The Issue The issues are whether Respondent failed to maintain a record of major incidents on two occasions, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner regulates assisted living facilities (ALFs) pursuant to Chapter 400, Part III, Florida Statutes, and Rule 58A-5, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent is licensed as an ALF pursuant to Chapter 400, Part III, Florida Statutes, and Rule 58A-5, Florida Administrative Code. On or about October 4, 1999, Petitioner received a telephone call alleging that Respondent was operating contrary to Rule 58A-5, Florida Administrative Code, in several respects. In response to the telephone complaint, Petitioner performed an unannounced inspection/survey at Respondent's facility on October 6, 1999. Petitioner performed record reviews, interviews, and observations during its October 6, 1999, inspection of Respondent's facility. The survey revealed that Respondent's business was deficient in several respects that are not relevant here. These deficiencies resulted in four citations. On November 10, 1999, Petitioner completed a follow-up appraisal/complaint investigation at Respondent's facility. During the survey, Petitioner reviewed randomly selected medical records of eight of Respondent's clients. The November 10, 1999, revisit resulted in Respondent being cited for several Class III deficiencies. The deficiencies included one citation for failing to maintain a record of a major incident involving an injury to a resident who required treatment by a health care provider. Specifically, Resident No. 5 fell on October 22, 1999, and fractured a leg. She was transferred and admitted to the hospital. At the time of the November 10, 1999, inspection, Respondent could not produce documentation indicating that it had completed a major incident report. Petitioner advised Respondent that it had until November 24, 1999, to correct cited deficiencies. On December 20, 1999, Petitioner conducted a revisit survey of Respondent's facility. The purpose of the inspection was to determine whether Respondent had corrected deficiencies cited during the November 10, 1999, inspection. This inspection included a review of medical records for eight randomly chosen residents. The December 20, 1999, survey revealed a repeat deficiency for failing to complete a major incident report of an injury to a resident who required treatment by a health care provider. Petitioner cited Respondent for failing to complete a major incident report for Resident No. 7 who fell on or about August 1, 1999. Resident No. 7 fell in her room but refused initially to go to the hospital. Two days later, Resident No. 7 was admitted to the hospital for observation due to her complaints of pelvic pain. She returned to Respondent's facility with a new health assessment dated August 3, 1999. The new health assessment revealed a decline in the resident's ability to perform daily living activities and changed her status from independent to requiring supervision in dressing, grooming, toileting, and transferring. Respondent did not complete a major incident report at the time of the resident's fall or upon her admission to and return from the hospital.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order fining Respondent $300 for repeated violations of Rules 58A-5.0131 and 58A-5.024, Florida Administrative Code, plus interest as specified in Section 400.419(6), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 2nd day of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael O. Mathis, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3408D Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Mohamad Mikhchi Owner/President Northpointe Retirement Community 5100 Northpointe Parkway Pensacola, Florida 32514 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Ruben J. King-Shaw, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact Wright holds teaching certificate number 109682, covering the areas of elementary education and junior college. This certificate was issued on October 4, 1978, and is valid until 1989. Wright is employed by the Duval County School Board and is currently assigned to the Media center in Jacksonville, Florida. Wright has been a teacher with the Duval County School Board since 1962 and was a teacher at Mamie Agnes Jones Elementary School for 17 years, until this incident resulted in reassignment to the Media center. Wright attempted to motivate students by offering them money and other rewards for achieving good grades. He visited in other classrooms and took interest in students that were not in his class. One student he singled out, who was not in his class, was Lillian Simone Allen. He says he singled her out because "he saw potential in her." Wright talked to Ms. Allen's teacher on several occasions about her grades and he talked to Ms. Allen directly. As an incentive, he entered into a "bet" with Ms. Allen whereby she would receive money from him if she made the A/B Honor Role. On February 2, 1987, Ms. Allen walked to school as usual and went to the cafeteria with her friends. Shortly thereafter, Wright entered the cafeteria and said hello to the group. Ms. Allen did not say hello and Wright asked her why she did not respond. Ms. Allen finally said hello. Wright then asked her some questions about her grades and whether she needed any help. Ms. Allen went outside to wait for the buses to arrive with other friends on board. When they arrived, the group went to the playground. After playing for a few minutes, Ms. Allen and some friends headed for the library. On the way, Wright saw her and called her over. He asked her to come to his room to discuss her grades. Wright unlocked his classroom and both entered. He closed the door behind them. Ms. Allen remained standing by the door until Wright called her over to some cabinets along one wall. The area of the room where the cabinets were located was out of the view of the door and the only window in the room. Ms. Allen ended up sitting on the low cabinet. Wright was sitting next to her. A male student in Wright's class entered the room to place his books on his desk. Wright moved away from Ms. Allen when this student was in the room. After the student left, Wright began putting papers in the high cabinet next to where Ms. Allen was sitting. Up until that moment, Wright had been asking Ms. Allen about her grades and whether she needed help with her studies. After the student left, Wright moved over next to Ms. Allen and began rubbing her shoulder. Then he ran his hand down and rubbed her hip and thigh. Wright then stepped in front of Ms. Allen and asked her bra size. Using both hands, Wright touched and rubbed Ms. Allen's breasts. Wright heard the door handle turn and stepped away from Ms. Allen. A female student who was a friend of Ms. Allen's entered the room to drop off her books. As soon as this student, Lakia, left the room, Ms. Allen jumped up and left the room. Ms. Allen was shocked and frightened by this incident. At the time she was twelve years old. She was mature enough that she was wearing a bra, but no teacher had ever touched her in this manner. She is now scared of males and male teachers. When she left the room, Ms. Allen went out to the playground and talked to her friend, Lakia. She then went and told her teacher, Ms. Miles, who in turn took Ms. Allen to the principal's office. An investigation was conducted initially by the principal, Mr. Hurst. Wright denied touching Ms. Allen. A further investigation was conducted by Police Officer Norman of the School Board's Security Office. Wright told Norman that he could have accidently brushed against the left side of Ms. Allen's body. Now Wright denies making this statement. On or about March 4, 1987, Wright was arrested and charged with three counts of lewd and lascivious assault upon a minor child in violation of Section 800.04, Florida Statutes. Two additional victims were mentioned in the information, but no testimony regarding those children was presented in this proceeding. The information filed on March 13, 1987, charged Wright with lewd, lascivious or indecent acts upon minor children. Wright entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement whereby he was placed on 24 months probation with the special conditions that he perform 80 hours of community service, that he have no contact directly or indirectly with the victims, that he not be employed as a teacher at Mamie Agnes Jones Elementary, and that he attend Arlington Psychological Center for evaluation and successful counseling. In exchange for the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, the State Attorney's Office nol prossed the Information. According the Mr. Hurst, the principal, there was publicity about these events at the time and teachers, parents and students were aware of the arrest. Since that time the matter has died down and people no longer ask about it. According to Raymond Bailey, Director of Certified Personnel at the Duval County School Board, if the allegations are shown to be true, the acts are ones of gross immorality or moral turpitude in violation of Section 231.28(1)(c), Florida Statutes; and the acts are personal conduct which seriously reduces Wright's effectiveness as an employee of the School Board; the acts violate Rules 6B-1.006(3)(e)(f), and (h), in that they exposed a student to unnecessary harassment or disparagement, they intentionally violated or denied a student her legal rights, and they exploited his professional relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage. In making these findings regarding the actual events of this incident, it recognized that Wright denies that he touched Ms. Allen in an inappropriate manner. It is also recognized that Ms. Allen's testimony contains some inconsistencies, such as the date of the event. Viewing the testimony as a whole, however, it is found that Ms. Allens testimony the more credible and that Wright's testimony is self-serving and inconsistent with statements made to the principal and the Police Officer during the investigations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that The Department of Education, Education Practices Commission, enter a Final Order finding Ira B. Wright guilty of the violations charged and permanently revoking his teaching certificate number 109682. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-2474 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Education, Education Practices Commission Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-4(1-4); 5(4&5) ; 6(6); 7- 9(7); 10&11(8) ; 12(9&10) ; 13(11); 14(10); 15-17(11); 18- 20(12-14); 22(15); 23&24(16) ; 25-28(17-20); and 29-33(20). Proposed findings of fact 21 and 34 are unnecessary or Irrelevant. Specific Rulings on proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Ira B. Wright Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted In substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1&2(1); 3(2); 14(4); 20(21); and 26(3). Proposed findings of fact 4-9, 18, and 29 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 10-12, 27 and 28 are rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 13, 15-17, 19, and 21-25 are Irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Lane Burnett 331 East Union Street Suite 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 David A Hertz 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
