The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner terminated Respondent's annual contract as a teacher for just cause.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner hired Respondent, an inexperienced teacher who had recently graduated from college, and assigned him to teach and serve as an assistant basketball coach at Dixie Hollins High School during the 2000-01 school year. For the 2001-02 school year, Petitioner reassigned Respondent to Tarpon Springs High School, where Respondent assumed the duties of head basketball coach. During both school years, Respondent was on annual contract. Initially, an administrator at Tarpon Springs High School informed Respondent that he would teach American history and economics, which are the subjects that he had taught at Dixie Hollins High School. When Respondent reported for duty at Tarpon Springs High School, administrators did not give him a schedule until a couple of days before classes started. At that time, Respondent learned that, during the first quarter, he was to teach counseling and personal fitness, neither of which he had taught before. He also learned that, the following quarter, he was to teach Freshman Experience, which was a relatively new course, and personal fitness. In the third quarter, he was due to teach earth-space science in place of personal fitness. At least for the first two quarters, Respondent was assigned students in the GOALS program, which is designed for students who have not made substantial academic progress due to social problems. In this program, the students take only four classes per quarter. Each class runs one hour and forty-five minutes, five days weekly. Respondent had difficulties assembling materials for the peer counseling course. Teachers who had previously taught the course were not available. Extensive renovations at the school made it difficult to locate materials for this and other courses. Respondent finally visited a teacher at another school and obtained books, guides, and tests for peer counseling. These materials advised Respondent to help the students learn to settle their disputes peaceably without adult intervention and suggested that the teacher supplement the book with relevant movies dealing with peer pressures, conflict, and social issues. Respondent experienced similar difficulties with the personal fitness course, for which he had books, but no teacher edition or worksheets. However, Respondent's background in athletics presumably prepared him to teach this course. Although Respondent voiced similar complaints about Freshman Experience, he had a quarter to try to obtain materials. Also, no one else at the school had any experience with this course, which the District had abruptly required the high schools to teach. Similar to peer counseling, Freshman Experience is a motivational course that also covers personal and academic issues, as revealed by the titles of the required books, Chicken Soup for the Soul and Ten Steps for How To Manage Time. The seven charges listed in the Preliminary Statement fall into four groups. Charges 1 and 2 are the most serious; they allege that Respondent kissed two students and touched the vaginal area of one of these students. Charges 3 and 4 are also sexual in nature; they allege that Respondent made inappropriate comments to female students about their appearance and inappropriate sexual comments to or in front of students. Charges 5 and 6 pertain to classroom management; they allege that Respondent allowed students to come to his classroom for no legitimate purpose and encouraged students to leave campus to get him food. Charges 7-9 pertain to curriculum, administration, and instruction; they allege that Respondent used noncurriculum-related materials (such as videos), lacked appropriate recordkeeping, and lacked appropriate classroom instruction. Petitioner wisely dropped Charges 6, 8, and 9. No evidence in the record supported these allegations prior to Petitioner's announcement that it was not pursuing these allegations. Charges 5 and 7 require little more analysis. The evidence supports neither of these allegations. Concerning Charge 5, unenrolled students visiting Respondent's classroom included basketball players. While Respondent remained the basketball coach, these players briefly visited the room from time to time to discuss something about the basketball program. Petitioner did not show the extent of these visits or that they were illegitimate. Unenrolled students who were not participating in the basketball program infrequently visited Respondent's classroom. Although the principal testified that one of his assistant principals told him that there was a problem with unenrolled students visiting Respondent's classroom, he added that she rejected his offer to talk to Respondent and said she would handle it. After that conversation between the principal and assistant principal, the principal said the problem was eliminated. Interestingly, though, neither the assistant principal nor anyone else ever talked to Respondent about this issue, which appears not to have loomed large at the time. Concerning Charge 7, Petitioner never proved the rating of any of the films mentioned during the hearing as shown in Petitioner's classroom. Films mentioned during the hearing as shown in one of Respondent's classes include With Honors, Rudy (shown repeatedly), Finding Forrestor, Saving Private Ryan, The Hurricane, [The Mask of] Zorro, and assorted basketball videotapes. The record reflects disagreement among Petitioner's administrators as to the policy concerning the application of the District policy regarding R-rated films. According to the representative of the Office of Professional Standards, The Patriot (apparently an R-rated film) "could" violate this policy, but, according to the principal, who is now handling workforce development in the District office, The Patriot "probably" would not be a problem. Even if The Patriot were a problem, as an R-rated film, it would be so only if Respondent had not obtained permission slips from parents to show this and perhaps other R- rated films. Respondent testified that he did so. Notwithstanding the testimony of one student to the contrary, Petitioner never proved that Respondent failed to obtain permission slips. The issue of the relationship, if any, between the films and the courses fails because Petitioner failed to prove the contents of the films or to prove adequately the prescribed content of the courses, so as to permit a finding that the films were irrelevant to the courses. The broad outlines of peer counseling in particular, at least as established in this record, would appear to accommodate a vast array of films. A sufficient number of students testified in sufficient detail to a broad array of bookwork, class discussion, and other instructional and assessment methods in both peer counseling and Freshman Counseling to overcome whatever proof that Petitioner offered in support of Charge 7. The crux of this case lies in the charges involving sexual improprieties, as alleged in Charges 1-4. The quality of proof was considerably different between Charges 1 and 2, on the one hand, and Charges 3 and 4, on the other hand. Analyzing Charges 3 and 4 first may help explain the findings as to Charges 1 and 2. Concerning Charges 3 and 4, Petitioner proved that Respondent made numerous inappropriate comments to female students, of a sexual nature, that understandably made the students feel uncomfortable. Respondent directed three of these comments and one behavior to T. R., a junior. While walking around the track during the personal fitness class that T. R. was taking from Respondent, he asked her what she thought of a 26-year-old dating an 18-year-old. T. R. was either 18 years old or Respondent implied that the dating would await her 18th birthday; either way, T. R. reasonably believed that Respondent meant her. Although actually 29 or 30 years old at the time, Respondent typically told his students that he was only 26 years old, so T. R. reasonably believed that Respondent meant him. T. R. was so uncomfortable with this question that she mentioned it to a female teacher at the school, Cheryl Marks- Satinoff. Thoughtfully considering the matter, Ms. Marks- Satinoff found that the question was "odd," but not "extremely inappropriate" and "on the fence." Ms. Marks-Satinoff's characterization of the question, in isolation, is fair. In the context of other comments to T. R. and other female students during the relatively short period of two school quarters--little else, if any, of which was Ms. Marks-Satinoff was then aware--the comment acquires its proper characterization. To T. R., Respondent also said, "If I were still in high school, I'd be climbing in your window at night." T. R. was "shocked" by this comment, but her mother or stepmother, when told by T. R. about the comment--again, in isolation--did not attach much importance to it. On another occasion, when a female student asked why T. R.'s grade was better than D. P.'s grade, Respondent replied, "T. R. and I have an agreement." While taking Respondent for personal fitness, T. R. found Respondent staring at her repeatedly. Accordingly, T. R. switched from stretch pants to baggies. T. R.'s testimony is credible. She spoke with adults about two of the comments roughly at the time that they were made. Also, T. R. bore no grudge against Respondent. She said that she did not think twice about the dating comment, although she obviously gave it enough thought to raise it with Ms. Marks- Satinoff. T. R. freely admitted that Respondent made the comment about crawling into her window in a joking manner. She discredited D. P., who is the alleged victim of the most serious sexual incident, discussed below, as a person who always lies, convincingly. T. R. added that D. P. told her once that Respondent "tried" to kiss her and put his hand up her skirt and did not understand why D. P. confided in her initially. T. R. testified that she never heard Respondent do or say anything inappropriate in the personal fitness class that she took with D. P. T. R. testified that Respondent made her and her friends leave if they disturbed his class the few times they got out of their assigned class to visit his office and watch movies. T. R. described another female student, B. H., who testified to several