The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner timely terminated Respondent's employment, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed in this cause.
Findings Of Fact On July 22, 1997, Respondent completed his application for employment as a teacher for the school year 1997-98. He was hired to be the coordinator for the English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) program at Western Pines Community Middle School. That position is a teaching position. Western Pines is a new school, opening in time for the 1997-98 school year. Principal Peggy Campbell determined she needed extra assistance for the school to be ready in time for the students. As with any new school, floors needed to be mopped, windows needed to be washed, supplies needed to be unloaded and stored, desks needed to be placed in the classrooms, books needed to be stamped, and many other things needed to be done to get ready. She requested volunteers from the staff she had hired, and Respondent agreed to help prepare the school for the arrival of students. At the time that volunteers were obtained and began working, Campbell did not have approval to pay any of the volunteers. She subsequently obtained approval. Respondent began working as a volunteer on August 1, 1997. He labeled, stamped, and shelved books. He worked a total of 7 1/2 days. Afterward, he was given a one-time paycheck for those 7 1/2 days based upon a daily rate of pay. In computing the amount to pay him, Petitioner calculated a daily rate for Respondent by dividing his annual salary by 196, the number of duty days for teachers within Petitioner's school system. On August 13, 1997, all teachers reported for duty for the 1997-98 school year. August 13 began the five-day pre-school period for instructional employees, a time during which all teachers attend meetings and prepare for the arrival of students. On that date, Respondent began his professional duties as an instructional staff member of Petitioner's school system. That date was also the effective date for Respondent's instructional position. Starting on August 13, 1997, Respondent's duties were substantially different than they were prior to that date. Prior to August 13, 1997, Respondent's work was akin to that of an incidental day laborer. August 20, 1997, was the first day of classes for students within Petitioner's school system. On January 9, 1998, Principal Campbell met with Respondent and gave him a letter advising him that she was recommending to the superintendent the termination of Respondent's employment, effective January 15, 1998. She told him not to report to the school for those interim days but that he was assigned to his home for those additional days for which he would be paid. On February 21, 1998, the School Board ratified that termination, effective January 15, 1998, as part of its consent agenda at a regularly-scheduled Board meeting. At the time Respondent was notified he would be terminated and at the time of the School Board meeting, annual contracts for that school year had not yet been prepared. There is a normal delay with finalizing annual contracts due to extended negotiations with the teacher's union once the budget is final.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered determining that Respondent's employment was terminated within his probationary period. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 28th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Joan Kowel, Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3340 Forest Hill Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869 Tom Gallagher, Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Thomas E. Elfers, Esquire JenniLynn Lawrence, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the notice of charges; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received, the following findings of fact are made: The Board is the appropriate agency authorized to operate, control and supervise the public school system for the Dade County school district. As such, it is responsible for the discipline of teachers employed by the public schools. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent, Lester Johnson, was employed as a continuing contract teacher with the Dade County public schools. Respondent began his employment in August, 1975, and remained on contract until his suspension, August 23, 1989. The Respondent completed his undergraduate studies at Bethune-Cookman College and received a masters degree in administration from Nova University. Throughout his teaching career, the Respondent has taught social studies at the high school or middle school levels. On December 11, 1984, Respondent was observed for evaluation by Lois A. Lindahl, an assistant principal at Norland Junior High School. Subsequent to that observation, Ms. Lindahl conducted a conference with the Respondent to advise him of the three areas in which he had been rated unacceptable. Those categories were: preparation and planning, classroom management, and teacher- student relationships. Specifically, the administrator outlined complaints that had been received from students and parents concerning the Respondent's behavior. Among those complaints were the following: "picking on certain students in each class; ridiculing students; looking strangely at girls; challenging students." Respondent received a written summary of the foregoing conference on December 18, 1984, and, at that time, indicated he understood the concerns and would seek to improve his performance. On February 27, 1985, John Gilbert, principal at Norland, met with Respondent to review complaints which had been received concerning his performance. At that time, Respondent was warned that the administration had received complaints that Respondent was "too familiar looking at girls." Several students had alleged that Respondent had stood behind a female student while she gave a report and "looked her up and down." Additionally, Respondent was advised that his manner of observing the girls in shorts at basketball games was inappropriate. Respondent acknowledged the comments and indicated his willingness to correct the situation. Following that conference, there were no similar complaints through the end of that school year. At the conclusion of the 1984/85 school year, Respondent received an acceptable rating and was recommended for employment for the next year. During the 1985/86 school year Respondent was employed at Highland Oaks Junior High School. Harold Blitman was principal at Highland Oaks at that time and met with Respondent regarding "rumblings" he had received concerning Respondent's treatment of students. Respondent was advised that a mutual respect with students needed to be established and that students should not be subjected to disparaging remarks. Respondent was formally observed on February 18, 1986, and, as a result, received an acceptable overall rating with a recommendation for employment on June 3, 1986. During the next school year at Highland Oaks, Respondent was observed on two dates, September 15, 1986 and January 27, 1987. As a result of those evaluations, Respondent received an overall rating of acceptable with a recommendation for employment. Respondent's performance during the 1987/88 school year deteriorated. Consequently, Respondent was given a prescription for performance improvement to correct the deficiency noted by the school administration. Specifically, Respondent was instructed to comply with School Board rules regarding the treatment of students and was cautioned regarding his conduct toward female students. Incidents of Respondent staring at female students, looking at them "up and down," and requiring females to approach him more closely than they wished to, were deemed inappropriate conduct. Respondent was advised that familiar conduct between himself and female students caused embarrassment and made them feel uncomfortable. In February, 1988, a female student, Milissa Wege, complained that Respondent had called her "scum," had grabbed her forcefully by the arm, and ejected her from the classroom. A secretary observed a red welt on Ms. Wege's arm where Respondent had purportedly grabbed her. Respondent denied grabbing Ms. Wege, but a verbal confrontation did occur between them. The exact language of that conversation is not known. In April, 1988, Respondent approached a student named Sherri Goldenberg. In addition to the conduct described in paragraph 8 which was displayed toward Ms. Goldenberg, Respondent approached Ms. Goldenberg during a movie and placed his hand on her shoulder. Respondent then rubbed her shoulder in a caressing motion which made Ms. Goldenberg very uncomfortable. Subsequent to the events with Ms. Wege and Ms. Goldenberg, an investigation was completed and resulted in a letter of reprimand being issued to Respondent. He was instructed not to touch students, not to say demeaning things to students, and not to give female students any reason to believe he had some kind of sexual interest in them as that made them uncomfortable. Consequently, Respondent was given an unacceptable evaluation in category seven, professional responsibility. In May, 1988, Respondent met with Raymond Fontana, assistant principal at Highland Oaks, regarding an incident involving Cory Smith. Cory's mother had registered a complaint against the Respondent because he had allegedly used demeaning terms ("stupid," "boy") toward her son. Respondent admitted that he had said the words but claimed that he had not intended to demean the student. Respondent was advised to refrain from such conduct in the future. During Respondent's time at Highland Oaks, Mr. Fontana had a number of conferences with him, both formally and informally, to attempt to correct Respondent's treatment of students. Mr. Fontana urged Respondent to not touch students and to cease using derogatory or demeaning language toward students. During the school year 1988/89, Respondent was observed on three dates: October 5, 1988; November 22, 1988; and November 28, 1988. On May 30, 1989, Respondent received an acceptable overall evaluation and was recommended for employment. However, in June, 1989, an incident occurred which resulted in the Respondent being recommended for suspension with termination proceedings to follow. That incident involved a student named Roscoe Phillips. Respondent's class was in the library because his usual classroom, the auditorium, was being used for an assembly. Mr. Phillips was talking and being disruptive. Consequently, Respondent moved him to another seat to limit the student's interaction with the class. Mr. Phillips' poor conduct continued. Finally, Respondent told the student to be quiet, grabbed his mouth by pinching his lips together, and shoved his head backward. Incidental to the shoving motion, Respondent stepped on Mr. Phillips' foot. Right after the incident occurred, the student reported Respondent's conduct to the office. On August 23, 1989, the Board suspended Respondent from his employment with the Dade County public schools.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Dade County, Florida enter a final order suspending the Respondent from his employment with the Dade County public school system for a period of one school year. Further, it is recommended that Respondent be required to participate in a continuing education program geared specifically to developing strategies for classroom management and the professional treatment of students. DONE and ENTERED this 27 day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 89-4860 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. With the exception of the last sentence of paragraph 3, that paragraph is accepted. The last sentence is rejected as hearsay. Paragraph 4 is accepted. It is not found, however, that the Board has presented sufficient evidence from which it must be concluded that Respondent caused the red marks on Ms. Wege's arm. It is accepted that she alleged that to be the case and that Respondent was counseled about it. Paragraph 5 is accepted. In the future, the Board attorney shall please refrain from such lengthy paragraphs. Paragraph 6 is accepted. The first two sentences of paragraph 7 are accepted. The remainder is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 8 is accepted. See, however, comment in paragraph 3 above. With regard to paragraph 9, it is accepted to the extent addressed in finding of fact paragraph 15; otherwise rejected as irrelevant, contrary to the weight of the evidence, or comment. Paragraph 10 is accepted to the extent that it correctly summarizes Mr. Blitman's testimony; however, as to its conclusion, it is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Respondent showed a bone fide interest in improving his performance and with sufficient guidance can do so. Paragraph 11 is accepted as an accurate summary of Dr. Gray's testimony; however, as to its conclusion, it is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. See additional comment in paragraph 9 above. Paragraph 12 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The weight of the evidence established that Respondent and Ms. Wege had a verbal confrontation. No finding is made regarding the alleged "grabbing" of her arm. To that extent Mr. Kennedy's testimony supports Respondent's version of the incident and has been deemed credible. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are rejected as recitation of the notice of charges with argument, or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is rejected as contrary to the admission made by Respondent to the administrator. Paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. See finding of fact paragraph 15. COPIES FURNISHED: William DuFresne DuFRESNE AND BRADLEY 2929 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Frank Harder Twin Oaks Building, Suite 100 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Mrs. Madelyn P. Schere Assistant School Board Attorney School Board of Dade County Board Administration Building, Suite 301 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1450 N.E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Patrick Gray Assistant Superintendent Office of Professional Standards 1444 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 215 Miami, Florida 33132 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's employment as a teacher with Petitioner should be terminated for alleged willful neglect of duties and gross insubordination.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Miami-Dade County School Board (Petitioner) was a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Judith Zucker (Respondent) began her employment with Petitioner, as a teacher, in 1968 and continued her employment with Petitioner until 1972. She began her employment with Petitioner again in 1989. Respondent holds a teacher certification in elementary education. She is also certified to teach the learning disabled and mentally handicapped. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a teacher, assigned to Little River Elementary School (Little River), Citrus Grove Elementary School (Citrus Grove), and Miami Jackson Senior High School (Miami Jackson). Little River Elementary School In August 1989, Respondent resumed teaching with Petitioner. She was employed at Little River pursuant to a continuing contract of employment. On January 8, 1991, Respondent suffered injuries to her neck and spine when she attempted to break-up a fight between two students. Despite her injury, she immediately returned to work, not losing any time from work. In November 1994, Respondent was injured again. While walking down the hall of the school, a student, for whom she was not responsible, was hanging on a door. The student pushed himself off the door and fell on top of Respondent onto a cement floor. As a result, Respondent's original injury was aggravated. During the 1994-95 and 1995-96 school years, Respondent was a Title I tutor. She tutored three to eight students at a time in reading. During the 1996-97 school year, the reading program changed. For this school year, Little River, along with some other schools, was placed on Florida's critically low school list. Petitioner initiated a program called Operation Safety Net in which schools on the critically low list began using the Successful for All/Roots and Wings program (Success for All Reading Program). The Success for All Reading Program was for students who were critically deficient in reading. Little River and Petitioner's other critically low schools began using the Success for All Reading Program for the 1996-97 school year. In the Success for All Reading Program a tutor had a group of 18 to 20 students for 90 minutes in the morning. For the rest of the day, the tutor worked one-on-one with first grade students. Respondent was not assigned to the Success for All Reading Program at the beginning of the 1996-97 school year. Respondent requested her principal to assign her to the Success for All Reading Program due to her medical condition resulting from the injuries to her neck and spine for which she was still undergoing physical therapy. The principal agreed to assign Respondent to the Success for All Reading Program because the principal wanted to make sure that Respondent was provided with the opportunity and the time to attend therapy. Respondent was assigned to the Success for All Reading Program with a modification. Respondent was allowed to assist other tutors with testing and was working in groups of two to four students, significantly smaller than the regular groups of 18 to 20 students. Using the smaller groups for Respondent caused the other morning groups to become even larger. At the time that the principal made the assignment with the modification, the principal expected the duration of the assignment to be short, but the assignment spanned the entire school year. Having groups expanding beyond the 18 to 20 students for the entire school year created a hardship in that it was counter-productive for the critically deficient readers. In the fall of 1996, Respondent was again injured. This time, Respondent was injured by a student to whom she was tutoring one-on-one. Respondent did not lose any work as a result of the injury she sustained. Respondent had now been injured by students at Little River on three separate occasions: January 8, 1991, November 1994, and the fall of 1996. Despite the injuries that she sustained, she immediately returned to work after each occurrence without any loss of time. At the end of a school year, teachers indicate what they would prefer to do during the following school year. In May or June 1997, the principal of Little River advised Respondent that she would be assigned to teach a regular class, a third grade class, for the 1997-98 school year. Respondent sought a transfer from Little River in August 1997. No transfer occurred. When Respondent returned to Little River in August 1997 for the 1997-98 school year, Respondent informed the principal that she was still in physical therapy; that she was unable to write on the chalkboard because to do so caused her to shake; and that she was, therefore, unable to return to a regular classroom. Respondent requested a return to tutoring. The principal informed Respondent that the tutors had already been assigned and that she (Respondent) was expected to return to a regular classroom. However, for the first two weeks of school, the principal allowed Respondent to tutor. The principal contacted Petitioner's Office of Risk Management1 to determine Respondent's status as to whether she was able to return to a regular classroom. Risk Management advised the principal that Respondent was cleared to return to her regular duties, to return to a regular classroom. On September 19, 1997, the principal explained to Respondent that, according to Risk Management, she was cleared to return to her regular duties and that she would be returning to a regular third grade classroom. The third grade classroom would contain no more than 29 to 33 students. Respondent informed the principal that she (Respondent) was not able to return to a regular classroom and that her doctor would have to contact Risk Management. On September 23, 1997, the principal again contacted Risk Management which again informed the principal that Respondent was cleared to return to her regular duties. The principal advised Respondent of the information that she had obtained from Risk Management. Respondent again informed the principal that she was unable to return to a regular classroom. Risk Management had also advised the principal that, if Respondent continued to insist that she was unable to return to a regular classroom, the principal should direct Respondent to leave the school's campus. The principal did as Risk Management advised and directed Respondent to leave the school's campus. Respondent complied with the principal's directive and left the campus of Little River. The Executive Director of Risk Management (Executive Director) had advised the principal to direct Respondent to leave the school's campus if Respondent insisted that she could not return to a regular classroom. He advised the principal to direct Respondent to leave the school's campus because of Respondent's medical condition. The Executive Director had reviewed Respondent's file and had become aware of a letter dated September 3, 1997, from Dr. Raul Grosz, Respondent's authorized2 neurologist. The letter stated in pertinent part: She [Respondent] has at this time chronic persistent [sic] and discomfort. I am recommending that she be placed in a non- threatening environment in which she does not have to move furniture or lift furniture whatsoever. I also feel that she is unable to carry a full class-load at this time. As a result of the letter, the Executive Director authorized the payment of workers' compensation benefits from the date that Respondent was directed to leave Little River's campus by the principal. Even though Dr. Grosz opined that Respondent was "unable to carry a full class-load," he did not state the number of students as to what represented a full class-load. However, Dr. Grosz considered a full class-load to consist of a large group of students who were not well-behaved and who were potentially dangerous. Dr. Grosz did not inform Respondent as to what he considered to be a full class-load. There was no neurological basis for restricting Respondent to a non-threatening environment or a reduced class size. Respondent requested Dr. Grosz to add the restrictions. Respondent also expressed her desire to be in a non-threatening environment. Respondent's requests seemed reasonable to Dr. Grosz and he attempts to accommodate his patients' subjective feelings, so Dr. Grosz included the restrictions in his letter. It was Dr. Gorsz's intent that Respondent and Petitioner attempt to reach a mutually acceptable solution and that Petitioner would provide what it determined was appropriate. As of September 19, 1997, Respondent had exhausted all of her available sick and personal leave. Petitioner and the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) have entered into a collective bargaining agreement (UTD Contract). The UTD Contract provides generous, extensive leave provisions. Respondent never applied for any type of leave, including leave pursuant to the UTD Contract. The Executive Director was authorized to direct a teacher to a work assignment. In determining a work assignment for Respondent, the Executive Director sought assistance from and relied upon Petitioner's Instructional Staffing Department to locate a position for Respondent which would meet her medical restrictions. Citrus Grove Elementary School The Director of Instructional Staffing informed the Executive Director that a varying exceptionalities (VE) position in special education was available at Citrus Grove. A VE teacher teaches a group of students who have different exceptionalities. The VE teacher may simultaneously teach the students with different exceptionalities in the same class or the teacher may teach the students with one exceptionality during the school day at one time and may teach other students with a different exceptionality during the same school day at another time. VE teaching is used for mildly handicapped students. By letter dated October 7, 1997, the Executive Director informed Respondent that a VE position was available at Citrus Grove and that the VE position was within her certification and met her medical restrictions. He also indicated that the position was an appropriate accommodation for Respondent. Moreover, the Executive Director directed Respondent to report to Citrus Grove immediately and to call the principal at Citrus Grove for further reporting instructions. Respondent failed to call the principal. She also failed to report to Citrus Grove. Respondent decided, without making any personal investigation, that the VE position at Citrus Grove was not appropriate and was unreasonable. Respondent did not believe that she was physically capable of performing as a VE teacher at Citrus Grove. Respondent is in pain daily. She wears a Tens Unit to short-circuit some of the pain. Respondent expresses being afraid of being in groups wherein she may be bumped which would worsen her condition. However, Respondent's authorized neurologist, Dr. Grosz has no concern regarding physical contact by bumping causing further neurological damage or problems. He has more concern regarding further neurological damage or problems caused by Respondent being involved in a high-speed motor vehicle accident. Respondent did not observe the placement or inquire about the profiles of the students who she was going to teach. The composition of the VE class, as to students, at Citrus Grove was decided before Respondent was assigned the VE class, and, therefore, the composition was not decided with consideration given to Respondent's physical limitations. Respondent assumed that she would be required to use physical restraint techniques with the students. The UTD Contract provides for the use of the Safe Physical Management (SPM) program, which is the use of physical restraints for severely disabled students. Teachers, who are in self-contained programs for severely emotionally disturbed students and autistic students, receive training in techniques to contain highly disruptive students under unusual circumstances. The techniques are used to prevent injuries to persons, including the student, and damage to property. Before SPM is used, Petitioner's Multi-Disciplinary Team must recommend its use and the use of SPM must be documented on the student's Individualized Education Program (IEP). One student in Respondent's assigned class had an IEP which approved SPM. However, based upon the student's progress, it was unlikely that SPM would have been needed. Moreover, SPM is not used in VE classes at Citrus Grove; mildly handicapped students, not volatile students, are placed in the VE classes. Dr. Grosz opined that Respondent could teach a class of 25 to 30 well-behaved students. The VE classes at Citrus Grove were not full-load classes. The VE classes consisted of 7 to 10 mildly disabled students at any one time; whereas, the regular classes consisted of between 28 and 39 students. Elementary VE classes contained no more than 12 to 15 students. The number of students in VE classes at Citrus Grove were smaller than VE classes throughout Petitioner's district. Respondent also erroneously relied upon Dr. Grosz's opinion that she was unable to teach a full class-load. What Respondent considered a full class-load and what Dr. Grosz considered a full class-load were not the same. Pursuant to what Dr. Grosz considered a full class-load, Respondent would have been able to accept the VE position at Citrus Grove. Respondent would have been the third VE teacher at Citrus Grove. The VE students were all in one room separated by a partition. Respondent's class would have been on one side of the partition and one VE teacher would have been in the class with Respondent. The other VE teacher and the other VE students would have been on the other side of he partition. Citrus Grove was a safe, non-threatening environment. The needs of the VE students at Citrus Grove were more an educational concern than emotional, and the VE students were well-behaved. As to Respondent being injured at Citrus Grove in the VE position, such an occurrence was unlikely. Respondent would not have been required to lift or move any furniture or any heavy items at Citrus Grove. Respondent was qualified to teach the VE class at Citrus Grove. The Citrus Grove assignment met Respondent's medical restrictions. The assignment of Respondent to Citrus Grove was reasonable. Respondent's refusal of the Citrus Grove assignment was unreasonable and unjustified. Approximately one week after Respondent was assigned to Citrus Grove, Respondent, on October 13, 1997, presented to Dr. Grosz for an examination. Respondent did not inform Dr. Grosz of the assignment at Citrus Grove. Informing Dr. Grosz of the assignment would have provided Dr. Gorsz with an opportunity to explain to Respondent what he meant by his opinion. Respondent did not also inform Dr. Sanford Jacobson, her authorized psychiatrist, of the Citrus Grove assignment when she presented to him for a psychiatric evaluation on October 14, 1997. Dr. Jacobson prepared a report of the evaluation dated October 16, 1997.3 In the "Summary and Conclusions" section of his report, Dr. Jacobson states, among other things, the following: There have been three incidents which have resulted in injuries as described by Mrs. Zucker [Respondent]. While some of them may have been somewhat surprising, difficult to manage, and distressing, I would not think that they are the kind of injuries that one would see as causing a Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. . . . The most prominent symptoms are depressive symptoms. Clinical diagnosis at present is that of: Axis I: Mood disorder associated with cervical disc disease and stenosis with depressive-like episode. * * * It would appear that her depression is related to the injuries. . . . At this time I do not believe she can resume full classroom duties. In essence, Dr. Jacobson's diagnosis was that Respondent was suffering from depression related to her pain and discomfort from her physical injury. Even though Dr. Jacobson opined that Respondent could not resume "full classroom duties," he did not state the number of students as to what he considered a full classroom. However, Dr. Jacobson considered a full classroom to consist of approximately 25 to 30 students or more. As a result of Respondent not reporting to Citrus Grove, day-to-day substitutes filled her position. The needs of the VE students were not met with such an arrangement. Miami Jackson Senior High School On or about October 15, 1997, one of Respondent's physicians had placed Respondent on a no-work status. Subsequently, on November 10, 1997, Dr. Grosz returned Respondent to work but with restrictions. Dr. Grosz states in his report dated November 10, 1997, among other things, the following: She [Respondent] remains able to perform at light duty status with no lifting of furniture allowed and I will defer to psychiatry in terms of her emotional complaints. The Executive Director consulted again with Petitioner's Instructional Staffing to locate a position for Respondent. Instructional Staffing informed him of a VE position at Miami Jackson. On December 3, 1997, the Executive Director informed Respondent that a VE position at Miami Jackson was within her certification and met her medical needs. He directed Respondent to report to Miami Jackson. The Executive Director also directed Respondent to call the principal at Miami Jackson for further reporting instructions. Respondent failed to report to Miami Jackson. She also failed to call the principal at Miami Jackson. Respondent decided, without making any personal investigation, that the VE position at Miami Jackson was not appropriate and was unreasonable. Respondent did not believe that she was physically capable of performing as a VE teacher at Miami Jackson. Respondent did not observe the placement or inquire about the profiles of the students whom she was going to teach. The composition of the VE class, as to students, at Miami Jackson was decided before Respondent was assigned the VE class, and, therefore, the composition was not decided with consideration given to Respondent's physical limitations. Respondent assumed that she would be required to use physical restraint techniques with students. The VE classes at Miami Jackson were not full-load classes. The regular classes at Miami Jackson averaged approximately 35 students; whereas, the VE classes consisted of 14 to 21 students per class period in Respondent's proposed classes. The students in the VE classes were mildly disabled, with the majority of the students being learning disabled and a few being emotionally handicapped and a few educationally mentally handicapped. Many of the students were being mainstreamed into the regular school setting. A majority of the students were on track for a standard diploma. Three students in Respondent's proposed class at Miami Jackson had IEPs which approved SPM. The students would have been in Respondent's proposed class in 1998. The students' prior IEPs had approved SPM and the SPM was carried over to Miami Jackson. However, based upon the students' progress, it was unlikely that SPM would have been needed. Moreover, SPM is not used in VE classes at Miami Jackson; SPM is only used in severly emotionally disabled classes at Miami Jackson. Miami Jackson was a safe, non-threatening environment. Respondent would not have been required to lift or move any furniture or any heavy items at Miami Jackson. Respondent was qualified to teach the VE class at Miami Jackson. However, the Miami Jackson assignment failed to meet Respondent's medical restrictions. The Miami Jackson assignment met Dr. Grosz's medical restrictions; but, it failed to meet Dr. Jacobson's medical restrictions. Dr. Jacobson did not state in his report the size of the class that he recommended that Respondent teach. Nor did he recommend to Respondent the size of class that she should teach. At hearing, Dr. Jacobson opined that he would recommend that Respondent teach a class with 7 to 10 students; however, he would not recommend that Respondent teach