The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate the annual contract of a teacher for alleged immorality pursuant to Subsection 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(2); and whether the conduct violates ethical requirements in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.001.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency1 responsible for the employment and dismissal of instructional staff in Lee County, Florida (teachers). Petitioner employed Respondent as a teacher from December 11, 2001, until November 4, 2004. On November 4, 2004, Petitioner suspended Respondent without pay from her teaching position at J. Colin English Elementary School (English Elementary). The suspension occurred during the last year of three-year probationary service required for a professional service contract, pursuant to Subsection 1012.33(3)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2003). At the time of suspension, Respondent held an annual contract. Petitioner proposes to terminate the annual contract on November 4, 2004, for the rest of the 2004-2005 school year. The grounds for termination of an annual contract must satisfy the statutory definition of "just cause." The terms of a binding collective bargaining agreement (CBA) also require termination to be based upon "just cause."2 The allegations against Respondent are set forth in the Petition for Termination of Employment dated November 6, 2004 (the petition). The petition alleges Respondent engaged in conduct that satisfies the definition of immorality and that the conduct violates rules of ethics cited in the petition.3 The essential facts are undisputed. Sometime in October 2003, Respondent had sex with a man other than her husband while her husband recorded it on videotape (the offending conduct). The offending conduct occurred with the knowledge and consent of the participants. Sometime in April 2004, Respondent divorced her husband. Her ex-husband disclosed the video to Ms. Lisa Mantle, the ex-wife of the man in the video with Respondent. Ms. Mantle filed a complaint with Petitioner on August 24, 2004, and Petitioner initiated this proceeding. Conduct satisfies the definition of immorality in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(2) if the conduct meets three conjunctive requirements. The conduct must be inconsistent with standards of public conscience and good morals (the community standard). The conduct must be sufficiently notorious to disgrace the teaching profession and must impair the teacher's service in the community. Judicial decisions, discussed hereinafter, measure service in the community by a teacher's effectiveness in the classroom. There is no direct evidence that Respondent's conduct impaired her classroom effectiveness. Petitioner urges the trier of fact to infer impaired classroom effectiveness from the offending conduct. Judicial decisions, discussed hereinafter, prohibit such an inference from private, off-campus conduct and require direct evidence of impaired effectiveness. Employer Evaluations show Respondent was effective in the classroom before and after the offending conduct. Petitioner employed Respondent for almost three years before suspending her from her employment. A principal and an assistant principal recommended Respondent for employment at English Elementary by letters dated May 5 and 6, 2003. At English Elementary, Respondent consistently satisfied relevant performance criteria. Respondent received her last performance assessment on February 4, 2004, approximately three months after the incident occurred in October 2003. The principal of English Elementary conducted a formal classroom observation on February 9, 2004. The principal determined that Respondent demonstrated an effective level of performance. On March 8, 2004, the principal recommended renewal of the annual contract for the 2004-2005 school year. Respondent completed the 2003-2004 school year without complaint from supervisors, teachers, students, parents, or others. Ms. Mantel is a parent of school-age children in Lee County, Florida, but her children are not and never were enrolled in Respondent's classroom or in English Elementary. Ms. Mantle's only involvement with faculty or students at English Elementary is limited to the complaint. The offending conduct did not occur in the classroom, on campus, during normal working hours, and did not involve a child. The offending conduct did not result in any adverse impact on students, parents of those students, or fellow teachers. Respondent did not inject any opinion regarding sexual morality into the classroom or into private conversations with teachers, students, parents, or others. The offending conduct was private rather than public. The video was filmed in the privacy of Respondent's home. The evidence does not indicate that Respondent, or the other participants, made the video with the intent to show the video to anyone else or to pander it in the community. The offending conduct was not sufficiently notorious to disgrace the teaching profession. There is no evidence of any publicity or a public arrest record. There is no evidence that a teacher, student, parent, or member of the community, other than those previously noted and Petitioner's employees, had knowledge of the incident or viewed the video. Ms. Mantle was the only member of the public to complain to Petitioner about the offending conduct. Any wider knowledge or further notoriety of the offending conduct resulted after-the-fact from Petitioner's activities. Between August 23 and November 4, 2004, Petitioner made the offending conduct known to ten of Petitioner's employees identified in the record. Petitioner made the conduct known to other employees who are not identified in the record but were involved in the investigation, predetermination conference, and petition hearing on November 4, 2004. On August 23, 2004, Ms. Mantle telephoned the principal of