inappropriate comments made by Respondent, as someone who "likes to stir the pot." To A. T., an 18-year-old who graduated from Tarpon Springs High School in June 2002, Respondent alluded to the size of her breasts, in front of the class, and used his hands to frame them. Although done in connection with a warning that A. T. was violating the school dress code due to the revealing nature of her shirt, Respondent delivered this warning in a sexual manner that was obviously unnecessary for the purpose of reminding the student to conform to the dress code. A. T. testified that she liked Respondent as a teacher, but he made her uncomfortable, and he should be more a teacher than a friend. Like T. R., A. T. seemed not to bear any negative feelings toward Respondent, but instead merely seemed to be describing an insensitive incident as it happened. To N. S., a junior at the time, Respondent said, upon learning that she had surgically implanted rods in her back, that he wanted to have sex with her. N. S. testified that she was not bothered by the remark. N. S.'s testimony is credited. She was friendly toward Respondent and had long dated Respondent's teacher assistant. To A. M., Respondent said that she looked pretty and could get any guy she wanted. A. M.'s testimony is credited. She did not have much interaction with Respondent and was not part of any group interested in causing him trouble. She seems simply to have truthfully reported an ill-advised comment that Respondent made to her, although she did not describe her reaction to the comment. To L. D., Respondent said that he had a bracelet of hers that she had lent him and that, whenever he looked at it, it reminded him of her. L. D. felt uncomfortable about this remark. L. D. also testified that Respondent sometimes tried to get the boys to treat the girls with respect, and her testimony is credited. Other witnesses, especially D. P. and B. H., described other comments, but their credibility is poor, and their testimony cannot be credited. The demeanor of two witnesses favorable to Respondent revealed something bordering on exasperation with him, even as they testified that he never said anything sexually inappropriate in class. The demeanor of each witness was consistent with someone who believed that Respondent was only joking around in class, when making sexually charged comments, and had suffered more than enough due to the consequences of lies told by two female students, as described below. In isolation, the comment about having sex with a student with orthopedic rods in her back is sexually offensive, as is the sexual comment and gesture framing a female student's breasts is sexually offensive. The comments about the agreement between T. R. and Respondent, the bracelet reminding Respondent of L. D., and A. M. being able to sufficiently pretty to get any boy are not sexually offensive, in isolation, but, even in isolation, betray a tendency by Respondent to regard certain of his female students as females more than students. With the exception of the comment to A. M., all of the comments, gesture, and behavior, in the aggregate during a relatively short period of time, depict a transformation by Respondent of the relationship between a teacher and several of his students to a more ambiguous relationship, at times resembling the relationship that might exist between these girls and the boys with whom they attended high school. Nearly all of these incidents embarrassed the female students; all of them, except perhaps A. M., reasonably should have been embarrassed by them. Several of these incidents suggest that Respondent regarded these female students as available for him in some role other than that of student--for instance, as females with whom to flirt. Petitioner has proved that Respondent exploited these female students, with the possible exception of A. M., for personal gain. This characterization of these comments, gesture, and behavior is confirmed by Respondent's implausible assertion that all of these students, except N. S., are lying. If confident that the comments, gesture, and behavior were innocuous or at least not improper, Respondent could have gained credibility by admitting these incidents and explaining their innocence. With one exception, Petitioner has not proved that Respondent sexually harassed or discriminated against his female students or these students in particular. The record does not suggest any quid pro quo in the sexual incidents, although the agreement with T. R. approaches the type of proof required. Nor does the record suggest that the sexual commentary, gesturing, or behavior were so pervasive as to create a hostile environment. Two students, N. S., A. M., and L. D., were each the subject of a single comment. One student, A. T., was the subject of a single incident, which consisted of a comment and gesture. On this record, Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent's treatment of these students rose to harassment or discrimination of them or of his female students in general. However, Respondent's treatment of T. R. rose to harassment and sexual discrimination because he made three sexually inappropriate comments and engaged in one sexually inappropriate behavior that caused her to alter her mode of dress. Respondent implicitly asked her to think about dating him--now or later--with the comment about a 26-year-old dating an 18-year-old. Respondent implicitly identified the possibility of their having sex with the comment about climbing in her window. Respondent alluded to the possibility of sex between T. R., a student, and himself, a teacher with the power of the grade, with the comment about her grade resulting from an agreement. And Respondent leered at T. R. sufficiently to cause her to change her workout clothes. In partial mitigation of the sexual comments, gesture, and behavior, but not the harassment or discrimination, no one seems to have provided Respondent with any timely feedback on this manner of interacting with certain female students. The only reports to adults seem to have been of isolated comments. In addition to the two reports noted above, a male student reported inappropriate comments, midway through the first quarter, to the teacher who was head of GOALS. Although the teacher did not describe the inappropriate comments, she said that she talked only to the two female students involved and evidently decided that the matter was not sufficiently important to discuss with Respondent or the administration. As noted above, Ms. Marks-Satinoff learned from T. R. of a borderline inappropriate comment. Sometime later, in January, she spoke briefly with Respondent and advised him to watch inappropriate comments. This marks the only feedback, and it was too late to alter the course of events. However, for the same reason that this lack of feedback does not mitigate at all the harassment and discrimination involving T. R., the value of this mitigation is largely undermined by the fact that the knowledge of the need to refrain from improper personal references to students is not granted only to the most experienced teachers or administrators. Perhaps Respondent was not fully aware that his comments, gesture, and behavior were sexually charged and did not realize the effects of these comments, gesture, and behavior on his students, as some teachers may not be fully aware of their sarcasm and its effect on their students. However, Respondent, as a teacher, remains responsible for determining the effect of his interaction upon his students and ultimately must bear the consequences if he fails to identify the problem. D. P. is the complainant in Charge 1. She was born in September 1984 and was a senior during the 2001-02 school year. Respondent taught her peer counseling during the first quarter and personal fitness during the second quarter. D. P. testified that on Monday, January 14, 2002, she approached Respondent to ask if she could exempt a final exam. She testified that he said to return after lunch. When she did, she testified that they met in his office where he kissed her and moved his hand up her leg until he digitally penetrated her vagina. D. P.'s testimony is unbelievable for several reasons. First, two different students testified that they heard her say that she would get Respondent into trouble. One of the students testified that he heard her say this immediately after an argument D. P. had with Respondent over absences and tardies. D. P. was upset with Respondent because her numerous absences and tardies prevented him from exempting her from the final examination in his class. D. P. did not tell anyone of the alleged incident until immediately after she found that she could not obtain an exam exemption from Respondent. Second, D. P.'s testimony is unusually inconsistent with other statements that she has given. Some inconsistencies are not fatal to credibility, but the number and importance of inconsistencies in her testimony and statements preclude a finding of credibility. Numerous material discrepancies exist between D. P.'s testimony at the hearing and her testimony in a prehearing deposition. Other discrepancies exist between her testimony at the hearing and earlier statements given to law- enforcement officers or made to others. These discrepancies include differences of two hours as to when during the day the incident occurred and one day as to which day on which it occurred. D. P.'s implausible implication is often that the persons taking down her version of events made a mistake. Third, D. P.'s testimony is improbable. First, Respondent was aware of the investigation into his dealings with female students by the morning of January 14. The investigation was already underway by the end of the prior week. For instance, D. P. had given her first statement on January 11. It is unlikely that Respondent would engage in such egregious sexual abuse of a student while he knew that he was under investigation. Second, Respondent's teacher assistant testified that he was in the office during the entire time that the incident supposedly would have taken place, and he never saw D. P. Fourth, D. P. has a poor reputation for honesty among her peers who know her well. D. P. testified that she told several persons about the sexual abuse, but they all denied such conversations. At one point during her testimony, she