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 issue for consideration in this matter is whether Respondent's certification as a teacher in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner was the official responsible for the certification of teachers and educational professionals in this state. The Respondent was certified as a teacher in Florida by certificate No. 615085, covering the areas of guidance, physical education and health education, and which is valid through June 30, 1993. During the 1990 - 1991 school year, Respondent was employed as a teacher of exceptional education math and social studies at Charles R. Drew Middle School, a school under the administration of the School Board of Dade County. Respondent has taught for between 11 and 12 years and took the course in crisis prevention and intervention offered by the National Crisis Preventon Institute in 1988. In September, October and November, 1991, Respondent was teacing exceptional math and social science to classes of between 4 and 7 students, all of whom were classified as either educable mentally handicapped, learning disabled, or emotionally handicapped. He had neither teaching aides nor assistants. In order to keep the class size small, the instructors in these classes were required to forego their planning period and spend that period in the classroom setting. On or about September 26, 1991, between the 4th and 5th class periods, Respondent was standing out in the hallway of the school, positioned in such a way that he could monitor the students' behavior in the hall as well as in his classroom. He heard a confrontation arise between K.G., a minor male student, and M.B., a minor female student. He went into the room and saw the two students screaming at and hitting each other. Though he told them to quiet down, they did not do so and he stepped in and broke up the fight, sending each student to his/her respective seat. Since their seats were near to each other in the back of the room, he removed K.G. to the front to the room to put as much distance between them as was possible. The two students still continued their verbal assaults on each other regardless of his efforts so he again stepped in and settled them down. Having determined that the argument arose out of M.B.'s accidentally stepping on K.G.'s sore foot, he advised K.G. that hitting was no basis for settling any dispute. K.G. allegedly responded that he hit anyone he wanted at any time. As Respondent subsequently crossed the room, he accidentally bumped K.G's foot which, he claims, K.G. shoved out in front of him. When he did, K.G. came out of his chair, struck Respondent twice in the stomach, and kicked him in the shin. K.G., who was not present to testify, claimed that Respondent intentionally stepped on his foot. This evidence is hearsay and no other direct evidence on the matter was offered. It is found, therefore, that if Respondent did come in contact with K.G.'s foot, the contact was accidental and not intentional. Regardless of the prompting, there is little question that K.G. struck the Respondent in the stomach and when he did, Respondent, applying the techniques for crisis prevention and intervention he had been taught, took K.G. to the floor with his arm behind him and sent another student for security. As a result of this altercation, K.G. was not injured at all but Respondent had to see a doctor for the blows to the stomach and the kick to the shins. He was given two days off from work to recuperate and offered more if he needed it. From that point on, K.G., who within two weeks of the incident, handed Respondent a letter of apology, was one of the best behaved students in the class. In addition, he was one of the two students who gave Respondent a Christmas present that year. He was subsequently removed from Respondent's class and from the school, but that departure was voluntary and had nothing to do with the altercation described above. When the matter was reported to Ms. Annunziata, the school board's Director of Professional Standards, she decided that an administrative review of the incident was sufficient action. The memorandum of understanding between Respondent and the school principal, Ms. Grimsley, regarding the incident, referred him to procedures for handling student discipline and commented on the need to use sound judgement and call school security before a situation escalated into a physical confrontation between the teacher and a student. Less than a month later, on October 15, 1991, Respondent was putting some information on the blackboard during class when another student, A.C. came up and stood beside him close enough to interfere with his work. He moved to another section of the board, and noting that A.C. had a toothpick in his mouth, directed him to resume his seat and remove the toothpick. A.C. did as he was told, but immediately came back up and stood beside the Respondent with another toothpick in his mouth. Again Respondent directed the student to sit down and take the toothpick out of his mouth, and the student did as told. However, he shortly again came up to stand near Respondent at the board with a toothpick in his mouth, so close as to cause concern in Respondent for the safety of his eye. Having already told the student to sit down and remove the toothpick twice without lasting success, Respondent reached over and took the tooth pick out of the student's mouth. A.C. claims that in doing so, Respondent grabbed his lips, but this is doubtful. The other student called to testify about this incident was not clear on details and it is found that while Respondent removed the toothpick from A.C.'s mouth, he did not grab the student's lips. In any case, however, the student reacted violently. Respondent again told the student to sit down but he refused and shouted he was leaving. Respondent asked another student to go for security since there was neither an intercom system nor a workable phone in the room, but no one did. A.C. started out of the room and on his way, veered over to where the Respondent stood and struck him in the rib cage with his elbow. At this Respondent, again using the CPI techniques he had been taught, took A.C. down to the floor and, holding the student's arms behind his back, opened the door and called for help. A teacher from another classroom came into the room and took A.C. to the school office. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Grimsley, the Principal, heard a teacher trying to calm A.C. down after what she was told was an incident with the Respondent. In her discussion with the student he told her that Respondent had hit him in the mouth, thrown him to the floor, and pulled his arm up behind his back. An investigation into this incident was reportedly conducted by the school administration. Thereafter, a conference was held in the Dade County Schools' Office of Professional Standards, attended by Respondent; Ms. Grimsley; Ms. Menendez, Coordinating Principal; the Union representative; and Ms. Annunziata, Director of the Office of Professional Standards, to discuss, inter alia, this alleged battery and Board policies and rules regarding discipline. A copy of the report was given the Respondent and he was afforded an opportunity to respond to the allegations. He denied using intentional restraint on A.C., and when asked why he had not called security, pointed out that all prior efforts to seek security assistance were met with no response. Thereafter, on February 26, 1991, he was administered a letter of reprimand by Ms. Grimsley. This reprimand indicated he had violated the provisions of the teacher contract as well as the School Board Rules and that he was being rated as unacceptable in Category VII, Professional Responsibilities, of the TADS. Neither the memo of the conference nor the letter of reprimand reflect any specific findings of fact regarding the incident. Only the conclusion that Respondent inappropriately disciplined a student is listed as a reason for the reprimand. Respondent accepted the Reprimand on March 1, 1991 without exception. A.C.'s disciplinary record for the months of the pertinent school year prior to the incident in question, maintained by school authorities, reflects that on September 5, 1990, he was the subject of a parent conference because of his general disruptive conduct and his defiance of school authority. On September 19, 1990 he was found guilty of fighting; on October 11, 1990, reprimanded for general disruptive conduct; on October 23, 1990, reprimanded for defiance of school authority; and on October 30, 1990, suspended for the use of provocative language. This is not the picture of a young man who would reasonably feel mistreated by a teacher who stood up to him. Respondent continuously maintains he did not initiate any physical contact with the student nor did he intend to use physical restraint. He made that clear at the conference in early February. Yet he was apparently not believed though the student's disciplinary record would tend to support Respondent's recollection of the incident. Dade County Schools prohibit the use of corporal punishment and allows restraint only for the protection of students or teachers. The application of these guidelines must be effected with common sense and a recognition of the empirics of the situation, however. Under the circumstances Respondent's actions do not appear inappropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that the Administrative Complaint filed in this matter be dismissed. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 5th day of June, 1992. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 5th day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-0176 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. First two sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Third sentence rejected as not supported by competent evidence of record. 7. Rejected as argument and contra to the weight of the evidence. 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence. In an interview with Mr. Kerr after this incident, as per her testimony at hearing, Ms. Grimsley related that he indicated he asked K.G. what he would do if he, Kerr, stepped on K.G.'s foot. When she indicated she thought to challenge a student like that was an error in judgement, he agreed, but at no time did he indicate he had stepped on K.G.'s foot. & 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. & 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 15. Accepted and incorporated herein except that the incident was repeated three times before Mr. Kerr removed the toothpick from A.C.'s mouth. Accepted and incorporated herein with the modification that A.C. was standing very close to Respondent at the time the toothpick was removed and was not in his seat. & 18. Accepted in part. The better evidence indicates that A.C. left the room only after assaulting Mr. Kerr by hitting him in the stomach. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted in part. An inquiry was made, but only the ultimate conclusion was presented to the Hearing Officer. Neither the report of investigation nor specific findings of fact were presented. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as Ms. Annunziata's opinion. The policy was not introduced into evidence. All cases of physical contact might well not constitute a violation. Accepted. This was not found to have happened, however. For the Respondent: 1. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but what was in the Respondent's mind - his purpose - is unknown. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 15. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. A.C.'s partial disciplinary record has been incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret E. O'Sullivan, Esquire 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Du Fresne, Esquire 2929 SW Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 George A. Bowen, Acting Executive Director 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The respondent, Dianne Tice, began teaching home economics at the Jan Mann Opportunity School North (Jan Mann) in the 1981-82 school year. Jan Mann is a school devoted to students with behavior problems, attendance problems and learning disorders. Student James Woody, thirteen years old, was a continuing discipline problem for teachers at Jan Mann. At the time of his admission to Jan Mann, there were discussions as to whether Woody was the type of student who should be admitted. The staff psychologist at Jan Mann believed that a more appropriate placement would have been a residential facility. Nevertheless, Woody was admitted to Jan Mann. On March 13, 1984, Woody was attending respondent's fifth period home economics class. Due to his loud, profane language and banging on desks and chairs, respondent sent Woody to the Principal's office with a referral slip. Approximately twenty minutes later, Woody returned to the respondent's classroom and again became disruptive. Respondent then requested the security guard or hall monitor to either talk to Woody or again take him to the Principal's office. The hall monitor spoke with Woody, placed him back in the classroom and told respondent to put Woody outside the classroom with him if Woody caused any further trouble. Thereafter, the respondent was in the front of the classroom when another student asked to be assisted with the placement of buttonholes in some pants she was sewing. The respondent picked up a pair of scissors, a seam ripper and some keys and began walking to the rear of the classroom to get other equipment from a cabinet so that she could assist the student. At this point, Woody again became disruptive -- pounding on desks and using loud, profane language. The evidence is very conflicting as to what then transpired. Woody left his desk, and it is not clear whether respondent told him to leave the classroom before then or whether he was attempting to proceed to the rear of the room in order to use the restroom. In any event, Respondent was walking toward or behind Woody with the scissors, seam ripper and keys still in her hands. They both ended up at the rear door of the classroom, which opens and closes by means of a push bar. Woody was on the outside of the door and respondent was on the inside. The evidence is again conflicting as to whether respondent was attempting to hold the door closed so that Woody could not reenter her classroom, or whether she was attempting to open the door to either bring him back in or see where he had gone. Whatever she was attempting to do, Woody was either pulling or pushing in the opposite direction. The hall monitor, sitting some ten to fifteen feet away from the door, observed Woody at the door outside the classroom pulling on the door, and began to go over to the door when Woody released the door and cafe over to him. The monitor observed blood on Woody's hand and took him to the bathroom to wash his hand. He then went back to respondent's classroom and asked respondent how Woody had gotten cut. Respondent then ran into the bathroom to help. What was said in the bathroom is also the subject of conflicting testimony. Woody at first told school personnel that he cut his hand while banging on a desk. Respondent told him not to try and protect her. Whatever was said, respondent does not deny that Woody may have been accidentally cut with the scissors, seam ripper or keys during the scuffle at the rear door of the classroom. After the incident, respondent told several people that she had cut Woody. There is no evidence, however, that respondent intentionally stabbed Woody's hand during the incident. As noted above, respondent was first employed at Jan Mann for the 1981- 82 school year. Her annual evaluation for that year indicates that she was rated acceptable in all categories of the evaluation and was recommended for re- employment by her then Principal, Robert Edwards. During this first year, respondent was also formally observed by the Dade County School Board Supervisor of Home and Family Education. She was found to be acceptable in all categories and all comments were very favorable. During the 1982-83 school year, respondent was formally observed in her classroom on three occasions. In November of 1982, Assistant Principal Altman rated respondent unacceptable in the two categories of "classroom management" and "techniques of instruction," and acceptable in the remaining six categories. She was given an overall summary rating of acceptable. In January of 1983, respondent was again observed by Ms. Altman and received an unacceptable rating in three categories, but an overall summary rating of acceptable. Approximately one week after the January evaluation, respondent and Ms. Altman were involved in an incident which resulted in respondent filing a grievance against Ms. Altman for allegedly pushing her in the presence of her students. Principal Oden investigated the matter and decided that respondent's allegations against Ms. Altman were unfounded. In March of 1983, a Department of Education consultant performed an instructional program review and found respondent to have met all assessment standards. Additionally, it was noted that respondent was "commended for her management and organization of the facility." Respondent's annual evaluation by Principal Oden, dated June 9, 1983, indicates that she was rated acceptable in all categories except for the category entitled "preparation and planning." Principal Oden remarked that respondent "does a good job at teaching, but needs to devote more attention to planning." Respondent was recommended for re-employment by Principal Oden. During the 1983-84 school year, Respondent had two formal classroom observations. Assistant Principal Willie Shatteen observed her classroom on October 6, 1983, and found her performance to be acceptable in all categories. His written comments included the following: "lesson plans are evident," "materials are arranged far in advance," "students orderly and attentive," and "has knowledge of background of each student to provide for individual's need." In a follow-up letter, however, Mr. Shatteen criticized respondent for not following her lesson plans and for her negative attitude toward constructive criticism. Several conferences were held between respondent and her supervisors in October and November, 1983. By letter dated November 17, 1983, Principal Oden expressed several concerns he had relating primarily to respondent's planning, teaching and classroom management skills, and made ten recommendations for improvement. Principal Oden formally observed respondent's classroom on December 8, 1983, and rated her acceptable in all categories except "preparation and planning," but gave her an overall rating of acceptable. His comments in the area of "preparation and planning" included "improvement may be achieved through better planning." A "conference for the record" was held on December 13, 1983, to discuss the recommendations made in the November 17th letter. Also discussed was the possibility that respondent would not be recommended for continued employment at Jan Mann should she fail to make the necessary improvements discussed in the November 17th letter. Another conference was arranged for a time between January 19, 1984, and January 25, 1984. The record is not clear as to whether that conference occurred. Respondent's lesson plans were submitted to and reviewed by her supervisors every week. While the January 4, 1984, review found that the plans were not organized to include certain items and that a conference was needed, the plans for the following five weeks were found to be "accepted" and, in one instance, "plans are excellent. No improvement is needed at this time." Just prior to the March 13, 1984, incident involving student James Woody, Principal Oden decided that he was going to recommend respondent for a continuing contract. He told her this and her name was included on the list submitted to the School Board containing those recommended for a continuing contract. While be felt that there were some modifications needed in her teaching behavior, he also felt that there was room for her to improve with the beginning of a new year. Had it not been for the Woody incident, Principal Oden would have recommended respondent for a continuing contract. Indeed, his decision of "not recommended for employment" contained on the 1983-84 annual evaluation contains the remark "pending S.I.U. ..." -- referring to the investigation of the Woody incident by the School Board's Special Investigative Unit. Had respondent been cleared of the Woody incident, she would have been recommended by Principal Oden for re-employment on a continuing contract basis. His annual evaluation for the 1983-84 school year, signed on March 21, 1984, rates respondent as unacceptable in the two categories of "preparation and planning" and "professional responsibility," and acceptable in the remaining six categories. Apparently in connection with the investigation of the Woody incident, a psychiatric evaluation of respondent was performed by Dr. Gail D. Wainger, a psychiatrist. After spending approximately one hour with the respondent on March 20, 1984 (the same day that respondent was informed that she would not be recommended for employment), Dr. Wainger concluded that respondent appears to be suffering from chronic paranoid schizophrenia, and that she experiences misperceptions and shows evidence of poor judgment. This diagnosis was based, in part, upon the respondent's expressions to the effect that the school administration was against her and was attempting to get rid of her and also her relating to Dr. Wainger incidents which occurred at an apartment complex in which she formerly resided. Dr. Wainger is of the opinion that respondent would be likely to decompensate during stressful situations. On June 20 and 22, 1984, another psychiatric examination of respondent was performed by Dr. Lloyd Richard Miller, a psychiatrist. Dr. Miller spent approximately three hours with the respondent over two different days, performed some psychological testing, and also reviewed Dr. Wainger's psychiatric report. It was his conclusion that respondent did not suffer from a mental illness, and he did "not view her as guarded, suspicious or paranoid in any way. It was Dr. Miller's opinion that respondent has the sufficient mental capacity to return to work as a teacher. An expert in the area of teaching personnel evaluation and personnel management employed with the Dade County School Board, Dr. Desmond Patrick Grey, reviewed respondent's personnel files, including her classroom performance and annual evaluations, the investigative reports of the Woody incident and Dr. Wainger's psychiatric report. Dr. Grey was of the opinion that respondent's performance evaluations indicate a serious problem that would limit her effectiveness as a teacher; that the Woody incident impaired the integrity of the profession and the respondent; and that respondent has an incapacity to perform the expected function of a teacher. Three employees at Jan Mann testified in respondent's behalf. A school psychologist believed that respondent's character and reputation at Jan Mann were outstanding. A graphic arts aide felt that respondent was excellent dealing with the children and was dedicated in her occupation. A workshop instructor felt that respondent had been a "pretty competent teacher."