English Elementary and advised him of the offending conduct. Ms. Mantle expressed her opinion that Respondent should not be around children. The principal transferred the telephone call to the secretary for the Director of Personnel Services. Ms. Mantle insisted on filing a written complaint. She indicated she would disclose the conduct to the "media" if the Director did not assist Ms. Mantle with her complaint. The principal memorialized the telephone conversation in a written communication to the Executive Director of Human Resources and Employee Relations (Executive Director). On August 25, 2004, Ms. Mantle filed a written complaint with the Department of Professional Standards. In relevant part, the complaint described the offending conduct and repeated that Respondent should not be around young children. On August 27, 2004, the Director of the Department of Professional Standards met with Respondent to review the written complaint. Respondent admitted she was in the video, stated it was recorded in the privacy of her home, explained it was the result of her ex-husband's physical and sexual abuse, and disclosed the divorce that was final in April 2004. Petitioner initiated a formal investigation on August 27, 2004, and then suspended Respondent with pay and benefits on August 30, 2004. On September 3, 2004, the Coordinator of Professional Standards, Equity and Recruitment, met with Respondent to discuss the written complaint. Petitioner concluded the formal investigation on September 21, 2004, and prepared an investigative summary. Respondent attended a predetermination conference with a union representative on September 22, 2004. Respondent and the union representative reviewed the investigative summary and certain supplemental information from Petitioner. Petitioner determined probable cause existed to discipline Respondent for her conduct and, by certified letter dated October 1, 2004, advised Respondent that Petitioner would seek termination of Respondent's annual contract. Respondent, through counsel, requested an administrative hearing by letter dated October 11, 2004. Petitioner referred the matter to DOAH, heard the petition on November 4, 2004, and suspended Respondent without pay. Prior to the administrative hearing, Ms. Mantle filed a motion to quash a subpoena that Petitioner had served to ensure her appearance as a witness at the hearing. The motion to quash was based, in relevant part, on Ms. Mantle's stated desire to abandon her complaint against Respondent. Although the ALJ denied the motion to quash, Ms. Mantle did not testify at the hearing because the parties entered into factual stipulations that obviated the need for her testimony. At the administrative hearing, Petitioner stipulated that the alleged immoral conduct in the video is the factual basis for the alleged violation of Subsection 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2003). Petitioner also stipulated that the same conduct is the factual predicate for the alleged violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.001. The Executive Director was the only witness for Petitioner. Petitioner has employed the witness for 16 years; including six years as a teacher, seven as an assistant principal or principal, and three in his current position. The testimony of the witness consisted of conclusions based on his professional experience, his personal opinion as a parent of students not enrolled in English Elementary, and his personal opinion as one member of the community. The conclusions and opinions of the witness are not supported by specific detail or other evidence. Some of the testimony is based on hearsay statements by Ms. Mantle and hearsay conversations with unidentified members of the community. The witness opined that Respondent's conduct violated "the community standard," but was unable to articulate an objective standard for the trier of fact to apply in this case. The witness testified that he would "challenge anyone to clearly articulate" a community standard. This case is a case of first impression for the witness. Petitioner has not previously terminated a teaching contract for immorality that occurred off campus. The witness provided no factual precedent from previous cases or survey data to explicate an objective community standard. Nor did the witness base his opinions and conclusions on testimony from other witnesses, including teachers, students, parents, or other members of the community. The witness based his opinion, in part, on alleged adultery. For example, the witness testified, inter alia, that this case was not "just about two consenting adults in a bedroom," but was about a teacher "engaging in sexual intercourse with a man to whom she was not married." However, the witness conceded Petitioner does not, in practice, dismiss teachers for adultery, notwithstanding the allegation of adultery in the petition; and does not define adultery. The attempt by the witness to define adultery elucidates the ambiguity in a community standard based on one person's judgment. The witness defined adultery as an act of sexual intercourse by a legally married person with someone other than the person's lawful spouse. The witness acknowledged some teachers live out of wedlock with their partners in what is described for ease of reference as a civil union. Teachers living in a civil union are immune from dismissal for adultery because the policy requires an adulterer to be legally married. It is undisputed that the man in the video was not married to Ms. Mantle or anyone else at the time the video was recorded. If he were to have been an unmarried teacher at the time, it is unclear whether sex with a married woman would have rendered him guilty of adultery. It is clear that the witness considers the consent of Respondent's husband at the time of the incident, as well as the husband's alleged coercive abuse, to be irrelevant in defining the alleged adultery of Respondent. The