stated that everyone at school had his or her own opinion concerning rumors as to with which student Respondent was accused of having an improper relationship. As she testified, D. P. seemed clearly to have relished the attention that she had gained by making the charge. S. Y. is the complainant in Charge 2. S. Y. was born in April 1987 and was a sophomore during the 2001-02 school year. She was a student of Respondent. She testified that Respondent taught her Freshman Experience during the third quarter, although she was not a freshman and Respondent did not teach very long into the third quarter before he was terminated, as described below. S. Y. testified that Respondent kissed her one day while they were alone in his office. A number of reasons exist that undermine the credibility of this assertion. First, S. Y.'s testimony is also unusually inconsistent with other statements that she has given. At different times, she has attested that the kiss occurred between Thanksgiving and Christmas, before Thanksgiving, and in January. Second, S. Y.'s timing in reporting the kiss is suspect. First, three times she told investigators nothing about a kiss. Second, she reported the kiss only after she knew that D. P. had accused Respondent of sexual improprieties. S. Y. admitted that emotions were running "sky high" at the time. Unlike D. P., who did not like Respondent, S. Y. liked him, at one time even having a crush on him. S. Y. appeared capable of jealousy regarding her feelings about Respondent, as evidenced by the following facts. Third, S. Y. reported the kiss immediately after he referred her to the office for abruptly interrupting his class and loudly demanding that he tell her who else he was "fucking." Although she denied knowledge that Respondent was having sexual intercourse with any students, including herself, S. Y. admitted that the referral prompted her to report the kiss to an investigator. Fourth, S. Y. engaged in embellishment concerning her relationship with Respondent, as would be consistent with a fantasy attachment to him. Although S. Y. implausibly denied it, she told Ms. Marks-Satinoff that she had been to Respondent's home, which was in a poor section of Clearwater. Respondent's home is not in a poor section of Clearwater. S. Y. also has said that Respondent proposed that she and another girl perform in a porn movie that he would make. The reality is either that she proposed it to Respondent, who told her never to suggest such a thing again, or that a former boyfriend proposed the porn movie--without Respondent's involvement. For the reasons listed above, it is impossible to credit the testimony of D. P. or S. Y. that Respondent sexually abused them. Although the presence of multiple accusations of this type may sometimes be indicative of their reliability, they are more likely due to Respondent's sexual banter and flirtation and repeated failure to maintain appropriate boundaries between the professional and the personal. Both D. P. and S. Y. were doubtlessly aware of Respondent's tendencies in this regard, and, from this sexually charged atmosphere, which Respondent himself had helped create, they struck back at Respondent by making sexual allegations. D. P. chose to strike out at Respondent for not granting her an exemption to which she was not entitled, and S. Y. chose to strike out at Respondent for referring her to the office and not meeting the unrealistic expectations that she and her infatuation on Respondent had generated. Shortly after D. P. and possibly S. Y.'s charges emerged, law enforcement officers arrested Respondent, who remained in jail for nine days. In June 2002, the state attorney's office dropped the charges, although D. P. testified at the hearing that she intended to sue Respondent and Petitioner. Petitioner then terminated Respondent's employment six weeks prior to the end of the term of his annual contract. A proper penalty must reflect the nature of the offense and its impact on the students. Some students who were the subject of improper comments, gesture, and behavior denied embarrassment. Of those admitting to embarrassment, it does not seem to have been traumatizing or even especially painful. Not entirely without reason, some of the students implied that Respondent had already suffered enough, having been fired and served nine days in jail on accusations that were not established on this record. Also, the mitigation discussed above, as to the failure of authority figures to provide Respondent with timely feedback as to the improper comments, gesture, and behavior, but not harassment and discrimination, plays a role in setting the penalty. Petitioner's representative from the Office of Professional Standards testified that Charges 3 and 4 would suffice to warrant dismissal, depending on the frequency of the improper comments. The improper comments warrant, at most, an unpaid suspension of three days, but the harassment and discrimination involving T. R. warrant a more serious penalty. In the absence of the other sexually inappropriate comments and gesture, the harassment and discrimination involving T. R. probably would warrant a long suspension. However, two facts warrant termination. First, the harassment and discrimination involving T. R. are accompanied by the sexually inappropriate comments and gesture involving the other students. Second, still not grasping the requirements of a professional's proper relationship toward his students, Respondent has continued, implausibly, to deny all of the sexually inappropriate comments, except for an admission of a vague version of the comment about the orthopedic rod in N. S.'s back. By branding these students liars when he himself is lying, Respondent makes the case for Petitioner that termination is the proper remedy.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County School Board enter a final order dismissing Respondent from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 13th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Florida Education Center Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Jacqueline M. Spoto, Esquire School Board of Pinellas County 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Manatee County School Board (Petitioner) has just cause to terminate the employment of Teacher Karyn Cena (Respondent).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a first grade teacher employed by the Petitioner to work at Tillman Elementary School (Tillman) pursuant to a professional services contract. On May 11, 2010, the Tillman first grade students were gathered in an auditorium to rehearse for a musical program to be presented in celebration of Memorial Day. The students had been rehearsing for several days prior to May 11, 2010. As might be expected, some first grade students required occasional redirection. Such redirection was generally communicated by a teacher delivering a "stern look" to the non-complying student. If the correction was not successful, a non-complying student was directed to go to the back of the room and sit on a bench that essentially served as a "time out" area. At one point in the program, the students were standing, singing, and holding up their arms, pretending to waive American flags. The flags had not yet been distributed to the students. During this portion of the rehearsal on May 11, 2010, the Respondent apparently thought that one of the students ("S.M.") was playing and not pretending to wave the non-existent flag appropriately. The Respondent grabbed the student by the arm and quickly walked the student to the back of the room, where the Respondent placed the student forcefully on the time out bench. The student did not resist the Respondent in any manner. There was no credible evidence that the Respondent provided any redirection to the student prior to her physical interaction with the student. There was no evidence that the student was unable to comply with a verbal directive delivered by the Respondent or any other teacher. There was no evidence that the student was acting out or posed any threat whatsoever to himself or any other student, or to the Respondent or any other school employee. There was no evidence that any force or physical contact was necessary whatsoever to correct the student's behavior or to direct the student to the time out area. At the hearing, the Respondent was described by witnesses as appearing "angry" during the incident. Although the Respondent denied that she was angry with the child, the Respondent's interaction with the student was clearly inappropriate under the circumstances, and it is not unreasonable to attribute her behavior to anger. Observers of the incident testified that the student appeared to be embarrassed by the incident, sitting with his head bowed after being placed on the bench. Some teachers testified that they felt personal embarrassment for the student.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Manatee County School Board enter a final order, terminating the employment of Karyn Cena. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 1st day of March, 2011.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Mr. William Doran, violated sections 1012.795(1)(g) or (j), Florida Statutes (2012),1/ and implementing administrative rules, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction?
