The Issue The issues is whether Ms. Wynne's employment as a speech therapist with the School Board of Broward County should be terminated for lack of the necessary emotional stability to carry out her duties.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Wynne is a speech therapist, and has been employed by the School Board of Broward County as a speech and language therapist. She works with elementary age children on articulation, fluency, voice and hearing disorders. At times she works with students individually, at other times in groups of 4 to 5. She obtained a professional services contract with the School Board on October 24, 1990, during the 1990-91 school year. It provides that she may not be dismissed during the term of the contract except for just cause, as provided in Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and that she is entitled to annual renewal of that contract under the provisions of Section 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes. Ms. Wynne was first employed by the School Board in August of 1987, after her graduation from Indiana University. She has been the speech and language therapist at Castle Hill Elementary during the entire period of her employment by the School Board of Broward County. Ms. Wynne's performance has been evaluated each year. Her evaluations have been satisfactory based on observation of her classroom teaching, through the evaluation conducted on May 8, 1990 for the 1989-90 school year. Ms. Wynne began to exhibit unusual and bizarre behavior beginning at approximately the end of the 1989-90 school year, which continued into the first portion of the 1990-91 school year. Ms. Wynne had friendly relations with a number of people, including Lucy R. Thomas, the principal of Walker Elementary Magnet School who had interviewed Ms. Wynne for her teaching position in Broward County after her graduation from Indiana University, and who had helped her in obtaining her job and housing. They attended the same church. At about August of 1990, Ms. Thomas noticed that Ms. Wynne's behavior began to change: she lost weight, seemed withdrawn, and in several conversations indicated to Ms. Thomas that a musician at the church was "bugging her." Ms. Wynne asked Ms. Thomas to speak with the musician and tell him to leave her alone. She also indicated a belief that the minister and another church member had been driving by her home to spy on her. Ms. Wynne had also had a close relationship with another teacher, Sonia Bernard, who is employed at the Sandpiper Elementary School. They had roomed together at Indiana University. Shortly after Ms. Wynne obtained employment with the School Board of Broward County Ms. Bernard also moved to Florida. Ms. Wynne was at Ms. Bernard's wedding and is godparent to Ms. Bernard's son. About a year ago Ms. Bernard noticed a marked change in Ms. Wynne's behavior. Ms. Wynne accused Ms. Bernard's husband of tapping her telephone and also maintained that the musician at church had tapped her phone and was following her. She aggressively questioned Ms. Bernard's six year old son in a manner that frightened him, asking him "why are you in my business." Ms. Bernard found Ms. Wynne's behavior to be paranoid. Ms. Wynne also began to exhibit unusual behaviors at school. At first the behaviors were merely quirky. She told the principal of the school, Dr. Valoria Latson, that she thought the parents of the children she taught did not believe Ms. Wynne was doing a good job based on the children's behavior in class. Ms. Wynne also asked Dr. Latson to explain Ms. Wynne's job responsibilities to other staff members at the school during a staff meeting, when there was no reason for this to be done. In late March of 1990 there were teacher manuals missing from her room and Ms. Wynne expressed the idea that someone had stolen them, but they turned up in her room a week or so later and had not been stolen. About this time she began to express concern that children in the school and children from the neighborhood near the school were watching her. She expressed to Dr. Latson the belief that school staff members were listening in on her classroom through the intercom, when this was not the case. By July of 1990 she said she believed her classroom had been bugged. About this time she also expressed to other people at the school that she believed her home phone had been tapped, and that people around school were "discussing her business" out of her presence. She believed that her home telephone conversations were being repeated by teachers in the teacher planning room, although Ms. Wynne was never specific as to any teacher who repeated anything, or about the content of any conversations which were repeated. She went so far as to have the phone company check her line for bugs or taps. Eventually Ms. Wynne expressed to Ms. Erma Harrison, a clerk at the school, the belief that her car had been bugged and that people were following her. She would at times appear at the home of Ms. Harrison and demand to know "what was going on" in a manner which was so bizarre as to frighten Ms. Harrison's children. Ms. Harrison eventually had her telephone number changed to avoid harrassment by Ms. Wynne. By about October of 1990, Ms. Wynne expressed the belief that the young children in her class, ages 5 and 6, had bugged her classroom, and knew things about her personal life. She believed that the children knew who her boyfriend was, because the children were making hissing sounds in class. Her boyfriend did own a pet snake, and she believed that the children were making the hissing sounds as a way of communicating to her that they knew who her boyfriend was; there was no way for them to know anything about Ms. Wynne's personal life. She also expressed the belief that the children were taking pictures of her lesson plans with a camera placed in the light bulbs of her classroom. Matters came to a head in late October of 1990. On October 26, 1990, Ms. Wynne had a conference with the principal of the Castle Hill Elementary School, Dr. Latson, and the Assistant Principal, Ms. Weissberg, during which she announced that she would be immediately resigning from her position with the School Board of Broward County and would bring them a typed letter of resignation that day. She did not submit such a letter. The following Monday, Ms. Wynne was absent from school. She telephoned on Tuesday, October 30th to say that "she had it and was leaving," although no letter of resignation had been submitted. On Friday, November 2nd, Ms. Wynne telephoned the school early in the morning to say that she would be late. Later, at approximately 11:30 a.m., an investigator for the School Board's Special Investigative Unit, Ellis Dardeen, telephoned the principal to report a conversation which he had had that morning with Ms. Wynne at his office. Ms. Wynne had come to the Special Investigative Unit to ask that an investigation be initiated as to why other teachers and students at Castle Hill Elementary School were talking about Ms. Wynne. When Mr. Dardeen asked what was being said, Ms. Wynne responded that students were talking about her parents, about her mother's home and about the basement in the home. When Mr. Dardeen asked what they were saying about the basement, Ms. Wynne merely shrugged and asked how students would know that her mother's home had a basement. When asked what the teachers at Castle Hill Elementary were saying about her, Ms. Wynne did not respond, but said that her neighbors and people at the grocery store were talking about her. Mr. Dardeen regarded this matter as so bizarre that he telephoned Dr. Latson to let her know about his meeting with Ms. Wynne. He also memorialized his conversation in a memorandum to the Director of the Office of Professional Standards, Mr. Ron