, Dr. Marleaux prepared an observation report that rated Respondent's performance in the following areas as being unacceptable: preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as unacceptable in preparation and planning based on her observation that Respondent did not follow at least half of her lesson plan as required by TADS. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as unacceptable in classroom management based on her observation that out of a one hour lesson plan, Respondent taught for only 20 minutes. Dr. Marleaux observed that there was a lot of wasted class time. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as unacceptable in techniques of instruction based on her observation that Respondent's teaching methods confused the students, she did not use the media resources skillfully, and she did not provide feedback to the students about their performance deficiencies. Respondent did not make any adjustment in her instruction, despite the confusion of the students. The observation report prepared by Dr. Marleaux following the observation in January 1993, contained prescribed assignments that she believed would help Respondent improve the deficiencies noted in her report. She was to write detailed lesson plans and turn them in to the principal weekly. She was to prepare all activities prior to teaching the lesson. She was to utilize the instructional activities recommended by the textbook. She was to follow the instructional methods outlined in the teacher's edition of the textbook. She was to observe a master teacher. These assignments were to be completed by January 29, 1993. Dr. Marleaux fairly and accurately evaluated Respondent's performance on January 13, 1993. The assignments prescribed were reasonable and formulated to assist Respondent improve her job performance. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Norma Bossard was Petitioner's Executive Director for Foreign Language Arts and Reading and an experienced TADS evaluator. Ms. Bossard and Dr. Marleaux simultaneously observed Respondent in her classroom on February 19, 1993, and thereafter independently evaluated her performance. This review, referred to as an External Review, was during a language arts lesson between 10:45 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. Both administrators rated Respondent unacceptable in the following categories: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Respondent was rated as unacceptable in preparation and planning because she did not follow her lesson plan. Respondent was rated as unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she did not develop ideas and information in a meaningful and orderly manner and because there was a lot of wasted class time. Respondent was rated as unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not provide feedback to the students about their performance deficiencies and strengths. Out of 23 students, only two students completed the assignment. Respondent was oblivious that students were cheating. Respondent was rated as unacceptable in assessment techniques because she did not examine work completed by students and she did not monitor whether students were learning. Respondent was prescribed activities in an effort to aid her in remediating her unsatisfactory performance. She was given a prescribed lesson format for language arts. She was to observe a seasoned teacher. She was given a series of books called "Teaching and Learning the Language Arts". Based on the evidence presented, including the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Dr. Marleaux and Ms. Bossard fairly and accurately evaluated Respondent's performance during their external review on February 19, 1993. It is further found that the prescribed assignments were reasonable and formulated to assist Respondent improve her job performance. On March 29, 1993, the Superintendent of Schools notified Respondent in writing that her performance during the 1992/93 school year had been unacceptable in the following categories: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. She was advised that the failure to correct these performance deficiencies prior to April 13, 1994, could result in the termination of her employment at the close of the 1993/94 school year. In the spring of 1993, Respondent entered Charter Hospital, a psychiatric facility, for deep depression and anxiety. She was absent for the remainder of the school year since she was physically and mentally unable to work. On April 2, 1993, Dr. Marleaux again notified Respondent that her absences were adversely affecting the educational environment and academic progress of her students. Respondent was again directed to communicate her absences to the principal or assistant principal, to document her absences by a medical note from her treating physician, to provide a medical release to return to full duties, to provide lesson plans for the substitute teacher when she is absent, and to take leave when future absences appeared imminent. During the 1992/93 school year, Respondent was absent 78-1/2 days. On May 18, 1993, Respondent was notified of her unacceptable annual evaluation by memoranda in lieu of a conference-for-the-record because she was on leave. Respondent's overall evaluation for the 1992/93 school year was unacceptable. She was rated unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Because she had failed to complete the assignments that had been assigned to her in an effort to correct the deficiencies in her unacceptable performance, Respondent's salary level was frozen at the end of the 1992/93 school year so that she did not receive any raise for the 1993/94 school year. 1993/94 School Year Respondent was cleared through the Office of Professional Standards to return to work at North County on August 25, 1993. The medical restrictions delineated by her doctor were implemented. In an effort to reduce the amount of walking she would have to do, Respondent was given a parking space close to the entrance to her classroom and she was given assistance in taking her students to and from lunch, to the library, and to the physical education field. Respondent was also given the same directives pertaining to absences that had been given to her on previous occasions, including in Dr. Marleaux's memorandum of October 10, 1990. Respondent requested permission to observe a teacher in a wheelchair. This request was denied because Respondent's doctor had prohibited Respondent from being in a wheelchair. The doctor preferred that she walk, with crutches if necessary, to reduce muscle atrophy. Beginning September 8, 1993, Respondent was absent again for several weeks. On September 22, 1993, Dr. Marleaux notified Respondent that the deadline for her to complete her prescribed assignments would be extended until October 8, 1993. This extension benefited Respondent since it gave her more time to remediate her deficiencies. In October, 1993, Respondent requested, through her treating physician, that she be transferred to another school, that she be given vocational rehabilitation, or that she be given a leave of absence. These requests were denied. Although Respondent argued that the denial of these requests was unreasonable, the evidence in this proceeding failed to establish that contention. Petitioner made arrangements for Respondent to have a full- time classroom aide for the remainder of the year. After a full-time aide was assigned for Respondent, Dr. Marleaux required the Respondent's aide to leave the room during formal observations. Respondent asserts that this was unfair and evidences Dr. Marleaux's bias against the Respondent. This assertion is rejected since the Petitioner established that the removal of the aide during a formal observation is standard procedure and allows the students to focus on the teacher without being distracted by the presence of the aide. On November 2, 1993, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Joyce Daniels, an assistant principal at North County. This observation was during a fourth grade math class and was between 9:00 a.m. and 10:10 a.m. Based on her observations, Ms. Daniels rated Respondent as being unacceptable in the following categories: classroom management and techniques of instruction. Ms. Daniels rated Respondent as being unacceptable in classroom management based on her observation that Respondent appeared to be unaware of certain students who were being disruptive and others who were not on task. Respondent did not redirect the off-task students either verbally or non- verbally. She was not following her assertive discipline plan. Ms. Daniels rated Respondent as being unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not use calculators as recommended in the teacher's manual and because she wrote on the board in a manner that the students were unable to see. Ms. Daniels prescribed assignments to help Respondent improve her unacceptable performance. She was to observe two of the teachers at the school and she was to view the assertive discipline plan videos and review the assertive discipline workbook. She was to meet with the media specialist for help with the use of media. Based on the evidence presented, including the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Ms. Daniels fairly and accurately evaluated Respondent's performance on November 2, 1993. It is further found that the prescribed assignments were reasonable and formulated to assist Respondent improve her job performance. On December 3, 1993, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Marleaux. This observation was from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. during her fourth grade math class. Based on her observations, Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent's performance as being unacceptable in the following categories: knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as being unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she made substantial errors during the course of the lesson that created confusion on the part of the students. Respondent did not respond to the students who did not understand the lesson. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as being unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not use media resources skillfully. She did not use the calculators that were recommended and which were available in the school. She did not have her charts on the blackboard prior to the lesson. When she put the charts on the blackboard, she sat directly in front of them and some of the children could not see. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as being unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because Respondent did not consistently utilize the consequences in her assertive discipline plan when students failed to adhere to standards of conduct. The students were punished with different consequences for similar misbehavior. Dr. Marleaux heard Respondent make caustic comments to students. Dr. Marleaux observed that these comments drew attention to these students and embarrassed one of them. Dr. Marleaux again prescribed assignments designed to remediate Respondent's unacceptable performance. The date for submission of her lesson plans was changed to Thursday at Respondent's request. She was to meet with the guidance counselor to learn strategies that would avoid sarcasm and embarrassment to students. She was to meet with the media specialist to learn techniques in the use of media. It was recommended that she use an overhead projector. She was to observe another math teacher who had been helping her. Based on the evidence presented, including the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Dr. Marleaux fairly and accurately evaluated Respondent's performance on December 3, 1993. It is further found that the prescribed assignments were reasonable and formulated to assist Respondent improve her job performance. On December 13, 1993, Dr. Marleaux held a conference-for-the-record with Respondent. The purpose of the conference was to review Respondent's performance assessments and assistance and to discuss possible action by the School District if remediation were not attained. Respondent was apprised that unremediated performance deficiencies must be reported to the Department of Education and that she may not be reappointed to her teaching position for the 1994/95 school year. Respondent was formally observed by Joyce Daniels in January, 1994. In her observation report, Ms. Daniels rated Respondent's performance as being acceptable in all categories. Respondent re-injured her left knee when she fell in February, 1994. Respondent asked permission to use a wheelchair following this fall. Because the information that the school had received from her doctor reflected that Respondent should not use a wheelchair, Dr. Marleaux told Respondent not to use a wheelchair at North County. Respondent subsequently began using a wheelchair, and Dr. Marleaux did not object. During 1994, Respondent was given scheduled time to elevate her leg and put ice on her knee. On March 28, 1994, Respondent was again observed in an external review by Dr. Marleaux and Dr. E. Trausche, an administrator and TADS evaluator employed by Petitioner. This observation was between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. during a mathematics lesson. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as being unacceptable in the following categories: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Dr. Trausche rated Respondent as being unacceptable in the following categories: knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as unacceptable in preparation and planning because she did not follow her lesson plan. The activities in the teacher's edition were not accomplished. She did not use the suggested materials to accomplish the activities. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she used erroneous terms in her mathematics lessons and did not seem to fully understand the fractions lesson she was teaching. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as unacceptable in classroom management because she did not address off-task student behavior. She did not redirect the students either verbally or non-verbally. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as unacceptable in techniques of instruction because her demonstrations were all abstract. She did not utilize methodology outlined in the teacher's edition or teaching aides that were recommended. Her instructional methods did not meet the needs or abilities of the students. She blocked the students' view of work that was on the chalkboard. Many students were confused as to the lesson and some did not even try to do the work. She distracted students by talking to them while they were working. Respondent did not examine the students' work at any time during the lesson. Respondent was again prescribed activities to help her in overcoming her unacceptable performance. She was to observe another teacher. She was to work with the competency-based curriculum math facilitator. The grade level chairperson would work with her. She was to observe another teacher for the use of manipulatives. Based on the evidence presented, including the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Dr. Marleaux fairly and accurately evaluated Respondent's performance on March 28, 1994. No findings are made as to the reasonableness of the observations made by Dr. Trausche since Dr. Trausche did not testify at the formal hearing. It is further found that the prescribed assignments were reasonable and formulated to assist Respondent improve her job performance. On April 1, 1994, the Superintendent notified Respondent by letter that she had not corrected her deficiencies and he was recommending to the School Board that she not be issued a new professional contract. On April 13, 1994, the School Board accepted the Superintendent's recommendation and acted to withhold a contract from Respondent for the 1994/95 school year. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1993/94 school year was overall unacceptable and was unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Respondent was not recommended for continued employment by Dr. Marleaux. Respondent testified that on the last day she worked in May, 1994, she began to disassociate and was incoherent. Respondent described disassociating as follows: It's where you're physically located close to someone but it's, your perception is that you are some where else. I could hear her voice but it was, sounded as if I was blocks away or something. Like I could barely hear what was being said of people. It was really frightening. (Transcript, page 218, line 22 through page 219, line 2.) Dr. Marleaux notified Respondent of her unacceptable annual evaluation by memorandum dated June 3, 1994, in lieu of a conference-for-the record, due to Respondent's absences. During the 1993/94 school year, Respondent was absent for 70 days. On many occasions, Respondent was informally observed both at Myrtle Grove and at North County by the same principals and assistant principals who had observed her formally. Respondent's students were often severely off-task and disruptive of other classes. Respondent's class was noisy and out of control. Security monitors frequently came to Respondent's class to get the students under control. Respondent seemed oblivious to the class management problems. Respondent was seen crying three different times. There did not seem to be much teaching and learning taking place. During the 1993/94 school year, Respondent failed to correct the deficiencies in performance which had been identified during the 1992/93 school year, despite many attempts to assist her with activities to remediate her deficiencies. Respondent asserts that Dr. Marleaux's refusal to allow her to use a wheelchair constituted a failure to reasonably accommodate her handicapped condition following the fall. Respondent also asserts that the denial of her request for a transfer, for rehabilitation therapy, or for a leave of absence constituted a failure to reasonably accommodate her handicapped condition. While the Respondent's testimony supports that contention, there is no medical evidence to support this self-serving testimony. The testimony of Dr. Marleaux and Dr. Annunziata established that the school reasonably accommodated Respondent's condition and did not ask Respondent to perform any duties that exceeded the medical restrictions that had been set by her doctors. Respondent also testified as to certain statements and comments that Dr. Marleaux made to her. 1/ The undersigned finds, based on the demeanor of the witnesses and the totality of the evidence, that Dr. Marleaux's denial that she ever made these statements is more credible than the testimony of the Respondent.
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 sustaining the decision to terminate Respondent's employment by the nonrenewal of her contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 1995, 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 of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1995.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, William Doran, committed the acts alleged in the Statement of Charges and Petition for Ten-Day Suspension Without Pay, and, if so, the discipline to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty of operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within St. Lucie County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b), Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as a teacher at SMS, a public school in St. Lucie County, Florida, pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent has been employed by the School Board for approximately eight years. Respondent most recently provided individualized instruction and assistance to students with individualized education plans. At all times material to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board’s policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the St. Lucie Classroom Teachers’ Association. Lydia Martin, principal of SMS, was authorized to issue directives to her employees, including Respondent. The 2010-2011 School Year On November 8, 2010, Respondent was counseled by Principal Martin for discourteous and disparaging remarks to students causing them to feel unnecessary embarrassment. Students and parents reported that Respondent made comments in the classroom including “the Bible is crap and we should not believe it,” told students they could not work in groups because they “would just bullshit,” called a student “stupid,” and referred to a group of African-American students as the “black coffee group.” Parents also expressed concern that Respondent discussed prostitution and told students that, in some countries the younger the girls are, the better it is considered because they have not lost their virginity. Respondent denied saying that the Bible is “crap” but admitted telling students that he did not believe in it. Respondent denied calling a student stupid but admitted that he told a student certain choices may be what a “not so smart” person would do. Respondent admitted to referring to a group of black students as a “coffee klatch,” but denied any reference to race or ethnicity. Respondent admitted discussing prostitution in the context of human rights and his personal observations of sex trafficking while serving in the military in East Germany. Principal Martin provided Respondent with a written Summary of Conference that stated, “In the future, do not make comments to students that may cause them embarrassment or that are unprofessional. My expectation is that you will treat students with respect and follow the district guidelines under 6.302 Employee Standards of Conduct and Code of Ethics for Educators.” On May 2, 2011, Principal Martin gave Respondent a Letter of Concern for making comments to a student that caused embarrassment to the student when Respondent stated that, “somebody cried about not getting their stupid PTO FCAT Goodie bag” and that “they were filled with cheap candy.” The daughter of the PTO president was in the class. The 2011-2012 School Year During the fall of 2011, Respondent was accused of inappropriately touching students.1/ As a result, on December 5, 2011, Respondent was removed from the classroom at SMS and placed on Temporary Duty Assignment at the School Board district office pending an investigation into the allegations. In a letter from Maurice Bonner, director of personnel, dated December 14, 2011, Respondent was directed not to engage witnesses, their parents, or potential witnesses during the open investigation. While he was working at the district office, two co- workers of Respondent overheard Respondent contact the parents of one of the student witnesses involved in the investigation by telephone to discuss the investigation. Also, during the investigation, it was discovered that Respondent had taken pictures of students when they were misbehaving in his class as a means of disciplining those students. On February 13, 2012, Principal Martin provided Respondent a Letter of Reprimand for the violation of the administrative directive (not to contact witnesses and parents during a pending investigation) and inappropriately disciplining students. This Letter of Reprimand reminded Respondent of his previous counseling and Letter of Concern and notified Respondent that his failure to follow the prior directives or violation of any other School Board policy would result in more severe disciplinary action being taken against him. In May 2012, Respondent received a three-day suspension without pay for embarrassing students. Respondent is alleged to have announced a student’s name in class and stated that he (Respondent) was “just wasting red ink” by grading the student’s paper. Respondent does not deny the statement, but claims he muttered it under his breath, and it was overheard by several students. Respondent embarrassed another student by sharing personal information about her family with the class. A student’s mother had privately discussed with Respondent the fact that her daughter might act out in class due to the distress she was experiencing as a result of her parents’ divorce. During a classroom discussion about families, this student made a comment that she had a “normal” family. Respondent said to the student, in front of the class, “If you’re so normal, where is your father?” Respondent admits this was inappropriate behavior on his part. The 2012-2013 School Year On May 3, 2013, Respondent was in the classroom of another teacher for the purpose of providing additional teaching assistance for several students. On this date, the usual classroom teacher was absent, and a substitute teacher was present. While walking around the classroom, Respondent observed two students, M.M. and A.L., engaged in a game of “slaps,” in which both students tried to hit each other’s hands. Respondent directed M.M. to stop and asked why he was doing the game during class time. M.M. responded that he was trying to cheer up A.L., it felt good, and they liked playing the game. At this