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator's certificates. Mr. Doran holds Florida Educator's Certificate 1013018, covering the areas of general science, social science, and exceptional student education, which is valid through June 30, 2019. At all times relevant to the complaint, Mr. Doran was employed as a teacher at Southport Middle School in the St. Lucie County School District. On or about May 3, 2013, Mr. Doran became involved in a verbal altercation with M.M., a 13-year-old male student. Student A.L. was present in the classroom on May 3, 2013. She made a video recording of a portion of the altercation between Mr. Doran and M.M. on her cell phone. Shortly after the altercation, school authorities took A.L.'s phone. Later, at hearing, A.L. viewed a video and credibly testified that it was the video recording that she had made. A.L. identified Mr. Doran and M.M. on the video. That video, offered into evidence, was the entire video that she recorded. It is clear under all of the circumstances that it fairly and accurately represented the portion of the altercation that A.L. videotaped. A.L. testified that she was aware that she violated a rule of the St. Lucie County School Board that did not allow her to use her cell phone in class. A.L. did not ask Mr. Doran if she could take the video. She testified that no one knew that she was videotaping the incident. There is no evidence that Mr. Doran, occupied with the confrontation with M.M., was aware that he was being recorded. However, Mr. Doran's recorded oral communications took place in a public school classroom, his place of employment. The statements were made publicly in the presence of many students other than M.M., the student he was addressing. Mr. Doran had no reasonable expectation that those comments would remain private between M.M. and himself. The altercation arose as a result of students playing a slap game in which they touch hands and strike each other until one suffers enough pain to let go. As Mr. Doran described in testimony under oath in an earlier proceeding, the incident began after Mr. Doran directed M.M. and another student to stop playing the game: Q: Did they? A: Yes. M.M. did. Although he then told me, "Well, I like playing this game because it makes me feel good, Mr. Doran." Q: What did you reply? A: I said, "I don't care how much you like it. I don't care if you like jumping off a bridge, you're not going to do it in this classroom." Q: Did Mr. M.M. respond? A: He then – he then responded, "Oh, you want me to jump off of a bridge." And I said, "No, that isn't what I said." * * * Well, M.M. continued to protest and I asked him to please quiet down and allow the class to continue its work and I did this a couple of times. He refused to do it and he finally said, "Get out of my face." As Mr. Doran described, he was four to five feet away from M.M. when M.M. said this, but he then moved closer to M.M. and asked M.M., "Well, what are you going to do about it?" M.M. then repeated "get out of my face" several times and began using obscenities in the classroom. During the course of the altercation with M.M., Mr. Doran called M.M. a coward. During the course of the altercation with M.M., Mr. Doran stood over M.M. and repeatedly told M.M. to "[g]o ahead and hit me." During the course of the altercation with M.M., Mr. Doran told M.M., "Come on big man--what you are going to do about it, hit me?" During the course of the altercation with M.M., Mr. Doran told M.M. to hit him because it would "make my day." It is clear that Mr. Doran's response to M.M.'s inappropriate attitude and language did not defuse the situation, and in fact had the potential to escalate it. Mr. Doran's behavior changed the nature of the incident from one of a student defying institutional authority into a personal, potentially physical, confrontation between M.M. and Mr. Doran as an individual. On or about March 7, 2014, Mr. Doran told his students that he was getting a new male student in the class, that it was more common for male students to be disabled (ESE), that the student's name indicated he was black, and that the student had a behavior plan. On or about November 5, 2014, Respondent resigned from his teaching position with the St. Lucie County School District. Prior History On November 9, 2010, Mr. Doran received a Summary of Conference from his principal, Ms. Lydia Martin, for making inappropriate comments to students. On May 2, 2011, Mr. Doran received a Letter of Concern from Ms. Martin for abusive or discourteous conduct toward students. On February 13, 2012, Mr. Doran received a Letter of Reprimand from Ms. Martin for violating a directive by discussing a matter under investigation and taking pictures of misbehaving students. On May 5, 2012, Mr. Doran received a Recommendation for Suspension from Ms. Martin for failing to comply with directives. Mr. Doran received satisfactory ratings in every category on his evaluation forms for school years 2006-2007 through 2010-2011 (the years admitted into evidence). He received a few Above Expectation ratings and only one Improvement Expected rating in 2006-2007 and gradually improved through 2009-2010, when he received a majority of Above Expectation ratings, with only a few Meets Expectation ratings. In 2010-2011, he received several Above Expectation ratings, a majority of Meets Expectation ratings, and one Improvement Expected rating.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent, Mr. William Doran, in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and implementing rules. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission revoke his educator's certificate for a period of two years, at the expiration of which time he may receive a new certificate by meeting all certification requirements at the time of his application, subject to terms and conditions determined by the Education Practices Commission to be reasonably necessary to ensure that there will be no threat to students and that he will be capable of resuming the responsibilities of an educator. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 20th day of June, 2016.
The Issue The issue presented here concerns an Administrative Complaint brought by Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, against Willie Lynn Brown, calling for the revocation, suspension or other appropriate disciplinary action against the Respondent's teaching certificate issued by the State of Florida. The contention in this Administrative Complaint is that the Respondent, while employed at the A. D. Harris Sixth Grade Center, conducted physical acts with a minor male student, involving the student sitting on the Respondent's lap and the Respondent taking one of the student's hands and rubbing it against the Respondent's genital area. For these alleged acts of misconduct, the Petitioner attempts to discipline the Respondent, in keeping with the provisions of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, in that the Respondent is reputedly guilty of gross immorality and an act of moral turpitude and conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the Bay County School Board and further the Petitioner, in keeping with the Provisions of Section 231.09, Florida Statutes, claims that the conduct on the part of the Respondent is conduct which fails to provide a proper example for students.
Findings Of Fact This matter is here presented for consideration following an Administrative Complaint brought by Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, State of Florida, vs. Willie Lynn Brown, Respondent. The dispute concerns the allegations as alluded to in the Issues statement of this Recommended Order. The Administrative Complaint is dated April 9, 1981. After receipt of the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent requested a formal hearing pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In turn, the Petitioner in this action asked that the matter be conducted by the Division of Administrative Hearings, this request being forwarded on May 14, 1981. After consideration of certain preliminary matters, the final hearing in this cause was conducted on July 10 and 14, 1981. The Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 385083, valid through June, 1985, and covering the areas of elementary education, early childhood education and administration/supervision. At all times pertinent to this matter, the Respondent Willie Lynn Brown, was employed by the Bay County School Board as a teacher at the A. D. Harris Sixth Grade Center. In the school year 1980-81, a local civic club in Panama City, Florida, held an oratorical contest for the benefit of students in the Bay County School System. Among the participants in that contest were students from the A. D. Harris Sixth Grade Center where the Respondent taught. Brown acted in the capacity as advisor to those students and met with the students from the Harris Center on several occasions to aid the students in the preparation of their speeches, and in the presentation of those speeches. One of the students participating in the oratorical contest was Steve William Rudd, a minor. Rudd was not a student in Brown's regular academic classes. The involvement Rudd had with Brown prior to the oratorical contest was merely to the extent of knowing that Brown was a teacher at Harris. On the first occasion of Rudd's participation with Brown in the speech contest, Brown met with Rudd and other students in the auditorium at the school and listened to their speeches and critiqued their presentation. The next occasion in which Brown took part in the preparation of the students for the oratorical contest occurred in Brown's homeroom, at which time the general nature of the relationship between Brown and the students was as occurred at the auditorium session. On the third occasion in which the Respondent met with Rudd there was also in attendance a second student, William Arnold Stevenson. This session was held in the classroom of another teacher. On that occasion Stevenson was allowed to present his speech while Brown listened and Rudd waited for his turn. When Stevenson had concluded his speech, he left the room leaving Brown and Rudd alone. Rudd then commenced his speech standing at the front of the room, and he concluded that presentation while Brown moved around the room listening to the speech. Brown then made certain suggestions to Rudd about correcting Rudd's speech presentation and then asked Rudd to move to the back of the classroom. Rudd complied with that request. Rudd then began to give his speech again while standing at the back of the room in the area of a desk. At this time the Respondent was moving around the room and eventually approached Rudd. At that point, Brown placed his folded arms on the back of Rudd at Rudd's shoulder level. At this juncture, Rudd was facing the front of the classroom and the Respondent was directly behind him. The front of Brown's body was touching the back of Rudd's person. Brown remained in this position until Rudd had concluded his speech. During this interval, Brown made no comment. The interval for this occurrence was approximately two or three minutes. After Rudd had presented his speech for the second time, the Respondent went and took a seat in a chair in the back of the classroom. The Respondent then instructed the student to sit on the Respondent's