Wright. Ms. Wynne arrived at Castle Hill Elementary School at about 12:45 p.m. on November 2nd and asked for the rest of the day off. She told Dr. Latson that she had been evicted from her apartment and had been driving around "thinking." Dr. Latson asked Ms. Wynne about the status of her letter of resignation. Ms. Wynne declined to sign the standard resignation form used by the School Board. At this point, Dr. Latson was sufficiently concerned about Ms. Wynne to request the Associate Superintendent, Mark Siegle, to arrange for a psychological or psychiatric evaluation of Ms. Wynne, and asked that she not be assigned to the classroom until the evaluation was concluded. The Office of Professional Standards prepared a memorandum which was delivered to Ms. Wynne placing her on administrative leave, with pay, as of Tuesday, November 6, 1990, pending the results of a psychiatric or psychological evaluation which would be performed by the School Board. Associate Superintendent Siegle arranged with Dr. N. Benjamin Barnea, a board-certified psychiatrist who works with School Board employees, to see Ms. Wynne. He did so on November 8, 1990, and his report of that meeting was prepared for Associate Superintendent Siegle on November 12, 1990. Dr. Barnea also saw Ms. Wynne on December 3rd and December 17, 1990. Dr. Barnea found Ms. Wynne to be suffering from a thought disorder which resulted in delusions. In order to determine whether her behavior had an anatomical basis he had a CAT scan of the brain and an EEG performed, but neither showed any anatomical problems. Dr. Barnea recommended a course of treatment for Ms. Wynne's behavior through the use of drugs which can be helpful in correcting delusional thought processing, although they are not always effective. There is no other course of treatment available for these sort of thought disorders. Dr. Barnea believes that Ms. Wynne may have had an underlying problem for some time but was able to function until some precipitating event occurred which manifested the thought disorder. Part of the difficulty in treating a thought disorder is that the patient has no insight into the fact that there is a problem, but rather has a fixed belief that they have no psychological problem. Dr. Barnea's testimony was convincing that while suffering from delusional thought processing, Ms. Wynne cannot be in a position of responsibility over students as a teacher. Any event or statement by children could be misinterpreted and could result in acting out, which could be dangerous to the students. Those suffering from delusional thought processing exhibit a spectrum of behaviors, from docility to violence. It is not possible to predict the type of behavior which the person suffering from this problem will exhibit. She has already frightened children of Ms. Bernard and Ms. Harrison, see, Findings 6 and 8. Without drug treatment there is no reason to believe that there will be a remission of the psychological problem. The medications Dr. Barnea would try include neuroleptics such as Trilafon. Ms. Wynn refused to take the medication which Dr. Barnea offered to prescribe. Ms. Wynne testified that after seeing Dr. Barnea she had consulted another psychiatrist, Dr. Patnelli, who had given her a prescription for Trilafon which she had been taking for approximately ten days before the hearing. She also testified that she had only informed her attorney of this treatment the day before the hearing. She expressed no faith in the utility of taking the drug, but was willing to do so in order to help keep her job. No prescription scrip or actual medication was exhibited at the hearing. It is impossible to know whether Ms. Wynne would take the medication faithfully, or whether it would have any affect upon her condition.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the employment of Danita Wynne as a teacher by the School Board of Broward County under the Professional Service Contract which she obtained on October 24, 1990, be terminated pursuant to the provisions of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, due to her mental incompetency. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of November, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 7th day of November, 1991. Copies furnished: Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock and Moldof 1311 Southeast Second Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Thomas W. Young, III, Esquire FEA/United 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700 Virgil L. Morgan, Superintendent School Board of Broward County 1320 Southwest 4 Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact This matter comes on before the undersigned for consideration following an Administrative Complaint brought by Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education for the State of Florida, against Robert J. Browne, Respondent. No genuine factual issue is in dispute because no communication, including an election of rights or an appearance from the Respondent, has ever been received. Pursuant to the above-cited rule, the matter was required to proceed to hearing before the undersigned for the presentation of a prima facie case by the Petitioner, regarding the establishment of the reputed facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint upon which the Petitioner seeks revocation of the Respondent's Certificate. The Administrative Complaint is dated July 1, 1981. After the Administrative Complaint was filed, various efforts were made to achieve service of the same on the Respondent. The Respondent never responded to the Administrative Complaint. Diligent search and inquiry failed to locate the Respondent, or a means or location whereby he might be served with the Complaint. Attempts to serve him at his last-known forwarding address resulted in the certi- fied mail being returned unclaimed and unforwardable. The undersigned attempted to serve notice of this proceeding itself upon the Respondent at the last known address with the same result. Service by publication of the Administrative Complaint was achieved by the Petitioner. The Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate Number 440435, Post Graduate, Rank II, which expires on June 30, 1998, authorizing him to engage in the profession of teaching in the areas of mental retardation, junior college, administration, and supervision. At all times pertinent hereto, he was employed at the Exceptional Student Educational Center in Broward County, Florida, at Eastside Elementary School. The Respondent's position was that of administrator or assistant principal at the school. The Respondent was employed at the school during the summer of 1980. Mrs. Annie Turner was employed at the school as the custodian during that same summer. She worked from the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in the evening. She often took her son Ronnie, who was the youngest of seven children, to the school with her during her working hours. She did this in order for him to assist her in her job duties. On an early visit to the school, Ronnie met the Respondent, Mr. Browne. They met on frequent occasions thereafter, when Ronnie was at the school with his mother and talked of sports and other things of interest to Ronnie, and they ultimately struck up a friendship. Mrs. Turner began noticing that her son would go to a distant bathroom in the school and stay an inordinate period of time. This happened on a number of occasions and she noticed that Mr. Browne would follow her son into the mens' bathroom while she was engaged in cleaning another room nearby in the school. She did not feel anything was amiss until this happened on a regular basis. Finally, on a Thursday evening (she does not remember the date), in the summer of 1980, Mr. Browne and Ronnie entered the