a class with 14 to 21 students. Respondent's proposed VE classes at Miami Jackson consisted of 14 to 21 students. The assignment of Respondent to Miami Jackson was unreasonable. Respondent's refusal of the assignment to Miami Jackson was reasonable and justified. It matters not that Respondent was unaware of the size of class recommended by Dr. Jacobson; it is sufficient that the assignment failed to meet his medical restrictions. Even though Respondent did not know the size of class to which Dr. Jacobson was referring, she relied upon his report, as well as Dr. Grosz's opinion, in refusing the assignment to Miami Jackson. As a result of Respondent not reporting to Miami Jackson, day-to-day substitutes filled her position until a permanent teacher could be assigned. Dr. Grosz examined Respondent again on December 12, 1997. Respondent did not advise him of her assignment to Miami Jackson. Because Respondent had failed to report to Citrus Grove and to Miami Jackson as directed, the Executive Director turned Respondent's case over to Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards (OPS). By letter dated January 26, 1998, OPS advised Respondent, among other things, that she had been absent without authorized leave and that such absence constituted willful neglect of duty and subjected her employment to termination. OPS also requested that Respondent provide a written request within 10 working days if she wanted a review of her situation. Respondent failed to reply to OPS' letter. However, Respondent's counsel for workers' compensation responded. The response from Respondent's counsel indicated that Petitioner was aware why Respondent was not working, but his response failed to specifically address the assignments to Citrus Grove and to Miami Jackson. Petitioner took action on March 18, 1998, to suspend Respondent and dismiss her from employment. According to Petitioner's computerized attendance records, at that time Respondent had been absent without authorized leave since September 19, 1997. From September 19, 1997, to October 7, 1997, Respondent was not absent without authorization. On September 19, 1997, Respondent informed the principal of Little River that she was unable to teach the regular third grade class. Subsequently, on September 23, 1997, the principal directed Respondent to leave Little River, upon the advice of the Executive Director, and the Executive Director authorized Respondent to receive workers' compensation benefits retroactive to the date that she was directed to leave. Moreover, Respondent was not directed to report to Citrus Grove until October 7, 1997.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order sustaining the suspension of Judith Tucker without pay, but not dismissing her from employment, and reinstating Judith Tucker under the terms and conditions deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 4th day of June, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to these proceedings, respondent was employed as a distributive education teacher at Coconut Creek High School. Respondent was also a sponsor or teacher coordinator for DECA -- Distributive Education Clubs of America. As such he was appointed, with the approval of the School's principal, as a chaperone for the Coconut Creek High School students attending the DECA national convention in Chicago, Illinois, from May 8, 1976, through May 13, 1976. Prior to attending said national convention, respondent was aware of those provisions of the Coconut Creek High School teachers' handbook pertaining to chaperones' and students' responsibilities on field trips. All distributive education teachers and students who were to attend the national conference in Chicago had a meeting on April 27, 1976, to discuss the rules and regulations which were to be followed at the conference. While the curfew hour set in the teachers' handbook for students on field trips was midnight, the curfew at the national convention was set at 2:00 A.M. and this curfew was adopted by respondent for his students. Among the students for whom respondent had responsibility as a chaperone were four females who were assigned a hotel room located across from respondent's room. At curfew time each evening, it was respondent's practice to check in on his students and then retire to his room, leaving his door ajar about six inches so as to be able to hear any disturbances. On the morning in question, May 13, 1976, which followed the last night of the convention, respondent started his "rounds" to check on his students at approximately 1:45 a.m. Assured that his students were all in their respective rooms, at about 2:15 a.m. respondent went back to his hotel room and went to sleep, rather than attending a party or gathering which other teacher/chaperones attended. At approximately 4:00 a.m., respondent was awakened by noises in the hall. He got up to see where the noises were coming from and found several teacher/chaperones from Broward County standing in the door way to his female students' room. It appeared to respondent and one of the female students who testified at the hearing that at least some of these teacher/chaperones had been drinking alcoholic beverages. Respondent considered some of these persons to be his immediate supervisors inasmuch as they were employed at the county and state levels. In order to ascertain what was happening, respondent dressed and went over to the girls' room. He took no affirmative action to remove the teacher/chaperones from the room. He sat on the couch in the room and fell asleep. When he awoke between 5:00 and 6:00 a.m., the other chaperones had gone and he then left and returned to his room. Prior to leaving for the convention, respondent instructed his students not to bring or consume any alcoholic beverages at the convention. While in the girls' room on the morning in question, respondent noticed a beer can in the trash receptacle. Having never seen any of his students consume alcoholic beverages at the convention and realizing that the other chaperones had been drinking on the morning in question, respondent did not make inquiry of his students as to the beer can. There was evidence that one of respondent's female students had consumed alcoholic beverages in her room while attending the convention. However, there was no evidence that respondent or any other chaperone attending the convention had any knowledge of or reason to suspect that this occurred. No complaints were received by the school principal or the administration from either parents or students concerning activities at the convention.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that respondent be immediately reinstated to his former position and that his back salary be paid to him for the reason that the charges against him were not sustained by the evidence. Respectfully submitted and entered this 16th day of September, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: School Board of Broward County 1327 S.W. 4th street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Mr. Leonard Fleet 4001 Hollywood Boulevard . Hollywood, Florida 33021 Mr. Ronald G. Meyer 341 Plant Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the misconduct alleged in the charging document; and, if yes, whether such offenses are violations of Pinellas County School Board Policy 8.25 and the Code of Professional Conduct and/or constitute "just cause" for his dismissal as a teacher in the Pinellas County School District.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Pinellas County School Board, operates the public schools in Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent has been a teacher for 25 years. The last 18 years, he has worked as a music teacher in the Pinellas County schools. From 1986 to 1993, Respondent taught music at Dixie Hollins High School. From about August 1993 until about April 28, 2004, Respondent worked as a music teacher at Southern Oak Elementary School (Southern Oak). Respondent transferred to Southern Oak because his two sons were attending school there. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent taught music to students in kindergarten through fifth grade at Southern Oak. The classroom teachers brought their classes to the music room where Respondent taught music and returned to pick up the students at or near the time the music class was over. The music room at Southern Oak was a large room, which included the open area where the students sat during their music class. In addition to the area where Respondent taught the various classes, the music room also included an office, a practice room, and three storage rooms. The music room had several large windows facing outside. As part of the music classes, Respondent worked with the children on rhythm movement, singing, playing instruments, and active listening, where the children were asked to keep the beat of the music that was playing on either the television or compact disc player. In the 2003-2004 school year, Respondent used a music curriculum that was about two years old. This music curriculum included a variety of videos and lessons. As part of his teaching and implementation of this curriculum, Respondent showed these curriculum-related videos to the students in his music classes. During the 2003-2004 school year, C.L., St.H., and Sa.H. were students at Southern Oak. C.L. was seven years old in second grade. St.H. and Sa.H., who are sisters, were about seven years old and in first grade. Like all other students at Southern Oak, C.L., St.H., and Sa.H. went to Respondent for music. C.L., St.H., and Sa.H. were all in different classes and, therefore, they did not attend music class during the same class period. Rather, they went to music with their respective classes at the time scheduled. At all times relevant to this proceeding, C.L. did not know either St.H. or Sa.H. Also, at all times relevant to this proceeding, neither St.H. nor Sa.H. knew C.L. Situation Related to C.L. On December 1, 2003, while C.L. was in the tub, her mother, Ms. L., picked up C.L.'s panties from the floor and noticed that there was blood in the panties. Ms. L. asked C.L. questions about the blood, but C.L. could not say when the bleeding had started. The following day, Ms. L. took C.L. to see Jeanette Moss, M.D. She also took two pairs of C.L.'s panties to the doctor's office to show the doctor. Because Ms. L. first discovered the blood in C.L.'s panties on December 1, 2003, she did not know and, thus, could not state with absolute certainty when this episode of bleeding began. However, Dr. Moss' medical report for that office visit indicated that C.L. was brought in by her mother because of suspected vaginal bleeding for the last five days. Dr. Moss did not conduct a vaginal examination, but looked in C.L.'s vaginal area to see if there was still bleeding and determined that there was not. Dr. Moss inquired about the possibility of sexual abuse, but Ms. L. did not think this was possible because she believed that C.L. was always properly supervised. After December 1, 2003, Ms. L. became aware that C.L. had two more episodes of bleeding, one in early January 2004 and one in late January or early February 2004. Following the early January 2004 episode, Ms. L. took C.L. to a medical office, where a nurse, Rene Nolan, looked at C.L.'s vaginal area, but did not conduct a vaginal examination. At the time of this visit, there was no bleeding. Nurse Nolan asked Ms. L. about the possibility of sexual abuse. Still, Ms. L. did not believe this was possible. Following the episode of bleeding in late January or early February 2004, C.L. was referred to Dr. Diamond, an endocrinologist. Dr. Diamond saw C.L. in April 2004 and reported to Ms. L. that there was no indication that the bleeding was related to puberty. With Ms. L.'s permission and in her presence, Dr. Diamond looked at C.L.'s vaginal area and, based on that observation, reported to Ms. L. that the vaginal opening "was not right for a seven-year-old" and indicated he believed there was some kind of sexual abuse. He told the mother to call the Child Protective Team (Child Protective Team or CPT) and have a full examination done. Ms. L. contacted the Child Protective Team the day after she and C.L. went to Dr. Diamond's office, but was told that a police report had to be filed before an examination could be performed. Since C.L. had denied that anything inappropriate had happened, Ms. L. was reluctant to file a police report. Ms. L. contacted Nurse Nolan and shared her concerns about filing a police report. She also updated Nurse Nolan about what had been happening with C.L. since the January 2004 office visit. Nurse Nolan then referred Ms. L. to Dr. Cheek, a physician who had previously worked with the Child Protective Team. On or about April 16, 2004, C.L. was examined by Dr. Cheek. After examining C.L., Dr. Cheek told Ms. L. that she was able to see C.L.'s hymen and determined that there was missing tissue, and there was also scar tissue. Dr. Cheek told Ms. L. that she suspected some type of abuse and reported her suspicion to the child abuse authorities. On or about April 20, 2004, a nurse practitioner with the Child Protective Team conducted a full examination of C.L. That examination, like the one performed by Dr. Cheek, showed loss of hymenal tissue and scarring. The medical record, completed by the nurse practitioner, stated that the loss of hymenal tissue with scarring observed during the examination "is consistent with penetrating trauma." Notwithstanding C.L.'s repeated denials that any sexual abuse had taken place, the nurse practitioner told Ms. L. that based on the findings of the examination, she believed that C.L. had been sexually abused. After C.L. was examined by the nurse practitioner with the Child Protective Team, C.L. and her mother met with a counselor at the CPT office. The counselor told C.L. that if someone had touched her, she should tell her mother and the counselor. C.L. did not verbally respond, but became visibly upset. The counselor then left the room, afterwhich, Ms. L. reiterated that C.L. should tell if someone had touched her and made her feel uncomfortable. After the counselor left the room and in response to her mother's question, C.L. stated that the only person who touched her was her music teacher. C.L.'s mother then asked, "Your music teacher?" C.L. then replied, "You know, the one I said was creepy." In describing how her music teacher touched her, C.L. said only that he would hold her on his lap real tight. C.L. then began crying. About that time, the counselor returned to the room, and Ms. L. told her what C.L. had just revealed to her. In making the comment, "You know, the one I said was creepy," referred to in paragraph 21, C.L. was referring to an earlier conversation she had with her mother about the music teacher. In or about November 2003, when C.L. came home from school, she told her mother that the music teacher was "creepy." Ms. L. then asked C.L. what did she mean. In response, C.L. told her mother, "He makes me sit on his lap." At or near the time C.L. made the statements to her mother noted in paragraph 22, C.L.'s parents discussed what C.L. told her mother. At that time, the parents did not suspect sexual abuse. So after discussing the matter, C.L.'s parents decided they did not want to get an innocent person in trouble, but if it happened again, they would "address it." After Ms. L. told the counselor what C.L. had said while the counselor was out of the room, the counselor asked Ms. L. what she knew about the music teacher. Ms. L. told the counselor about an incident that occurred at or near the beginning of school when she attended that school's open house. According to Ms. L., when she visited the music teacher's room during the open house, he flirted with her. However, there is no indication of exactly what the music teacher did to lead Ms. L. to that conclusion. It is unclear whether C.L. was in the room or had left the room when her mother told the counselor about the "flirting" incident. After Ms. L. told the counselor that C.L. had said the music teacher held her on his lap, the counselor asked C.L. if that was all that he had done and did it make her feel uncomfortable. C.L. answered, "Yes," and said that the music teacher had just held her tight and would not let her get up. After leaving the Child Protective Team office, Ms. L. went to a fast food restaurant before taking C.L. back to school. While at the drive-thru window, Ms. L. noticed that C.L. was clutching a stuffed animal and was crying. Ms. L. asked C.L. what was wrong. C.L. told her mother that she needed to tell her what had happened. After Ms. L. pulled over in the parking lot, C.L. told her mother, "It was him." Ms. L. asked C.L., "Who is him?" C.L. answered, "My music teacher." In response to her mother's asking what was her music teacher's name, C.L. said, "Mr. Fronczak." Immediately after C.L. made the revelations described in paragraph 27, Ms. L. went home and called her husband. Mr. and Mrs. L. then called the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. Subsequently, C.L. revealed additional details concerning the number of times and how Respondent touched her. During the 2003-2004 school year when C.L. was