lap. Rudd complied and seated himself on the Respondent's leg, in the area of the Respondent's knee. The Respondent then gestured with his hands, pointing in the direction of the Respondent's groin area, meaning the genital area, and said to the student, "sit right here." The Respondent then pulled the student toward his body and at that time the student was seated on the Respondent's genital area with his back against the Respondent's chest. No comment was made during this part of the episode, which lasted a short time. Brown then moved Rudd back away from his body into the original location near his knee. He then took the student's right hand and with the student's hands stroked Brown's genital area. This maneuver with the student's hand was a momentary event. While the student was seated on the Respondent's lap, he was concerned for his welfare and in particular worried about the door which had been locked by the Respondent. The student thought that the door was locked such that he, the student, could not exit. In fact, the door was locked barring entry from persons outside the room. Brown released Rudd's hand and told Rudd that he could get out and that Brown was sorry for what had occurred. He told the student this several times, once when the student got up, once when the student was midway in the classroom approaching the door, and once when the student got to the door. On the same day as the event transpired, Rudd reported the incident to the Principal at Harris Center, one James Griffin. Griffin then confronted the Respondent with the student's allegations by asking Brown if the story that Rudd had told about the incident was true. Brown responded, "Yes, it is." When Griffin asked him why he did it, Brown said, "I don't know." Griffin then commented to Brown that the matter was a very serious offense and that Brown might be suspended or dismissed from the school system, to which Brown replied, "I know this." Griffin then asked Brown if he was prepared to face the consequences, and Brown replied, Yes, I guess I am." Since the time of the event, some of the other students in the sixth grade center have referred to Rudd as a "gay boy," meaning that Rudd was a homosexual, due to his circumstance with Brown and that Rudd "felt Mr. Brown off," meaning that Rudd had manipulated the Respondent's penis. Rudd had bean teased about the event by other students, and the students did not talk to him. Rudd has felt insecure in his home and has desired to sleep on the floor in a sleeping bag with the lights on because of this event with the Respondent. Rudd has felt as if someone were watching him even in his home, in particular that the person was the Respondent. The student has also felt that he did not wish to sleep by a window and has chosen to sleep in the middle of the room, and at times has slept on a couch in the living room of his home. The aforementioned treatment of the student by other children in the sixth grade center led Rudd's parents to change his bus transportation to avoid a confrontation with the children. Nonetheless, it has not been necessary for the student to seek psychiatric assistance and he is recovering from the trauma of the subject occurrence. In spite of attempts by the school authorities to deter publication of this incident, students, teachers, parents, staff and other persons within the community have learned of the incident and Principal Griffin is of the persuasion that there would be dissension with teachers, parents and students should Brown be allowed back as an instructor in the school. Griffin feels that there would be a lack of trust in that Brown has lost his effectiveness as an instructor. Likewise, Bay County Superintendent Holman who is familiar with the case facts, is of the persuasion that Brown's effectiveness as a teacher in Bay County has been seriously reduced. Nothing offered in defense rebuts the opinion of these educators. Following the incident, a meeting was held on March 6, 1981, between the Respondent and Pete Holman, Superintendent of Schools in Bay County, Florida, with the Principal Griffin being in attendance. At that time Brown again admitted that the incident had occurred and subsequent to this meeting Brown was suspended from his teaching duties in the Bay County system. There ensued an administrative complaint brought by Ralph D. Turlington as Commissioner of Education in the State of Florida, and the Bay County School Board took action to discharge the Respondent as an employee.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts of this case, the conclusions of law reached in matters in aggravation and mitigation, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Willie Lynn Brown, have his teacher's certificate in the State of Florida, revoked permanently. 1/ DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 21st day of September, 1981.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Mr. Alain Sanon, violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2013), and implementing administrative rules,1/ as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator's certificates. Mr. Sanon holds Florida Educator's Certificate 1010405, covering the area of mathematics, which is valid through June 30, 2019. At all times relevant to the complaint, Mr. Sanon was employed as an intensive math teacher at John F. Kennedy Middle School in the Miami-Dade County School District. Mr. Sanon was born in Haiti and lived there most of his life. He came to the United States in 2003. His native language is French. He also speaks Creole and is fluent in English. In August 2017, Mr. Sanon taught a seventh-grade intensive math class during fifth period. About 50 percent of this class was Haitian-American, and some students in the class spoke French and Creole. Student A.R. testified at hearing that, on August 27, 2013, Student N.R. was laughing and talking with some other students who did not quiet down after Mr. Sanon asked them to. Student A.R. testified that Mr. Sanon asked them if they were gay. At this question, many of the students in the class started laughing. Student A.R. testified that Mr. Sanon then said, "This is a no homo zone." Student A.R. testified that Mr. Sanon said these things in a playful, not hostile manner, as a joke. Student A.R. testified that Student N.R. looked embarrassed. Mr. Sanon, in his deposition and later at hearing, admitted that he used the word "gay," but denied that he used it to refer to anyone as a homosexual, even jokingly, but rather used it in the sense of "happy." He testified that it was all a misunderstanding stemming from his question in French to Student N.R. and his companions: "Why are you so happy today?" Mr. Sanon explained that the French word for happy is "gaie" and that, when other students in the class heard that word, they began to say that Mr. Sanon had made an allusion to the boys' sexual preferences. Mr. Sanon testified that students were becoming excited and things were beginning to get out of hand, so he then said, "You know what? This is no homo calling. Nobody is calling anybody names in this classroom." He denies ever saying, "This is a no homo zone." The testimony of Student A.R., as supplemented by the written statements of other students, is more credible than that of Mr. Sanon, and Student A.R.'s testimony is credited. Student N.R. was removed from Mr. Sanon's class. The other fifth-period students remained with Mr. Sanon for the rest of the school year. It can be reasonably inferred, from Student A.R.'s testimony and the fact that Student N.R. was subsequently removed from Mr. Sanon's class, that Student N.R. was embarrassed by the incident. This is corroborated by Student N.R.'s written hearsay statement. Mr. Sanon has been employed at the Miami-Dade County School District for about 12 years. He has never before had any discipline imposed against his license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Mr. Alain Sanon in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, through his violation of Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(3)(a) and 6A- 10.081(3)(e), and issuing him a letter of reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 8th day of March, 2017.
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
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Petitioner, St. Petersburg Junior College, should dismiss Respondent from his employment and terminate his continuing contract.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is an instructor in computer programming and networking at the College. Respondent has been an instructor at the College since 1983. Since the 1986-87 academic year, Respondent has worked under a continuing contract of employment. A continuing contract is tantamount to a tenured position, entitling the instructor to maintain his position from year-to-year unless terminated by mutual consent, by the instructor’s resignation, or by the suspension or removal of the instructor for cause pursuant to the statutes and rules of the State Board of Education. Respondent has received at least above-average evaluations of his job performance both from the institution and from his students during his tenure at the College. Respondent has not been subject to disciplinary proceedings of any kind prior to or since the incidents giving rise to this proceeding. Kimberly Zemola, a married woman in her late twenties, was a student in Respondent’s classes during Session II and Session III of the 1994-95 academic year. In January 1995, while she was a student in Respondent’s class, Ms. Zemola wrote an anonymous note to Respondent suggesting that they commence a relationship and that Respondent should indicate his interest by wearing a certain sweater to class on a certain day. Respondent wore the sweater as suggested in the note. Respondent testified that his purpose in doing so was not to initiate a relationship, but to identify the author of the note, discover her problem, and direct her into obtaining assistance. Respondent and Ms. Zemola met. Their testimony was consistent in describing that they were both involved in troubled marriages, spent a great deal of time discussing their problems with each other, and, over a period of weeks, became close friends and confidants. During the period of January through May 1995, the relationship was not sexual, though