bathroom and stayed so long she opened the door to check on her son and observed the Respondent on his knees committing a homosexual act on the person of her son. She was not observed by Mr. Browne. She ultimately informed-the County Superintendent and Mr. Browne was confronted with the subject accusation by his superiors. Sometime thereafter the Respondent resigned his position at the school. Mrs. Turner no longer respects Mr. Browne and would not want one of her children in a school where he was principal or a teacher due to her apprehension regarding their physical and emotional welfare. The testimony of Ronnie Turner corroborates that of his mother, Annie Turner, and in addition, establishes that the homosexual act observed by Mrs. Turner occurred on three (3) other occasions in a substantially similar fashion and location. The occasion when Annie Turner discovered the Respondent committing a homosexual act on her son was the fourth and last of those occasions, all of which occurred during a three-week period during the summer of 1980. Ronnie Turner sougnt on several occasions to avoid association with the Respondent during this time after he became aware of the Respondent's intentions. He would not want to attend a school at which the Respondent was employed and fears that the same fate will befall other children at any school at which the Respondent should be employed. Ronnie Turner was fourteen years of age at the time the pertinent events occurred. After the Respondent resigned from his position with the Broward County School System, there ultimately ensued an Administrative Complaint brought by Ralph Turlington, Commissioner of Education of the State of Florida, seeking revocation of the Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence in the record and the pleadings and arguments of counsel for the Petitioner, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Robert J. Browne, have his Teacher's Certificate in and for the State of Florida revoked permanently. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire BERG AND HOLDER 203-B South Monroe Street Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Robert J. Browne 1771 Northeast 12th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, Glover E. Jones, was licensed as a teacher in the State of Florida holding certificate number 556798, covering the area of mathematics, and was employed by the Madison County School Board as an adjunct instructor at Madison County High School, Madison, Florida. The uncontroverted facts in this case show that Pamela Ann Hale, the alleged recipient of the remarks in question here, was born on August 28, 1969. As of the date of the hearing, she was living with her mother in Live Oak, Florida, attending the 10th grade at Suwannee High School there. At the time of the alleged incident here, she was living with her father in Madison and attended Madison County High School. Her mother and father are divorced. While attending Madison County High School, Hale had the Respondent as her math teacher during the third period of the school day during the month of September 1984, at the beginning of the 1984-1985 school year. She did not have him for any other subjects nor did she know him prior to the beginning of the school year. This class was made up of students who required extra assistance and consisted of approximately 15 to 16 students in remedial math. On the day in question, Hale was selling candy during the class period to raise money for a school organization. She sold candy not only to her fellow students but also to the Respondent. At this point the stories told by Ms. Hale and by the Respondent begin to diverge. Ms. Hale contends that when she approached Jones on the date in question to buy candy he advised her to come back after class and she could sell him some. She contends, also, that she came back after the other students left even though she had another class (health) to attend, sat down at a student desk, and Respondent sat down facing her approximately three or four feet away. It is at this point that, she says, he asked her simple questions about herself and her family. When she answered, he then allegedly asked her if she had ever "fucked" a black man before. He allegedly told her she looked sexy that day. She says he asked her if she noticed that he "had a hard on" and touched himself in the genital area, asking her if she thought she could handle that. At no time, however, did Respondent ever touch the witness. She says he asked her if she had ever "fucked" anyone while someone else was in the room. She replied that she had not. He allegedly asked her if she had a boyfriend and when she said she did, he is alleged to have responded, "I'll bet you fuck him because he's not black." This conversation went on until about 10 or 15 minutes before the fourth period was over. As was stated previously, the witness had health the fourth period and cut the class because, as she tells it, Respondent asked her to stay. While she was in the room with Jones alone, a Mr. Alexander, also a math teacher, entered, along with two other students. While in the room, Alexander asked Respondent if the witness was having any trouble with her work to which Respondent replied that she was, but indicated he would take care of it. Alexander verifies this with the exception that according to his testimony, when he came into the room, Respondent was seated at his desk writing a note and Hale was standing in front of him. This is not a significant difference. After Alexander left, Respondent asked the witness several questions about her siblings including her sister who formerly went to Madison High, but who quit when she had difficulty with some black students the previous year. He asked her if she was going to go to the ball game the following Thursday and, when she replied that she was, she says he suggested that perhaps they could get together that night. Ms. Hale contends she was amazed that Respondent talked to her in this fashion but she also contends she did not leave because she was afraid of him, though he made no threats, either verbal or physical, toward her and made no effort to prevent her from leaving. She also made no comment to Alexander when he and the other students came into the room even though these suggestive statements had already been made. She finally terminated the conversation toward the end of the fourth period by stating she had to go to her next class. Before she left, she asked Respondent for a note, which he gave her and asked her not to repeat the conversation they had had. During fifth period, Hale had lunch scheduled and during lunch with Loretta Sealy, she related in general terms, to Sealy, what had happened. After lunch, she went to the remainder of her classes and went home but even that night, she failed to tell her father of the incident because she was afraid he might do something as a result of his hot temper. Sealy indicates that when she first saw Hale after the incident, when Hale came into the ladies' room, she appeared nervous, upset, and near tears. She said that Respondent had said things which upset her--in essence propositioning her. At first, Hale did not want to report the incident because she felt nobody would believe her. However, Sealy finally convinced her to do so and the two girls went to see the assistant principal, Ms. Miller, two days after the incident took place. Hale told Ms. Miller what had happened and signed the first of several written statements which was prepared for her signature by Miller based on the report given. Later on, she agreed to take a polygraph examination regarding her story. No evidence was presented as to whether the exam was given or not. Ms. Hale attended class with the Respondent during the several days between the time of the