a second grade student at Southern Oak, her class went to Respondent for music once a week. Each music period class lasted about 30 to 45 minutes. Every other week, Respondent showed the students a curriculum-related video, which would be played on the television which was located at the front of the classroom. The students in C.L.'s class would always sit on the floor to watch the videos. Whenever Respondent showed a video to C.L.'s class, the lights in the classroom were turned off, and the vertical blinds at the windows were closed. While the video was showing, Respondent sat in a chair in the back of the room, with the students seated in front of him, a few feet away. The students were facing the television and had their backs to him. The chair in which Respondent sat had no sides or arms. C.L. did not always sit on the floor during the entire time the video was playing because Respondent would whisper to her, "Come over here." C.L. reasonably understood Respondent's statement to mean that he wanted her to come to where he was seated. In response to the directive, C.L. usually would get up from the floor where she was sitting with the other students and go to Respondent. She would then be required to sit in his lap. If C.L. did not get up when Respondent whispered to her, he would pull her or pick her up and take her to his chair and put her on his lap. Even though C.L. was unable to state the exact time that the incidents described in paragraph 33 occurred, her credible testimony was that the incidents occurred about four or five times during the 2003-2004 school year. The first time C.L. was required to sit in Respondent's lap, he touched her inappropriately in her "private area," either under or over her clothes. This encounter lasted about five or ten minutes, and less time than the video played. While C.L. was sitting on Respondent's lap, she did not say anything, but she did try to get up. However, she could not get up because Respondent was holding her down. In a second incident, Respondent touched C.L. in her private area. C.L. testified that she thought, in this instance, Respondent touched her under her clothes, put his hand in her underpants, and put his fingers inside her. When Respondent put his fingers inside her, C.L. did not scream, even though it hurt and felt like "needles went through" her. During a third incident, Respondent touched C.L. in her private area, but over her clothes. On that particular day, C.L. was sitting on the floor near the back of the music room. Respondent whispered to her, "Come over here." C.L. just turned around, but did not go to Respondent. However, after C.L. did not come to him, Respondent again told C.L. to come to him. After the second directive from Respondent, C.L. got up and went to him. In this instance, C.L. was on Respondent's lap for five or ten minutes, during which he touched C.L. over her underwear. During a fourth incident, Respondent touched C.L. inside her underwear and put his fingers inside her. He may have used two hands, but only one hand at a time. Respondent used one hand to hold her on his lap while his other hand was inside her underwear and/or inside her. He would then sometimes change or alternate hands. When Respondent put his fingers or finger inside C.L., it hurt, but, again, she did not scream. C.L., as she had during the past incidents, tried to get up from Respondent's lap, but she was unable to do so because Respondent was holding her down. When it was over, Respondent let C.L. up, and she went back to her seat on the floor. The foregoing incidents did not occur every time C.L. was in music class. However, when each incident occurred, the lights in the classroom were out, the vertical blinds were closed, and Respondent was seated in his chair (which did not have sides/arms), in the back of the classroom behind the students. During these incidents, C.L. did not sit in Respondent's lap the entire class period or the entire time the video was playing. Given that the incidents happened more than two years ago, when C.L. was only about seven years old, she could not specifically identify the time during the 2003-2004 school year that the incidents occcurred. C.L. could not recall, in each of the incidents described above, whether Respondent touched her private area over or under her clothes. However, C.L. clearly recalled that in the two or three instances when Respondent touched her under her clothes, she was wearing a skirt. Even though C.L. was unable to identify the precise dates and to describe the exact inappropriate touching that occurred in each instance, C.L.'s testimony that four or five such incidents happened during the 2003-2004 school year in Respondent's class is found to be credible. C.L. recalls that at some point, there was blood in her panties. However, she does not recall whether there was bleeding after Respondent touched her in her private area. Prior to the incidents described above, C.L.'s parents had told her about "good touch, bad touch." C.L. believed that what Respondent was doing to her was inappropriate. However, until April 2004, she did not tell her parents or anyone else that Respondent had been touching her in her private area, even though she had been specifically asked if anyone had touched her in that area. C.L. initially told the law enforcement officers who were investigating her allegations that she was not afraid of anyone. However, the reason C.L. did not initially tell anyone that Respondent touched her inappropriately was that she was afraid that she would get in trouble with "the teacher." Another reason C.L. did not tell anyone what happened was that she was afraid that if she told anyone, Respondent would come and hurt her whole family. In April 2004, C.L. finally told her mother that Respondent had touched her because she was "tired of having to go to [medical] exams and missing out on class activities." Despite C.L.'s denying several times that anyone had touched her in an inappropriate manner, those earlier denials are not a basis for discounting her testimony that the incidents described above occurred. In cases such as this, children frequently delay for a significant period of time that they have been the victims of sexual abuse. Prior to C.L.'s disclosing that Respondent had touched her, no one suggested to her that Respondent had done anything to her. C.L.'s reason for stating that Respondent touched her was that he had done so. In fact, C.L.'s credible testimony was that no one had ever touched her in her "privates" like Respondent did. The Testimony of Sally Smith, M.D. Sally Smith, M.D., is board-certified in pediatrics and has worked in the field of child abuse for 19 or 20 years. During that time, Dr. Smith has handled at least 1,000 sexual abuse cases. In or about 2002, Dr. Smith became the medical director for the Pinellas County Child Protective Team. As medical director, Dr. Smith conducts examinations of children for the Child Protective Team. In addition to conducting such examinations, Dr. Smith also supervises the two nurse practitioners with the Child Protective Team who also conduct such examinations, including the nurse practitioner who examined C.L. in April 2004. According to the medical report, at the time C.L. was examined by the nurse practitioner at the CPT office, C.L. had not reported any abuse. The nurse practitioner who examined C.L. documented seeing an abnormality of the hymen, the membrane that covers part of the opening of the vagina. According to the medial report, the back part of C.L.'s hymen, the part near the rectum, was abnormal in that there was an area of the hymen that was about 25 percent missing, which indicated the abnormality was caused by a laceration. Also, there was also some scarring in that area, which indicated healing of the laceration. The type of abnormality found in C.L. is one of the few types of abnormalities considered specific for penetrating trauma. Based on her review of the examination and the photographs related thereto, Dr. Smith could not say definitively what caused the laceration. However, based on her review of the report and the photographs of C.L.'s genital area, Dr. Smith's credible testimony was that the photographs and examination report indicate that C.L. had a significant episode, or perhaps one or more episodes of penetrating trauma to the hymen-vaginal area. It takes at least several weeks to develop scar tissue. Accordingly, the fact that the area was scarred at the time of the examination indicates that the injury occurred several weeks to a month prior to examination. Respondent suggested that the injury to C.L.'s hymen may have been caused by an injury to the genital area, but presented no evidence to support this suggestion. Contrary to this proposition, C.L. has no history of previous penetrating trauma to her genital area due to an accidental injury. The type of injury/abnormality of C.L.'s hymen documented during examination is not the type seen in a straddle injury. Because the hymen is located a half inch to an inch above the surface and is protected by the outer labia in the genital area, straddle injuries do not result in hymenal injuries. Respondent suggests that the injury to C.L.'s hymen may have been caused by masturbation, but presents no evidence to support this suggestion. Contrary to Respondent's assertion, the credible testimony of Dr. Smith is that the abnormality or injury to C.L.'s hymen that was seen at the time of C.L.'s examination in April 2004 is not the type of injury seen in children who masturbate. Moreover, the abnormality or injury observed in C.L. could not be caused by C.L.'s inserting her own finger into the vaginal opening. The reason is that the child's own finger is similar in size to that of the opening of her vagina, so her finger would not cause the lacerations or trauma. However, a grown man's finger could cause such lacerations or trauma. The credible testimony of Dr. Smith is that the injury to C.L.'s hymen is evidence of sexual abuse. Moreover, the abnormality or injury to C.L.'s hymen was consistent with C.L.'s late reporting of how Respondent had inappropriately touch her. The medical report prepared at or near the time C.L. was examined by the nurse practitioner at the Child Protective Team office noted that C.L. had had three episodes of vaginal bleeding over the preceding four months, one of which lasted about ten days. This information was provided by C.L.'s mother. In this case, the episodes of bleeding can not be linked to the times that C.L. experienced the penetrating trauma described above. However, because injuries such as the one that C.L. had do not necessarily result in bleeding, such a link is not dispositive in determining when or how the injuries occurred. The credible and undisputed testimony of Dr. Smith is that the hymen of a child C.L.'s age, prior to puberty, is a relatively thin membrane that does not have a lot of blood vessels, and, therefore, a laceration of the hymen may not bleed like a cut on the skin. However, a "fair percentage" of children that have an incident of penetrating trauma to the genital area may have some fluid/discharge associated with such trauma, but not necessarily bleeding. In this case, there is no definitive medical explanation for the cause of C.L.'s bleeding. C.L.'s vaginal bleeding occurred from December 2003 through February 2004, but did not occur after Respondent was removed from the school in late April 2004. The trauma necessary to tear the hymen would be associated with some sensation for the child. However, often, in incidents such as those described in paragraphs 36 and 38, the child may not react, cry out, or make any verbal response to the penetration and/or significant trauma. According to the credible testimony of Dr. Smith, children frequently delay divulging, for a significant period of time, that they have been sexually abused. Testimony of Wade Meyers, M.D. Wade Meyers, M.D., is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and forensic psychiatrist. Dr. Meyers is currently a professor at the University of South Florida, where he is chief of the Division of Child Psychiatry in the Department of Psychiatry. During this proceeding, Dr. Meyers testified regarding his opinion of the credibility of the students who made the allegations that are at issue in this proceeding. In preparation for giving his opinion, Dr. Meyers reviewed materials which included deposition transcripts, videotaped depositions, and a number of Pinellas County investigative reports.1 Dr. Meyers did not specify which documents he reviewed for each particular student. However, Dr. Meyers did not review any videotaped depositions or videotaped interviews of C.L., but only her deposition transcript(s). Based on Dr. Meyers' review of the materials described in paragraph 65, he opined that C.L.'s allegations regarding Respondent were not credible and that she had not been abused sexually in any way by Respondent. Dr. Meyers based his conclusions and/or opinions on the four reasons set forth below. First, Dr. Meyers testified that C.L.'s allegations cannot be validated as the medical evidence and the timing do not fit logic that would match digital penetration in a young girl. This assertion is based on the medical record which indicates that the bleeding started in December 2003 and went on for five or eight to ten days. Dr. Meyers noted when the bleeding was first observed, during the Thanksgiving holiday, when students were out of school. Also, when the bleeding was first observed, C.L. had not been in school for several days and had not been in Respondent's class for about two weeks. Dr. Meyers apparently believed that the bleeding was necessarily related to C.L.'s allegations that Respondent had digitally penetrated her. Based on this belief, Dr. Meyers concluded that because C.L. had not been in Respondent's music class for about two weeks prior to Ms. L.'s discovering blood in C.L.'s underwear, Respondent could not have penetrated C.L.'s hymen. Dr. Meyers' conclusion, that the medical evidence and timing do not logically coincide with the allegation that Respondent digitally penetrated C.L., is not persuasive. This conclusion or assertion is contrary to the credible and persuasive testimony of Dr. Smith that there is not necessarily bleeding associated with digital penetration of a child C.L.'s age. Therefore, the truth regarding C.L.'s allegation that Respondent digitally penetrated C.L. need not be tied or related to any specific episode of bleeding. Second, Dr. Meyers asserted that C.L.'s initial denial and subsequent denials that any sexual abuse had occurred are a basis for not believing her later statements that Respondent engaged in the alleged conduct.2 According to Dr. Meyers, a victim of sexual abuse usually reveals such abuse in the initial interview. Dr. Meyers' conclusion, in paragraph 69, based on his assertion that victims of sexual abuse usually reveal such abuse in their initial interview, is not persuasive. Dr. Smith's credible testimony, that victims of sexual abuse or acts alleged by C.L. frequently do not disclose this information until some time after the incidents have occurred, is persuasive. Third, Dr. Meyers testified that when evaluating children for sexual abuse, it is important to not do multiple interviews. According to Dr. Meyers, when children who have initially denied that sexual abuse has occurred are interviewed multiple times, the children may feel pressured to change their answer, and they may begin to doubt if they actually forgot what happened. Therefore, their initial statements, not their subsequent statements, are more credible. Where, as in this case, C.L. was interviewed and/or questioned multiple times, Dr. Meyers testified that her subsequent statements, in which C.L. alleged inappropriate touching by Respondent, are not credible. Dr. Meyers' conclusion that C.L.'s allegations regarding Respondent are not credible because she felt pressured to make the allegations after she was questioned or interviewed multiple times is not persuasive. Admittedly, Dr. Meyers never met or interviewed C.L. or viewed any videotaped depositions or videotaped interviews of C.L. Therefore, at most, his conclusion and opinion are based solely on a review of written documents (i.e. the deposition transcript and/or investigative reports). Moreover, those conclusions and opinions are contrary to C.L.'s credible, persuasive, and clear testimony presented at this proceeding. Fourth, Dr. Meyers asserts that C.L.'s allegations lack credibility because of the leading and suggestive questioning techniques used during C.L.'s deposition and/or interviews.3 Dr. Meyers testified that the techniques used were not only improper, but likely resulted in C.L.'s having a "false memory" about the alleged incidents. According to Dr. Meyers, a false memory is one in which the source of the memory (i.e. the purported suggestive and/or leading questions) is false even though to the child the memory is real. Dr. Meyers' conclusion that C.L.'s allegations regarding Respondent are not credible, but instead are the result of a "false memory" are not persuasive. Furthermore, this conclusion and opinion are contrary to the credible, persuasive, and