time, Respondent was approximately eight to ten feet away from M.M. who was sitting at a desk. Respondent told M.M. that he didn’t care if it felt good for M.M. to “jump off a bridge,” it was not to go on in the classroom and to get back to work. M.M. asked Respondent what he meant and the two began to argue. Respondent approached M.M. and bent over him while M.M. remained seated at his desk. Respondent testified that he closed the gap between him and M.M. when he felt M.M. told him to shut up by saying “get out of my face.” Respondent stated, “At that point I decided I wasn’t going to let him push me around and I decided to engage him.” The credible testimony from several of the student witnesses was that Respondent approached M.M. and stood over him and that M.M. repeatedly asked Respondent to “please, get out of my face” and to leave him alone. M.M. also cursed and used a racial slur directed at Respondent.2/ Respondent told M.M. to get up and get out of the classroom. When Respondent did not move away from looming over M.M., M.M. said something to the effect of “I don’t want to do any of this.” M.M. stood up, and he and Respondent were face to face, only a few inches apart. M.M. told Respondent that he was a grown man and that he was “acting like a bitch.” Respondent repeatedly mocked M.M., yelling in his face, “Come on big man-- What are you going to do about it, hit me?” and told M.M. to hit him because it would “make my day.” Respondent called M.M. a coward several times when M.M. refused to hit Respondent and backed away. While this was going on, the other students in the classroom believed that Respondent and M.M. were going to have a physical fight, and they stood up, pushed the desks and chairs back, and got out their cell phones to take photos and video. Several of the students began screaming and yelling.3/ M.M. left the classroom and continued to curse at Respondent as Respondent followed him to the Dean’s office. During this altercation, the substitute teacher did not intervene or attempt to help or contact the SMS office. Respondent admits that, once M.M. told Respondent to “get out of his face,” Respondent did nothing to de-escalate the situation. To the contrary, Respondent intentionally escalated the altercation. According to Respondent, “He [M.M.] needed to be shown you can’t tell an adult to shut up.” Respondent testified that he believed that he was teaching M.M. a “life lesson”-–that “you can’t engage an adult and expect to get away with it.” SMS has a protocol for handling belligerent students in the classroom. Teachers receive training at the beginning of each school year regarding the difference between classroom managed behaviors and office managed behaviors. Teachers are trained not to engage a belligerent student but rather to use the buzzer which is tied to the intercom or telephone, available in every classroom, to notify the main office of the situation. In response, someone from the trained management team will come to the classroom to retrieve the student and bring them back to the Dean’s office. As explained by Principal Martin, the purpose of sending an adult from out of the classroom to retrieve a disruptive student is to minimize the possibility of harm to either the student, teacher, or other students, and to allow a “cooling off period” while the misbehaving student is escorted to the Dean’s office. During the altercation with M.M., Respondent made no effort to use the buzzer or the telephone or ask anyone else to notify the office of the escalating situation. Respondent was aware of the protocol but chose to ignore it. According to Respondent, “[M.M.] wanted to intimidate me and he failed and I let him know about it.” Respondent was purposely confrontational and testified that he wanted to show M.M. that Respondent “was not going to back down.” Respondent disregarded the protocol because he believed it would be ineffective and he wanted to teach M.M. a “humility lesson.” Respondent’s explanation, that he thought using the buzzer or telephone would be ineffective because sometimes the buzzer does not work or he was blocked from reaching the buzzer by M.M., was not supported by credible evidence. Further it was directly contradicted by Respondent’s explanation that he didn’t contact the office because M.M.’s behavior problems likely started in elementary school and that at this point, M.M. was not responsive to “conventional means of disciplining students.” While the undersigned is sensitive to the difficulty faced by teachers when dealing with confrontational and unruly students, no rational justification was provided for Respondent’s extreme and outrageous act of attempting to engage M.M. in a fight and labeling him a coward in front of his peers. Respondent’s actions were an unwarranted attempt to bully and belittle a middle school student. In May 2013, Respondent received a letter from then Superintendent Michael Lannon advising Respondent that he was recommending him to the School Board for a ten-day suspension without pay. During the School Board’s investigation and at the final hearing of this matter, Respondent expressed no remorse regarding his actions towards M.M. and testified that, despite knowing his actions constitute a violation of School Board policies, he would do the same thing again. Respondent received all the necessary steps of progressive discipline required by the collective bargaining agreement between the parties prior to receipt of the recommendation for the ten-day suspension without pay. As discussed in greater detail below, the School Board proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent engaged in misconduct in office in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Lucie County School Board enter a final order finding William Doran guilty of misconduct in office, suspending his employment without pay for a period of ten school days, and placing him on probation for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 19th day of August, 2014.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Daniel Presmy, committed the violations alleged in the Recommendation for Suspension and Termination for Employment, and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Daniel Presmy (hereinafter "Presmy" or "Respondent") has been a teacher for six years with Palm Beach County School Board (hereinafter "School Board"). He has always taught elementary students. Presmy has had no prior disciplinary action taken against him by the Superintendent of Palm Beach County School Board or the School Board. Presmy was a certified teacher in the School Board of Palm Beach County. On December 11, 2006, while in his classroom Presmy was teaching his third-grade class, and three students who were not students in his classroom showed up and disrupted the class. Presmy requested that the students leave his room. The students did not leave upon the initial request. One student informed Presmy that a student in the class had his eraser. Presmy then asked his class who had the eraser. Subsequently, an eraser flew to the front of the classroom and fell on the floor. Presmy picked up the eraser and handed the eraser to the student who had requested it. Presmy turned back to his class and was hit on the temple with the eraser. Presmy turned back around toward the student who he had given the eraser to and the student raised his hand. Again, Presmy told the student to leave. The student continued to stand in the middle of the doorway to Presmy's classroom and would not leave. While Presmy remained in his classroom, he used his fingertips to push the student's head and told the student (hereinafter "student victim") to "leave and don't come back here." Presmy "didn't think that [he] was doing anything wrong by telling him to leave with a gesture to leave." Presmy's reaction of touching the student was inappropriate. However, no evidence was demonstrated that the student was hurt during the incident. Presmy did not press the buzzer or contact and ask for any assistance regarding the incident because he didn't think it was necessary. On December 11, 2006, Officer Price was paged regarding the incident and she returned the call. She was informed that a student reported that he had been hit by a teacher at Roosevelt. Price interviewed the student victim and witnesses regarding the incident with Presmy. The School Board initiated an investigation into the incident. During the investigation, Respondent met with Detective Walton. Presmy told the investigator that he pushed the student victim in the head and told him to leave.2 The investigator concluded his investigation and presented the case to the State Attorney’s Office for review. As a result, Daniel Presmy was criminally charged with Battery as a violation of Florida Statutes. On August 2, 2007, Presmy pled guilty to the battery charge as a negotiated plea agreement so as not to put himself and his family through a lengthy trial and under the advice of his lawyer. His sentence was 45 hours community service, 12 weeks of anger management, 12 months of probation with early termination after six months and a $595 court fee. Petitioner alleges Respondent, by his conduct, violated School Board Policies 0.01, 1.013 and 3.12, and State Board of Education Rules 6B-1.001 and 6B-1.006. Subsequently, the School Board of West Palm Beach County at a meeting on October 24, 2007, voted to suspend Presmy without pay effective October 25, 2007, and initiated dismissal proceedings.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that Palm Beach County School Board find Presmy had inappropriate physical contact with a student but apply the progressive disciplinary policy to determine his punishment. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 2008.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether just cause exists to discipline Respondent based on allegations that he used inappropriate language when talking to students, in violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Woodard has worked in the Duval County public school system since 2002. There was no evidence presented of any prior incidents of inappropriate behavior, or of discipline being imposed upon Woodard by the School Board. During the 2014-2015 school year, Woodard was employed by Petitioner as an In-School Suspension (“ISSP”) teacher at Northwestern. The ISSP teacher is an instructional and leadership position, and the ISSP teacher is supposed to set an example for students and help them modify their behavior. The ISSP class was created to allow students who engage in disciplinary misconduct to remain in school rather than being removed from the classroom environment. The referral of students to ISSP can come from administrators, teachers, or any other employee who observes student misconduct. Although Woodard taught the ISSP class, he did not discipline students or assign them to ISSP, and he did not give students grades. During the 2014-2015 school year at Northwestern, Woodard was assigned to the gym in the mornings, where sixth- graders were directed to go after eating breakfast in the cafeteria, to wait for their teachers to pick them up and take them to class. On January 23, 2014, the Duval County School District’s (“District”) Office of Professional Standards opened an investigation of allegations that Woodard used inappropriate communications with and/or in the presence of students. The investigation, which was conducted by Investigator Reginald Johnson in the District’s Office of Professional Standards, sustained the allegations. On September 29, 2015, Woodard received a Step III Progressive Discipline – Reprimand and Suspension Without Pay (Revised 9/29/15) for conduct the District alleged violated the Florida Code of Ethics, rules 6A-10.080(2) and 6A-10.080(3) and the Principles of Professional Conduct, rule 6A-10.081(3)(a). The Step III Progressive Discipline alleged that Woodard used the term D.A.N. or DAN when talking to or referring to students at Northwestern, which the District alleged was an acronym for “dumb ass niggers.” In his defense, Woodard testified that in mentoring students, he shared stories from his childhood and his own life in order to be more relatable to students. According to Woodard, he used the story of his childhood friend Dan to impress upon students that it is not where you start, it is where you end up. Woodard’s friend Dan used to skip school, get to school late, fight, and disrespect authority, and Woodard urged his students not to be a Dan. As discussed below, Woodard’s testimony in this regard is not credible. Student D.M. testified that Woodard called students D.A.N.s in the gym and in ISSP class when the students were either acting up or in trouble. D.M. also testified Woodard wrote the word D.A.N. on the board in ISSP class with periods in the word, and the word stayed on the board in ISSP class. D.M. never heard Woodard tell a story about a friend named Dan. Student H.N.J. was in ISSP class with about seven other students when Woodard told them that D.A.N. meant “dumb ass niggers.” H.N.J. said Woodard called students D.A.N.s when they were acting up and disrespectful, and that Woodard gave two meanings of the word D.A.N.