there was some holding of hands and kissing during their meetings. During the summer session of 1995, while Ms. Zemola was a student in Respondent's class, Respondent and Ms. Zemola engaged in consensual sex. Both Respondent and Ms. Zemola testified that this occurred on only one occasion, in June 1995. Respondent and Ms. Zemola continued their relationship until December 1995, at which point Ms. Zemola ended it. Ms. Zemola testified that in January 1996, after she ended the relationship with Respondent, she was diagnosed as clinically depressed. She testified that she believed Respondent took advantage of her depressed condition in pursuing a relationship with her. Respondent testified that Ms. Zemola mentioned suicidal thoughts on one occasion in late 1995, and that she revealed to him that she had been addicted to drugs and was a victim of child abuse. Nonetheless, Respondent testified that he had no knowledge Ms. Zemola was fighting depression during the period of their relationship. In January 1996, John Zemola, the husband of Kimberly Zemola, phoned Myrtle Williams, Associate Provost of the Gibbs Campus, to complain that Respondent had an affair with his wife. Ms. Williams testified that Mr. Zemola was very agitated, so she invited him to her office to discuss the matter. Mr. Zemola met in person with Ms. Williams, and a little later in the day had a second meeting with both Ms. Williams and Charles Roberts, the Provost of the Gibbs Campus. Ms. Williams and Dr. Roberts testified that Mr. Zemola was very agitated and upset, expressing a great deal of anger toward Respondent. Mr. Zemola repeatedly demanded to know what the College was going to do about the situation. Shortly after his meeting with Mr. Zemola, Dr. Roberts called Respondent and asked him to come over to his office. Dr. Roberts testified that his main concern in calling Respondent was to warn him of Mr. Zemola’s angry and agitated state. Dr. Roberts also alerted campus security of the situation. At this meeting with Dr. Roberts, Respondent openly and voluntarily acknowledged his relationship with Ms. Zemola, including the romantic aspects thereof. The only discrepancy was that Respondent recalled the sexual encounter as having occurred after Ms. Zemola was a student in his class, whereas Ms. Zemola recalled that it occurred when she was a student in Respondent’s class. Ms. Williams and Dr. Roberts investigated the matter further, attempting to set up a meeting with Ms. Zemola herself. It took them roughly ten days to two weeks to set up this meeting, which finally occurred in Dr. Roberts’ office. Present at the meeting were Dr. Roberts, Ms. Williams, and the Zemolas. At this meeting, Ms. Zemola acknowledged the relationship with Respondent, and acknowledged that it was she who initiated it. Both of the Zemolas were adamant that Respondent should not be permitted to continue teaching at the College. \ 18. Mr. Zemola in particular seemed intent on seeing Respondent punished. Ms. Williams testified that Mr. Zemola telephoned her “all the time talking about what are we going to do about Mr. Brooks.” Mr. Zemola’s threatening demeanor led Ms. Williams to move Ms. Zemola’s classes to a different campus, so that Respondent and Ms. Zemola would not be in each other’s presence. Ms. Williams testified that this precaution was taken, not because of Respondent or Ms. Zemola, but because of John Zemola. No evidence was presented that Respondent ever attempted to contact Ms. Zemola after she ended the relationship. In January 1996, Ms. Williams began attempting to get Ms. Zemola to sign an affidavit stating the facts of the situation. Ms. Zemola initially declined to do so, her stated reason being that she feared Respondent’s influence in the local market could jeopardize her academic future. No evidence was presented that Respondent ever took any action to adversely affect Ms. Zemola’s academic standing or career, either within or outside of the College setting. In a memorandum to Respondent, dated February 8, 1996, Dr. Roberts recounted the details of the charges leveled by the Zemolas, as well as Respondent’s admissions regarding his relationship with Ms. Zemola. The memorandum recited portions of the College’s “Sexual Harassment Policy and Definitions” (the “Policy”). Under the Policy, “sexual harassment” is defined as: An employee’s or a student’s unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, sexually related jokes, display of pornographic material in the workplace or an academic or student setting (An academic or student setting includes all settings on campus, off-campus clinical programs, off- campus courses, and off-campus college- sponsored events), when submission to such conduct is made explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment or an individual’s treatment as a student; submission or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions or the treatment of a student affecting such individual; or such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work or a student’s academic performance or creating a sexually intimidating, hostile or offensive working or academic environment. The definition quoted above does not apply to the conduct alleged against Respondent, though a later section of the Policy, labeled “Instructor-Student Relationships,” appears to broaden the definition, as indicated in the relevant portion quoted below: This rule applies to instructor-student relationships. In the instructor-student context, the term sexual harassment has a broader impact. The fundamental element of such behavior is the inappropriate personal attention, including romantic and sexual relationships with a student by an instructor or staff member who is in a position to determine a student’s grade or otherwise affects the student’s academic advancement. Because the instructor-student relationship is one of professional and client, the above inappropriate behavior is unacceptable in a college; it is a form of unprofessional behavior which seriously undermines the atmosphere of trust essential to the academic setting. Both President Kuttler and Dr. Roberts testified that, in their opinion, the language quoted in the preceding paragraph broadened the definition of “sexual harassment” as applied to the instructor-student relationship, such that any form of romantic or sexual relationship between an instructor and a student constitutes sexual harassment, at least when the instructor is in a position to determine the student’s grade or otherwise affect the student’s academic advancement. The Policy also forbids retaliation against any person who has filed a complaint or complained about sexual harassment. No evidence was presented indicating that Respondent took any retaliatory action against Ms. Zemola. The Policy states that discipline for violation of its provisions “will depend on the nature of the incident,” but that the range of such discipline is from admonishment to dismissal. The February 8, 1996, memorandum goes on to state that, because of the seriousness of the alleged violations and because a violation of the Policy could lead to a recommendation of suspension or dismissal, Dr. Roberts was scheduling a meeting on February 13 with Ms. Williams, Martha Adkins, who was the Assistant Director of Business Technologies, and Nevis Herrington, Vice President of Human Resources, for the purpose of permitting Respondent to tell his side of the story in full. Ms. Williams was the only witness who testified as to the February 13 meeting, but her recollection was unclear as to the details of this meeting as distinguished from others involving Dr. Roberts, Respondent, and her. She recalled generally that Respondent was made aware of the Policy and potential penalties for violation thereof. Some delay ensued in the disciplinary process, because Dr. Roberts and Ms. Williams were waiting for the affidavit from Ms. Zemola, which was not forthcoming as spring turned into summer of 1996. At length, Dr. Roberts issued a memorandum to Respondent, dated August 13, 1996, and titled “Reprimand.” In the memorandum of reprimand, Dr. Roberts found that the facts to which Respondent had already admitted, characterized by Dr. Roberts as “a romantic relationship, including sexual relations, following the time that the student was a student in your class,” were sufficient to warrant a written admonishment. The memorandum stated that there were certain mitigating factors that caused Dr. Roberts not to recommend suspension or dismissal: that the student’s initiating the contact led to the relationship; that, according to Respondent, no romantic relationship or sexual relationship occurred while Ms. Zemola was Respondent’s student; and that Ms. Zemola had thus far refused or failed to provide her version of the facts in writing. However, Dr. Roberts’ memorandum went on to state: On the other hand, if the student had confirmed in an Affidavit what she originally advised us took place, I do not believe that I would have any choice but to consider recommending dismissal since such conduct would be a gross and direct violation of the College’s Sexual Harassment Policy. Such conduct would not only be in violation of the College’s Sexual Harassment Rule and Procedure but it would be unprofessional, immoral and constitute misconduct in office. Should confirming or additional information come forward to support the verbal statements we were given by the student and her husband, further consideration of an additional discipline including up to dismissal will be necessary. (Emphasis added.) The August 13, 1996, memorandum placed dispositive emphasis on the timing of the romantic and/or sexual relationship between Respondent and Ms. Zemola. As of August 13, Dr. Roberts accepted Respondent’s version of the facts, i.e., that the romantic and sexual aspects of the relationship occurred after Ms. Zemola was a student in Respondent’s class. Dr. Roberts found that this version, while contrary to the spirit of the Policy, and constituting misconduct in office and immorality, merited only a written admonishment. Dr. Roberts testified that “the power relationship is there whether the student is a student in that individual’s class or not,” somewhat contradicting the distinction he drew in his memorandum regarding the timing of the affair and its impact on the proposed discipline. Dr. Roberts