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Amended Specific Notice of Charges against respondent Dianne Tice be DISMISSED, and that she be awarded back salary for the remainder of the contract period following her suspension. Respectfully submitted and entered this 16th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 16th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Robertson, Esquire Merritt, Sikes and Craig, P.A. McCormick Building - 3rd floor 111 Southwest Third Street Miami, Fla. 33130 Carl DiBernardo, Esquire Commercial Bank of Kendall 8603 S. Dixie Highway - Suite 210 Miami, Fla. 33143 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Fla. 33132
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a schoolteacher physically assaulted three third-graders in his music class, thereby giving his employer, the district school board, just cause to terminate his employment.
Findings Of Fact Background The Miami-Dade County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Miami-Dade County Public School System. At all times relevant to this case, Respondent Manuel Brenes ("Brenes") was a music teacher at Little River Elementary School ("Little River"), which is within the Miami-Dade County Public School System. The alleged events giving rise to this case allegedly occurred on November 18, 2005. The School Board alleges that on that date, Brenes lost his temper in the classroom and physically assaulted three students, each of whom was in the third grade at the time and about nine or 10 years old. More particularly, it is alleged that Brenes poked a boy named K. C. in the head several times; choked, slapped, and/or picked up and dropped another boy, K. M.; and threw a chair at a third boy, whose name is C. P. For his part, Brenes denies these charges, claiming that his interventions were neither assaultive nor potentially harmful, but rather were reasonably necessary either to protect students from harm or to maintain order. There is no question that an incident occurred in Brenes's classroom on November 18, 2005, and that the students K. C., K. M., and C. P. were involved. The evidence adduced at hearing, however, is conflicting, confusing, and often incredible, affording the fact-finder little more than a fuzzy picture, at best, of what actually happened. Five eyewitnesses to the disputed incident testified. These were four student-accusers (comprising the three alleged victims and one of their classmates, a girl named "Kate"1) plus the accused teacher himself. In addition, Pamela C. ("Ms. C."), who is the mother of K. C. and also a teacher at Little River, testified regarding her observations and impressions as the "first responder" to arrive on the scene after the disputed incident had taken place. (To be clear, Ms. C. did not see Brenes commit any wrongful act; she has maintained——and testified——that Brenes made incriminating admissions to her in the immediate aftermath of the events at issue.) None of these witnesses impressed the undersigned as wholly reliable; rather, each had credibility problems that have caused the undersigned to discount his or her testimony to some degree. For example, every eyewitness who testified at hearing had made at least one prior statement about the incident that differed in some unexpected way from his or her subsequent testimony. Moreover, to the extent sense can be made of any given eyewitness account, there exist material discrepancies between the witnesses' respective stories. The upshot is that the undersigned does not have much persuasive, coherent, consistent evidence upon which to make findings of fact. Given the generally poor quality of the evidence, which ultimately precludes the undersigned from making detailed findings of historical fact, a brief summary of the key witnesses' testimonies about the controversial event will next be provided. These summaries, it is believed, give context to the limited findings of historical fact that then follow; they also should help explain the determinations of ultimate fact derived from the findings. It is important to note, however, that the summaries below merely report what each witness said occurred; they do not necessarily, or even generally, correspond to the undersigned's findings about what likely took place in Brenes's classroom on November 18, 2005. K. C. K. C. testified that the incident began when one of the boys told a joke that made "the whole class" laugh. Brenes was teaching a lesson at the time, writing on the board. Whenever Brenes faced the board, this particular boy would make "funny faces behind ["Brenes's] back," and when Brenes turned around, the boy would sit down. One student, C. P., continued to laugh, and Brenes made him stand in the corner. Undeterred, C. P. kept laughing. Brenes grabbed the two front legs of a chair, lifted it over his head, and threw the chair at C. P., who "ducked to the ground" to avoid being hit. After that, C. P. was frightened and remained on the ground "for like five minutes." Brenes told the students to put their heads down. He walked over to K. C. and poked the boy in the head three times, apparently for no reason. Then Brenes grasped K. M. by the throat and lifted the student, with one arm, off the ground and over his (Brenes's) head. While holding K. M. in the air by his throat, Brenes shook and slapped the boy before using two arms to set him down. A short while later, Ms. C. entered the classroom, having been summoned by Brenes. K. C. told his mother what had just occurred. Their conversation, as Ms. C. remembers it, will be recounted below. Angered and upset by what her son had reported, Ms. C. removed K. C. from Brenes's classroom and took him back to her own room. There, on November 18, 2005, K. C. wrote the first of two statements about the incident. K. C.'s second statement, dated November 23, 2005, was written in his mother's classroom as well. The most noteworthy discrepancy between K. C.'s prior written statements and his testimony at hearing is the absence of any mention in the prior statements about Brenes having poked him in the head.2 Asked at hearing about this omission, K. C. testified that he had "forg[o]t[ten] that part" because Ms. Castillo (the principal) rushed him to complete his statements.3 K. M. K. M. testified that "everybody was laughing" because the classroom smelled bad. Brenes put C. P. in the corner and then threw a chair at him. C. P. moved or ducked, however, and hence he was not struck by the chair. Brenes hit K. C. on the head. Then Brenes caught K. M. laughing at him (Brenes). Consequently, Brenes grabbed K. M. by the throat with both hands, lifted him out of his seat, and held him in midair, so that his feet were off the ground. Brenes held K. M. at arm's length, with his arms straight out from his body, for about one "second" before setting the boy down. Brenes did not shake or slap K. M., who was able to breathe while Brenes held him by the neck, suspended off the ground; indeed, K. M. never felt as though he were choking, even as he was practically being hanged. Shortly thereafter, K. M. wrote a statement about the incident, which is dated November 22, 2005. In the statement, K. M. made no mention of Brenes's having thrown a chair, nor did he report that Brenes had hit K. C. in the head, as he would testify at hearing. C. P. According to C. P., the trouble began when K. M. made C. P. laugh, which was sufficiently disruptive that Brenes told C. P. to stand in the corner. This discipline proved to be ineffective, for C. P. continued to laugh. C. P.'s ongoing laughter caused Brenes to grab a chair and walk quickly ("a little bit running") towards C. P. The boy ducked, and the chair, which remained in Brenes's hands and was not thrown, struck the wall. C. P. was unable to give consistent testimony at hearing concerning the distance between his body and the spot where the chair hit the wall. In different answers he indicated that the chair struck as near to him as two or three feet, and as far away as 20 feet. Brenes put the chair down, nowhere close to any students, and told the children to put their heads down. C. P. finally stopped laughing. In a discovery deposition taken before hearing, C. P. had testified that he thought Brenes's use of the chair as a disciplinary tool was funny. At hearing, however, he claimed that he had "just made that up" and given false testimony at the deposition. C. P. testified that Brenes had swung him by the arm, but he could not keep straight when this had occurred. At first, C. P. said that Brenes had taken his arm and swung him after sending him (C. P.) to the corner, because C. P. had kept on laughing despite the mild punishment. Then, because C. P. "was still laughing," even after having been swung by the arm, Brenes had rushed at him with a chair, ultimately causing the boy to quit laughing. Later in the hearing, however, C. P. changed his story and explained that Brenes had grabbed his arm and swung him around after the "chair affair"——when C. P. was no longer laughing——for the purpose of leading him back to his seat. Yet another version of the "arm swinging" episode appears in a prior statement dated November 21, 2005, wherein C. P. wrote that after Brenes had threatened him with a chair, he (C. P.) "was still laughing so [Brenes] took my arm and he [swung] me." Testifying about what Brenes did to K. M., C. P. stated that the teacher had taken K. M. by the neck and shaken him, lifting the boy up from his chair and then putting him back down, all because K. M. had been laughing. This testimony corresponded fairly closely to C. P.'s statement of November 21, 2005. Interestingly, however, on December 13, 2005, C. P. had told the detective who was investigating the charges against Brenes that Brenes merely had grabbed K. M. by the shirt and placed him back on his chair because K. M. was "playing around." C. P. also informed the detective that "the class [had been] laughing and playing, and Mr. Brenes was trying to stop them." C. P. said nothing at hearing about Brenes's allegedly having struck K. C. on the head. Likewise, he did not mention, in his written statement of November 21, 2005, the alleged attack on K. C. However, C. P. did tell the detective on December 13, 2005, that he had seen Brenes "tap" K. C. on the head. Kate Kate was in the classroom when the disruption occurred, although she