alleged incident and the report to Ms. Miller, but once the story came into the open, she was removed from his class. She talked with Miller rather than the principal because she had known Ms. Miller from her prior school. The fact that she did not talk with the principal had nothing to do with the fact that he is black. Respondent's version of the story differs from that of Hale in that he contends that at the end of the class period on the day in question, Hale asked him if she could stay after class. He contends that her remaining had nothing to do with buying candy because he bought candy from her when she came to class. He also claims that she did her homework during this fourth period when she and he were the only people in the room. While she was working, he was behind his desk and she was sitting at a student desk off to his left. Respondent contends that it was Hale who made the first non-business statement by asking him if she could go smoke. He told her that she could not since smoking was not allowed on campus. She responded that another teacher, Mr. Hendrix, had allowed her to smoke in the school building and then went on to indicate that she had "messed" with guys in their twenties when she was twelve. This statement, which came immediately after the comments about Mr. Hendrix and smoking, shocked him. The only reason he did not ask her to leave was because she appeared to have a problem and he thought he might be able to help her. During the course of the conversation she indicated that some blacks had attacked her sister the previous year on campus which had caused her sister to leave school and that, in general, all black students at Madison High were wild. Though Ms. Hale, in her testimony, indicated that when asked by Respondent if she had ever fucked a black man, she responded by asking him if he'd ever fucked a white woman, Respondent denies that Hale ever asked him this question nor did she mention drugs to him in any fashion. He denies making any of the comments attributed to him by Hale or any of the suggestive movements she claimed he made, though in the letter he submitted to the principal the morning after being confronted by the accusations against him, denials were not so strong or so widespread. In fact, in that written statement, he commented, "I'm not saying that the statement made is totally wrong, but there are two things that trouble me most about it." He then goes on to list these two troublesome areas as the statement makes it appear as though he is the culprit and that some things in it are either false or turned around. He then goes on to list the several things Hale is supposed to have said to him that were not included in her statement, such as her sexual activity and her obvious antipathy toward black men. When Hale finally went to see Miller, she appeared to be quite upset though she was not crying. She was somewhat reluctant to talk to Ms. Miller until finally Miller released Sealy to go back to class and after Sealy left, Hale told Miller her entire story. Once Hale had completed her version of the story, Miller asked her to wait and went to talk with the principal who returned to the office with her to talk with Hale. After discussing with the resource officer how to take a statement, Miller returned to the office and took a detailed statement from Hale a second time in the form suggested to her and had it signed by Hale and notarized. Later that morning, Ms. Miller, the principal, Mr. Yanessy, the resource officer, and Mr. Buchanan called Respondent into the principal's office and showed him a copy of Hale's signed statement. Respondent read it, handed it back, and said that the statement was not "exactly" true--that Hale had twisted a lot of things around. He contended that in reality it was Hale who asked a lot of the questions, not him, and that he would do anything to clear his name. Respondent contended he had no interest in either Hale or any other young girl. At this point the investigating group advised him that they would talk with him later and take a statement from him. About two hours later they did meet again and at this time, Respondent repeated his comments made earlier in the day to the extent that while a conversation took place, it did not happen as Hale said it did. At this point, though the school officials wanted to take Respondent's statement, Respondent did not want to speak on the record then. The following morning he gave the principal the letter which was referred to above. Based on an evaluation of the testimony of Ms. Hale, Ms. Sealy, the Respondent, and Ms. Miller, all of which bears on the credibility of the Respondent vis-a-vis his accuser, it becomes clear, and it is so found, that a conversation did take place in the classroom during the fourth period on September 10, 1984, between Respondent and Ms. Hale when the two of them were the only persons in the room. It most likely will never be determined exactly as to who said what to whom. There is no doubt, however, that the Respondent permitted a student who he knew had a class to attend, to remain in his classroom with him at the expense of her absence from that succeeding class. Though Respondent advised Mr. Alexander that he was helping Hale with her school work, there is no other evidence that he did so. Ms. Hale contends he did not and he admits he did not stating only that she did her homework while in the room with him. Whatever the conversation was, it is clear that it was sexually oriented and Respondent used extremely poor judgment in allowing the situation to develop as far as it did. The evidence establishes that Ms. Hale's background is not without cloud. At the age of sixteen she is admittedly sexually experienced and has experimented with various controlled substances such as marijuana and cocaine. Ms. Miller indicated that her academic background was marginal--that while she can do her work and can be an average student, she has, nonetheless, failed. The nature of her testimony on the stand was not so clear as to give a certain picture as to what happened. It is most likely that Ms. Hale herself does not recall the incident with certainty. What is clear is that aside from her discussion with Ms. Sealy over lunch, she failed to make any complaint to anyone with authority to do something about it until several days after the incident took place and then only upon the urging of her friend. In substance then, it is obvious that the truth no doubt lies somewhere between the two stories. When Respondent found out that Ms. Hale had no legitimate reason to be in his classroom, he allowed her to remain and engaged in a conversation with her that should not have taken place. While the exact words are in question, the subject matter is not. It was sexually oriented and the parties were a twenty-five-year-old male teacher and a fifteen- year-old female student. His judgment in allowing that to happen is abysmal and his professionalism in that instance was nonexistent especially in light of the fact that he was warned twice at the beginning of his employment with the school system by his principal, to be very careful of his conduct in dealing with female students. Mr. Ray, the principal, indicates that if the allegations against the Respondent are true, it would seriously reduce his effectiveness as a classroom teacher because of the need for a teacher to observe the strictest propriety in his relationships with students. Such conduct as alleged here would undoubtedly be harmful to the learning process and would create an embarrassment to the student. If the allegations are true he would not want Respondent back working for him. In his opinion, for a situation such as this, if established, there are no less drastic remedies than termination. He believes that there is no place in