clear testimony of C.L. presented at this proceeding. For the reasons stated above, the conclusions and/or opinions of Dr. Meyers, as they relate to C.L., are not persuasive. Situation Involving St.H. and Sa.H. When St.H. and Sa.H. were in first grade, their mother, Ms. H. asked them how was their day at school. The girls never talked much about their teachers. However, in response to their mother's question, the girls reported that Respondent stroked their hair. Ms. H. wondered about this behavior and asked a teacher whether a teacher's stroking students' hair was normal behavior. After the teacher told Ms. H. that that was just the way Respondent was, Ms. H. thought that Respondent's behavior (stroking the girls' hair) was not necessarily inappropriate. Based on her conversation with the teacher, Ms. H. never discussed the matter with Respondent. When St.H. was in first grade, Respondent was her music teacher. During music class, Respondent would call St.H. to come up to him, and he would "take [her] waist" and sit her on his lap. While St.H. was sitting on Respondent's lap, he would stroke her hair and rub her neck and stomach. When St.H. was in Respondent's music class, the vertical blinds at the windows were always closed. St.H. recalled that she sat on Respondent's lap every music period. St.H. sat on Respondent's lap when the students in the music class were playing instruments, but did not stay on his lap the entire music period. When Respondent was showing the students how to play the various instruments, he would make St.H. get off his lap. Respondent also had St.H. to sit in his lap when he showed videos to the class. After Respondent turned the television on, he would go back to his chair, he'd then pat his leg. St.H. would then go to Respondent and sit in his lap. The reason St.H. went to Respondent and sat on his lap is because she knew what that sign, patting his leg, meant "because he does [did] that a lot and that means [meant] for me to go to him." Even though sitting on Respondent's lap made St.H. feel uncomfortable, she never told Respondent how she felt. However, St.H. did ask him why he had her sit on his lap. Respondent then told St.H. that her older sister (who at this time was about 15 years old) had sat in his lap, presumably when she was in his class. St.H. wrote about Respondent's actions in her journal, but she later disposed of the journal because the journal entries reminded her of the bad memories. St.H. would not want Respondent as a teacher again because she would not want to go through the experience she had with Respondent again. When Sa.H. was in first grade, Respondent showed videos during music class. Respondent turned out the lights when he showed the videos. When the video was showing and the lights were out, sometimes Sa.H. would have to sit on Respondent's lap. Sa.H. did not sit in his lap the entire class period, but only sat there about five minutes. When Sa.H. was sitting on Respondent's lap, he would rub her stomach and back and tap her legs. At this proceeding, more than two years after the events related to Sa.H. occurred, she could not recall when she first sat on his lap or how she knew to go to Respondent and sit on his lap. However, Sa.H. did not want to sit on Respondent's lap and felt nervous when she was on his lap. Sa.H. never told Respondent that she did not want to sit on his lap. Moreover, Sa.H. never told anyone that she was sitting on Respondent's lap during the time she was in first grade. Sa.H. would not want Respondent as a teacher again because of what he did to her. According to Sa.H., "It would be very scary again." The testimony of St.H. and Sa.H. is found to be credible, notwithstanding the conclusion of Dr. Meyers to the contrary. Respondent's Denies Alleged Inappropriate Conduct At this proceeding, Respondent testified that he never touched any student inappropriately. According to Respondent, this is evidenced by the fact that, in the criminal trial that was based on the allegations of C.L., the jury acquitted him. At this proceeding, Respondent testified that he never touched C.L. inappropriately and that she never sat in his lap. During his testimony at his criminal trial, Respondent testified that he did not recall if C.L. sat on his lap during the movies/videos. However, Respondent recalled that C.L. came to him when she was feeling sad, but she was not on his lap. Rather, Respondent recalled that C.L. stood next to him and sat on his knee for a short period of time, and he asked her what was wrong. Based on this testimony, Respondent appears to try to make a distinction between C.L. sitting on his lap and sitting on his knee. Contrary to his testimony at trial, at this proceeding, Respondent testified that when C.L. was sad or something was wrong, she came up to him and leaned on his knee. According to Respondent, he taught about 700 students a week, and, when they are sad or something is wrong, they come up to him as C.L. did. At this proceeding, Respondent testified that he never touched either St.H. or her sister, Sa.H., or had them sit in his lap. Notwithstanding Respondent's testimony at this proceeding that he never allowed any student to sit in his lap, during his deposition, he testified that he had kids in his lap all the time. In explaining this seeming discrepancy in his sworn testimony, Respondent explained that when he said students were in his lap all the time, he meant that they were "standing next to me" or "leaning on my knee when they come up to get instruments." Respondent testified that this would happen because this (i.e. getting the musical instruments) was a fun activity, and the children would get excited. However, according to Respondent, there was nothing sexual about the children standing next to him or leaning on his knee. They would simply get their instruments and return to their seats. Respondent gave several explanations that he apparently believed established that it would not be reasonable for him to engage in the alleged misconduct in light of the number of people who were regularly in and near his classroom, often with no advance notice. First, many visitors, including parents of prospective Southern Oak students, came to Southern Oak to observe the school. During these visits, the visitors sometimes went into the music classroom while class was in session. Second, Robert Ammon, principal of Southern Oak, circulated throughout the school almost every morning. Even though Mr. Ammon did not necessarily go into the music classroom every day, he would walk in or near the general vicinity of Respondent's classroom. Third, because there was a refrigerator and microwave in the office in the music room, several teachers were routinely in and out of Respondent's classroom each day to get and/or warm their food. Respondent's explanations are not a sufficient basis to support his assertion that it was not reasonable for him to engage in the alleged misconduct. In fact, the teachers who were in and out of Respondent's classroom, or more specifically, the office in the music classroom, on a regular basis, were there for a specific purpose and only for a few minutes. Respondent's testimony at this proceeding, in which he denied inappropriately touching C.L., St.H., and Sa.H., is not credible. Prior Complaints or Disciplinary Actions Against Respondent Prior to the matters at issue in this proceeding, there have been three complaints filed against Respondent during his tenure with the Pinellas County School District. Two of the complaints were determined to be unfounded, and one resulted in a letter of caution being issued to Respondent. The incident which resulted in Respondent's receiving a letter of caution, involved an act of dishonesty. Specifically, Respondent made a telephone call to someone, and, during that call, he misrepresented himself as someone calling from the superintendent's office on behalf of a School Board member. In the 2001-2002 school year, a complaint was made against Respondent. In January 2002, the assistant principal at Southern Oak notified the principal, Mr. Ammon, of allegations that Respondent had inappropriately touched students. The matter was reported to the Pinellas County School District's Office of Professional Standards, which then reported the matter to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. After an on-site investigation was conducted, the allegations were determined to be unfounded. The Office of Professional Standards received the investigation determination of "unfounded" from the Sheriff's Office. The Office of Professional Standards defines the term "unfounded" to mean that the conduct alleged never happened. Accordingly, the allegations in the complaint discussed in paragraph 102 were deemed not to have happened. Therefore, no disciplinary action was imposed against Respondent. After the January 2002 complaint was investigated and determined to be unfounded, Mr. Ammon met briefly and "informally" with Respondent. Although no disciplinary action was required or appropriate in this situation, Mr. Ammon discussed with Respondent the need for him to not put himself in a situation where such charges (inappropriate touching of students) might come up. During this conversation, after Mr. Ammon perceived that Respondent did not comprehend the seriousness of the issue, Mr. Ammon directed Respondent not to touch students for any reason. Mr. Ammon regularly conducted faculty meetings where he cautioned teachers to exercise common sense in their physical contact with students and reminded them of appropriate boundaries in this context. During the 2002-2003 school year, a teacher reported to Mr. Ammon that some students had come to her about Respondent inappropriately touching them. The matter was then reported to the Pinellas School District's Office of Professional Standards and to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. As directed by the Office of Professional Standards, Mr. Ammon interviewed the students. As with the previous complaint, following the interviews and the investigation, the allegations were determined to be unfounded, and possibly retaliatory. As a result thereof, the Office of Professional Standards deemed that the alleged conduct never occurred, and no disciplinary action was imposed on Respondent. Superintendent's Recommendation of Dismissal On or about April 28, 2004, Respondent was arrested and subsequently charged with capital sexual battery and lewd and lascivious behavior on a child. By letter dated May 30, 2004, Dr. J. Hinesley, then superintendent of the Pinellas County School District, recommended that the School Board dismiss Respondent as a teacher. According to the description of the agenda item related to Respondent's dismissal, the rationale for the superintendent's recommending dismissal was that Respondent's alleged actions were a violation of Pinellas County School Board Policy 8.25(1)(a), (c), (n), (u), and (v).4 Pinellas County School Board Policy 8.25 has been duly-adopted by the School Board. That policy enumerates offenses for which disciplinary action may be imposed and sets out the penalty or penalty range for each offense. School Board Policy 8.25(1)(a) makes it an offense for school board employees to engage in inappropriate sexual activity, including sexual battery and other activities. The penalty for employees who engage in such conduct is dismissal. School Board Policy 8.25(1)(c) makes committing a criminal act (felony) an offense for which the School Board employees may be disciplined. The penalty range for this offense is reprimand to dismissal. School Board Policy 8.25(1)(n) lists, as an offense, making inappropriate or disparaging remarks to or about students or exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. The penalty range for this offense is caution to dismissal. School Board Policy 8.25(1)(u) lists, as an offense, insubordination. The penalty range for committing this offense is caution to dismissal. School Board Policy 8.25(1)(v) lists, as an offense, misconduct in office. The penalty range for this offense is caution to dismissal. Prior to this proceeding, and after the superintendent recommended Respondent's dismissal, Respondent was tried on the criminal charges and was found not guilty. Notwithstanding Respondent's being acquitted of the criminal charges, in the instant administrative proceeding, it is found that Respondent inappropriately touched C.L., St.H., and Sa.H. and also failed to observe the appropriate boundaries in his physical contact with those students.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County School Board enter a final order that dismisses Respondent from his position as a teacher with the Pinellas County School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 September, 2006.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The Broward County School Board (School Board) is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Broward County, Florida (including, among others, Meadowbrook Elementary School (Meadowbrook), Tropical Elementary School (Tropical), and Everglades Elementary School (Everglades)), and for otherwise providing public instruction to school-aged children in the county. For five years, beginning in 2004, Joseph Tamburino was the area coordinator of student services for the School Board's South Central Office (SCO), overseeing the activities of the office's five-person secretarial staff, as well as the approximately 70 "itinerant" school psychologists and school social workers assigned to work at schools within the SCO's service area. Among these schools were Meadowbrook, Tropical, and Everglades. Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a school social worker since September 2000. She presently holds a professional services contract. From 2004 until August 2009, Respondent worked out of the SCO under the immediate supervision of Mr. Tamburino. During this time, she never received less than a satisfactory annual performance appraisal from Mr. Tamburino; however, in the "comments" section of the last appraisal he gave Respondent (for the 2008-2009 school year), Mr. Tamburino did write, "Jessica should work on improving absenteeism and performance issues such as task completion, timelines and adhering to work hours." During the 2006-2007 school year, Mr. Tamburino "beg[a]n to have problems" with Respondent's being where she was supposed to be during the school day. These "problems" persisted, despite Mr. Tamburino's efforts to address them at meetings with Respondent and in written correspondence he sent her. Following the end of the 2006-2007 school year, Mr. Tamburino issued Respondent a "Letter of Reprimand," dated August 14, 2007, which read as follows: This correspondence is submitted as a formal reprimand for your failure to follow office procedures. This is the second occasion that I have had to meet with you regarding not being present at your assigned schools for the full workday. We met on February 1, 2007 because you were not in your assigned schools for the full workday (7.5 hours) over a period of five days. Furthermore, we met on June 1, 2007, because you were not in your assigned schools during the hours you were required to be present on May 4 and May 24, 2007. Know and understand that this behavior cannot and will not be tolerated by this administration. You are hereby directed from this point forward, to comply with all administrative directives. Failure to comply will result in further disciplinary action such as a referral to Professional Standards and the Special Investigative Unit, suspension or termination. Your signature evidences receipt of and an understanding of this document. This letter of reprimand is being placed in your personnel file within the Records Department of the School Board of Broward County. Ten days after evidence of your knowledge of this correspondence, it will become public record. Respondent signed this "Letter of Reprimand" on August 14, 2007, signifying that she had "read and underst[ood] [its] contents." Less than four months later, Mr. Tamburino issued Respondent another "Letter of Reprimand," which was dated December 7, 2007, and read as follows: This letter is submitted as a formal reprimand for your continued failure to follow office procedure and falsification of records. On November 8, 2007 you were not in your assigned school for 7.5 hours. You called the South Central Student Services office and reported that you were leaving New River Middle School at 4:00 p.m. However, you were seen at a store at a shopping plaza at 3:00 p.m. Although you did not work a full day on November 8, 2007, you falsely reported to a Student Services secretary that you finished your workday after 7.5 hours. This is the second written reprimand that you have received within the last four months for failure to follow office procedures and falsification of records. This behavior cannot and will not be tolerated. You are directed to comply with office procedures, work your full 7.5 hour day, and sign in and out with accurate times. Failure to comply will result in further disciplinary action. Your signature evidences receipt of and an understanding of this document. This letter of reprimand is being placed