did not see "all of it, really." She testified that, at the beginning of class on November 18, 2005, while Brenes was calling the roll, some boys were talking and laughing, and they kept on laughing even after Brenes had instructed them to stop. C. P. was one of the laughers. Brenes made him stand in the corner. The laughter continued, so Brenes got up and threw the chair on which he had been sitting toward the wall where C. P. was standing. The chair flew across the room, in the air, and hit the wall. C. P. ducked and was not harmed. Meantime, K. M. was laughing. Brenes "grabbed him up" and talked to him. K. M. started to cry, and Brenes let him go. Kate did not see anything untoward happen to K. C. Rather, Brenes "just talk[ed] to him, because he was laughing, too." After the incident, Kate prepared a written statement, which is dated November 21, 2005. As far as it went, her hearing testimony was essentially consistent with her prior statement. The prior statement, however, contains an additional detail about which she said nothing at hearing. In her statement, Kate wrote that, after throwing a chair in C. P.'s direction, Brenes took a table and hit a desk with it, causing the desk to hit the wall. Ms. C. Ms. C. was at lunch on the day in question when two students approached her with a request from Brenes that she come to his classroom, where her son was presently supposed to be having a music lesson. Ms. C. told the students that she would be there in about five minutes. When Ms. C. arrived, Brenes's students were well- behaved and "sitting very quietly." Brenes informed Ms. C. that her son, K. C., had been disrespectful to him, in particular by laughing at Brenes as though he were "a stupid person." Upon learning of her son's misbehavior, Ms. C. was neither perturbed nor nonplussed, but skeptical; she immediately demanded an explanation from Brenes: "How do you know when someone is laughing at you as though you're a stupid person?" After being persuaded that her son had behaved badly, Ms. C. reprimanded him in front of the class. Brenes thanked Ms. C. for coming, and she turned to leave. Before taking his seat, K. C. said, "But mommy, that's not all that happened." "What happened?" she asked. "Mr. Brenes poked me in the head," replied K. C. Ms. C. asked Brenes if this were true, and Brenes admitted that he had "tapped" K. C., but not hard enough to cause pain. Ms. C. started to leave, but K. C. stopped her again: "But mommy, that's not all." Thereupon, an exchange ensued much like the one just described, except this time, K. C. reported that Brenes had thrown a chair at C. P. "Mr. Brenes, did you throw the chair?" Ms. C. asked. Again, Brenes admitted that the accusation was true, but denied endangering the children. Before Ms. C. could leave, K. C. stopped her for the third time, saying, once again, "But mommy, that's not it." This initiated the now-familiar pattern of dialogue. K. C. accused Brenes of having picked up K. M. and dropped the boy "hard." Ms. C. asked Brenes if he had done that. Brenes conceded that he had, yet he assured Ms. C. that the children had never been in danger. Ms. C. had heard enough. She instructed K. C. to leave the classroom with her, which he did. The two of them proceeded directly to the principal's office. Ms. C. reported the incident to the principal. After listening to Ms. C. and her son, the principal decided to have Brenes removed from his class, and she called the school police. (Evidently, it was not thought necessary to hear from Brenes before taking these actions.) Brenes was kept out his class for a day or two but then was allowed to return to his regular duties. This upset Ms. C., who felt that "nothing was being done." As a result, Ms. C. "took it upon [her]self" to call the School Board's "Region Office" and lodge a complaint in her capacity as parent. Ms. C. was told to prepare an "incident report," which she did, on November 22, 2005. She submitted the incident report the following day. Shortly thereafter, Brenes was removed from Little River and administratively reassigned to the Region Office pending the outcome of the investigation. Brenes On November 18, 2005, Brenes met a class of third- graders at the cafeteria and took the students to his music room for a lesson. At the time, his music classes were being held in a portable classroom because Brenes's regular room had been damaged in a hurricane. Brenes's temporary classroom had an unpleasant odor. The room's bad smell caused the children to go "berserk" upon arrival; many began running around and misbehaving. One of the boys, C. P., pushed another student to the floor. The tables in the room were on wheels, and some of the children were pushing a table toward the boy on the ground. Brenes pushed the table out of the way, so that the student would not be hurt.4 Meantime, K. M. was engaging in horseplay, throwing himself off his seat and landing on the floor. Brenes viewed this misbehavior as not just disruptive, but potentially dangerous, so he took hold of the naughty child at the waist, lifted him up off the floor, and placed him back on his seat where he belonged.5 The students continued to be disruptive, so Brenes tossed a chair toward the wall, away from all the students, to grab their attention and stop the rowdy behavior.6 This quieted the students down——except for K. M., who started running for the door, where C. P. was standing with his arm outstretched, blocking K. M.'s path. Brenes rushed over and pulled C. P. away from the door to prevent a dangerous collision.7 Brenes's disjointed testimony fails to give a cogent explanation for why C. P. had been standing next to the door in the first place.8 In a prior statement, however, Brenes reportedly had told the detective that, before having tossed the chair, he had taken C. P., who was misbehaving, by the arm and led him to the corner, where the student was to remain until he had calmed down. This prior statement finds ample corroboration in the students' respective accounts. While the commotion continued, K. C. was laughing at the situation. Walking past the student's desk, Brenes tapped K. C. gently on the head and told him to quit laughing. About this time, the students calmed down and became quiet. Brenes commenced teaching his lesson for the day, and thereafter the class paid attention and stayed on task. Near the end of the period, Ms. C. appeared in the classroom, having been summoned by Brenes earlier when her son (among others) was misbehaving. Brenes was not asked at hearing to recount the particulars of his conversation with Ms. C. Whatever was said, however, resulted in Ms. C.’s yelling at Brenes in front of the whole class. Brenes, trying to defuse this awkward situation, became apologetic and attempted to explain what had happened, but to no avail. Ms. C.——who took her little boy's word against Brenes's——would not let Brenes tell his side of the story. Resolutions of Evidential Conflict Regarding the Disputed Event It is not the School Board's burden to prove to a certainty that its allegations are true, but only that its allegations are most likely true; for dismissal to be warranted, in other words, no more (or less) must be shown than that there is a slightly better than 50 percent chance, at least, that the historical event in dispute actually happened as alleged. As the fact-finder, the undersigned therefore must consider how likely it is, based on the evidence presented, that the incident took place as alleged in the School Board's Notice of Specific Charges. Having carefully evaluated the conflicting accounts of the disputed event, the undersigned makes the following findings concerning what happened in Brenes's classroom on November 18, 2005. It is highly likely, and the undersigned finds with confidence, that the incident stemmed from the misbehavior of students who were cutting up in class and generally being disruptive. There were, however, neither allegations, nor proof, that Brenes was in any way responsible for this misbehavior. Rather, it is likely, and the undersigned finds, that the children became boisterous in consequence of the classroom's foul odor. The students K. C., K. M., and C. P. were the ringleaders of the rowdy students, and, in the course of the event, Brenes was compelled to redirect each of them. More likely than not, C. P. was the worst behaved of the three main offenders. Because C. P. was clowning around, Brenes placed him in the corner. It is likely that when he did this, Brenes took C. P. by the arm and led him to the spot where he was to stand. The evidence is insufficient to persuade the undersigned that Brenes touched C. P. in a manner that was intended, or reasonably would be expected, to cause harm or discomfort; it is possible that this occurred——the odds, on this record, being roughly in the range of 25 to 40 percent——but not likely. As for what exactly happened with K. M., the undersigned can only speculate. The undersigned believes that the likelier of the possibilities presented is that the boy was rolling off his chair and flopping to the ground, more or less as Brenes described K. M.'s disruptive activity (although Brenes probably exaggerated the risk of danger, if any, this misbehavior posed to the child). The likelier of the scenarios presented (having a probability somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 to 50 percent) is that Brenes physically returned the boy to his chair, picking him up in a reasonable, nonpunitive fashion and similarly setting him back down.9 The possibility that Brenes strangled the boy, as charged, is relatively low——between 15 and 30 percent——but nevertheless nontrivial and hence bothersome, given the seriousness of the accusation. That said, however, the undersigned is unable to find that any of the possibilities presented is more likely than not true. Therefore, the School Board's proof fails as a matter of fact on the allegation that Brenes choked, slapped, or otherwise assaulted K. M. Brenes admits having tossed a chair, a point that is corroborated (to some degree) by all of the eyewitnesses except, ironically, C. P., the student toward whom the chair was allegedly thrown. Brenes, however, denies having tossed a chair at any student, and the undersigned credits his denial. More likely than not, it is found, Brenes tossed a chair away from the students, as he initially claimed, to focus the students' attention on something other than the rambunctious boys who were creating a disturbance. (The undersigned doubts that the chair was tossed to prevent injury, as Brenes asserted at hearing.) Brenes also admits that he tapped K. C. on the head while urging the boy to be quiet. It is likely——and indeed Brenes effectively has admitted——that this was done as a disciplinary measure. Brenes denies, however, that he tapped the child in a manner intended, or as reasonably would be expected, to cause harm or discomfort. The undersigned credits Brenes's denial in this regard and therefore rejects as unproven by a preponderance of the evidence the charge that the teacher forcefully "poked" K. C. in or about the temple. Other Material Facts The evidence is undisputed that after Brenes had gotten the three rowdiest boys under control——which seems to have taken but a few minutes——the rest of the class fell in