Madison County for a teacher guilty of these allegations and in addition to termination, revocation of the teaching certificate would be appropriate. On the other hand, if it were to be established that the allegation was not true, then Respondent's effectiveness would not be diminished and the credibility of the student would be damaged. However, in his experience it is very unusual for female students to make sexual advances toward teachers. While it could occur, in his opinion it is not likely and over the 19 years he has been in education, it has never happened to him. Mr. Buchanan, who has been in place as Superintendent of Schools in Madison County for over 8 years, is familiar with the allegations in this case and Respondent's denial. His analysis of the case resulted in his recommendation that the School Board suspend the Respondent from his teaching position and in addition, he reported Respondent to the Education Practices Commission. He took this step because he felt an obligation to report substandard conduct of an educator. Assuming that the allegations are true, in his view, the effectiveness of the Respondent is reduced because in a case like this the teacher loses credibility with his students. He feels that if true, Respondent's conduct would be harmful to the learning process and embarrassing to the student and would have an adverse impact on the relationship between the parents and the school system. Viewing the evidence in its totality and weighing the credibility of all witnesses, as alluded to before, it becomes clear that a one on one conversation took place between the Respondent and Ms. Hale. It is most likely that Respondent did not prompt the conversation and did not request that Ms. Hale remain after class. To the contrary, it would appear that she requested to remain after class. No doubt improper comments were made by both Ms. Hale and the Respondent and it makes no difference whether Ms. Hale or the Respondent initiated the colloquy. It is quite clear that subject matter improper for a conversation between a student and a teacher of opposite sexes, involving sexually suggestive comments took place and that both Respondent and Ms. Hale used language of this nature.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 595057, covering the area of Speech and Language Impaired, which is valid through June 30, 1993. At all times pertinent to the allegations in this case, the Respondent was employed as a Speech Therapist at Castle Hill Elementary School (hereinafter "Castle Hill") in the Broward County School District. At all times pertinent hereto, Dr. Valoria Latson was the principal of Castle Hill, Ronald Wright was the Director of Professional Standards for the Broward County School Board, Mark Seigle was the Associate Superintendent of the Broward County School Board, and Virgil Morgan was the Superintendent of the Broward County School Board. In the Spring of 1990, the Respondent began to exhibit unusual and bizarre behavior both in and out of school. Such behavior included: Claiming that students in her class and children around her neighborhood were watching her; Claiming that students and teachers were talking about her personal life; Claiming that her classroom, apartment, phone and car contained covert listening devices; Claiming that unknown persons were breaking into her car and home on a frequent basis; Calling police on numerous occasions requesting them to investigate and/or fingerprint her apartment and car because they were tampered with; Claiming that she was being followed by friends, staff members, church members and the State of Florida; Claiming that her lesson plans had been stolen and copied; Claiming that her lesson plans were being photographed by a camera in the light bulbs or air conditioner in her classroom; Claiming that staff members were listening in on her class through the school intercom. The accusations and claims made by the Respondent were the product of delusional thought processing and paranoia. Dr. Latson became concerned about Respondent's bizarre behavior, which she described as exhibiting overt signs of paranoia. In July of 1990 Dr. Latson referred Respondent to the Employee Assistance Program ("EAP"). This referral did not benefit the Respondent. With the onset of the 1990-91 school year, Dr. Latson remained concerned about Respondent's continued bizarre behavior. On September 10, 1990, Dr. Latson advised Mr. Wright of her concerns about Respondent and about the referral to the EAP. On September 21, 1990, Dr. Latson advised Mr. Wright that she had not observed any significant changes or improvements in the Respondent. Mr. Wright recommended that Dr. Latson have her Assistant, Ms. Weissberg, observe the Respondent at least 2 to 5 minutes a day, 3 to 4 days a week, to be certain that nothing was going on in that classroom that should not be. On or about October 26, 1990, Dr. Valoria Latson had a conference with the Respondent and the Assistant Principal, Ms. Weissberg, at which time the Respondent indicated that she was "tired of this shit" and would be giving them her letter of resignation. The Respondent failed to bring in her letter of resignation. The Respondent had also informed Ms. Laura Rogers, Program Specialist with the Exceptional Student Education Department for the central area, that she was going to resign. After further observation of Respondent's behavior, it was determined that a formal psychological or psychiatric evaluation of the Respondent would be appropriate. On November 5, 1990, Dr. Latson met with Mr. Seigle and Ms. Lucy Thomas, a friend of the Respondent, regarding the Respondent's unusual behavior. Dr. Latson was concerned about the Respondent's ability to function as a classroom teacher and her ability to work with children and adults in a school setting. Dr. Latson requested that Mr. Seigle make arrangements for a psychological or psychiatric evaluation of the Respondent. She also requested that Respondent be taken out of the classroom until her emotional and mental stability was assessed. Dr. Latson believed that a psychological evaluation of the Respondent was necessary because of her bizarre behavior and her unusual accusations. Dr. Latson believed that the Respondent's effectiveness in the classroom had been reduced, and that it was in the best interests of the students for Respondent to be evaluated. Dr. Benjamin Barnea, a physician trained in Neurology and Psychiatry, conducted an initial evaluation of the Respondent on November 8, 1990. Dr. Barnea summarized his findings in a letter to Mr. Seigle on November 12, 1990. Dr. Barnea's impression of Respondent's condition was that of schizophreniform disorder. His recommendation provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The patient presently shows overt delusional thought processing that prevents her from functioning and interacting with her peers and students. I would not recommend that she be returned to her regular employment until she seeks treatment and is stabilized. Since she has never had a formal workup for her disturbed thought processing, I would recommend that she receive an MRI of the brain and an EEG for completeness sake to rule out possible underlying pathology that might be amenable to treatment. In addition, the patient will need to be started on anti- psychotic medications and I have broached this subject with her but she shows no insight into her illness and does not show willingness to participate in treatment. The prognosis is unfortunately guarded, if her workup is totally negative then the long- term picture is one of probable continued mental illness. In this initial evaluation of the Respondent, the Respondent indicated to Dr. Barnea that she believed her phone conversations at school were being monitored, that her lesson