in your personnel file within the Records Department of the School Board of Broward County. Ten days after evidence of your knowledge of this correspondence, it will become public record. Respondent signed this "Letter of Reprimand" on December 17, 2007, signifying that she had "read and underst[ood] [its] contents." Respondent did not file a grievance "specifically challenging" either the August 14, 2007, "Letter of Reprimand," or the December 7, 2007, "Letter of Reprimand." On March 17, 2008, Dr. Tamburino sent a memorandum to Respondent, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: As you are aware, we have had two recent meetings that have included discussions of following office procedures, the provision of social work services and collaboration with the community liaison and other personnel. On February 1, 2008 we had a meeting with Jerrod Neal from BTU and Ellen Williams, the Social Work BTU Steward. We examined possible discrepancies between dates listed for home visits on a log at New River and your November mileage voucher. Although there were L-panel entries to verify the home visits, there was inconsistent documentation of the addresses on the mileage voucher. However, you decided to withdraw your request for mileage reimbursement. Suggestions to improve your work performance were discussed. These include the following: * * * - Specific time of the home visits, including leaving and returning to campus, need to be documented. During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent was assigned to provide school social work services at three schools: Meadowbrook, Tropical, and Everglades. She was supposed to be at Meadowbrook on Mondays, Tropical on Wednesdays, and Everglades on Thursdays. On Tuesdays, she went to whichever of the three assigned schools "need[ed] [her]," and she also did "home visits." Fridays were designated as "office days." On these "office days," Respondent was expected to do "paperwork" that needed to be completed. Respondent was allowed to use office space at Meadowbrook as her "Friday office" instead of going to the SCO (which was farther from her residence than was Meadowbrook). Respondent missed a considerable amount of work during the 2008-2009 school year due to her daughter's, as well as her own, health-related issues, "exhaust[ing] her sick leave" before the year was half over. (By December, she "didn't have any sick days" left.) Respondent and the other school social workers and school psychologists working out of the SCO were required to notify the office's secretarial staff, by telephone (or in person, if at the SCO), of their whereabouts whenever they arrived at or left a work-related destination during the school day (Call In Office Procedure). It was the duty and routine practice of the secretarial staff, upon receiving such a call, to enter the information provided by the caller concerning the caller's location (as well as the date and time the call was received) on an "online call-in log" (Call Log) maintained by the SCO so as to have a record of these calls. The Call In Office Procedure and other "[o]ffice [p]rocedures" were discussed in a document entitled, "Office Procedures: 2008-2009 School Year," which Mr. Tamburino provided "[a]ll the South Central Office . . . [p]ersonnel," including Respondent, at the very beginning of the 2008-2009 school year. The document read, in pertinent part, as follows: Attendance is reported daily by Joyce [Doe] (social workers) . . . to the payroll department. You must call Joyce . . . prior to taking any leave (e.g., personal, sick, other.) You must call each day you are taking sick leave (unless otherwise arranged with the Area Coordinator [Mr. Tamburino]). Call the office twice daily, when you arrive at your location and before you leave for the day (for example, for most elementary schools by 7:30 AM, and 3:00 PM). You should call from a school telephone. If you do not call in, you may be considered absent. You are expected to be in your assigned school 7.5 hours (same work hours as the teachers). If you leave a school for another destination, be sure to inform personnel at school and one of the secretaries in our office. When you are at the Area Office, please be sure that our secretaries log you in. A schedule of team meetings is provided at the beginning of each year. Attendance at all scheduled team meetings is mandatory. A planning day is a 7.5 hour workday. * * * Mileage vouchers must be submitted within 30 days after the end of the month per the Superintendent. Use the exact mileage to schools listed in SCA mileage chart. Requests for more than one month may not be approved. * * * You must request and obtain an approved TDA [Temporary Duty Authorization] from the Area Coordinator when performing duties in a different location other than your regular assignment. TDA request forms should be completed 10 days prior to the workshop/event. Return to the office at least once a week to handle office duties. The Area Coordinator monitors the quality of your work and evaluates your performance at least annually. The Area Coordinator makes all school assignments. In addition to having to follow these SCO "[o]ffice [p]rocedures," Respondent and her fellow "itinerant" workers, when they were at their assigned schools, were "under [the] direction" of the school's principal and had to do what the principal "dictated." During the 2008-2009 school year, the principal of Meadowbrook "wanted her ['itinerant'] employees to sign in/sign out when they came on [and when they left] campus," and there was a "sign in/sign out" sheet posted at the school for "itinerant" employees to sign, date, and note their "time in" and "time out." Respondent "knew" of Meadowbrook's "sign in/sign out" "procedure," and routinely complied with it (when she was actually at the school that school year). Respondent was not present, and therefore did not "sign in," at Meadowbrook on any of the following dates: Friday, October 3, 2008; Friday, October 31, 2008; Friday, January 9, 2009; Friday, February 6, 2009; Friday, February 13, 2009; Friday, February 20, 2009; and Monday, February 23, 2009. Nonetheless, she telephonically reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was at Meadowbrook on each of these days (as reflected by the entries made on the Call Log), obviously knowing this information to be false.4 February 4, 2009, was a Wednesday, the day Respondent was supposed to be at Tropical. On that day, Respondent telephoned the SCO secretarial staff at 8:05 a.m. to report she was at Tropical, and called back at 5:56 p.m. to advise that she was leaving the school (as reflected by the entries made on the Call Log). In fact, Respondent was not at Tropical during the school day on February 4, 2009.5 Her reporting otherwise was a knowingly-made false misrepresentation. March 20, 2009, was a Friday and thus an "office day" for Respondent. Respondent had made arrangements to attend a conference that day. In accordance with the "Office Procedures: 2008-2009 School Year" that Mr. Tamburino had handed out at the start of the school year, Respondent had "request[ed] [on February 25, 2009] and subsequently obtain[ed] [on March 16, 2009] an approved TDA" from Mr. Tamburino to go to the conference (instead of doing the work she was "regular[ly] assign[ed]"). Respondent, however, did not go to the March 20, 2009, conference.6 Nonetheless, at 8:40 a.m. on March 20, 2009, she falsely and deceptively reported to the SCO secretarial staff over the telephone that she was on her "temporary duty" assignment (at the conference). At no time that day did Respondent advise the SCO secretarial staff that she was at her regular "Friday office" location, Meadowbrook,7 or that she was leaving that location (to pick up her sick daughter at school, or for any other reason). Furthermore, Respondent's leave records reveal that she did not take any type of leave that day. (Had she taken leave to care for her sick daughter that day, it would had to have been unpaid leave because she had no paid leave time left.)8 To receive reimbursement for non-commuting "travel expenses [she claimed she incurred] in the performance of [her] official duties" as a school social worker (that is, for mileage in excess of the 22.6 miles from her home to her office (at Meadowbrook) and back, reimbursed at a rate of 55 cents per mile, plus parking and tolls), Respondent had to submit mileage vouchers (on School Board Form 3042, Revised 09/05) to Mr. Tamburino for his approval.9 Respondent certified, by her signature on the forms, that her "claim[s] [were] true and correct" and that the "expenses [claimed] were actually incurred by [her]." Among the mileage vouchers she submitted were those covering the months of January 2009 (January Voucher) and February 2009 (February Voucher). There were entries on both the January and February Vouchers that were inconsistent with what Respondent had telephonically reported to the SCO secretarial staff concerning her whereabouts on the dates for which these entries were made (as reflected by the entries made on the Call Log). On the January Voucher, for Tuesday, January 6, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to SCAO [SCO] to Home" (a trip of 10.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, January 6, 2009, she had telephonically reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was first at Meadowbrook, then at the SCO, and finally on a home visit. On the January Voucher, for Friday, January 9, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to Meadowbrook" (a trip of 0 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"), "Meadowbrook to KCW [School Board headquarters]" (a trip of 5.3 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"), "KCW to Everglades" (a trip of 17.7 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"), and "Everglades to Home (a trip of 14.3 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, January 9, 2009, she had not reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was at Everglades any time that day. (She had only reported being at School Board headquarters and at Meadowbrook.) On the January Voucher, for Tuesday, January 20, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to Everglades to Home" (a trip of 28.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, January 20, 2009, she had reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was first on a home visit and then at Everglades. On the February Voucher, for Tuesday, February 3, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to Everglades to Home" (a trip of 28.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, February 3, 2009, she had not reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was at Everglades any time that day. (She had only reported being at Meadowbrook and on a home visit.) On the February Voucher, for Friday, February 6, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to SCAO [SCO] to Home" (a trip of 10.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, February 6, 2009, she had reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was first on a home visit, then at Meadowbrook, and finally at the SCO. On the February Voucher, for Friday, February 13, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to SCAO [SCO] to Home" (a trip of 10.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, February 13, 2009, she had not reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was at the SCO any time that day. (She had only reported being on a home visit and at Meadowbrook.10) On the February Voucher, for Wednesday, February 4, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to Tropical to Home" (a trip of 9.8 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"). Unlike the other entries on the January and February Vouchers discussed above, this entry was entirely consistent with what Respondent had telephonically reported to the SCO secretarial staff concerning her whereabouts on that day; however, as noted above, she had not been truthful in making such a telephonic report to the SCO secretarial staff. It was Mr. Tamburino's responsibility to check all of his subordinates' mileage vouchers, including Respondent's, "for accuracy" before approving them. Because "there [were] discrepanc[ies] between what was on the [January and February] [V]oucher[s] and what was on the [C]all [L]og," Mr. Tamburino did not approve these vouchers. Instead, he "forward[ed] the mileage voucher issue to the [School Board's Office of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit] for investigation."11 On or about April 23, 2009, Respondent was provided a Notice of Investigation (dated April 17, 2008), which read as follows: This correspondence is provided as formal notice of investigation into a complaint received in this office regarding allegations that you falsified records. You will be contacted in the near future for the purpose of giving a statement. You have the right to representation through all phases of this investigation. You are directed not to engage the complainant, or any student witness, or any other witness in any conversation regarding the matter under investigation. A violation of this directive could result in disciplinary action for insubordination. Questions regarding the status of this investigation are to be directed to Joe Melita, Executive Director of Professional Standards & Special Investigative Unit at (754)321-0735. This is your notice pursuant to Florida Statute 1012.31 that the material contained in the investigative file will be part of your personnel file and will be public record and it will become available for inspection by the public ten (10) days after completion of the investigative process. Investigator Johanna Davidson was the School Board employee in the Office of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit who conducted the investigation. As part of her investigation, Investigator Davidson took a sworn statement from Respondent on June 4, 2009.12 In her sworn statement, Respondent told Investigator Davidson, among other things, that she arrived at Meadowbrook at "around 8:00" a.m. on March 20, 2009, and stayed there "all day"13; that she "knew that [signing-in] was the procedure" at Meadowbrook; that this "procedure" had been in place for the past year and a half; that she signed in at Meadowbrook "99 percent of the time"; that she "may have missed one or two sign-ins" at Meadowbrook, but she did not "think [she] had"; and that she is "a very procedure and policy oriented person," so it would have been "odd" had she not signed in at Meadowbrook, even during the time, from January to April 2009, when she had been "on crutches."14 When asked by Investigator Davidson "what happened that day, February 4, 2009," Respondent made no mention of having been in the teacher's lounge at Tropical (where, in her testimony at the final hearing, she falsely claimed she had been the entire school day on February 4, 2009, leaving only once to go to the bathroom across the hall). Rather, in response to Investigator Davidson's inquiry, she suggested that this day (February 4, 2009) might have been one of the many days that school year that she had "taken off" because of health-related issues and that she had not "communicated properly" concerning her having "taken off" that day. Investigator Davidson completed her investigation and issued an Investigative Report detailing her findings in late June 2009. Investigator Davidson's Investigative Report contained a section entitled, "Summary of Investigation," the first paragraph of which read as follows: A Personnel Investigation Request pertaining to School Social Worker Jessica Harrison was received in the Office of Professional Standards & Special Investigative Unit. Ms. Harrison was accused of Falsification of Records stemming from the following alleged incidents: Ms. Harrison allegedly submitted a Temporary Duty Authorization (TDA) request to attend a conference but did not attend the conference, and allegedly reported to the South Central Area Student Services office that she was in attendance. Two of Ms. Harrison's assigned schools reported that Ms. Harrison was not in attendance on several days. Ms. Harrison allegedly did not report her absences to the South Central Area Student Services office. Ms. Harrison allegedly falsified mileage vouchers. The information that Investigator Davidson had obtained supporting these allegations was detailed in succeeding paragraphs of this section. (It was this information upon which the "[s]pecific [c]harges" in the instant Administrative Complaint were based.) The School Board's Professional Standards Committee met on September 9, 2009, to consider the results of Investigator Davidson's investigation and "found probable cause of falsification of records" warranting Respondent's termination. On September 16, 2009, Craig Kowalski, the Acting Executive Director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit, sent Respondent a letter, which read as follows: The Professional Standards Committee met on September 9, 2009, and found probable cause of falsification of records. The Committee has recommended termination. Please be advised by way of this correspondence that you