witness provided no factual examples of how the offending conduct impacted students in the classroom. The evidence shows Respondent remained effective in the classroom until her suspension on August 30, 2004. Other parts of the testimony either are not legally probative or do not relate to evidence of record. For example, the witness testified, inter alia: . . . this is not just . . . a couple of consenting adults in a bedroom, it's a production of a videotape that is public. This is a public -- the district is aware of this videotape, as are other individuals in the community. Transcript at 52. The testimony that members of the community, other than Petitioner's employees and Ms. Mantel, knew of the offending conduct is not supported by specific detail or other evidence. The media did not publicize the conduct, and the conduct did not result in a public record of arrest. Judicial decisions, discussed hereinafter, do not permit knowledge of the conduct resulting from Petitioner's activities to form the basis of a finding that the conduct is public. For reasons explained in the Conclusions of Law, Petitioner has no legal authority to discipline Respondent pursuant to Florida Administrative Code 6B-1.001. Assuming arguendo Petitioner has the authority to do so, the testimony that Respondent's conduct violated ethical standards in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.001 lacks the factual predicate needed to support the conclusion. In relevant part, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B- provides: . . . (1) The educator values the worth and dignity of every person, the pursuit of truth, devotion to excellence, acquisition of knowledge, and the nurture of democratic citizenship. Essential to the achievement of these standards are the freedom to learn and to teach and the guarantee of equal opportunity for all. The educator's primary professional concern will always be for the student and for the development of the student's potential. The educator will therefore strive for professional growth and will seek to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity. Aware of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of one's colleagues, of students, of parents, and of other members of the community, the educator strives to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct. The testimony of the witness did not relate the offending conduct to any requirement in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.001(1). No evidence impugns the integrity of Respondent, within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.001(2), and the witness did not question Respondent's professional judgment. TR at 43-93. The witness opined that Respondent's conduct undermined her "respect in the community" and her "ability to teach in the classroom" within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.001(3). The evidence does not support that opinion. No teachers, students, parents of students, or other members of the community testified that Respondent had lost respect in the community or had lost the confidence of the community. No evidence shows that the offending conduct impaired Respondent's ability to teach in the classroom. The witness agreed with early hearsay statements of Ms. Mantle that no students would be left in Respondent's classroom to teach if parents in the community were aware of the video. The trier of fact does not question the hypothetical. However, there is no evidence that parents in the community other than Ms. Mantle, the witness, and parents employed by Petitioner had actual knowledge of the video or, if so, they withdrew their students from the classroom. Petitioner employed Respondent for almost three years, recommended Respondent for an annual contract after the incident, and then sought to terminate the contract after learning of the incident. As discussed hereinafter, a court viewed similar actions of another school board as strong evidence that the school board was concerned with what the school board considered to be an affront to the personal standards of its members rather than the impact on students.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of immorality or other just-cause for termination, reinstating Respondent for the remainder of the 2004-2005 school year, and awarding back pay and benefits as prescribed in this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 2005.
The Issue Whether the Respondent engaged in employment practices in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Lakeyta Givens, is a black female, and was first employed by the Respondent on February 6, 2001. The Petitioner had no experience in the business of re- financing real property; however, the Petitioner was trained by the Respondent, and was given one promotion and a pay-raise. She became sufficiently knowledgeable and productive that she was tasked to train other employees. After she had been with the company for nearly two years, her supervisor wanted to step down for personal reasons. This opened up a position with greater responsibility and increased pay. The Respondent was a closely held corporation owned and operated by Anthony and Rachel Catanzeriti. Anthony Catanzeriti was the manager of the office and was there daily. His wife, Rachel, was the president of the corporation and was not there on a daily basis. She did, however, exercise primary control over the company. Anthony Catanzeriti asked the Petitioner if she would be interested in moving into the supervisor's position at a salary of $15.00 per hour, a raise of $5.00 per hour. The Petitioner indicated that she would be pleased to make the move. Mr. Catanzeriti indicated that his wife would have to approve the promotion, and that he would talk to her about the promotion. There was no action on the promotion for a long time. The Petitioner was concerned about the status of her promotion. The Petitioner heard during this time that