plans were being photographed from the light bulb in her room, that someone at the school knows whose behind this and is doing it, that she is being followed wherever she goes by the Methodist Church that she belongs to, and that her students who are in the age range of five (5) to six (6) years old are aware of who she is dating and sleeping with because, as the Respondent explained, her boyfriend has a pet snake and the students were making hissing sounds in class. During a follow-up evaluation on December 3, 1990, with Dr. Barnea, Respondent again showed evidence of a "fixed delusional system involving people getting into her apartment and moving things around in collusion with her church and her school". Dr. Barnea noted that this was continual evidence of an underlying delusional thought processing that was ongoing with the Respondent, and not merely a transit thing that happened on one particular day. During a follow-up evaluation on December 13, 1990, Dr. Barnea again attempted to convince the Respondent to consider treatment with anti-psychotic medication. Dr. Barnea noted that Respondent refused his advice and was of the opinion that she had no insight that she has a mental problem. Respondent underwent the physical tests recommended by Dr. Barnea. These results of these tests revealed no physical abnormalities. Following his evaluation of Respondent on January 30, 1991, Dr. Barnea noted that Respondent remained delusional with no insight into her illness and that she continued to refuse treatment in the form of anti-psychotic medication for the underlying thought disorder. Dr. Barnea again saw the Respondent briefly on February 4, 1991. It was still his opinion that Respondent was unable to function as a classroom teacher or in an educational setting as long as the underlying delusional thought processing was present. With the exception of anti-psychotic medication, there is no other treatment for a delusional thought disorder. There was no evidence in this proceeding that Respondent's condition had improved since her last evaluation with Dr. Barnea. There was no evidence that she has sought or received treatment or that she was on any type of medication that would benefit her. Without proper treatment, Respondent's delusional thought processing makes her behavior unpredictable. Her behavior could range from being totally docile to physically violent. Although there was no evidence that she had become physically violent, Dr. Barnea was of the opinion that persons suffering from Respondent's mental condition have the potential to become violent because of the underlying delusional thought processing. Respondent should not be placed in a position of responsibility and is incapable of teaching. On or about April 23, 1991, the Respondent was suspended without pay by the Broward County School Board and dismissal proceedings were initiated. Pursuant to the petition for formal proceedings, filed by the Broward County Superintendent of Schools, Virgil Morgan, the Respondent requested a formal hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) and the case was assigned DOAH Case No. 91-2839. The formal hearing conducted in that case was heard before William Dorsey on September 4, 1991. On November 7, 1991, a Recommended Order was issued by the Hearing Officer in DOAH Case No. 91-2839 that concluded, in pertinent part, that Respondent's ". . . thought disorder places any children who would be assigned to her class at unreasonable risk of harm which could result from unpredictable reactions by Ms. Wynne to those students. She is currently not competent to perform her duties as a teacher." The Recommended Order recommended that Respondent's contract with the Broward County School Board be terminated due to her mental incompetency. On January 17, 1992, the Broward County School Board entered a Final Order which adopted the Recommended Order in its entirety, including the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation, and the school board thereby terminated the Respondent from her employment effective April 23, 1991. Based on the School Board's position that the Respondent was mentally incompetent and unfit to hold a teaching certificate, Mr. Wright reported the allegations against the Respondent to Professional Practices Services ("PPS) of the Department of Education. The Respondent is incompetent to perform her duties as an employee of the public school system based upon her mental incompetency. Consequently, her effectiveness as an employee of the school board has been lost.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order which finds Respondent guilty of violating Sections 231.28(l)(b) and 231.28(l)(f), Florida Statutes, and which bars the Respondent from reapplying for a new teaching certificate for a period of three (3) years. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that prior to recertifying Respondent as a teacher in the State of Florida, the Education Practices Commission require Respondent to submit documentation from appropriate mental health professionals that establishes that Respondent does not represent a threat to the safety or well-being of students under her supervision or care, that she is receiving any recommended treatment, and that she is competent to perform her educational and administrative duties in an acceptable and satisfactory manner. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1993, 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 17th day of December, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3376 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are unnecessary as findings of fact, but are incorporated in the Preliminary Statement section of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 34, 35, 41, 43, 44, 45, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, and 74 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 6, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 71, and 75 are subordinate to the findings made. The post-hearing submittal filed by Respondent contained no proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Jill M. Boyd, Esquire Bond & Boyd, P.A. 411 East College Avenue Post Office Box 26 Danita Wynne, pro se 9277 Dunwoody Lane Indianapolis, Indiana 46229 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether the Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of age, handicap and retaliation in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1992, Sections 760.01-760.11, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, who was 52 years of age during the relevant time period, was employed as a guidance counselor at Apollo Elementary School during the 1996-97 school year. Petitioner was one of two guidance counselors employed at the school. The other guidance counselor was Peggy Davis, who was 42 years of age during the relevant time period. Both Petitioner and Davis were licensed teachers and certified guidance counselors. The Brevard County School District has a staffing plan that allocates to each school teaching units according to student population. Based upon the staffing plan, each school is funded to employ a certain number of teachers in each relevant certification and specialty. The principal of each school is permitted to shift allocated teaching units among the different certifications and teaching specialties to meet current program needs. In 1995, Alice Graves was assigned as Principal of Apollo Elementary. When Graves arrived at Apollo, both Petitioner and Davis were employed as full-time guidance counselors. Prior to Graves' assignment to Apollo, the school had earned 1.5 units in guidance based upon student population. In order to fund two full-time guidance counselors, the prior principal had borrowed 0.5 of a teaching unit from the regular