-–“dumb and nobody” and “dumb ass niggers.” H.N.J. does not remember Woodard relating a story about a friend named Dan. Woodard’s use of the word D.A.N. toward students made H.N.J. feel put down and “sad and mad at the same time,” and the fact that Woodard was a teacher made this worse. Student B.S. stated Woodard yelled at students and called them D.A.N.s in the gym whenever they were talking loud or would not listen. B.S. does not recall Woodard telling a story about a friend named Dan. B.S. learned that D.A.N. means “dumb ass niggers” from A.W., another student. Woodard’s reference to students as D.A.N.s made B.S. feel “sorry and mad,” and she began crying on the witness stand. Student K.H. testified that Woodard called her a D.A.N. when she stepped out of line in the gym and that he called other students D.A.N.s when they were misbehaving, fighting, or being loud. K.H.’s friend told her that D.A.N. means “dumb ass nigger.” K.H. never heard Woodard tell a story about a friend named Dan. K.H. and her brother, student D.H., complained to their mother about Woodard calling students D.A.N.s. The mother of K.H. and D.H. contacted Northwestern and later the media after the school did not do anything about the complaint. Woodard’s use of the term D.A.N. made K.H. “feel disrespected and low life because it’s not supposed to be used towards children” and because Woodard is a teacher and the same race as K.H. During the 2014-2015 school year, student D.H., was in the seventh grade at Northwestern. D.H. heard his friends in math class calling each other D.A.N.s. So he asked one of his friends what D.A.N. meant. D.H.’s friend (a student named “J”) told D.H. that D.A.N. meant “dumb ass niggers” and that Woodard called kids that word. D.H. was bothered that someone of his own race was calling him that, and also that it came from a teacher. The students’ descriptions of Woodard’s comments and behavior were fairly consistent. The things they reported hearing and observing were very similar to contemporaneously written statements from them and other students. The alleged remarks were similar in nature to one another but not exactly the same, so the comments did not seem rehearsed or planned. The students were very direct and unwavering when testifying at final hearing. The testimony of H.N.J. was particularly persuasive and clearly established that Woodard intended to use the term D.A.N. as a derogatory epithet: either “dumb and nobody”; or “dumb ass niggers.” Significantly, none of the students who appeared at hearing would have had a motive to testify falsely. As noted, Woodard did not assign grades to any of these students or assign them to ISSP, so none would have had an axe to grind with Woodard. The testimony of the students is credible. Teacher Linda Raggins testified that she heard Woodard tell students in the gym “to not act like Dan.” Toward the end of the school year, Raggins asked Woodard “who is Dan?” Woodard gave Raggins two explanations, the first of which she did not recall. The second explanation Woodard gave Raggins was that “some people use Dan to mean dumb ass niggers, but that’s not how I – that’s not what I’m talking about.” Raggins did not recall Woodard providing any other meaning for the word D.A.N. Raggins is a union representative and first agreed to provide a written statement, but then declined to provide a statement on the advice of counsel. Raggins did not tell Investigator Johnson that Woodard told a story about someone named Dan. Former teacher Jason Ludban heard Woodard use the term D.A.N. a handful of times. Ludban said that Woodard used the term D.A.N. “openly and loudly for all to hear,” which made Ludban believe it was acceptable. Ludban learned from a student that D.A.N. meant “dumb ass niggers.” Ludban never heard Woodard tell a story about a friend named Dan. If Ludban believed that Woodard was using the term D.A.N. to mean “dumb ass niggers,” Ludban would have had a duty to report it. Woodard gave Investigator Johnson the names of three additional student witnesses, whom Johnson interviewed. One of the students confirmed that Woodard wrote the word “D.A.N.” with periods on the board in ISSP class. Two of the students told Johnson that Woodard told them the story of a friend named Dan, but this occurred about two weeks prior to the date Johnson interviewed them, after the allegations were reported in the media and when Woodard was already facing discipline. Despite Woodard’s claim that Dan was a real person, Investigator Johnson does not recall Woodard telling him the last name of Dan or giving him any contact information for “Dan.” Johnson would have interviewed Dan if Woodard had provided that information. Woodard also did not provide Investigator Johnson with the names of any adults at Northwestern to whom Woodard told the Dan story. None of the witnesses Investigator Johnson interviewed--students or adults-- stated that Woodard told them a story about a friend named Dan. It is within management’s discretion to skip a step of progressive discipline if the conduct is severe. Assistant Superintendent Sonita Young recommended Step III discipline against Woodard because he was in a position of authority and his role was to provide support to students in terms of behavior modification, but Woodard used derogatory language that was offensive toward students. In deciding whether discipline is warranted, the District looks at the totality of the circumstances, including the number of times an incident occurred, how many witnesses there were to the incident, the severity of the incident, whether harm occurred to the child’s physical or mental well-being, whether the employee has been previously disciplined for the same conduct, and whether the employee acknowledged his behavior and is willing to modify his behavior. According to Assistant Superintendent Young, the factors supporting the Step III discipline were that Woodard said the derogatory word D.A.N. to multiple students, the students were middle school students, the student population was fragile and of very low socioeconomic status, and the conduct was repeated over a period of time rather than a singular incident. The fact that this language was used by a teacher, a person in a position of authority whom students have the right to feel “safe” around, were additional factors supporting the discipline. Young believes that Woodard’s use of the word D.A.N. toward or around students showed poor judgment and was damaging to them. Respondent called various character and fact witnesses (Jasmine Daniels, Tiffany Thomas, Tabitha Johnson, Pastor Fredrick Newbill, Niger Lambey, Ricky Stanford, and Daniel Drayton) who testified that Woodard told the story of his friend Dan at a church youth group, in his sermons, or that they knew the story from growing up with Woodard. However, none of the witnesses testified that they heard Woodard tell the Dan story to District students or in a District classroom. Pastor Newbill testified that in his community, D.A.N. has been used as a racial epithet for “dumb ass niggers” for at least the last 25 years. Dr. Arvin Johnson, the former principal of Northwestern, received a complaint about Woodard from a parent in May 2015, near the end of the 2014-2015 school year. Dr. Johnson, who is a friend of Woodard, heard Woodard use the term D.A.N. with students once or twice, but he never heard Woodard tell students a story about a friend named Dan. Although Dr. Johnson has known or worked with Woodard for approximately 12 years, the first time Woodard told Dr. Johnson the story of a friend named Dan was in connection with the parent’s complaint against Woodard in May 2015. Although Woodard has been employed with the District since 2002, he admitted that he did not tell the Dan story to students during the first 12 years of his employment. Woodard did not begin telling the Dan story to District students until the 2014-2015 school year. After not speaking to Daniel Drayton for several years, Woodard called Drayton in 2015 to remind him of the Dan story. Woodard stated that if he knew there was a negative interpretation of D.A.N. he would not have used the term, but his explanation to Ms. Raggins shows that he knew that a racially derogatory meaning of the word D.A.N. existed. Woodard claims that the students lied about him using D.A.N. as an acronym for “dumb ass niggers,” but he could not offer an explanation as to why students, whom he claims “loved” him, and were excited to attend his class, would lie about him. The greater weight of the evidence supports the contention that Woodard used the term D.A.N. in the presence of his ISSP students as a derogatory racial epithet.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Duval County School Board, rescinding its suspension of the employment of Ernest Woodard and, instead, issuing a written reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 30th day of November, 2016.
The Issue The first issue in this case is whether, as the district school board alleges, a teacher abused, mistreated, or otherwise behaved inappropriately towards one of his special-needs students; if the allegations of wrongdoing are proved to be true, then it will be necessary to decide whether the school board has just cause to terminate the teacher's employment.
Findings Of Fact The Broward County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Broward County Public School System. At all times relevant to this case, Respondent Edouard Jean ("Jean") was employed as an Exceptional Student Education ("ESE") teacher in the Broward County public schools, a position which he had held for the preceding 16 years. During that period, Jean taught students with disabilities, who typically receive specially designed instruction and related services pursuant to individual educational plans. Ahead of the 2013-14 school year, Jean was transferred to Crystal Lake Middle School, where he had not previously worked. He was placed in an "SVE" class and assigned to teach ESE students having "varying exceptionalities." Jean's class contained a mix of high- and low-functioning students, about nine in number. Jean's colleague, Ray Montalbano, taught a similar SVE class in a nearby room. At the beginning of the school year, the two ESE teachers agreed to share responsibility for their respective students under an arrangement that separated the higher functioning students from the lower functioning students. Jean and Mr. Montalbano took turns teaching the two groups, exchanging one for the other at midday. In this way, each teacher spent roughly equal time with the respective sets of students. For the last hour of the day, they combined the two groups and jointly instructed the approximately 18 students in Mr. Montalbano's classroom, which was larger. There were two paraprofessionals, or teacher's assistants, working in Jean and Mr. Montalbano's SVE classes. One, named Lisa Phillips, was assigned to both teachers; she alternated between their classrooms during the day. The other, Donna Rollins, was assigned to Mr. Montalbano's class, where Jean spent an hour each afternoon. In view of the cooperative arrangement between Jean and Mr. Montalbano, both of the teacher's assistants regularly worked in the same classroom as Jean and assisted with the provision of instruction and services to the 18 students for whom Jean and Mr. Montalbano were responsible. On October 15, 2013, Jean was removed from his classroom and informed that he was the target of a criminal investigation arising from allegations that he recently had abused one of his pupils, a 13-year-old boy with Down Syndrome named Z.P., who was among the lower functioning students. Jean's accuser was an occupational therapist named Lisa Taormina, who at all relevant times worked as an independent contractor for the School Board, providing services to students at various public schools in Broward County. Jean consistently has denied Ms. Taormina's allegations, which shocked and surprised him. Ms. Taormina, who