Rachel Catanzeriti had stated that she "would not have a nasty nigger work in the company." The Petitioner asked to speak about her promotion with Mr. and Ms. Catanzeriti, but because of various mutual indispositions a meeting was delayed. On February 3, 2003, Rachel Catanzeriti came in to do some personnel work, and a meeting was arranged at which Mr. Catanzeriti was not present. From the content and progression of this meeting, it was clear that the Petitioner was concerned that she was not being promoted because of her race. The Petitioner immediately confronted Ms. Catanzeriti about the purported racial slur. Ms. Catanzeriti denied having made such a remark; however, she immediately became angry. The meeting never addressed the promotion because of Ms. Catanzeriti's anger. In an effort to de-escalate the situation, the Petitioner walked out of the office. Ms. Catanzeriti followed the Petitioner out of the office and between buildings continuing the heated exchange. The Petitioner asked her to discuss the racial epithet, and Ms. Catanzeriti, replied, "Let's talk about your big fat ass." Very shortly after this comment and within the same argument, Ms. Catanzeriti fired the Petitioner. Subsequently, the supervisor's position was filed by a white female, whom the Petitioner had previously trained. The Petitioner's work record was good, and her attendance was regular. She was unable to find employment until April 2004. After the Petitioner had been fired, U S Mortgage, Inc., was closed by the Office of the State's Attorney. The Petitioner reported that Mr. Catanzeriti was currently imprisoned out of state, and Ms. Catanzeriti was living in Texas.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter its final order directing that the Respondent desist from discriminatory employment practices and awarding the Petitioner $4,800.00 in damages for lost wages. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 6th day of May, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lakeyta Givens Post Office Box 293 Sanderson, Florida 32087 U S Mortgage, Inc. 28 West Macclenny Avenue, Suite 14 Macclenny, Florida 32063 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether this case should be dismissed based on Petitioner's failure to appear at the hearing.
Findings Of Fact The Notice of Hearing in this case was issued on January 12, 2011, setting the hearing for March 30 and 31, 2011, in Tavares, Florida. The hearing was scheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m. on March 30, 2011. Also on January 12, 2011, an Order of Pre-hearing Instructions was entered. Neither the Notice of Hearing nor the Order of Pre- hearing Instructions was returned as undeliverable to Petitioner. On March 23, 2011, Petitioner filed a letter at the Division of Administrative Hearings stating that she would be unable to attend the hearing on March 30, 2011, for unexplained medical reasons. This letter indicated that Petitioner was aware of the scheduled hearing dates. At the hearing on March 30, 2011, counsel for Respondent stated that Petitioner did not serve a copy of this letter to Respondent. On March 29, 2011, Petitioner filed a second letter at the Division of Administrative Hearings that declined to request a continuance of the hearing and proposed that the hearing proceed based on hearsay documents that Petitioner had previously filed at the Division of Administrative Hearings. At the hearing on March 30, 2011, counsel for Respondent stated that Petitioner did not serve a copy of this letter to Respondent. At 9:00 a.m. on March 30, 2011, counsel and witnesses for Respondent were present and prepared to go forward with the hearing. Petitioner was not present. The undersigned delayed the commencement of the hearing by fifteen minutes, but Petitioner still did not appear. The hearing was called to order at 9:15 a.m. Counsel for Respondent entered his appearance and requested the entry of a recommended order of dismissal. As noted above, Respondent had received no notice that Petitioner did not intend to appear at the hearing or that continuance was under consideration. Respondent's counsel had flown to Florida from Tennessee to appear at the hearing. One of Respondent's witnesses was a former employee whom Respondent had flown to Florida from Wisconsin at Respondent's expense. Respondent vigorously opposed any continuance of the scheduled proceeding. The undersigned declined on the record to continue the hearing. The hearing was then adjourned.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack Leebron Grand Court Tavares 111 Westwood Place, Suite 200 Brentwood, Tennessee 37027 Ann L. Brunette Post Office Box 304 Fruitland Park, Florida 34731 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of discriminating in employment against Petitioner on the basis of her race.
Findings Of Fact Respondent hired Petitioner, who is black, as an inspectress on April 11, 1988. An inspectress supervises the work of maids, who are responsible for cleaning the hotel rooms. On July 3, 1988, the housekeeper, Mr. Douglas Knight, who supervised Petitioner, informed her that, due to an excess of personnel, she was no longer needed as an inspectress. He offered her a position as a maid. The record does not reveal whether the change in duties would have resulted in less pay. Petitioner apparently declined the position. When she did so, Respondent terminated her. Although Respondent had received no warnings concerning unsatisfactory job performance, the work of the maids had clearly been unsatisfactory up to the time of her offered reassignment. The white woman who allegedly replaced Petitioner as an inspectress was Mrs. Triplett, who was married to the head maintenance manager of the hotel. Shortly after losing her job elsewhere, she was hired by Respondent around June 9, 1988, to replace the assistant housekeeper, who was on maternity leave until July 6, 1988. Mrs. Triplett was reassigned to the position of inspectress around June 18, 1988, and later promoted to housekeeper about two weeks after Petitioner's departure. Mr. Knight, who hired Mrs. Triplett, was friends with Mr. Triplett and later terminated for inefficiency in performing his work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT D. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Dana Baird General Counsel Commission Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Margaret Jones Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Latricia W. Dukes 4189 Tatum Street Orlando, FL 32811 Gale Brandy Ramada Main Gate Resort 2950 Reedy Creek Boulevard Kissimmee, FL 32741