program. Graves continued this guidance allocation until the 1997-98 school year. During the 1995-96 school year, the Apollo Elementary School community of parents and teachers decided to implement a computer lab to increase technology instruction in the school. As part of the process a three-year technology plan was developed and submitted to the district and the State Board of Education to fund and staff the computer lab. By the spring of 1997, the school community had raised the necessary funds and purchased 28 computers for the lab. The school was ready to activate the computer lab for the 1997-98 school year. It needed to hire a computer teacher to staff the program. Staffing the computer lab required one full-time teacher. However, Apollo Elementary received no additional staffing from the District because of the computer lab. As a result, the principal was required to staff the lab within the school's existing staffing plan. The principal examined the school's program needs and existing staffing. She determined that the most appropriate way to obtain the full teaching unit needed to staff the computer lab was to take a half unit from the basic program and match it with the half unit that had been allocated to fund one of the two full-time guidance counselor positions. This staffing reallocation would have the least impact on class size, program needs and the student's educational environment. This plan also reduced the existing staffing in guidance by one-half unit, thereby returning it to the 1.5 units actually earned by the school based upon student population. In order to accomplish the staffing reallocation to open the computer lab for the 1997-98 school year, the principal was required to reduce the existing guidance counselor staffing by one-half unit. To do this, the principal had to find another school in Area IV of the School District to share one full-time unit of guidance. In the spring of 1997, the principal began working with the Area IV superintendent's office to find a school to share the guidance unit. In the early summer of 1997, a part-time position in guidance became available in Area IV at Enterprise Elementary. Principal Graves received permission from the Area superintendent to transfer one-half unit of guidance to Enterprise if that school's principal agreed. This would require that one of the two guidance counselors at Apollo be shared between the two schools. The principal contacted the District's Labor Relations office for instructions on how to carry out the transfer of one- half unit of guidance to Enterprise Elementary. She was instructed to follow Article VI F.3.a.(8) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the School District and the Brevard Federation of Teachers. That provision governs transfers of teachers for reasons other than declining enrollment. In accordance with the CBA, the principal sent certified letters to both guidance counselors assigned to Apollo Elementary, Davis, and Petitioner notifying them that a reduction in guidance staffing was going to take place in the upcoming school year and asking for a volunteer to transfer to the shared position. Davis responded in writing that she did not wish to be transferred. Petitioner did not respond to the letter. The principal then contacted Petitioner by telephone and asked her response to the letter. Petitioner told the principal she was not interested in the transfer. Since neither Petitioner nor Davis volunteered to transfer to the shared position, the principal was required to select one of them to be involuntarily transferred. Principal Graves decided to retain Davis in the full-time guidance position at Apollo Elementary and transfer Petitioner to the shared position effective at the beginning of the 1997-98 school year. The criteria the principal used in deciding which guidance counselor would remain in the full-time position at Apollo and which would transfer to the shared position was based upon the contributions each counselor made to the programs and students in the school. Davis was much more involved than Petitioner in the school community and was active in the School Advisory Committee, the Student Council Program, and other school activities that were essential to promoting community services and self-esteem for students. Davis was selected by her peers as the school's Teacher of the Year three times, was an exemplary teacher and guidance counselor, and was excellent at diffusing concerned and upset parents which was important in a guidance counselor in that position. Graves believed that Davis was a more effective guidance counselor than Petitioner. For all these reasons, Davis was retained as the full-time guidance counselor at Apollo and Petitioner was transferred to the shared position effective at the beginning of the 1997-98 school year. Petitioner was notified of the transfer. Thereafter, Petitioner requested a meeting with the Area IV superintendent to protest the transfer. Petitioner was accompanied at the meeting by Fran Baer, President of the Brevard Federation of Teachers. The Area IV superintendent upheld the transfer. Neither Petitioner nor Brevard Federation of Teachers grieved the transfer under the CBA. Petitioner worked the shared position commencing at the beginning of the 1997-98 school year. Petitioner divided her time between Apollo Elementary and Enterprise Elementary alternating days at each school. Petitioner retired from the Brevard County School District effective the end of the 1997-98 school year. Part-time or shared teaching assignments are commonplace in the Brevard County School District. The CBA between the School District and the Brevard Federation of Teachers recognizes this practice in Article VI of the CBA. Currently, the guidance counselor staffing at Apollo Elementary is still 1.5 units and a guidance position is shared with Enterprise Elementary. Although Petitioner did not desire the transfer, the principal had to transfer either Petitioner or Davis to the shared position to accommodate the staffing of the computer lab for the 1997-98 school year. The decision to staff the computer lab teaching position by reducing the guidance allocation to the 1.5 units earned by student population was based upon the program needs of the school and to avoid increasing class size in the regular program. The reasons articulated by Respondent for the reallocation of teaching units and the transfer of Petitioner to the shared position are credible and constitute legitimate non- discriminatory reasons for the actions taken. The evidence does not support Petitioner's assertion that her age was a factor in the decision, nor was Petitioner's physical condition a factor in the decision. Although Petitioner had some physical problems that occurred from time to time, the school staff was not aware that Petitioner claimed to be disabled or handicapped and the staff did not perceive Petitioner to be handicapped. The evidence does not support the assertion that Petitioner was retaliated against based upon her age, physical condition or for filing the charge of discrimination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol A. Gainer 1627 Rice Avenue Titusville, Florida 32796 Harold T. Bistline, Esquire Stromire, Bistline, Miniclier & Griffith 1970 Michigan Avenue, Building E Cocoa, Florida 32922 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent is subject to personnel action as specified in the Notice of Charges and if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Casey Carlisle is a teacher at Santa Fe High School and is employed by the Alachua County School Board on a professional service contract. Respondent has taught at Santa Fe High School since 1990 and has taught in the Florida public school system for 32 years. The 2006-2007 school year for students