that year was seeing students at Crystal Lake Middle School once per week each Friday, reported having observed Jean mistreat Z.P. on October 4, 2013, and again on October 11, 2013. Ms. Taormina claimed that the alleged events of October 4 took place in Jean's classroom with Ms. Phillips in attendance. The alleged events of October 11, in contrast, purportedly took place in Mr. Montalbano's classroom during the hour when the two SVE classes were combined. Thus, the alleged abuse supposedly occurred in the presence of Mr. Montalbano, Ms. Phillips, Ms. Rollins, and a substitute teacher named Shirley Ashcroft who happened to be there that day. Ms. Taormina's allegations were investigated by the Broward County Sheriff's Office and the Broward District Schools Police Department. During these investigations, neither Z.P. nor any of the other students were interviewed, because most of them (including Z.P.) are either nonverbal or too intellectually limited to be reliable witnesses.1/ All of the adults were questioned, however, and none of them corroborated Ms. Taormina's allegations. Unsurprisingly, therefore, no criminal charges were brought against Jean. On the strength of Ms. Taormina's allegations, the School Board nevertheless determined that Jean had abused Z.P. and thus should be fired. As it happens, Ms. Taormina's final hearing testimony is the only direct evidence against Jean, whose colleagues Mr. Montalbano, Ms. Phillips, Ms. Rollins, and Ms. Ashcroft, to a person, credibly denied under oath having ever seen him mistreat Z.P. or any other student. The outcome of this case, therefore, depends on whether Ms. Taormina's testimony is believed likely to be an accurate account of the relevant historical events. In assessing Ms. Taormina's credibility, the undersigned finds it especially significant that Jean's co- workers, who were able to observe him for extended periods of time on a daily basis in the classroom, never witnessed him engage in any troubling or suspicious behavior during the roughly seven weeks he taught at Crystal Lake Middle School; to the contrary, everyone who testified (except Ms. Taormina) who had seen Jean in the classroom praised his performance generally, and his relationship with Z.P. in particular. The undersigned credits the consistent, mutually corroborative, and overwhelmingly favorable testimony about Jean's exemplary conduct. Because an isolated incident, however out of character, can be squared with evidence of otherwise superlative performance, the fact that Jean was well regarded by the employees with whom he closely worked does not exclude the possibility that Jean abused Z.P., but it does diminish the likelihood that he could have abused Z.P. on multiple occasions. For that reason, if Ms. Taormina claimed only to have seen Jean mistreat Z.P. once, her testimony likely would have been more believable. Ms. Taormina claims, however, to have seen Jean abuse Z.P. on two separate days——on consecutive weekly visits to the school, no less. If Ms. Taormina is to be believed, Jean's alleged abuse of Z.P. was not an isolated incident but was rather, if not necessarily part of a pattern of behavior, at least something Jean was capable of repeating. Here it bears emphasizing that Ms. Taormina saw Jean, at most, once per week for relatively brief periods of less than 30 minutes apiece. Within the context of this limited contact, Ms. Taormina (if she is believed) happened to witness Jean abuse Z.P. on back-to-back visits, while Jean's colleagues, who saw him every workday, never noticed anything amiss. Logically, there are, broadly speaking, two possible explanations for this anomalous situation. First, Jean might have abused Z.P. only when Ms. Taormina was present in the classroom, which would explain why no one else ever saw him mistreat the student, so long as the failure of the four other adults in the room on October 11 to witness the alleged misconduct——a lack of attentiveness that defies reasonable expectations——is overlooked. Given that Ms. Taormina's brief weekly visits comprised such a tiny percentage of Jean's total time with the students, however, to abuse Z.P. only in her presence probably would have required Jean to act according to a plan, which beggars belief;2/ otherwise, Ms. Taormina's presence at the very moments that all such abuse occurred was a most remarkable coincidence. At any rate, while the probability that Jean abused Z.P. only when Ms. Taormina was around to witness his misdeeds is perhaps greater than zero percent, the undersigned regards this explanation as far too implausible to be considered likely. Alternatively, and likelier, Jean might have abused Z.P. not only in Ms. Taormina's presence, but also in her absence. Because Ms. Taormina is the only person who has ever claimed to have seen Jean mistreat Z.P., however, to accept this explanation requires believing that Jean's co-workers never saw him abusing Z.P., or that everyone who witnessed such abuse except Ms. Taormina resolved not to report it.3/ Yet both situations are unworthy of belief. More likely than not, if Jean were abusing Z.P. at times when Ms. Taormina was not in the room, which was most of the time, then at some point over the course of seven weeks Mr. Montalbano or one of the paraprofessionals would have noticed something wrong4/——and none of them did, as found above. Similarly, it is difficult to imagine——and impossible reasonably to infer in the absence of any supporting evidence——that another teacher or paraprofessional, or some combination of these employees, would fail to report suspected child abuse and lie under oath to protect Jean. In any event, the undersigned has found that Jean's fellow employees never saw Jean abuse Z.P., which means that, in all likelihood, Jean did not abuse Z.P. when Ms. Taormina was not in the room. In sum, it is unlikely that Jean repeatedly abused Z.P. only in Ms. Taormina's presence; and yet, it is unlikely that Jean ever abused Z.P. during the vast majority of the time when Ms. Taormina was not in the room (but another adult or adults typically were). Therefore, the logical conclusion is that Jean likely never abused Z.P. at all, contrary to Ms. Taormina's allegations. The foregoing reasons are sufficient for the undersigned to reject Ms. Taormina's testimony as ultimately unpersuasive and to find that the School Board has failed to prove its allegations against Jean. Nevertheless, Ms. Taormina was a good witness in many respects. Her story has been consistent, her recollection seemingly clear, her testimony vivid and detailed. Ms. Taormina is articulate and her demeanor at hearing suggested sincerity. She had barely known Jean before the events at issue and was not shown to have had grounds to dislike him or any other motive for damaging him with false allegations of misconduct. Thus, while not necessary to the disposition, it is desirable to examine Ms. Taormina's specific accusations in greater detail. Ms. Taormina claims that on October 4, 2013, while Z.P. was lying on his back on the floor, Jean spun Z.P. around, using the student's legs as a handle for twirling the boy's body. Then, she says, Jean tapped Z.P. with a ruler to prod him into getting up from the floor. Z.P. refused to rise, and Jean resumed spinning the student. Ms. Taormina recognized that Jean and Z.P. were "playing around" and concluded nothing "abusive" had occurred, but she deemed Jean's conduct "inappropriate." As mentioned, Z.P. is cognitively limited in consequence of Down syndrome. He was also, at the time of the events at issue, aggressive, sometimes mean and abusive towards teachers, including Jean, and known to bite, scratch, kick, and spit on others. Z.P., who was a big boy, could be difficult to redirect. By October 2013, however, Jean had established a rapport with Z.P. The student liked his teacher, and Jean and Z.P. would play with each other. One activity that they enjoyed entailed Jean spinning Z.P. around——which is what Ms. Taormina observed. Except for Ms. Taormina, no one who witnessed Jean playfully spinning Z.P.——which Jean admits doing——considered this activity to be inappropriate. There is no persuasive evidence in the record establishing an objective standard of conduct that Jean might have violated when he played with Z.P. in this manner. Striking Z.P. with a ruler would be another matter, of course. Jean denies ever having done that, however, and no one but Ms. Taormina claims to have observed Jean misbehave in such fashion. The undersigned finds, based on the greater weight of the evidence, that Jean did not hit Z.P. with a ruler on October 4, 2013, as alleged, but rather tapped the floor with it, as he testified. According to Ms. Taormina, Jean's conduct the following week, on October 11, was worse. She testified that, upon arriving in the classroom, she noticed that Jean's fingers were resting on the back of Z.P.'s neck as he (Jean) moved the student around. To Ms. Taormina, "it looked . . . like [Jean] was searching for, like, a pressure point or tender point . . . ." In fact, Jean was not searching for a pressure point, and he did not dig his fingers into a tender spot on Z.P.'s neck, which explains why no one (including Ms. Taormina) saw or heard the student cry out or grimace in pain. The undersigned credits Jean's testimony that he touched Z.P.'s back and shoulders to guide or comfort him, not to hurt him. Ms. Taormina asserted that after putting his fingers on the back of Z.P.'s neck, Jean gave Z.P. a "violent shaking" which caused Z.P.'s head to rock up and down ("just flapping back and forth") so fast that Z.P.'s features were an unrecognizable blur, but only for "just a few seconds." Somewhat incongruously, however, she characterized this "mockery" as being "more, like, playing" and noted that Jean, who was smiling, did not appear to be acting out of anger. The behavior that Ms. Taormina recounted is indeed disturbing. Yet some of the details seem a bit off. For example, although no expert testimony was presented, the undersigned's rudimentary understanding of simple biomechanics makes him think that violently shaking a passive or helpless person so hard that his features become blurry (assuming this could be accomplished in just a few seconds' time) would cause the victim's dangling head, not to flap up and down (rapidly nodding), as Ms. Taormina described, but to rotate uncontrollably. The undersigned finds it difficult, too, to imagine that such abuse could ever look "like playing." Moreover, it seems peculiar, given the number of adults in the room, that Ms. Taormina did not immediately intervene or speak up to protect Z.P., if Jean were harming the student as she has stated. More important, it is likely that a vigorous physical battery such as the attack on Z.P. that Ms. Taormina recalls would have caused a considerable commotion. And yet, even though there were four other adults in the room besides Jean and Ms. Taormina, no one but the occupational therapist noticed Jean inflicting this alleged abuse. The undersigned cannot find, based on the greater weight of the evidence, that Jean violently shook Z.P. as alleged. This incident, therefore, was not proved. After Jean allegedly shook Z.P., according to Ms. Taormina, the student climbed up on a table, where he proceeded to eat a banana. Ms. Taormina testified that all of the students and adults in the room (except her) laughed at Z.P. when someone exclaimed that he looked like a monkey. She said that Jean then led Z.P. to a garbage can and made him spit out the piece of banana in his mouth. When Z.P. got down on the floor afterwards, said Ms. Taormina, Jean hit the student with a broom to compel him to stand and, having no success with that, lifted Z.P. by his shirt and pants and shook him a few times before standing the boy upright. Once on his feet, Z.P. wet his pants, Ms. Taormina stated. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the undersigned finds that Z.P. did, in fact, eat a banana while standing on a table. Further, Jean did hustle Z.P. to the garbage can to spit out the banana in his mouth because the boy was gagging on the fruit. The evidence does not support a finding that the adults laughed at Z.P., although one student did call him a monkey, which prompted Jean to reprimand the offender. The evidence does not support a finding that Jean struck Z.P. with a broom, an act of abuse which Jean credibly denied, or that Jean picked up Z.P. and shook him, a feat which likely could not be accomplished, given the student's size and weight, and which Jean credibly denied. Z.P. did urinate on himself, as Ms. Taormina reported, but the greater weight of the evidence establishes that this was not a response to stress, fright, or abuse, but a common occurrence. In sum, the evidence does not support a determination that Jean likely mistreated Z.P. as alleged. Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Jean is guilty of the offense of immorality as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(1).5/ The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Jean is guilty of the offense of misconduct in office, which is defined in rule 6A-5.056(2).6/ The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Jean is guilty of incompetency, which is defined in rule 6A-5.056(3).7/ It is undisputed that Jean was never charged with, much less found guilty of, any crime as a result of the events which gave rise to this proceeding. Therefore, the School Board does not have just cause to terminate his employment pursuant to section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes, for "being convicted or found guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty to, regardless of adjudication of guilt, any crime involving moral turpitude."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order exonerating Jean of all charges brought against him in this proceeding, reinstating him as an ESE teacher, and awarding him back salary as required under section 1012.33(6)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2014, 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 23rd day of December, 2014.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Teresa Wimmer, violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.080, the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida (Code of Ethics), or 6A-10.081, the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida (Principles of Professional Conduct), as alleged in the Hernando County School Board’s March 9, 2015, notice of recommendation of termination, and March 24, 2015, modification of that notice; and, if so, the nature of the sanctions.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the system of public schools in Hernando County, Florida. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner has the authority to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Respondent has been a teacher at Pine Grove for roughly 11 years. During the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent was a teacher of first-grade students, with a class of approximately 18 students. As a classroom teacher, Respondent was expected to comply with the 2014-2015 Staff Handbook. Among the provisions applicable to Respondent was the following: TOUCHING STUDENTS Employees are advised that they should not touch students in any way except for the protection of the health, safety and/or welfare of a student or for protection of themselves. Respondent has been the subject of several disciplinary proceedings over the years. In September 2004, Respondent was involved in an employee conference for grabbing a student’s arm on two occasions to correct misbehaviors, the result of which appeared to be a reprimand. The report of the employee conference was to remain in the school file for one year. In January 2006, Respondent was involved in an employee conference for making derogatory comments regarding a student and allowing classmates to do the same. Respondent was required to re-read the Code of Ethics and Professional Practice forms and write a letter of apology to the student and parents. The employee conference report closed with “[a]ny further behaviors involving embarrassment to students will result in further disciplinary action.” In September 2013, Respondent was involved in an incident that is of more direct relevance to this proceeding. In that instance, Respondent was accused of roughly handling students in her classroom. As a result, she was offered, and accepted, a Stipulation for Employee Discipline and Last Chance Agreement (Stipulation). In the Stipulation, Respondent acknowledged that she “engaged in misconduct by having inappropriate and unprofessional interactions with students in her classroom” and that such conduct “warrants disciplinary action up to and including termination.” In lieu of termination, the School Board and Respondent agreed that she would be suspended for ten days and, thereafter, serve a probationary period for the remainder of the 2013-2014 school year. The Stipulation further provided that Respondent “agrees that she will not engage in the conduct which gave rise to this Stipulation at any time or any place so long as she is an employee of the Hernando County School District. Further, [Respondent] understands that if she does engage in misconduct, it will result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination.” Respondent successfully completed the terms of her probation without incident. School principals, assistant principals, guidance counselors, and persons in similar duties are trained in Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI), which is an approved method of restraining or transporting completely out-of-control students or removing children from the classroom. CPI training is not provided as a matter of course to classroom teachers. Respondent has not received CPI training. Holding a student’s hand is not a CPI hold. There is nothing inherently inappropriate with a teacher taking a student by the hand and walking with the student. The 2014-2015 Staff Handbook provides, in the section entitled “Return of Students to Classroom (Authority of the Teacher),” that: Teachers should follow their school’s procedure for the removal of students who are acting out. Suggestions include: having an adult accompany the student from the class or requesting an administrator to come to the class. (emphasis added). The routine procedure for removal of a disruptive or unruly student from the classroom is for the classroom teacher to call the office, whereupon Ms. Johnson, Ms. Kasten, or a guidance counselor, each of whom are trained in CPI, would go to the room, try to calm the student, and, if warranted, take the student to the office. Despite the procedure described above, Ms. Kasten testified that teachers, on occasion, “would bring the student down for me to talk to or the guidance counselor to talk to.” In such instances, “[t]hey would just walk them down” to the office. Although the teacher would usually call the office first, the evidence did not support a finding that a call was required or necessary, or that it happened in each event. Although the timing of those other events of taking students to the office was described as generally occurring “during their planning period or whatever, if they were at specials or whatever,” the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the act of walking a student to the office, per se, does not constitute a violation of the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook and that the school has not previously determined it to be so. Among the reasons for having teachers call the office for assistance with disruptive students is to limit those periods in which a teacher may leave students unattended or, as in this case, leave a co-teacher responsible for up to 36 students while the disruptive student was walked to the office. However, Ms. Tyree testified that there have been times when she would ask Respondent to “keep an eye on [her] class” while she went to attend to other things, and vice versa. There was no suggestion that asking a co-teacher to watch over a class was improper, as long as “your class is covered.” In the weeks prior to February 4, 2015, J.S., a student in Respondent’s classroom, had become increasingly disruptive in the classroom. The behaviors ranged from J.S. talking in “baby-talk” and rolling crayons on his desk, to choking another student with a lanyard. Respondent did not know why J.S.’s behavior had spiraled out of control, but indicated to Ms. Kasten that it was creating a problem for her ability not only to teach J.S., but to teach the other students in her classroom. The office was called on three occasions to deal with J.S., and Ms. Kasten went to the class to address the situations. On two occasions, J.S. remained in the classroom after Ms. Kasten’s intervention. On one occasion, Ms. Kasten removed J.S. from the classroom. On the occasion when Ms. Kasten removed him from Respondent’s classroom, J.S. was walking around the room and disturbing the other students. Ms. Kasten could not get J.S. to listen to her. Thus, she decided to take J.S. to the office. She did not employ her CPI training or use a CPI hold, but took him by the hand “with the idea of keeping him from getting away.” During the walk to the office, J.S. “was pulling a little bit” to try and get away.1/ There was no suggestion that the actions of Ms. Kasten in taking J.S. by the hand and walking him to the office were inappropriate or contrary to the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook. On the afternoon of February 3, 2015, Ms. Kasten met with Respondent to discuss the behavior of J.S. in her classroom. Respondent was upset and frustrated with J.S.’s unruly behavior and wanted to know what could be done about it. Ms. Kasten suggested that the two of them could work to develop a behavior plan for J.S. and indicated that she would bring a plan to Respondent the next day for them to work on. The incident that forms the basis of this proceeding occurred on February 4, 2015. As students were entering the class for the day, Respondent heard screaming and the words “stop hitting me.” She turned and saw J.S. striking a female student with his fists. Respondent was able to verbally quell the disturbance. However, after initially returning to his seat, J.S. went to the back of the room where he began kicking table legs and other items. Respondent asserted that prior to her taking the student to the office, she called Ms. Kasten to advise her that she would be doing so and received permission from Ms. Kasten. Ms. Kasten had no recollection of having received any such call. The telephone records admitted at the hearing do not reflect that any calls were placed between Respondent’s line and the office.2/ There was no evidence to support a finding that the telephone records maintained by the school were unreliable. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Respondent did not receive prior approval before taking the student to the office on the morning of February 4, 2015. However, the issue of whether Respondent received or did not receive permission to take J.S. to the office, and whether the act of doing so violated any school policy, was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. On her way out of the classroom with J.S., Respondent passed through the classroom of her co-teacher, Ms. Tyree, with whom she shared a paired classroom, and stated to her something to the effect of “[c]an you watch my class? They told me to take [J.S.] to the office.” Although not a frequent occurrence, it was not unusual for Respondent and Ms. Tyree, as paired teachers, to watch one another’s classes while the other was out for short periods. In this case, Respondent’s class was covered while she walked J.S. to the office. Respondent took J.S. by the hand and tucked his arm inside her arm. Although J.S. did not want to go to the office, his resistance was described by Ms. Tyree as “verbal like ‘I don't want to go, I don't want to go.’ But there wasn't a, like, a tug of war going on there.” Respondent indicated that she took J.S. by the hand in order to keep him safe. Given J.S.’s actions of physically assaulting a fellow student, followed by continued physical agitation at the back of the room, Respondent’s concern for safety, not only for J.S., but for the other students in her charge, was warranted. The walk to the office was captured by the school’s video system. The video covered the time from 8:33:00 to 8:33:58. Respondent and J.S. are clearly visible in the video for approximately 30 seconds, from frame 08:33:04 to frame 08:33:32. The video is somewhat grainy, and certain details are not readily observable. However, the video is consistent with Respondent’s statement that she was holding J.S. by the hand. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence supports that Respondent was holding J.S. by the hand as she walked with him to the office and not by the “wrist area,” as surmised by Ms. Johnson. At frames 08:33:12 and 08:33:13, J.S. appears to briefly resist Respondent’s efforts to take him to the office by trying to remove his hand from Respondent’s hand as they walked side-by-side. Despite his resistance, Respondent was not “pulling/dragging” J.S. during those frames. At frames 08:33:18 and 08:33:19, J.S. appears to briefly pull away from Respondent. The action was that of J.S., not of Respondent. Respondent did not release J.S., but neither did she pull or drag J.S. The action at frames 08:33:18 and 08:33:19 is entirely consistent with that described by Ms. Kasten when giving the account of her earlier walk to the office with J.S. -- which did not involve a CPI hold -- when J.S. “was pulling a little bit” to try and get away. Despite J.S.’s efforts to pull away in both instances, neither Respondent nor Ms. Kasten was “pulling/dragging” J.S. during their walks to the office. For the remainder of the walk to the office, Respondent and J.S. walked side-by-side at a consistent pace. The evidence suggests that J.S. was vocal in his reluctance to be taken to the office, consistent with the description of his verbal resistance when being taken from the classroom as described by Ms. Tyree. The verbal resistance apparently continued, as evidenced by the reaction of the boy using the walker, who comes into the picture at frame 08:33:22. However, J.S.’s verbal protestations did not involve pulling or dragging and do not form the basis of a violation of the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook. Respondent’s actions, though firm, did not appear to be aggressive. They were consistent with the description offered by Ms. Tyree, who testified that, as to the Respondent’s walk through her classroom, “there wasn't an altercation of, like, dragging or, you know -- it wasn't -- she was walking, he was walking. But he wasn't happy, you could tell that he didn't want to.” As Respondent entered the office with J.S., Ms. Kasten, the elementary assistant, was in the office, though on the other side of the office. Respondent approached the office with J.S. The door to the office opens out. It occasionally slams, and Ms. Kasten has seen it slam on students. In order to ensure J.S.’s safety, Respondent placed both of her hands on his arms to move him through the door and into the office. Respondent yelled for Ms. Kasten to “take him.” Ms. Kasten observed that Respondent was trying to get J.S. into the doorway to someone who could help. Although Respondent’s calls for Ms. Kasten to take J.S. were loud, her tone of voice was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. Upon their entry into the office, Ms. Kasten went over to Respondent and J.S. J.S. stopped resisting once he saw Ms. Kasten. There was no evidence that J.S. was physically harmed in any way, i.e., there were no bruises, scratches, or marks of any kind. Respondent indicated to Ms. Kasten that J.S. had come to class very angry and was physically fighting with his female cousin. Ms. Kasten’s contemporaneous statement of the incident indicated that J.S. was “very upset that he had a fight with his sister.”3/ There was no suggestion that J.S. was upset about his walk to the office with Respondent. Ms. Kasten took J.S. off to the side and talked with him. After J.S. calmed down, Ms. Kasten advised Respondent that she would handle the situation from there, and Respondent left the office. J.S. was ultimately kept in the in-school suspension room for an hour or two. Ms. Kasten reported the incident to Ms. Johnson, who was not in her office or out front and did not witness the event. Shortly thereafter, in a conversation regarding other matters, Ms. Johnson reported to Ms. Martin at the District office that Respondent “brought a student in yelling and dragging.” Ms. Johnson was instructed to immediately remove Respondent from student contact. Ms. Johnson called to Respondent’s classroom and left a message with Respondent that she needed to speak with her. The following day, a meeting was convened to discuss the incident. Present at the meeting were Ms. Johnson, Respondent, and Respondent’s union representative. The confidential secretary to the school principal, Mr. Deen, was also in attendance to take minutes of the meeting. During her February 5, 2015, interview regarding the incident, Respondent indicated that “I was keeping him safe. I was holding his hand at first and he was okay. Then he started pulling away from me and I wanted to make sure he didn't hurt himself.” Her statement is consistent with the video. During the meeting, Respondent remained adamant that she had called Ms. Kasten and received the instruction to bring J.S. to the office. In conjunction with the investigation of the incident by Petitioner, Ms. Johnson reported the incident to the Department of Children and Families. The School Board received nothing from the Department of Children and Families to suggest that it found wrongdoing on the part of Respondent. Ms. Johnson believed, based on the information conveyed to her, that there was no reason for Respondent to remove the disruptive student from the classroom and that such action did not follow the protocol for the school for the removal of an unruly student. The alleged breach of protocol involved in taking the child to the office was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. On February 18, 2015, Respondent was advised of the opportunity for a pre-determination meeting to be held the following week. Respondent took advantage of the opportunity. The pre-determination meeting was held on February 25, 2015. In attendance were Respondent, Ms. Martin, labor counsel Tom Gonzales, Ms. Johnson, and Joann Hartage, who appeared to be representing Respondent. Ms. Martin’s secretary, Sherrie Kudla, was also in attendance to take minutes of the meeting. During the pre-determination meeting, Respondent gave her account of the incident and was questioned, primarily by Ms. Martin. In addition to questions regarding the walk to the office, Ms. Martin asked about interviews of Respondent’s students undertaken by Ms. Johnson, which Ms. Martin found to be “very concerning.” Among the issues raised by Ms. Martin was “their perception [] that you yell and get aggravated with students and that you’re mean to [J.S.].” Although Respondent stated that she had read the statements, she was not involved in the interviews, and had no opportunity to ascertain the accuracy of the statements. More to the point, whether Respondent yelled or was a mean teacher was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. At the conclusion of the pre-determination meeting, Ms. Martin conferred with the school superintendent, and the decision was made to recommend to the School Board that Respondent be terminated from employment. By letter dated March 9, 2015, Respondent was advised that, as a result of her “pulling/dragging a student to the front office,” the District determined that she had violated rules 6A-10.080(2) and (3), rules 6A-10.81(3)(a) and (3)(e), and the School Board Policy/Staff Handbook; that she was suspended with pay; and that she had the right to appeal the recommendation of termination. On March 23, 2015, Respondent appealed the recommendation of termination. By letter dated March 24, 2015, Respondent was notified that the recommendation to the School Board would be modified to one of suspension without pay, effective April 22, 2015, and referral of her appeal to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At the April 21, 2015, meeting of the School Board, the School Board authorized that this case be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, whereupon this case ensued. Ultimate Findings of Fact Based upon the facts as set forth herein, Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent engaged in an incident of “pulling/dragging a student to the front office.” The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Respondent walked J.S. to the office and, despite J.S.’s verbal protestations and brief efforts to resist, did so in a safe and effective manner. Any “pulling” was brief and on the part of J.S., not on the part of Respondent. There was no “dragging.” The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that a teacher’s act of walking an unruly or disruptive student to the office is not, in and of itself, a violation of any applicable procedure or standard and has not been determined to be so in the past. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that there is nothing inherently inappropriate or improper with a teacher taking a student by the hand and walking with the student. Issues of whether Respondent received telephonic approval to take J.S. to the office, should have left Ms. Tyree to watch her class, spoke to Ms. Kasten in a loud voice, or was loud or mean with her students were not pled as bases for Respondent’s termination, and, thus, cannot form the basis for any disciplinary sanction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Hernando County School Board, enter a final order: dismissing the March 9, 2015, notice of recommendation of termination; reinstating Respondent to a position equivalent to that previously held with the Hernando County School Board; and to the extent there is a statute, rule, employment contract, or collective bargaining agreement that authorizes back pay as a remedy for Respondent’s wrongful termination/suspension without pay, Respondent should be awarded full back pay and benefits. See Sch. Bd. of Seminole Cnty. v. Morgan, 582 So. 2d 787, 788 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Brooks v. Sch. Bd. of Brevard Cnty., 419 So. 2d 659, 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 25th day of August, 2015.
The Issue The issues in this case concern whether the Petitioner, School Board of Bay County, should terminate the Respondent from his position of employment and his status as a continuing contract teacher for allegedly committing "misconduct in office."
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Robert Wayne Davidson, has been employed by the School Board of Bay County since 1983. Respondent obtained a continuing contract with the County School Board in accordance with terms of Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, approximately one year after his first employment. He has worked in various instructional positions at Rosenwald Middle School since becoming employed by the Bay County School Board. He has received an extra salary supplement for being a team leader, a position with supervision over other teachers, has served as the chairperson of the English Department at Rosenwald Middle School, and has worked in many voluntary extracurricular activities. The Respondent has received above satisfactory performance evaluations since his employment with the School Board. During the 1989-90 school year the Respondent taught an alternative program known as P.A.S.S. The P.A.S.S. or P.A.S.S. Program is designed to help students who have been retained, and who may be experiencing academic or emotional problems, or both. Having never taught in that program, the Respondent initially took a lenient approach to both his teaching and his classroom management. Sometime during the middle of November 1989, however, he recognized that some students were taking advantage of the less structured classroom atmosphere to the detriment of their own and classmates' academic and social progress. Consequently, Mr. Davidson sought advice from a colleague who recommended that he employ a more tightly structured class program and procedure. He was advised to maintain discipline and keep the students busy. He implemented these changes, and some students did not thereafter perform as well and rebelled against the imposition of more structure and discipline. Students in the alternative program P.A.S.S. could either be "mainstreamed" or "promoted" in accordance with their academic progress in that program. Sixth grade students in the P.A.S.S. Program could be promoted midyear to the seventh grade under certain exceptional circumstances with a strong recommendation from the classroom teacher. Seventh and eighth grade students could not be promoted midyear, but could be promoted for two years at the end of the school year in the P.A.S.S. Program. According to Ida Conner, the current P.A.S.S. teacher at Rosenwald Middle School, it would be unusual for a student to be promoted midyear and virtually impossible without the recommendation of that student's primary teacher. Soon after the imposition of more structure and discipline on his P.A.S.S. students, two students, April Holland and Theresa Cooley, initiated complaints against the Respondent immediately prior to the Christmas holidays in 1989. They were seventh grade students and