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Ms. Claudine Etienne, violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2011),1/ and implementing administrative rules, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator's certificates. Ms. Etienne holds Florida Educator's Certificate 845026, covering the areas of English and mathematics, which is valid through June 30, 2018. At all times relevant to the complaint, Ms. Etienne was employed as an English teacher at Miami Springs High School in the Miami-Dade County School District. On or about January 20, 2012, an unknown student ignited a smoke bomb or large firecracker in a locker in Ms. Etienne's classroom. Ms. Etienne was unsure what the device was or how it was ignited. Smoke was generated from the device, and it filtered into the classroom. One or more students requested to leave the room because of the smoke. In her deposition, Ms. Etienne indicated that at the time of the incident, she was aware that one of the students assigned to her class, C.E., had asthma because she had a conversation with C.E.'s mother in December about it. Ms. Etienne testified that she did not recall C.E. asking her to leave the room on the day of the incident, however, and in fact did not remember if C.E. was even in class that day. Ms. Etienne did not believe the smoke was sufficiently serious to require her to allow the students to leave the room. She was uncertain how to proceed until administrators who had been called arrived in the classroom. Ms. Etienne instructed the students to stay in the room until an administrator arrived. One student subsequently required medical attention as a result of the smoke inhalation. In her written statement, C.E. stated that paramedics came to the school to assist her because she could not breathe after her exposure to the smoke in the classroom.2/ Ms. Etienne later received a verbal reprimand from the school district.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Ms. Claudine Etienne in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, through her violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), issuing her a letter of reprimand, and assessing a fine against her in the amount of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of February, 2017.
The Issue Whether Respondent's educator's certification should be sanctioned for alleged acts involving moral turpitude, in violation of Subsection 1012.795(1) (c), Florida Statutes (2003).1 Whether Respondent's educator's certification should be sanctioned for being convicted of a misdemeanor, felony, or other criminal charge, in violation of Subsection 1012.795(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent's educator's certification should be sanctioned for violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession, in violation of Subsection 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent's educator's certification should be sanctioned for a plea guilty or a decision of guilt in any court, in violation of Subsection 1012.795(2), Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent's educator's certification should be sanctioned for failure to maintain honesty in all professional dealings, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B- 1.006(5)(a). Whether Respondent's educator's certification should be sanctioned for submitting fraudulent information on a document in connection with professional activities, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(5)(h).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Carolyn Stewart, holds Florida Educator Certificate 747243, covering the area of Guidance and Counseling, which was valid through June 30, 2005. Respondent was employed as a guidance counselor at Sea Breeze Elementary School, in the Manatee County School District, during the 2003/2004 school year, until she resigned sometime in the fall of 2003. On or after October 1, 2003, Respondent was arrested and charged with two counts of fraudulent use of a credit card. Respondent entered a plea of guilty to those charges, both third degree felonies, in the Circuit Court for Manatee County, Florida, Case Nos. 2003-CF-3150 and 2003-CF-4094, on May 18, 2004. Adjudication was withheld, and Respondent was sentenced to credit for time served in the county jail, court costs, and facility fee. On or about March 18, 2004, following the issuance of an Information, Respondent was arrested and charged with the felony offense of filing fraudulent insurance claims, between October 1, 1999, and September 12, 2003, with her employer, the Manatee County School Board. Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendre to the charge of filing fraudulent insurance claims for less that $20,000, a third degree felony, in the Circuit Court for Manatee County, in Case No. 2004-CF-1067, on May 24, 2005. Respondent was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to five years probation. On April 15, 2004, Respondent was charged, by Information, with the offense of Poisoning Food or Water of Michael Skoyec, which occurred between August 31, 2003, and/or September 1, 2003. Respondent pled not guilty to the charge, a first degree felony, and the matter proceeded to a jury trial before the Circuit Court for Manatee County, Case No. 2004-CF- 1787. Prior to the trial, the State Attorney amended the Information by adding a second count, charging Respondent with Attempted Second Degree Murder, a second degree felony. Following the trial which concluded on February 11, 2005, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the first count, Poisoning Food and Water, and a verdict of guilty on the lesser count included offense of Battery (a first degree misdemeanor), as to the second Count. At the sentencing hearing on April 19, 2005, Respondent was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to 15 years in the custody of the Department of Corrections, and costs, followed by five years' probation. Respondent was committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections on April 19, 2005, and is at present serving her sentence in the Gadsden Correctional Institution. Following her conviction and sentence, Respondent appealed her convictions to the Second District Court of Appeal. The conviction was affirmed on March 3, 2006, and the Mandate issued on May 18, 2006. In each of the criminal cases in which she entered a plea of guilty or no contest, Respondent, through her attorney, stipulated that there was a factual basis for the charge, or the facts were stated on the record for the court to determine the factual basis. Following these incidents, Respondent resigned her position with the Manatee School District in the fall of 2003. There was adverse publicity in the newspaper about the charges against Respondent, including the poisoning charge. There was no dispute that as a result of these incidents Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher was seriously, if not totally, reduced. The honesty of educators is relied upon by administrators. Respondent's actions, including her fraudulent acts, prevented administrators from relying on her honesty. Fellow employees rely on an educator's honesty, and Respondent's actions similarly prevent that reliance in the future. On October 18, 2004, Respondent was charged by Information, with one felony count of falsifying records, on September 22, 2003, of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). She entered a plea of no contest, was adjudicated guilty, and placed on five years' probation for that offense on May 24, 2005. Although the avenue of direct appeal of her conviction has been exhausted, Respondent has retained legal counsel to explore the possibility of filing post-conviction relief in the courts in regard to those charges, where she has been adjudicated guilty by the court. Although Respondent acknowledged that grounds existed to revoke her teaching certificate, she testified that she was very good at what she did as a guidance counselor and desired the opportunity to seek reinstatement of her teaching certificate in the future. Respondent offered no evidence to support this assertion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED as follows: A final order be issued finding that Respondent did violate the provisions of Subsections 1012.795(1) (c), (e) and (i), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6b- 1.006(5) (a), and (h). Count 4 of the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed. If is further RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a final order permanently revoking Respondent's teaching certificate. DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 2007.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner on the basis of sexual harassment and retaliated against Petitioner in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order denying Benjamin Bullard's Petition for Relief. S DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2012, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Benjamin Bullard 12211 Park Drive Hollywood, Florida 33026 Spencer D. West, Esquire Stephen N. Montalto, Esquire Mitchell & West, LLC 3191 Coral Way, Suite 406 Miami, Florida 33145 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to suspend and terminate the Respondent's employment on the basis of allegations of misconduct set forth in a Notice of Specific Charges. The allegations of misconduct charge the Respondent with immorality, misconduct in office, and gross insubordination.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Chico J. Arenas, was employed as a teacher by the Dade County Public Schools pursuant to a professional services contract. At the time of the hearing in this case, K. F. was a fifteen-year-old student in the 10th grade. She is a former student of the Respondent. At the time of the hearing, E. W. was a fifteen-year-old student in the 10th grade. She is also a former student of the Respondent. Both K. F. and E. W. are females. Shortly after Halloween in 1990, one day when the Respondent and K. F. were alone in a classroom, the Respondent asked K. F. whether a male student named M. was "getting action." At that time M. was a close friend of K. F. The term "getting action" was a reference to sexual intercourse. When K. F. answered the question in the negative, the Respondent repeated the question and also made statements to the effect of, "M. is lucky," that he had "heard Jamaicans are wicked in bed," and that "older guys will show you more." The Respondent also told K. F. that she made him "excited." K. F. construed these statements as being sexual in nature. As a result of these statements by the Respondent, K. F. lost the trust she had in her teacher and never went back to his class. The incident involving K. F. resulted in the Respondent being made formally aware of the School Board's policies with regard to inappropriate statements to female students containing expressed or implied sexual references and the Respondent was specifically directed to avoid sexual harassment of female students. Beginning in February of 1992, on three separate Saturdays, at approximately 11:00 a.m. on each of those days, the Respondent telephoned E. W. at her home. At that