began on Monday, August 14, 2006. Respondent teaches a business systems technology course during the sixth period in Room 11-011. The class has approximately 30 students. Respondent is hard of hearing. He advises both teachers and students of his hearing problem, and tends to speak louder than most. According to his wife, he does not need a microphone when he is talking. He had advised the sixth period class of his hearing problem and his tendency to speak loudly on the first day of school. Room 11-011 is a large classroom, although not the largest in the school. The noise from the air conditioner, lights, computers and monitors, and the normal activity of having a classroom full of students shuffling their feet and passing things out, combined with Respondent's hearing deficit, is such that Respondent finds it necessary to speak loudly in this room. Respondent also has a tendency to "talk with his hands," and did so often during his testimony at hearing. The computers in Respondent's classroom were not functioning properly on the first day of school, which caused frustration for students and teacher alike. As a result, Respondent changed his plans for the second day and gave the students an alternative lesson. In preparing for this lesson, it was necessary for him to hand out books and document holders at the beginning of class that were still in the storage cabinets in the classroom. On this same day, Principal Bill Herschleb was monitoring students in a common area on campus during the transition between fifth and sixth periods, which is his normal practice during the initial days of a school year. A student came up to him and asked for help retrieving a backpack that had been left in Room 11-011. Herschleb escorted the student to the classroom to retrieve the backpack so that the student would not be considered tardy going to his next class. Herschleb entered Respondent's classroom with the student while Respondent was giving instruction and handing out books and document holders. According to Herschleb, he remained in the room only 15-30 seconds, and Respondent's back was to him. Herschleb testified that Respondent was yelling down the second row of students in the direction of a particular student, leaning toward that student and saying very loudly, "Come on, buddy, come on," in what the principal perceived as a threatening challenge. The principal believed that he would have to intervene because a physical confrontation was eminent. The principal testified that Respondent was speaking much louder than normal; that he was gesturing and motioning; that the veins of his temples were sticking out and that in Herschleb's judgment, the volume of Respondent's voice was not appropriate for a classroom setting. During this brief exchange, Respondent also allegedly stated, "I'll show you what we're going to do," and turned to his left. At that point, he saw the principal standing near the door and asked what he needed. Herschleb explained that the student wanted to get his backpack. However, the backpack was not located and both Herschleb and the student left the classroom. Herschleb acknowledged that while he felt the incident to be totally inappropriate, Respondent used no name calling and no profanity, and no physical altercation actually occurred. Herschleb did not testify how close Respondent was to the student in question and did not explain how he could see veins at Respondent's temples when Respondent had his back to him. Several students, as well as Respondent, testified regarding their recollection of the incident. Their testimony varied greatly, in terms of whether anything out of the ordinary happened; whether Respondent was speaking louder than normal; which student, if any, was the subject of Respondent's anger; and the reason for any action taken by Respondent. Their testimony was uniform, however, that there was no physical threat to any student. Further, the incident, to the extent there was one, had not made a lasting impression on any student in the classroom. Based on the evidence presented, it is found that Respondent admonished Garrett Holton for speaking in class when he asked questions of Sarah Sapp, a student sitting next to him, after Respondent had instructed the class not to talk without being recognized first. He pointed at Garrett while speaking to him, but there were no threatening gestures. Respondent did raise his voice, but was not much louder than usual, especially when it is taken into account that he was in the process of passing out document holders and at times had his back to the class. While Respondent did not feel well and may have been irritated, he was not angry. Respondent told the student he would get a referral if he continued to talk. Both the student to whom the comments were directed and the girl to whom he was speaking ultimately viewed the incident as not being a "big deal." Garrett Holt testified that while he was embarrassed initially and did not want to get into trouble, he did not take it too seriously and did not indicate any reluctance to return to the class the next day. Sarah thought it was just a normal day, and teachers yelling in class is "nothing new." She did not think the incident was a big deal and felt she and Garrett were treated appropriately and should have waited to discuss the lesson after Respondent finished talking. The students did not feel threatened and the incident was not the subject of conversation around the school. No student or parent complained about the incident. Indeed, one student testified that the matter had been "blown up into something that it wasn't," and it wasn't "necessary to go to court over." Several students considered the day just an ordinary day. Respondent certainly thought so, and was actually pleased with the overall progress of his class that day, given the challenges the computers had presented. After class ended, Respondent saw the backpack that the student with Herschleb had not been able to find, and loaded it onto his cart to take it to Herschleb or to the student via the lost and found. The next morning Respondent saw Herschleb and told him he had found the backpack. He asked what Herschleb wanted him to do with it and apologized for not helping more to find the backpack during class time, making a comment to the effect that "it shouldn't have happened that way." Herschleb understood his apology to mean that Respondent recognized that his behavior the day before as inappropriate. On Wednesday afternoon, August 16, 2006, Herschleb gave Respondent a letter notifying him of a meeting with the principal to be held on Friday, August 18, 2006. Respondent did not know that Herschleb had any concern about his conduct during the August 15, 2006, sixth period class until Herschleb made the allegation on Friday, August 18, 2006. During this meeting, Herschleb explained what he had observed on Tuesday afternoon in Respondent's classroom and why he was concerned. Respondent denied any wrongdoing. Respondent was placed on administrative leave with pay so that the matter could be investigated. The matter was also reported to Joan Longstreth, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources for the Alachua County School Board. An investigator was assigned who obtained random statements from members of the sixth period class. After receipt of the administrative investigative report, a committee was convened to review the report and make a recommendation. While the committee members discussed the student statements, the most significant factor in recommending disciplinary action to the superintendent was the fact that the school principal had observed the incident.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing all charges against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th of February, 2005.