testified that the admonishment was based on his judgment that Respondent’s relationship with the student violated the Policy “in terms of creating a threatening or offensive or intimidating environment.” He testified that Ms. Zemola had clearly complained that she felt intimidated and reluctant to take classes. Dr. Roberts’ conclusion in this regard was based on Ms. Zemola’s subjective apprehensions. No evidence was produced, at any point in these proceedings, that Respondent engaged in any behavior that could have caused Ms. Zemola to feel “intimidated” or “reluctant to take classes.” Ms. Zemola testified that she heard students at other campuses discussing the incident, and that an instructor in one of her classes talked about the case in front of the class. She believed that Respondent was the source of these persons’ knowledge of the situation. Ms. Zemola offered nothing more than her suspicions in this regard, and Respondent resolutely and credibly denied having discussed the affair with students or fellow instructors. In fact, the weight of the credible evidence leads to the finding that John Zemola was the likely source of any campus gossip regarding the incident. On at least one occasion, Mr. Zemola disrupted a College class by writing accusations against Respondent on the blackboard. Dr. Roberts’ August 13 reprimand memorandum left open the possibility that further disciplinary measures might be taken, should Ms. Zemola come forward with a sworn affidavit confirming her version of the timing of the romantic and sexual aspects, i.e., that they occurred while she was a student in Respondent’s class. In a sworn affidavit dated October 24, 1996, Ms. Zemola attested that, while she was a student in Respondent’s classes during Session II, 1994-95, they had an affair which consisted of “a great amount of time talking, and some time kissing, hugging, and holding hands.” She attested that during Session III, 1994- 95, while she was still a student in Respondent’s class, Respondent told her that “if our affair did not go any further, then it had to end.” She attested that at this time she was constantly fighting suicidal thoughts, and believed that if she lost Respondent, the only person she could talk to, she might no longer be able to fight those thoughts. Therefore, during Session III, 1994-95, she engaged in a single sexual encounter with Respondent. By memorandum dated December 11, 1996, Dr. Roberts informed Respondent that the affidavit has been filed and offered Respondent an opportunity to meet with Dr. Roberts and two other officials “to respond to the allegations and share your side of the story.” There is no record evidence that this meeting ever took place. On May 8, 1997, the College filed the Petition. The essential allegation was framed as follows: The faculty member entertained romantic and sexual relations with a student while that student was in the faculty member’s class. This relationship continued after the student was no longer in the faculty member’s class for a period of several months while the student continued her course of education at the College. Such conduct therefore occurred during a time when the faculty member could influence and affect the student’s academic advancement. In addition to the allegations regarding Respondent’s romantic and/or sexual relationship with Ms. Zemola, the Petition alleged: The faculty member thereafter encouraged students of his to pressure the woman with whom he had had the romantic relationship to refrain from stating charges against him in order that it not jeopardize the faculty member’s career. Petitioner offered no evidence to support this allegation, and it is thus assumed that it has been dismissed. The remaining factual allegations contained in the Petition are for the most part conclusions alleged to arise from Respondent’s conduct: Said conduct seriously undermines the atmosphere of trust essential to the student/instructor relationship, and further is inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals, and was sufficiently notorious so as to disgrace the faculty member’s profession and impair the faculty member’s service to the community and to students. The faculty member’s conduct had serious adverse consequences upon the student, the student’s relationship with her husband, as well as adverse impact on other students, faculty, staff, and upon members of the community, impairing his effectiveness. The effect of the faculty member’s aforesaid conduct was the creation of an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive educational environment for the student and others. No evidence was presented of any “adverse consequences” to other students, faculty, staff, or members of the community, caused by Respondent’s actions. None of the College administrators who testified could recall receiving any complaints regarding Respondent. Dr. Roberts recalled an inquiry from the campus newspaper, but testified that no article ever ran in that or any other newspaper regarding this situation. Ms. Zemola testified that she heard some gossip around the campus, though none of it mentioned the parties by name. Such talk naturally affected Ms. Zemola, but could not be said to have had any other adverse impact. Ms. Zemola’s relationship with her husband was plainly affected by this incident. However, testimony from both Respondent and Ms. Zemola indicated that neither of their marriages was happy at the outset of their relationship. In fact, their testimony indicated that mutual unhappiness in their marriages was one of the main reasons they were drawn together in the first place. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that Ms. Zemola’s grades or academic advancement were in any way compromised by her affair with Respondent. Ms. Zemola received grades of “A” in both classes she took from Respondent. Both Ms. Zemola and Respondent testified that these grades were earned by Ms. Zemola based entirely on her work in those classes. Respondent has continued to work as an instructor at the College since the affair and subsequent disciplinary proceedings. His work has been performed competently and completely without incident. The episodes of disruption and/or diminished effectiveness cited by the College’s administrators were in fact caused by John Zemola, not by Respondent. When asked for evidence that Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher has been diminished as a result of the relationship, President Kuttler related an incident in which John Zemola disrupted a class to inform the students about Respondent’s situation, and another incident in which John Zemola harassed Respondent at his home, telling Respondent’s neighbors about the incident. President Kuttler concluded that Respondent’s effectiveness was diminished by the fact that it became known on the campus that there was a teacher/student sexual relationship. However, all the credible record evidence indicates no one involved in the incident or the subsequent disciplinary proceedings other than John Zemola ever publicly disclosed the relationship. Respondent cannot fairly be blamed for the actions of Mr. Zemola in publicizing the incident. Several of Respondent’s colleagues testified to attest to Respondent’s outstanding ability in the classroom. All opined, based on their experience as instructors at the College and their knowledge of Respondent’s character and abilities, that Respondent could continue to perform as an effective instructor at the College. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that Respondent’s actions created “an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive educational environment for the student and others.” Respondent acknowledged the impropriety of his actions, and the impact they have had on his personal life, but testified that it has had no impact on his professional life.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Board enter a final order finding that Respondent violated the “Instructor-Student Relationships” portion of the College’s Sexual Harassment Policy, and suspending Respondent from his position at the College for a period not to exceed one Session. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Maria N. Sorolis, Esquire Shannon Bream, Esquire Allen, Norton and Blue Hyde Park Plaza, Suite 350 324 South Hyde Park Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman and Sakellarides 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Tampa, Florida 34684 Charles L. Roberts, Provost St. Petersburg Junior College St. Petersburg/Gibbs Campus Office of the Provost St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 District Board of Trustees St. Petersburg Junior College Post Office Box 13489 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Carl M. Kuttler, Jr., President St. Petersburg Junior College Post Office Box 13489 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent verbally disparaged students or grabbed their clothing and, in one case, stepped on a student's foot, so as to fail to protect students from conditions harmful to learning, in violation of Florida Administrative Code rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., or to intentionally expose students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, in violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)5., and thus violate section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes; if so, an additional issue is what penalty should be imposed, pursuant to section 1012.795(1).