both Theresa Cooley and April Holland had started off the year successfully. They initially performed well in the Respondent's classes. With the changes the Respondent imposed regarding structure and discipline in November 1989, which required more accountability of the students, Theresa and April began to receive "zeros" for failing to turn in work, so much so that at the time the Respondent was suspended from his duties both April and Theresa had enough zero grades for simply failing to turn in required work that their earlier A averages had declined to "Cs or Ds." Those two students never completed the missed assignments, and informed the Respondent that they had no intent to complete the assigned work. On January 11, 1990, the Respondent was suspended from Rosenwald Middle School. The two primary complaining students were Theresa Cooley and April Holland. Shortly thereafter they were promoted in midyear without the recommendation of the Respondent. For unknown reasons these students were offered the unique opportunity, unlike any other seventh grade students, to take a test in order to determine eligibility for midyear promotion. On the day of Halloween in the fall of 1989, teachers and students alike at Rosenwald School dressed in costume. The Respondent dressed in costume and wore a "Freddie Kruger" mask to jokingly frighten students. Respondent stood behind the door and grabbed students by the shoulder and shouted "boo" as they entered the room. Most of the students viewed the behavior as in a spirit of fun and were not embarrassed or scared by his actions. It was only in late December that Theresa Cooley and April Holland first indicated that they were allegedly upset by the Respondent's actions. Prior to that time not one student, including those two girls, ever complained about the incident. Indeed, Theresa Cooley even asked to borrow the mask on that occasion. April Holland testified that the Respondent hugged her from "the side" during this incident. Theresa Cooley also testified that the Respondent "sort of like" hugged April. Another student, Amy Sims, stated she had never observed the Respondent touch another student, or make any advances which could be construed as sexual advances. At the hearing, Theresa Cooley in her testimony impugned her earlier claim that the Respondent had attempted to touch her improperly with his tongue. Theresa confirmed that she had also discussed her testimony as to this issue with her cohort, April Holland, prior to the hearing. Indeed, at hearing, Theresa could not with specificity state when or where the incident allegedly occurred. She reported that when she and April discussed the matter, she thought she said it occurred in the classroom, but April believed that she had said it occurred in the lunchroom. Significantly, not one other student observed the alleged misconduct either in the classroom or the lunchroom on Halloween, or any other day for that matter. Finally, Theresa admitted that the Respondent did not say anything "out of the way" on Halloween, and that she borrowed the mask on that same day. According to the Respondent, one day during Study Hall, April Holland asked him if he ever had "dirty thoughts" about his students. Mr. Davidson responded that to do so would make him a "dirty old man." His only comment was directed toward thoughts of disciplining certain students. The inherit inconsistencies in the testimonies of Theresa and April on this issue result in that testimony being insufficient to establish their claim as it relates to the factual conduct and legal violation with which the Respondent is charged. Although the students reviewed one another's statement immediately prior to testifying by their own admission, neither could recall when the incident allegedly occurred and who may have been present. According to April, the incident in all likelihood occurred in Amy Sims' presence. Amy Sims, however, did not corroborate this claim in any way. So too, Theresa Cooley stated that the incident may have occurred in class. However, no other student confirmed the incident in any way. The testimony regarding allegations that Respondent made sexually suggestive remarks and offensive gestures is equally unreliable. Theresa Cooley and April Holland referred to an incident involving another student who did not testify at hearing. They alleged that the Respondent directed the student named "Brandy" not to sit on a desk because he was "going through a divorce and like sex eight to ten times a week." Theresa Cooley and April Holland testified essentially exactly the same regarding this alleged incident. These statements were supposedly made in the classroom in the presence of the entire class. Amy Sims, another witness for the Petitioner, was initially called to corroborate Theresa and April's claims. On cross- examination, however, she admitted that her statement on direct examination was false and that in fact Mr. Davidson did not make the statement as alleged by Theresa and April. The most plausible explanation was proffered by the Respondent who stated that he informed Brandy that the manner in which she was seated was not ladylike. Upon making this statement, he observed a student giving him "the bird" and responded to that student that the gesture did not bother him because he was use to getting it eight to ten times a week. Students Mike Everett, Mike Nobles, Rayfus Williams, Jack Pardue, Katrina Harris, and Marlena Bullock all testified that they never heard the Respondent make any inappropriate or sexually suggestive remarks during class. None of these students received any promise of or derived any actual benefit by their testimony. Also, the testimonies of April and Theresa are not credible as they relate to allegations that the Respondent made other improper comments and gestures. Respondent indicated that the same students first initiated a discussion of "three on one," apparently part of a discussion in slang terms of certain sexual activity. Later, in an attempt to chastise them for their conduct, he rebuked them while seated at his desk in his classroom during the school day. The Respondent did not make the comment as alleged by April and Theresa. No other witnesses corroborated these allegations. Moreover, it is extremely unlikely that the Respondent would have made such comments when the alleged incident was said to have occurred during regular school hours when students and adults could have been present at any time. Finally, none of these students reported the alleged incident at the time, but rather waited until December to make the allegations known. Teachers and students alike testified as to April's and Theresa's reputations for credibility in their school community. Both girls do not have good reputations for telling the truth, especially as viewed by fellow classmates. The Respondent, on the other hand, was considered by his former supervisor and colleagues to have an excellent reputation for telling the truth. When coupled with the testimony relative to the girls' reputations in the school for being untruthful, the inherent inconsistencies of their statements, their own admissions that at times their stories were not accurate and, finally, the improbability of the assertions as compared with undisputed facts, the most favorable inferences rest in favor of the Respondent. Certain students allege that the Respondent used derogatory language in oral and written form in referring to Assistant Principal Carol Love. Hereto, the inconsistencies in the stories of April and Theresa undermine their reliability. Kim White, another student who testified that the Respondent made these statements, admitted on cross-examination that the allegations were untrue. Indeed, she acknowledged that in fact that another student, Jennifer Schiedel, was responsible for writing the "swear words" on the board. The Respondent acknowledged that the words had been written on the board, but that he had no knowledge who wrote them, and upon seeing the words he erased them without comment. More importantly, many other students from almost all of the Respondent's classes testified that the Respondent did not use derogatory language in addressing the students and testified that this type of behavior would be inconsistent with the conduct and decorum he normally presented to them in class. Concerning the other allegations, the Respondent has no knowledge of them and his testimony is credited in light of the discrepancies in testimony and the questions of creditability raised as to some of the Petitioner's witnesses. The Respondent received better than satisfactory evaluations since his employment with the School Board of Bay County. His former principal and colleagues testified that he was an effective and dedicated teacher. Further, his students referred to him as a caring and conscientious teacher. There is no testimony presented by the Petitioner regarding any lack of effectiveness in the classroom.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record, and the candor demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the School Board of Bay County finding that the Petitioner failed to establish any ground for the dismissal of the Respondent from his continuing contract status and from his position as teacher pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes; that the charges filed by the Superintendent should be denied and dismissed; that the Respondent should be reinstated to his position of employment on continuing contract status; that the Respondent should be made whole for economic and other measurable losses caused by the action of the Superintendent and the Board, including but not limited to payment to him of the amount of his full back pay and attendant benefits withheld from the date of his suspension without pay to the date of his effective reinstatement, plus interest thereon and reimbursement of all other economic losses directly resulting from his suspension without pay; that the Respondent has duly requested and is entitled to a hearing to determine entitlement and amount of the costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred in defense of this action by the Board; and that by its Final Order, the Board should award attorney's fees and costs or, should agreement not be reached, should reserve jurisdiction on the issue of attorney's fees and costs and should remand the matter for the above-referenced determination on those issues by a Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 14th day of May 1991. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 14th day of May 1991 APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as not being a finding of fact, but rather resuscitation of the factual allegations of the charging complaint. Rejected as immaterial to a resolution of the disputed issues from this de novo proceeding. It is not material to a decision concerning whether or not the conduct occurred and whether it constituted misconduct in office that the Superintendent, Mr. Simonson, recommended that the Board uphold the Respondent's suspension and dismiss him as an employee. His recommendation has no weight in this de novo proceeding. Rejected as not supported by the preponderance of evidence of record, much less clear and convincing evidence of record. Rejected as not supported by the preponderant credible evidence of record. Rejected as not supported by the preponderant credible evidence of record. Rejected as not supported by the preponderant credible evidence of record. Rejected as not supported by the preponderant credible evidence of record. Rejected as not supported by the preponderant credible evidence of record and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as not supported by the preponderant credible evidence of record. Rejected as not supported by the preponderant credible evidence of record. Rejected as not supported by the preponderant credible evidence of record. Rejected as not supported by the preponderant credible evidence of record. Rejected as not supported by the preponderant credible evidence of record. Rejected as not supported by the preponderant credible evidence of record. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Copies furnished to: William G. Harrison, Jr., Esq. 304 Magnolia Avenue P. O. Drawer 1579 Panama City, FL 32401 Pamela F. Cooper, Esquire 325 John Knox Road Building L, Suite 101 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Mr. Jack W. Simonson, Superintendent Bay County School Board P. O. Drawer 820 Panama City, Florida 32402 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