line and behaved for the balance of the period. It is reasonable to infer, and the undersigned does find, that whatever actions Brenes took were effective in restoring order to the class. That is to say, Brenes's conduct did not create chaos, but quelled a disturbance that, from every description, could have gotten out of hand. Such efficacy would not justify improper means, of course, but the results Brenes obtained counsel against any easy inference that his alleged misconduct impaired his effectiveness in the classroom. Continuing on the subject of Brenes's alleged ineffectiveness in consequence of his alleged misconduct, the undersigned is struck by the undisputed fact that, notwithstanding the accusations that had been lodged against Brenes, the principal of Little River allowed the teacher to return to his classroom after spending one day in the library. Thereafter, he taught his music classes, as usual, for five or six days before being administratively assigned to the Region Office effective on or about December 5, 2005. The significance of this fact (Brenes's post-incident return to the classroom) lies in the opportunity it afforded the School Board to observe whether Brenes's alleged misconduct actually had, in fact, impaired his effectiveness as a teacher. As the fact-finder, the undersigned cannot help but wonder: What happened in Brenes's classroom in the next two weeks after the incident? The School Board did not provide an answer. Instead, it presented the conclusory opinions of administrators who declared that Brenes could no longer be effective, which opinions were based on the assumption that all the factual allegations against Brenes were true. Because that underlying assumption was not validated by the evidence adduced in this proceeding, however, these opinions lacked an adequate factual foundation. Moreover, the undersigned infers from the absence of any direct proof of actual impairment that Brenes's effectiveness stayed the same after November 18, 2005.10 While Brenes was spending time at the Region Office pending the outcome of the investigation, another teacher who also was awaiting the results of an investigation began to pick on Brenes, ultimately provoking Brenes into an argument on a couple of occasions. During one of these arguments, Brenes responded to his antagonist by saying, "fuck you." While this profanity might have been overheard by other adults nearby (the evidence is inconclusive about that), it is clear that no students were around. Brenes was the only witness with personal knowledge of these arguments who testified at hearing; in lieu of firsthand evidence, the School Board offered mostly hearsay that failed to impress the fact-finder. In light of Brenes's uncontroverted testimony that the other man had been badgering him "for the longest time," the fact that Brenes lost his temper and used vulgar language, while unadmirable, is at least understandable. The bottom line is, this was a private dispute between adults, one of whom——the one not accused of wrongdoing as a result——was actually more at fault as the provocateur. Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Brenes is guilty of the offense of misconduct in office. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Brenes is guilty of the offense of violating the School Board's corporal punishment policy. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Brenes is guilty of the offense of unseemly conduct. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Brenes is guilty of the offense of violating the School Board's policy against violence in the workplace.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Brenes of all charges brought against him in this proceeding; (b) providing that Brenes be reinstated to the position from which he was suspended without pay; and (c) awarding Brenes back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent has been a classroom teacher in the Dade County public school system since 1964. During the 1988-89 school year, he was employed under a continuing contract and assigned to Homestead Senior High School, where he taught social studies. Percy Oliver has been the Principal of Homestead Senior High School for the past six years. For the last five years, Reid Bernstein has been his Assistant Principal for Curriculum. As Principal, Oliver exercises supervisory authority over all of the School Board employees assigned to the school. Bernstein assists Oliver in supervising the school's instructional personnel. In accordance with the School Board's Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS), both Oliver and Bernstein have the authority to formally observe and evaluate teachers at their school and to prescribe remedial activities designed to improve the teachers' performance. On October 20, 1988, Bernstein conducted a formal observation of one of Respondent's social studies classes. Following her observation, in accordance with Dade County School Board policy, Bernstein prepared a written post- observation report. In her report, Bernstein noted that, Respondent's performance was deficient in the areas of classroom management and instructional technique and she therefore directed that Respondent take the following remedial action by November 23, 1988: Observe 2 exemplary Social Studies teachers. Write a summary after each observation on the techniques used to keep the students on-task. Submit each summary to the APC [Assistant Principal for Curriculum). Have the Social Studies coordinator work with you on off-task behavior and complete the attached observation sheet. (pp 91-92) Ask the department chairperson to observe you once a week and give you feedback on off-task behavior. He can also complete an observation survey. Have one of your classes videotaped. Observe the tape yourself and see what you do and do not do with off-task students Read pp. 221-244 in the TADS RX Manual. On page 231 use the four questions and answer them on your lesson plan for day of the week through November 21, 1988. Have the Social Studies department chairperson observe you and complete the sequencing checklist attached. The chairperson will then go over it with you after the observation. Complete activities 2 & 3 on P. 260 of the TADS RX Manual (see attached). Neet with the administrator after the class and compare lists of confused students. After you observe another Social studies teacher, meet with him and go over the students who appeared to be confused and how he attempted to clear up their confusion. The report recommended that Respondent use the following persons as "resources" in taking such remedial action: Coordinator of Social Studies Department Chairperson Exemplary Social studies teachers Assistant Principal for Curriculum Audio Visual Specialist Bernstein had a post-observation conference with Respondent on October 25, 1988. During the conference, Bernstein gave Respondent a copy of her report and explained its contents to him. Respondent indicated to Bernstein that he would take the remedial action prescribed in the report. He did not mention to Bernstein that he anticipated having any difficulty in completing the prescribed activities within the allotted time. Nor did he complain to Bernstein that the prescribed activities were unreasonable. Moreover, he made no suggestion that Bernstein change any of these prescribed activities. Bernstein's directive that Respondent complete these prescribed activities by November 23, 1988, was a reasonable one with which Respondent was capable of complying. Nonetheless, Respondent failed to take any of the remedial action by the November 23, 1988, deadline imposed by Bernstein. His inaction was intentional, not inadvertent. He knew what he was required to do and was capable of doing it, but made a conscious decision to spend his time on other matters. Respondent was again formally observed on November 29, 1988. The observation was done by Principal Oliver. Oliver prepared a post-observation report following the observation. In his report, Oliver noted that Respondent was deficient in the areas of preparation and planning and classroom management and he therefore directed that Respondent take the following remedial action by January 10, 1989: For the next two weeks compare the objectives and activities you planned with those actually accomplished and completed. At the end of each lesson make a written note of each time you deviated or markedly digressed from the plan and provide a brief reason for it. At the end of each week these notes should be discussed with the assistant principal of curriculum and a should b e given to the assistant principal of curriculum to be used as an aid in plotting your progress. Observe 2 exemplary Social Studies teachers. Write a summary after each observation on the techniques the teacher used to keep the students on- task. Submit each summary to the APC) Have the Social Studies coordinator work with you on off-task behavior and complete the attached observation sheet. (pp 91-92) Ask the department chairperson to observe you once a week and give you feedback on off-task behavior. He can also complete an observation survey. Have one of your classes Observe the tape yourself and see what you do and do not do with off-task students. The report recommended that Respondent use the following persons as "resources" in taking such remedial action: Assistant Principal of Curriculum Department Head Subject Area Coordinator Exemplary Social Studies Teach.ers Audio Visual Specialist Oliver's directive that Respondent complete these prescribed activities by January 10, 1989, was a reasonable one with which Respondent was capable of complying. Oliver had a post-observation conference with Respondent on December 5, 1988. During the conference, Oliver gave Respondent a copy of his report and explained its contents to him. Respondent indicated to Oliver that he would take the remedial action prescribed in the report. He did not mention to Oliver that he anticipated having any difficulty in completing the prescribed activities within the allotted time. Nor did he complain to Oliver that the prescribed activities were unreasonable. Moreover, he made no suggestion that Oliver change any of these prescribed activities. On December 8, 1988, Oliver held a midyear conference-for-the-record with Respondent to further discuss with him, in a formal setting, his deficiencies. Bernstein and a union representative were also present at the conference. Following the conference, Oliver sent a memorandum to Respondent. The memorandum, which was dated December 8, 1988, read as follows: The following summarizes a conference- for-the-record held with you, Mr. Petta, Mrs. Bernstein and myself on Thursday, December 8, 1988. In this conference I discussed the following three things with you: You are currently on prescription and if you continue in the prescriptive mode your annual evaluation will be unsatisfactory and this would adversely affect your future employment with the Dade County Public Schools. If you end the year unsatisfactory, you are not eligible for next year's financial increase. You were observed on October 20, 1988 with a November 23, 1988 deadline by Mrs. Bernstein and given a prescription for categories III and IV. You did not complete any of the prescriptive activities. This is insubordination and results in you being unsatisfactory in Category VII. The conference concluded by you being directed to complete all prescriptive activities on or before January 10, 1989, in order to be remediated in Category VII.