have been scheduled for a pre-disciplinary conference on Monday, October 5, 2009, at 11:00 a.m. in my office, which is located on the third floor of the Technical Support Services Center, 7720 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Sunrise, Florida. You have the right to representation at this conference. If for some reason you are unable to be present at this conference you must contact my office by 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 1, 2009. You have previously been furnished with a full report. You are not to disseminate these documents to the public and/or media since it may contain protected information. If you have a representative, it is your responsibility to furnish him/her with copies of your documentation. Your failure or refusal to appear at this conference will be considered a waiver of this procedural requirement. A copy of the Special Investigative Unit report and this letter are being forwarded to the Professional Practices Department of the State Department of Education to determine if certificate disciplinary action is warranted. This letter of reprimand is being placed in your personnel file within the Records Department of the School Board of Broward County. This is your notice pursuant to Florida Statute 1012.31 that the material contained in the investigative file is now a part of your personnel file and is a public record and it will become available for inspection by the public ten (10) days from receipt of this letter. Any request made by the public for the documentation referred to above will be provided in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. Questions regarding this correspondence are to be directed to my office (754)321-0735. The "pre-disciplinary conference" was held on October 5, 2009, as scheduled. Present at the conference were Mr. Kowalski; Carmen Rodriguez, Esquire (on behalf of the School Board); Respondent; and Jerrod Neal of the Broward Teachers Union, whom Respondent had asked to speak on her behalf. Prior to the conference, Respondent had received, and had had the opportunity to review, Investigator Davidson's Investigative Report. During the conference, Respondent affirmatively adopted the admission made by her representative at the meeting, Mr. Neal, that she had engaged in the "falsification" of which she was being accused (as described in the Investigative Report). The following is a verbatim recitation of what was said at the October 5, 2009, "pre-disciplinary conference": MR. KOWALSKI: This is a pre-disciplinary hearing for School Board employee Jessica Harrison. We are here pursuant to an investigative report dated June 30th, 2009. This investigation was based upon allegations of falsification of records. The Professional Standards Committee has reviewed this matter and has made a recommendation for disciplinary action. The disciplinary action is for termination. Have you received a copy of the investigative report? MS. HARRISON: Yes. MR. KOWALSKI: The purpose of this pre- disciplinary conference is to give you the opportunity to bring forward any additional matters that you believe should be considered before final decision as to disciplinary action is reached. Such matters include any additional evidence, witnesses or any matter that you believe should be considered. This is also an opportunity to say anything which you believe should be considered on your behalf. I am going to ask you if you identify additional witnesses, please identify what you believe the witness knows or would testify to or what the witness can contribute to this investigation. Do you understand the purpose of this meeting? MS. HARRISON: Um-hm. Yes. MR. KOWALSKI: Is there anything you wish to say, do you have any additional matters that you believe should be considered.? MR. NEAL: Let me speak on her behalf, because I think Ms. Harrison has pretty much said a lot of things at the Professional Standards Committee meeting. Since we've talked, since the information that was gathered during the investigation, I have really had a chance to look over it, I was really surprised by the recommendation of termination. Not eliminating what happened, because what happened as far as falsification of records, it was done. But circumstances surrounding it, I don't think it really warrants termination, considering that it is not an easy thing when you're going through a lot of personal problems. Once again, it doesn't justify what was done. But I think under the circumstances, decisions were made with not a lot of clear thought, and I really believe that Ms. Harrison's intention, from what I have known over the last couple of years, have always been good. I just think it's a matter of the things that she was actually going through. She should have brought them to the forefront earlier so there could have been a better understanding of what was going on, not an excuse for it, but a better understanding for what was going on. And you know, I would not be in my duty if I don't mention the fact that there has been so much, or so many other things that have been done through the district that should have warranted termination and people were not terminated. And I just think this is a situation where termination is to the extreme. Whereas some sort of punishment should happen, but termination is just way too much for this situation, because I think in her state of mind as she is now, I don't think these mistakes will be made again. MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. Do you want to add anything Ms. Harrison? MS: HARRISON: I think he summed it up. MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. Thank you. We'll let you know the outcome. MR. Neal: Okay. About how long will that be. And he will let you know, so that means you will have to let me know once they let you know. MR. KOWALSKI: I have to meet with the Superintendent, and so within two weeks. MR. NEAL: Okay. Until then you just go back to doing what you have been doing. MS. HARRISON: Okay. MR. NEAL: All right. Appreciate it. Ms. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. Mr. NEAL: Thank you. (emphasis supplied).15 The plea for leniency that Mr. Neal made on behalf of Respondent proved to be unsuccessful. On October 30, 2009, Broward County Superintendent of Schools Notter issued an Administrative Complaint recommending that Respondent be terminated for the "falsification" of attendance records and mileage vouchers described in Investigator Davidson's Investigative Report (conduct that Respondent had admitted, at the October 5, 2009, "pre-disciplinary conference," she had engaged in).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board issue a final order terminating Respondent's employment as a professional service contract school social worker with the School Board for the reasons set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 18th day of November, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Moses Green, holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 232099, Graduate, Rank II. He served as dean of students at Boca Ciega School during the 1976-1977 school year. Thereafter he was reassigned as one of three deans of students at Pinellas Park High School, and he served in this capacity during the 1978-1979 school year. Moses Green has been in the field of education since his graduation from Florida A & M University more than 21 years ago. After teaching several years in South Carolina and Georgia he came to Boca Ciega High School in Pinellas County in 1964 where he started as a teacher. He served as dean of students at Boca Ciega High School from 1974 until 1977 when he was transferred to Pinellas Park High School as a dean of students. In October 1976 enroute from his home to school in a vehicle described both as a van and a motor home, Respondent stopped to give a ride to Jacqueline Blackshear and Stephanie Bellamy, two ninth grade students at Boca Ciega High School. When they entered the van Jackie sat on the housing covering the engine between the two front seats facing the rear of the van and Stephanie sat in the front right-hand passenger's seat. Enroute to school Respondent commented that Jackie was growing up and placed his hand on the inside of Jackie's thigh. At the time, Jackie was enroute to school for cheerleader practice and was wearing shorts. Jackie looked and moved towards Stephanie and Respondent removed his hand. Before arriving at school Respondent again placed his hand on Jackie's thigh and removed it when she moved. Upon arrival at school Respondent told Stephanie to get out as he wanted to talk to Jackie. When Stephanie left the van, Respondent was standing facing Jackie whose back was to the closed door. Respondent grabbed Jackie and attempted to kiss her. She pushed away, opened the door and left the van. When she left the van, Jackie was upset and Stephanie suggested she tell her parent. Near noontime Jackiie went to Gail Weston, a physical education teacher at Boca Ciega High School and told her about the incident in Respondent's van. Stephanie accompanied Jackie on this visit. Ms. Weston described Jackie as nervous and upset. After a few minutes of conversation Ms. Weston realized that it was not something she could handle and she told Jackie and Stephanie that they needed to tell their story at the Dean's office and she took them to Jean Johnson, a dean of students at Boca Ciega High School. There both girls told their story to Ms. Johnson who prepared a statement for them to sign. The story repeated to Ms. Johnson was essentially the same told to Ms. Weston. After typing up their statements, Ms. Johnson told Mr. Demps, the principal. He had the girls brought to him, where the story was again repeated. Demps called Respondent in and confronted him with the story. He also advised his area superintendent and the director of personnel, who investigated the allegations made by these two girls. Demps also arranged for a meeting with Jackie's and Stephanie's parents the following day. Following the investigation, Green, on October 19, 1976 was issued a letter of reprimand (Exhibit 1) for his role in the events that had come to the school's attention regarding the two girls noted above and warned that a recurrence of such conduct would result in dismissal. By letter dated 9 November 1976 Respondent was sent another letter (Exhibit 2) regarding a reported and inappropriate remark made by Green to another female student, which Respondent had denied, and the letter suggested Respondent and the girl take lie detector tests. By letter dated December 29, 1976 (Exhibit 3) the Superintendent of Schools advised Respondent that the results of the polygraph test he had voluntarily taken indicated his answers were deceptive, while the girl's polygraph test indicated her responses were honest. Respondent was placed on probation for the remainder of the 1976-1977 school year and for all of the 1977-1978 school year. Although his principal at Boca Ciega High School, Mr. Demps, considered Respondent's effectiveness at Boca Ciega High School seriously impaired by the notoriety given to the events involving Respondent in 1976, he remained at Boca Ciega High School for the remainder of that school year. For the school year 1977-1978 Respondent was transferred to Pinellas Park High School as dean of students. Upon his transfer to Pinellas Park High School, Demps gave Respondent a good evaluation report. During Respondent's first year at Pinellas Park High School, no incidents were reported to form the basis of any of the charges here considered. This school year 1977-1978 included the probation period set by Exhibit 3. The school year 1978-1979, while Respondent was dean of students at Pinellas Park High School, produced the majority of complaints and testimony at this hearing regarding improper comments made to female students by Respondent, improper contact of a sexual nature with female students by Respondent, and corroboration of this testimony by other witnesses. Ten female students who attended Pinellas Park High School during school year 1978-1979 testified against Respondent regarding incidents between Respondent and these students of a sexual nature. Some of these incidents involved contact or attempted contact such as hugging, kissing or attempting to kiss, touching breasts or attempting to do so, and rubbing the front of his body against students' backsides when passing them when adequate room for passing without contact existed. Several testified to improper comments made to them by Respondent such as "You have a nice set of tits," "I'd like to get in your pants," "You have a nice pair of legs," "Why don't we go to a motel," "You drive an old man crazy," "You have a nice butt and look good in those pants," "One of these days it's going to be you and me," and similar comments regarding female students' anatomy. Much of this testimony was corroborated by other witnesses who overheard the remarks or observed the bodily contact. Additionally, some of the witnesses had complained to their parents or to other faculty members shortly after the incidents. Others first came forward with their complaints when they learned the police were investigating Green's conduct at the school and they became convinced their isolated incidents wouldn't appear unbelievable. Some of these students tolerated and perhaps encouraged the comments to provide them leverage to insure a cover-up for numerous "skips" of classes. Some of these witnesses skipped classes without punishment due to Respondent's position as dean and to whom their infractions were referred. Respondent denied each and every testimonial utterance of misconduct on his part while admitting the situation described by the witnesses, in which the improper actions of Respondent were said to have occurred, were real. During his testimony Respondent referred to school records which would corroborate his testimony, but he made no effort to produce these records or to account for their non-production. Respondent was subjected to three criminal trials on charges stemming from allegations of fact similar to those testified to in these proceedings. He was acquitted on charges alleging battery and false imprisonment and convicted of the offense of attempting to contribute to the delinquency of a minor. Those trials resulted in considerable publicity and the allegations became well-known throughout the Pinellas County School System. Several witnesses testified that Respondent's effectiveness in the Pinellas County School System was totally destroyed by virtue of the notoriety gained by Respondent due to this adverse publicity.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner should discipline Respondent's teaching certificate for immorality, misconduct in office, or incompetency in connection with his supervision, as a high school baseball coach, of a team trip, during which hazing occurred, and his subsequent investigation of the incident.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a teacher and a coach for 27 years. He taught and coached in Illinois for 11 years before moving to Florida, where he has taught and coached in Florida for the past 16 years. He currently is teaching health, and he sometimes teaches physical education. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 551145, which is valid through June 30, 2005, and he is certified in health education, physical education, and social science. Respondent has coached basketball, football, and baseball. Most recently, Respondent was the head baseball coach at Coconut Creek High School where he was the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel Coach of the Year for Broward County three years ago. He coached baseball four years at Coconut Creek High School and the preceding eight or nine years at Fort Lauderdale High School. The events in this case arose during the 2000 season; Respondent did not coach during the 2001 season. During spring break of 2000, Respondent took his baseball team to Orlando and Sebring. The purpose of the trip was to allow the team to play two high-school baseball games against teams from different regions of the state and to visit an Orlando theme park. The trip took place toward the end of the season, prior to the commencement of the district tournament. The Orlando trip extended from Sunday, April 16, through Wednesday, April 19. Twenty-four student athletes went on the trip. In addition to Respondent, the other adults supervising the students were assistant coaches Reynaldo Nieves, Joseph Leone, and Rex Nottage. Respondent's wife was also with him, as were several parents, but they did not share with Respondent and the assistant coaches supervisory responsibility for the students. On arriving in the Orlando area early in the morning, the group first visited Islands of Adventure, a theme park. They finally reached their hotel at about 8:00 p.m. Respondent gathered the students together and gave them directions as to where they could go. He told them they could not leave the motel property without the permission of a coach. Some students wanted to eat; most wanted to shower. Respondent told them they had to be in their rooms by 11:00 p.m. and their lights must be out by midnight. Respondent warned them that he and the other coaches would perform bed checks at these times. Respondent and his wife had arranged the rooms so that the group was together at the motel. Their rooms were on the second or third floor of the motel. Each room accommodated four students. Respondent and his wife were in a room, Mr. Leone was in a room, and Mr. Nieves and Mr. Nottage shared a room. The students' rooms were between the rooms of the adults to enable the adults to exercise closer control over the students. At some point prior to the first bed check, the older students began entering the rooms of the younger students, by trick or by force. A large group of the older students would then overpower the younger student and, typically, apply Icy Hot liniment to a towel and then to the testes of the student. The students were aware that this hazing was likely to occur during this trip. Seven of the students were hazed by nearly all of the remainder of the team. Prior to being hazed himself, D. B. was aware that other students had been hazed and was aware of the form of the hazing because some of the other students had come to D. B.'s room and asked to use the shower. D. B. was a junior, but this was his first year on the varsity, and he knew that the older students would try to haze him too. However, he did not try to contact one of the coaches or parents to intervene in the half hour that D. B. estimates elapsed between the hazing of the last of the other students and his hazing. As had happened to most of the other hazed students, most, if not all, of the older students on the team entered D. B.'s room, pulled down his pants, and applied Icy Hot and shaving cream to his genital area. D. B. yelled and struggled against four or five students on various parts of his prone body. He sustained some minor scratches while he was held down for about one minute. As soon as he was released, D. B. took a shower. He chased the remaining students out of his room, swinging a belt and yelling. While in the shower, D. B. was so angry that he threw soap and shampoo containers in the shower stall. About ten minutes after D. B. was hazed, Mr. Nieves was roaming the rooms and entered D. B.'s room. D. B. testified that the hazing took place around 9:00 to 9:30 p.m. If so, Mr. Nieves entered the room around 9:10 to 9:40 p.m. When Mr. Nieves entered D. B.'s room, he found him in a bad mood. D. B. was throwing things around the bathroom and seemed mad. The door to his room was open, so Mr. Nieves walked inside and asked if he was okay. D. B., who was wearing only a towel wrapped around his waist, did not answer, but left the bathroom and stood in front of the wall air conditioning unit, which was blowing cold air. Mr. Nieves saw about five marks on D. B.'s back and saw that D. B. was beet red. The marks appeared as though someone had been grabbing him. Mr. Nieves offered to get Respondent, and D. B. said to do so. Mr. Nieves thought that D. B. had been wrestling or something. His visit to D. B.'s room had occurred not long before the first room check. Mr. Nieves walked down the hall to Respondent's room and found Respondent inside. Mr. Nieves informed Respondent that D. B. wanted to talk to him. He told Respondent that it looked like something was wrong. Respondent and Mr. Nieves returned to D. B.'s room. They arrived there about three minutes from the time that Mr. Nieves had left the student's room. Respondent entered D. B.'s room ahead of Mr. Nieves and found D. B. standing in front of the air conditioning fan, holding the towel open like he was cooling down. In a conversation that lasted about 30 seconds, Mr. Nieves said to D. B., "Coach is here. Tell him what's wrong." Respondent added, "What's wrong?" To these inquiries, D. B. replied, "Nothing. Don't worry about it." Mr. Nieves and Respondent asked about the red marks, but D. B. said they were nothing and everything was fine. D. B. testified that he did not disclose the hazing because he knew that Respondent would punish the team. He assumed that the team would be upset with D. B. for telling the coach that they had done something of which Respondent disapproved. Somewhat irritated that D. B. had asked to see Respondent and three minutes later declined to tell him anything, Mr. Nieves left the room with Respondent. They then completed the bed check, and Mr. Nieves did not see Respondent again that night. However, Mr. Nieves returned to D. B.'s room about a half hour later. He found D. B. still standing by the air conditioning fan. Mr. Nieves told D. B. that it was not fair to Mr. Nieves to say to Respondent that nothing was wrong. Mr. Nieves then asked if something was wrong. D. B. replied, "They got me, coach." Mr. Nieves did not know what he meant, but thought that D. B. meant some sort of rough-housing. Mr. Nieves asked D. B. why did you not say something to Respondent. Mr. Nieves spent about 15 minutes in D. B.'s room, but did not learn anything more specific. However, D. B. expressed considerable anger to Mr. Nieves. The Icy Hot that came into contact with D. B.'s penis was most painful. The next morning, the pain was somewhat reduced. Early that morning, the team went to a baseball field to prepare for a game that day. They did a lot of situational baserunning so the fielders could practice. Because D. B. was not a starter, he and the other nonstarters had to do much of the baserunning. He displayed no problems running in the morning. However, hours later, during the pregame practice, a ball was hit toward D. B. in the outfield. He charged it, but it got by him. Instead of turning and running after the ball, as Respondent required of all players, D. B. turned and walked toward the ball. Seeing D. B. and another student not hustling, Respondent pulled them off the field. When Respondent demanded to know why D. B. had not run after the ball, D. B. said that "my balls are on fire." D. B. had a poor attitude at times and was stubborn. Without responding meaningfully to D. B.'s explanation, Respondent benched both players for the entire game. D. B.'s explanation is discredited due to his ability to run without impediment in the morning. D. B. had called his parents Monday at around noon and had told them what had happened the prior evening. D. B. called them again after the afternoon game. During the first call, D. B.'s parents told him to defend himself if necessary and not to worry about talking to Respondent about the hazing. Respondent had not been feeling well Sunday night. By the time of practice Monday morning, his throat was so sore that he had to have his assistant coaches direct the students on the field and yell instructions. After the game, in which Respondent's team had played poorly and lost, Respondent spoke only briefly to the team and allowed Coach Nottage to yell at the students to fire them up and make them work harder. After the team had returned to the motel, Mr. Nieves talked to D. B.'s roommates. He was somewhat concerned about D. B. because, after the game, when he had asked the student what was wrong, D. B. had only laughed as if he were mad. The roommates talked vaguely about Icy Hot, but they were unwilling to be more specific. Around 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. Monday at the motel, D. B. came to Respondent's room and asked if he could talk to the coach for a minute. Respondent said he could. D. B. then told Respondent that he had had Icy Hot put on his testes. Whispering, Respondent asked if he was alright and what did D. B. want Respondent to do about it. The record is unclear whether he asked this in a challenging or inquisitive tone. D. B. did not add more details. On Tuesday morning, the team departed Orlando in vans headed for Sebring, where they were to play another game Tuesday night. Respondent had been quite sick Monday night, unable to swallow or talk. By Tuesday, he was even more sick. No one spoke to him about D. B. or hazing. With considerable effort, Respondent was able to escort the team to the Sebring motel, and then he went directly to a nearby hospital emergency room. Diagnosed as having pharyngitis, Respondent obtained an injection of antibiotics, which provided him relief the next day. Scheduling problems resulted in postponing the Sebring game, so that the team did not return to the motel until after 11:00 p.m. Respondent directed the students to go directly to their rooms and told them that there would be a midnight bed check. Late the next morning, Wednesday, the team left Sebring to return to Fort Lauderdale, where they arrived at 3:00 p.m. One of the parents traveling with the team told Respondent at a gas stop that D. B. had called his parents. Respondent summoned D. B. and complained about D. B. calling his parents without first informing Respondent of the problem. The conversation was brief because the group was waiting in their vans. D. B. replied, "Well, coach, you know what happens." Respondent answered, "I don't know what happens. Go get in your van." On the way back to Fort Lauderdale, Mr. Nieves told Respondent what he knew about hazing in the form of older students applying Icy Hot to the genitalia of younger students and, in some cases, paddling younger students. Respondent expressed his frustration that D. B. had not complained to him about the hazing. When they returned to Fort Lauderdale, Respondent told D. B. that he wanted to speak to him and his father, who was there to pick him up. However, D. B. and his father left the school without speaking to Respondent. Respondent decided to call a team meeting to find out what had happened. Respondent called D. B.'s mother to assure that D. B. would come to the meeting, but she said that he was at work and that she had already called the school board. D. B. was not at work. In the team meeting, Respondent warned the students that hazing was very serious. He asked for those persons directly and indirectly involved to identify themselves. Various students began raising their hands, admitting to various levels of involvement, and Mr. Nottage recorded their names, at Respondent's direction. Respondent then warned the students that the school board was involved and there could be criminal punishments for certain persons. He told the students that there was nothing that he could do about these consequences, but he would take his own actions. At this point, many of the students began retracting admissions. Feeling that the notes had become useless, Respondent obtained the notes from Mr. Nottage and discarded them later that weekend. Prominent among the many differences in testimony concerning the events of this trip and its immediate aftermath is a difference in recollection between Respondent and Mr. Nieves concerning a conversation between the two of them following the meeting. Mr. Nieves testified that Respondent instructed him to deny that the notes existed, and Respondent denied that this is true. Such dishonesty, if true, would merit punishment. It is possible that Respondent did ask Mr. Nieves to conceal the truth in order to protect Respondent's students, who had made confessions prior to understanding the potential administrative and criminal consequences. Perhaps Respondent regretted his role in securing this inculpatory information. On the other hand, Mr. Nottage, as well as over 22 students were at this meeting (another student had failed to attend), so Respondent had to know that such a concealment was unlikely to go undetected. Most importantly, though, Mr. Nieves was a most unconvincing witness. His recollection of details was poor, contradictory, and entirely inconsistent with his apparent intelligence. His demeanor was poor. The Administrative Law Judge was left with the opinion that Mr. Nieves was lying at the time that he first provided statements concerning the events--for some reason, trying unfairly to inculpate Respondent or to exculpate himself--or he was lying at the hearing--belatedly, trying to protect Respondent. On balance, it is impossible to credit Mr. Nieves' testimony on this crucial point. After talking the matter over with Mr. Nieves and Mr. Nottage (Mr. Leone had already left before the meeting), Respondent decided to punish the students as best he could by making them run. Those who had actually touched the younger students had to run 10 miles. Older students who had stood by and encouraged or supported the hazing had to run an intermediate distance. Even the victims, such as D. B., had to run because they had not reported the hazing, but their distance was the shortest. The team had a game the next morning. Late in the afternoon or early in the evening on Thursday, Respondent called his supervisor for athletics, the Coconut Creek High School athletic director, and reported the hazing in general terms. The athletic director told Respondent that he had done the right thing by calling him and said to come see him Monday, when school was back in session. On Saturday morning, Respondent required the students to run the distances that he had determined appropriate. He also informed the team that he would be recommending to the principal that the baseball team not take field trips. The athletic director later suggested that Respondent not make that recommendation. D. B. and his parents have filed a civil action against the school board for damages arising out of the incident. School officials have known that hazing has been a problem in the past at Coconut Creek High School, although more with the soccer team. In 1997, the athletic director asked Respondent, as the baseball head coach, to draft a letter stating a policy prohibiting hazing. Addressed to the parents of baseball players, the letter states in part: "The athletic department has a policy of zero tolerance when it comes to 'initiating' or 'hazing' a fellow student. Anyone guilty of participating in a hazing or a form of initiation will be immediately dismissed from the team." Respondent and the athletic director signed the letter. At the start of the 2000 season, Respondent warned the students on the team that he would not tolerate any sort of misbehavior, including hazing. Respondent had not been aware of any hazing incidents on the baseball team since 1997. As already noted, other students knew of the continuation of the practice. Some of the parents of the older students also knew of the practice, at least as it had been inflicted on their sons. However, it does not necessarily follow that what a student shares with a parent, he also shares with his coach. Petitioner has failed to prove gross immorality or moral turpitude on the part of Respondent. Petitioner has failed to prove a violation of any of the Principles of Professional Conduct. Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning, his mental health, or his physical health and safety. Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent has intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent has failed to maintain honesty in all professional dealings. The evidence does not establish that Respondent knew or had reason to know that hazing was about to occur or that hazing had occurred. At all times, Respondent was in charge of 24 students, and, most of the time, he was sick--after Sunday, very sick. The scrutiny that Respondent could reasonably be expected to give the D. B. situation, especially given the student's reluctance to make a straightforward declaration of what happened, must be assessed n light of these circumstances. As the last person to be hazed, D. B. had ample opportunity to alert the coaches. After the hazing, D. B. repeatedly declined to disclose the problem to Respondent. D. B. knew that Respondent did not condone hazing. D. B. knew that, rather than ignore a hazing complaint, Respondent would punish the responsible players, and this would draw unwanted attention to D. B. Seeking advice from his parents, D. B. was reinforced in his earlier determination not to seek the effective remedies that he knew were available within the structure of the team. Respondent's investigation was sufficient for imposing intra-team discipline. His apparent departure from school policy of dismissal from the team may be explained by Respondent's awareness that the school board and possibly law enforcement would also investigate the matter and impose their own sanctions; presumably, the athletic department policy was intended to operate in isolation. Although Respondent could have informed the athletic director of the problem Wednesday night or Thursday morning, Respondent did so later Thursday. This brief delay caused no prejudice, as Respondent's supervisor assured Respondent that he had done the right thing and he would visit him the next Monday.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of September, 2001, 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 20th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards Executive Director Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore Chief, Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Honorable Charlie Crist, Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Robert F. McKee Kelly & McKee, P.A. Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Robert E. Sickles Broad and Cassel 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3500 Tampa, Florida 33602