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has held educator certificate 989254. For over 13 years, she has been employed as a teacher by the Miami-Dade County School District. During the 2016-17 school year, Respondent was teaching fifth grade at a Miami-Dade County elementary school. Approximately 28 students were assigned to her class. On October 11, 2016, Respondent walked her students from the basketball court to her classroom in preparation for the start of instruction at 8:35 a.m. One or more of a small group of students sitting with S.L., also a student, complained to Respondent that S. L. was bothering other students. Directing herself to the class in general, Respondent told the students to stop disrupting and settle down for class. She warned the class that, if she received one more complaint, the misbehaving student would have to change seats. After receiving this warning, another student complained about S.L., so Respondent directed him to take a seat at an empty table. S.L. initially refused to move, but eventually did so. However, he continued to disrupt other students by calling them names, exhibiting aggressive body language, and even getting out of his seat, as though to charge a student. Respondent directed S.L. to stop misbehaving. He retorted, "you're not smart, and the kids are dumb." Trying to restore order, Respondent approached S.L.'s table with a mirror used for science class. Placing it within his reach and extending his comment that his classmates were "not smart," Respondent said words to the effect, "if you could see your behavior, you'd know it's not smart." By using "not smart," rather than a negative term, such as "stupid," to describe misbehavior, Respondent attempted to convey a positive message while trying to reshape S.L.'s behavior. Without permission, S.L. got up from his desk; walked to the door; announced that he was going to the principal's office to complain that Respondent had disparaged him, adding that the principal had told him to come anytime, so she could fire Respondent; defiantly stuck out his buttocks toward the class; and left the classroom. By the time that Respondent was able to call the office to advise that S.L. was headed their way, the principal's secretary advised that he was already there. Having lodged his complaint with the principal, S.L. returned to class, resumed his seat, and, using a sharp object, carved onto the desktop, "Stupid Anderson popo." "Popo" is slang for "police," although Respondent thought that it meant something about shooting. Respondent never abused the children with demeaning terms, such as "pig," "dumbass," "fat," or "ugly," although S.L. used some of these terms when verbally assaulting his classmates. The facts set forth in the preceding six paragraphs track Respondent's testimony, which has been credited. In opposition to this version of events, Petitioner called a single eyewitness, T.F., who was a student in the classroom during the incident in question. By the time of the hearing, T.F. was attending a Miami-Dade middle school, and S.L.'s school assignment was not disclosed in the record. T.F. gave two statements. The first statement, which was typewritten by a Department of Education investigator, was given on October 28, 2016. The second statement, which is in T.F.'s handwriting, was given on October 14, 2016, and the purpose for which this statement was made is undisclosed in the record. The typewritten statement consists of questions and answers. In this statement, with the questions and one irrelevant answer omitted, T.F. asserts: [Respondent] is always calling [S.L.] names. She calls him fatty and ugly. She even put a mirror in front of his face and said, "Look at your ugly face." She did this in front of all of us and I felt really bad for him. She also calls us names. She calls us dumb, stupid and ugly. She even called me dumb and stupid. I went to the bathroom to cry. She made me feel bad. She also calls the boys pigs. * * * . . . she curses at us when she is mad and says we are doing crap, screams and yells a lot, and she told [S.L. and another student identified only as H.] to shut up their fat lips. She also hit [J.F.] and [M.B.] all the time. She grabbed [J.F.] hard by the arm and squeezed his arm and she also hit [M.B.] hard on the head with a closed fist. * * * When she is really mad at us she screams, yells, calls us names, and hits the students. She hits the boys on the head and the arm. * * * . . . I am afraid of her, and she makes me feel bad when she calls me stupid and dumb. I cry all the time. We are all happy in the class when she does not come to school. [S.L.] was the one she mistreated the most. When [S.L.] was in a fight and bleeding, she was laughing because he was hurt. The handwritten statement states in its entirety: The Class/P.E. Court in the class [S.L.] came out of nowhere and start crusing [cursing] my mom my family and puting his body in my face and saying kiss his body and lick his private part. Saying nasty stuff in creol calling me pig stink bug [doudon?] head hiting me. In P.e. he got a stick and treating [threatening] that he is going to cut my neck of [off] and pock [poke] my eyes. whene I don't give him something he get's mad and say lick his boody [body? booty?] and he Hit me with a basketball. when I wrote the bully fomr [form] he got mad and took the form and rip it and he spit in my face whenever I talk to [S., another student] or other people some time he makes me cry. T.F.'s direct testimony consisted entirely of her agreeing with everything in the typewritten statement, although it was unclear, during her testimony, if she independently recalled the comments and actions described in the statement. Also, most of the questions posed to T.F. on direct were leading. On cross examination, T.F. identified her signature on the handwritten statement and recalled some, but not all, of its contents. Specifically, she admitted that S.L. had bullied her and made her cry. Initially, T.F. denied that S.L. had spit in her face, but then recalled that he had done so by accident. She testified that she could not recall that S.L. had threatened to cut her neck with a stick, even though such an action would typically be memorable to the victim. The reference in the handwritten statement to a bully form is a form that T.F. and a few other students submitted, at the urging of Respondent, a few days after the October 11 incident, but the record does not disclose what action, if any, the school or district administrators took in response to these complaints about S.L.'s bullying. In testifying, T.F. withdrew her typewritten statement about Respondent's calling her dumb and stupid and instead stated that she liked Respondent as a teacher. Also, T.F. testified that S.L. had called the entire class dumb, as Respondent testified. On redirect, T.F. admitted, evidently as to the handwritten statement, "most of this stuff I don't remember." As noted above, the hearing took place three years after the earlier of the two alleged incidents, and it is obvious that the 2016-17 school year had presented some challenges for T.F. T.F. impressed the administrative law judge as a child who was trying to tell the truth, but was under considerable pressure in October 2016 and continuing pressure, even through the time of the hearing. When T.F. testified that she had cried, not from Respondent's actions, but from the bullying of S.L., her father interjected by asking his daughter why she had not told him about this, and she replied that "you wouldn't care." T.F.'s father was not a witness, and his statement is not noted to support a finding that T.F. did not tell him about the bullying; however, his interjection and T.F.'s response depicted some of the stress to which T.F. has been subjected over the matters described above. In general, the typewritten statement lacks the spontaneity and inattention to grammar and diction that characterize the handwritten statement. It is questionable whether one word in the typewritten statement--"mistreated"-- would be a word chosen by T.F. It is not so much that the word requires an advanced vocabulary, but the word requires a level of abstraction that is not evidenced in the handwritten statement, which is graphically episodic. It is impossible to find by clear and convincing evidence that the typewritten statement records the words of T.F., free of substantial editing by the investigator. Additionally, the handwritten statement effectively impeaches the typewritten statement. S.L. bullied T.F. to the point of making her cry at school. The handwritten statement suggests the possibility that S.L. forcefully tried to intimidate T.F. in her effort to report his bullying. Significantly, S.L. still had daily access to T.F. when she gave the typewritten statement. Lastly, T.F.'s testimony was unpersuasive. She did not appear to recall independently what she testified to on direct. It did not appear that she was even willing to read aloud her typewritten statement, as she was willing only to agree to it in response to a series of leading questions. For reasons undisclosed in the record, Respondent, who was represented by a union representative, agreed to a suspension of 25 workdays without pay for the October 11 events. Respondent did not try to explain her choice not to contest the charges, nor is it necessary to infer one, because any weight that could be assigned to such a choice, on these facts, does not establish or help to establish clear and convincing evidence of wrongdoing. This suspension seems to have followed an earlier job action removing her from student contact for 90 days, based on a verified finding of mental injury to S.L. by a protective investigator employed by the Department of Children and Families (DCF)--an administrative action that is entitled to no weight for the reasons set forth in the Conclusions of Law. Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence any of the allegations arising out of the October 11, 2016, incident. Respondent testified that she did not grab students by their collars or step on their feet. The only evidence to the contrary is the discredited evidence provided by T.F. As was the case with the October 11 incident, Petitioner did not call as witnesses the alleged victims in this April 6, 2017, incident. The Miami-Dade County School District issued a reprimand for the alleged April 6 incident. Nothing in the record suggests that Respondent had a right to contest this charge, and, given the mildness of the punishment, it is impossible to infer that she did; but, again, a choice not to contest this charge would not support an inference of guilt by clear and convincing evidence. Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence any of the allegations involving grabbing students by their collars or stepping on the foot of a student.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED THAT the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint, as amended. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 10th day of December, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Branden Vicari, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 (eServed)