# 1/ Respondent received `the memorandum and signed it on December 9, 1988. Sometime after the conference-for-the-record, Respondent advised Bernstein in writing that on December 6, 1988, he had observed an "exemplary" social studies teacher at the school and that on December 7, 1988, he. had observed another "exemplary" social studies teacher at the school. Except for observing these two "exemplary" social studies teachers, Respondent did not complete any of the activities prescribed by Bernstein and Oliver by the January 10, 1989, deadline he had been given. In the two months that followed the expiration of the January 10, 1989, deadline, the school administration received complaints from other teachers, parents and students regarding the misbehavior of students in Respondent's classes. As a result of these complaints, Respondent was directed by his superiors, as he had been instructed in the past, to control his students. Notwithstanding these directives, Respondent failed to maintain control in his classroom. His failure to control his students, however, was the product of his inability to do so, not of any intention or desire on his part to disobey his superiors. By March 14, 1989, Respondent Still had not completed all of the activities that had been prescribed by Bernstein and Oliver. He had had more than enough time to finish these activities and had understood that he was under an obligation to complete them in a timely fashion. Respondent, however, in defiance of the directives he had been given, had made a conscious decision to devote his time to other endeavors which he had deemed more important. He had failed to comply with these directives, not because of any inability on his part, but because he had been unwilling to do so. Respondent's lack of compliance with Bernstein's and Oliver's directives were the subject of a conference-for-the- record that was held on March 14, 1989. The conference was attended by Respondent, a union representative, Oliver, Bernstein, the School Board's Personnel Director, and the Director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. On the day of the conference, Respondent sent a letter to Oliver, which read as follows: Please allow me more time to finish the prescription activities that were prescribed by you and Mrs. Bernstein. Immediately after the prescription by you I had to prepare two one hundred word exams for the mid year. Now I find that I am getting ready for progress reports in another week and a half. I have been calling homes of students who need to improve and the ones I can't get in touch with I will write. There are also the lesson plans that need to be kept up with you and I have kept up. What I would really like is to change the prescription. I think that it would benefit me more if I took a course in discipline or management of students in the summer. That way I could concentrate my full efforts on making improvements in my classes at the present time. I have really tried to get the activities done in the prescriptions, but if it was changed I feel it would benefit me more. The decision is up to you. This request, which was made more than two months after the expiration of the January 10, 1989, deadline, was not granted. A recommendation was made to take disciplinary action against Respondent for his failure to comply with administrative directives. The matter was considered by the Dade County School Board at its March 22, 1989, meeting. After considering the matter, the Board took action to suspend Respondent for a period of 30 days for gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty. At the time of his suspension, Respondent had still not completed all of the remedial activities that Bernstein and Oliver had prescribed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the school Board of Dade County issue a final order sustaining Respondent's 30-day suspension. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of May, 1990. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1990.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent’s employment as a teacher, without pay, for five days.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. The School Board hired Respondent in 2004 as a teacher at Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School, a public school in Miami-Dade County. Since the 2009 school year, and at all times relevant to this case, Respondent was employed at David K. Lawrence, Jr., K-8 Center (“David Lawrence”), a public school in Miami-Dade County, pursuant to a professional services contract.1 At all times relevant 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 United Teachers of Dade. The collective bargaining agreement provides that: “Any member of the instructional staff may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the school year, provided that the charges against him/her are based upon Florida Statutes.” 1 Respondent is no longer a teacher at David Lawrence. However, she is still employed by the School Board as a teacher at another school. The alleged conduct giving rise to the School Board’s proposed suspension of Respondent occurred during the 2018-2019 school year, at which time Respondent was a special education teacher at David Lawrence, teaching fourth and fifth grade autistic students in the school’s “ESE” special education program. At that time, Mary Kate Parton was principal; Dr. Charlene Olicker was assistant principal; Elvia Nunez was a classroom paraprofessional assigned to Respondent’s classroom; and Jason Hocherman was a one-to-one paraprofessional assigned to another classroom. The alleged conduct giving rise to the School Board’s proposed suspension of Respondent is contained in paragraphs 16 and 18 of the Notice of Specific Charges.2 Allegations Involving Ms. Nunez on February 15, 2019 The School Board alleges in paragraph 16 of the Notice of Specific Charges that “[o]n February 15, 2019, a student under Respondent’s supervision hit Ms. Nunez in the face causing her face to swell and causing Ms. Nunez to feel nauseous and dizzy.” According to the School Board, the incident “occurred in Respondent’s presence, however, Respondent prevented Ms. Nunez from obtaining medical treatment, did not assist Ms. Nunez with any treatment and prevented Ms. Nunez from reporting it to the administration.” The School Board further alleges Respondent “failed to write a Student Case Management Form (“SCM”) on the student for his actions toward Ms. Nunez.” On the day of the incident, Ms. Nunez wrote a statement detailing her version of the events. In her statement, Ms. Nunez explained she was in the classroom when a female student hit Ms. Nunez on her face with her elbow 2 At hearing, the School Board abandoned the allegations in paragraph 17 of the Notice of Specific Charges related to a purported incident on February 22, 2019. Accordingly, no findings are made with respect to the allegations in paragraph 17 of the Notice of Specific Charges. and fist. Ms. Nunez called the office on the radio for assistance, and Dr. Olicker and Ms. Mejia came to the room to assist her. Ms. Mejia stayed with Ms. Nunez until Respondent finished what she was doing. They all took the students to lunch. Ms. Nunez stayed outside the cafeteria and told another assistant principal what had happened. In the meantime, another student started running behind the bathroom in the cafeteria, and Ms. Nunez and other employees went to catch the student. Ms. Nunez later returned to the classroom and told another staff member she was not feeling well. Ms. Nunez then went to the library and office and told Dr. Olicker she “was feeling dizzy.” Dr. Olicker called “911,” and Ms. Nunez was transported to the hospital by fire rescue. Respondent did not witness a student hit Ms. Nunez and she had no knowledge of the incident at the time. Respondent did not prevent Ms. Nunez from obtaining medical treatment and she did not prevent Ms. Nunez from reporting the incident to administration. Respondent did not write an SCM referral for a student because she did not witness the incident. There is no School Board rule or policy requiring Respondent to write an SCM referral on a student for an incident she did not witness or have knowledge of at the time.3 In sum, the persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that Respondent did not engage in any of the conduct as alleged in paragraph 16 of the Notice of Specific Charges, which constitutes misconduct in office. Allegations Involving J.H. on February 25, 2019 In paragraph 18 of the Notice of Specific Charges, the School Board alleges that “[o]n February 25, 2019, Jason Hocherman (‘Mr. Hocherman’), a 3 In any event, Dr. Olicker submitted an SCM referral on the student. paraprofessional at Lawrence K-8 while in the school’s hallway[,] observed J.H. in the hallway without Respondent.” J.H. was a student in Respondent’s class who frequently and spontaneously ran from the classroom. According to Respondent, J.H. would run as often as 12 to 15 times a day. J.H. was well known as a “runner” by Mr. Hocherman, other staff members, and the school’s administrators.4 On February 25, 2019, Mr. Hocherman was leaving his assigned classroom for the day at around 3:00 p.m., when students were also being dismissed for the day. At that time, he observed J.H. unsupervised standing in the corner of the first floor interior hallway of the building by the doors leading into the main lobby of the school. Mr. Hocherman does not know how long J.H. was standing in the hallway without adult supervision. Mr. Hocherman asked J.H. if he was alright, but J.H. did not respond. A few minutes after Mr. Hocherman first observed J.H., Respondent came upon the scene. According to Mr. Hocherman, J.H. became agitated or scared upon Respondent’s arrival on the scene. Mr. Hocherman tried to calm J.H. down, but J.H. took off running towards the stairwell in the middle of the hallway. J.H. often ran to the third floor. Respondent told J.H. she was not going to chase after him, hoping that would stop him from running. J.H. ignored Respondent and ran up the stairs to the third floor landing of the stairwell. Respondent and Mr. Hocherman followed in pursuit of J.H. Mr. Hocherman got to J.H. first, was able to calm him down, and took him by the hand directly to the bus loop in front of the school to get on his bus to go home. The evidence presented at the hearing did not establish that J.H., a known runner, was ever in any danger. 4 Notably, J.H. was the student who ran behind the bathroom in the cafeteria on February 15, 2019. J.H. got on the bus, went home, and did not suffer any injuries as a result of the incident. Under the particular facts of this case, Respondent’s conduct was not inappropriate. In sum, the persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that on February 25, 2019, Mr. Hocherman “observed J.H. in the hallway without Respondent,” as alleged in paragraph 18 of the Notice of Specific Charges. However, such conduct does not constitute misconduct in office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board, enter a final order rescinding the suspension of Respondent, Linda A. Moreau, with full back pay. 5 In its Proposed Recommended Order, the School Board argues that Respondent violated School Board Policy 3213 by failing to “immediately report a harmful situation to the administration.” However, the alleged conduct in paragraph 18 of the Notice of Specific Charges is not based on a failure to report; rather, the alleged conduct is solely that J.H. was observed unsupervised in the hallway. Accordingly, any contention by the School Board that Respondent engaged in misconduct in office or violated School Board policies based on a failure to report J.H. being observed unsupervised in the hallway, is beyond the scope of the charge. Even if the School Board’s contention is not beyond the scope of the charge, however, J.H. was never in any danger or harmed, and, therefore, any failure of Respondent to report the incident does not constitute a violation of School Board Policy 3213 and does not constitute misconduct in office. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Michele Lara Jones, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether the placement of Respondent in the opportunity school program at Douglas MacArthur South is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact During the 1992-1993 and 1993-1994 school years, the Respondent, Joey Segura (Joey), was classified as an 11th grader and 12th grader, respectively, at Miami Killian Senior High School, Dade County, Florida. On October 20, 1992, Steve Whaley, Joey's D.C.T. teacher, referred Joey to the Assistant Principal, Judith Cooper, for excessive absences. Joey's mother was advised of the absences. Ms. Cooper reprimanded Joey and referred him to Mr. Banaszak, his guidance counselor. On Janaury 7, 1993, Joey's math teacher, Mrs. Rodriguez, referred Joey to Ms. Cooper for being late to class and presenting a bogus pass. Joey refused to serve detentions for the tardies and the pass. Joey was reprimanded and issued two Saturday schools for cutting class and refusing to serve the detentions. A Saturday school is a disciplinary measure used by the school system whereby the student attends class on Saturday. Joey was again referred to Mr. Banaszak for counseling. On January 22, 1993, Mr. Whaley referred Joey to Ms. Cooper for excessive absences. Ms. Cooper talked to Joey's mother, reprimanded Joey, and referred Joey to Mr. Banaszak for counseling. On January 25, 1993, Mrs. Rodriguez referred Joey to Ms. Cooper for leaving class without permission after Mrs. Rodiguez told him he could not leave. Ms. Cooper called Joey's mother, reprimanded Joey, and referred Joey to Mr. Banaszak for counseling. On February 16, 1993, Joey was given a ten-day outdoor suspension for calling Mr. Whaley an "asshole" and a "fucking asshole." Joey was again referred to Mr. Banaszak. On March 23, 1993, Mr. Flipse, one of Joey's teachers, referred Joey to Ms. Cooper for excessive tardiness and refusal to serve detentions. Joey told Mr. Flipse that he did not have to serve detentions. Ms. Cooper called Joey's father and related what was happening. Joey was reprimanded and given a Saturday school. Joey did not serve the Saturday school and was given a three- day indoor suspension. Joey stated he would not serve the indoor suspensions and instead chose to have a three-day outdoor suspension. 8 There was another incident in which Ms. Cooper had to suspend Joey. Joey got angry about the suspension and told Ms. Cooper that she better not mess with him, he would blow up her car. Ms. Cooper informed the principal about the threat and a conference was set with Joey's parents and his teachers. Ms. Cooper had recommended to the principal that Joey be referred to a disciplinary school program. Another conference was held in which an outside counselor hired by the Seguras participated along with Joey's parents and teachers. It was decided that since Joey was undergoing private counseling that he would be given another chance to stay in school and work at improving. During the 1992-1993 school year Mr. Banaszak met with Joey not less than twelve times concerning tardiness and academic difficulties. Joey's final grades for 1992-1993 were four D's and two F's. On September 20, 1993, Mr. Coyle, Joey's D.C.T. teacher, referred Joey to Thomas Jones, the assistant principal, for leaving class without permission. Joey was given a Saturday school. For the first semester of 1993-1994, Joey chose to take a photography class taught by Richard Ladwig. Joey's lack of attendance and his tardiness were problems in Mr. Ladwig's class. Mr. Ladwig discussed the problems with Joey and issued several detention notices to him. Joey ripped up the detention notices. Mr. Ladwig finally gave Joey an exclusion notice. Instead of going to exclusion hall as he should have, Joey ripped up the exclusion notice, and told Mr. Ladwig that he was going to Ms. Cooper's office. In September, 1993, Joey asked permission to leave Mr. Ladwig's class. Mr. Ladwig told him that he could not leave class. Joey retorted, "You're pissing me off." In September, 1993, Mr. Banaszak met with Joey and his father to discuss absences and tardies. Joey requested to be transferred out of Mr. Ladwig's class. Mr. Banaszak told him that it was not the school's policy to transfer a student four weeks into the school semester, and that Joey needed the photography class to meet his fine arts requirement for graduation. On October 11, 1993, Mr. Banaszak met with Joey, his parents, and Mr. Jones to discuss Joey's academic problems. Mr. Banaszak was concerned about whether Joey could graduate. Because of his failed courses he was almost an entire year behind in annual credits. A plan was devised to make up the credits through summer school and night school, thus, enabling Joey to graduate in the fall of 1994. Mr. Banaszak had authorized Joey's taking night classes on other occasions to help make up credits. Although Joey enrolled in the night classes he never recieved any credits, indicating that he either did not attend or did not complete the work. Joey was failing the photography class. He missed several quizzes, missed a lot of notes, resulting in a notebook grade of "F," failed some tests, and sometimes read a newspaper in class rather than doing his assigned work. One of the assignments in the Mr. Ladwig's class was to develop negatives in class and make contact prints from the negatives. Joey did not develop negatives in class. Mr. Ladwig allowed students who failed to do the developing portion of the assignment to have negatives developed outside of class to be used in making the contact prints in class. Joey did bring some negatives to class and make contact prints in class. One of Mr. Ladwig's sixth grade students had been complaining to Mr. Ladwig that someone had stolen his negatives. Mr. Ladwig told the student to take a look at the contact prints to see if any of the prints were made from his negatives. The student identified the prints made by Joey as being made from his negatives. 20 On several occasions, Mr. Ladwig asked Joey to bring his negatives to class. Finally on October 19, 1993, Mr. Ladwig told Joey that there was a dispute over the ownership of the negatives which he had used and told him to go and get the negatives from his locker. Joey got very angry and started to leave the class. At the doorway, Joey stopped and said, "If or when I see you on the street, Dude, I'm going to fucking kill you." The threat was heard by several of the students in the class. 21. Mr. Ladwig referred the matter to Mr. Jones. Later in the day, Joey along with Mr. Jones and Mr. Lewis, the security person, came to Mr. Ladwig's classroom while class was in session. Joey accused Mr. Ladwig of calling him a liar. Mr. Ladwig asked them to leave. On the way out, Joey said, "Ladwig, Dude, I'll deal with you later." 22 Joey gave Mr. Jones the names of several witness and Mr. Jones talked with them. An assault on a staff member is a Group IV violation according to The Secondary Code of Student Conduct, which defines an assault on a staff member as follows: Intentional verbal or physical threat to do violence to a staff member by a student who possesses an apparent ability to do so and in doing so creates a well-founded fear that such violence is imminent. The Secondary Code of Student Conduct provides that the following disciplinary actions be taken for a Group IV violation: Parent contact/parent conference. Administrator/parent conference. Ten-day suspension. Recommendation for expulsion, administrative assignment to Opportunity School Program, or placement in a substance abuse program. Refer criminal acts to the Dade County Public School Police and the local police agency for appropriate legal action. When appropriate, seek restitution or restoration. Mr. Jones reported the incident to the Dade County Police Department. Mr. Jones called Joey's mother and met with Joey's father. Joey was given a ten-day outdoor suspension with a recommendation for explusion. Joey's father asked for a second conference with Mr. Jones and Mr. Ladwig so that Mr. Segura could confront the teacher. Mr. Ladwig told Mr. Segura that he thought Joey meant it when he said he was going to kill him. Mr. Jones recommended that Joey be assigned to an opportunity school program rather than being expelled. His recommendation was based on Joey's continuous disruptive behavior, including the last incident with Mr. Ladwig. Joey's grades for the first nine weeks of the 1993-1994 school year consisted of four F's, one Incomplete, and one "C." Joey's behavior of excessive tardiness, verbal assault on his teacher, his continuous defiance of authority, and his disrespect for his teachers interferred with his own learning and the educational process of others. The needs of Joey are not being effectively met by the conventional education programs in the public schools. Joey was assigned to the opportunity school program at Douglas MacArthur South in lieu of explusion. This program provides students an opportunity to learn in a small group environment, more counseling on a one-to- one basis, and a more structured environment. Joey did not go to Douglas MacArthur South. He had been attending some adult education classes at night to get credit for classes which he had flunked, but he dropped out when he was assigned to Douglas MacArthur South.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered assigning Joey Segura to the opportunity school program at Douglas MacArthur South. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 4th day of May, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6906 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraphs 2-7 Accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The second sentence is rejected as to the number 12 as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, but otherwise accepted in substance that there were referrals for the reasons stated. Paragraphs 9-15: Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Johnny Brown, Esquire School Board of Dade County 450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33132 Miguel Segura 6114 Southwest 127th Place Miami, Florida 33173 Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 403 Miami, Florida 33132-1308