time E. W. was one of the Respondent's students. On each of those occasions the Respondent's statements to E. W. were of a personal nature and had nothing to do with the fulfillment of Respondent's duties as a teacher. On the first of the three telephone calls to E. W., the Respondent identified himself, but there was very little other conversation. Shortly after the Respondent identified himself to her, E. W. told him that she was doing something and asked if he could call back later. During the course of the second telephone call, the Respondent made statements to E. W. to the effect that he "liked" her and that he had "feelings" for her. The Respondent also told E. W. that she was "a beautiful young lady" and that she "had a nice shape." After just a few such statements, E. W. told the Respondent to call back later and she hung up. The Respondent's statements during the second telephone conversation led E. W. to believe that the Respondent had a romantic or sexual interest in her. During the course of his third Saturday telephone call to E. W., the Respondent repeated statements to the effect that he liked her, that she had a beautiful shape, and that she was a beautiful young lady. He went on to also tell her such things as that "he wanted to wrap his hands around [her] and hold [her] tight," that "he wanted to give [her] things," that her boyfriend "didn't have to know what was going on," and he also told her "not to tell her mamma [she] was talking to him on the phone." The Respondent also asked E. W. to meet him in the library near her home and to otherwise skip school so that she could be with him. The Respondent also made comments to the effect that he could do more for E. W. than her boyfriend could and that she was "a beautiful young lady, and [she] deserved beautiful things." As a result of the statements during the third Saturday telephone call, E. W. became convinced that the Respondent wanted to have a sexual relationship with her and she began taking steps to avoid the Respondent. As a student, E. W. was doing well in the Respondent's class. If she had had any personal problems that came to the attention of the Respondent, it would have been his responsibility to have referred her to one of the school counsellors. The Respondent is not certified as a counselor or as a psychologist. At the time of the telephone calls to E. W. described above, the Respondent did not have any school related business which required him to call E. W. at home, nor was he trying to reach E. W.'s mother. When the events described above were reported to school officials, the Respondent was removed from a school based employment site and reassigned to work elsewhere. The reassignment and the reasons for it became known to a number of administrators, teachers, parents, and students. The disclosure of information about the matter resulted in part from statements the Respondent made to others. The Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher has been impaired as a result of his conduct with E. W. and his prior principal would be reluctant to rehire him as a teacher. The Respondent's conduct with E. W. also constitutes misconduct in office and is a breach of his professional relationship of trust with students because it exposed a student to embarrassment and disparagement. The Respondent's conduct with E. W. also constitutes immorality.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order in this case concluding that the Respondent is guilty of immorality, misconduct in office, and gross insubordination as charged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, on the basis of those conclusions, terminating the Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January 1994. APPENDIX The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties: Findings of Fact submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3: Accepted in substance with some details modified in the interest of clarity. Paragraph 4: Rejected as irrelevant because the conduct described here was not charged in the Notice of Specific Charges. Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, the unnumbered paragraphs following 7, 8, and 9: Accepted in substance with some details modified in he interest of clarity and accuracy. Paragraphs 10 and 11: The essence of these paragraphs has been accepted, but most details have been omitted as unnecessary. Findings of Fact submitted by Respondent: By way of clarification, it is noted that the Respondent submitted two post-hearing documents in support of his positions on the issues: one titled RESPONDENT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS PROPOSED ORDER RECOMMENDING REINSTATEMENT, and the other titled RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER. The first of these two documents includes an extensive summary of the testimony, which summary has been carefully reviewed by the Hearing Officer. However, because those summaries do not constitute proposed findings of fact, they are not specifically addressed below. Here, as in the usual course of events, it would serve no useful purpose to recite at length the extent to which the summaries are or are not accurate and to do so would add to this Recommended Order voluminous subordinate and unnecessary details; details which have been carefully considered during the fact-finding in this case. Specifically addressed below are the paragraphs contained in the "Findings of Fact" portion of the RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (This disposition of the proposed findings is, in any event, irrelevant in view of the Hearing Officer's disposition of the immorality charge). Paragraph 4: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The evidence is sufficient to prove the acts alleged by a preponderance of the evidence. Paragraph 5: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as constituting a proposed conclusion of law, rather than proposed findings of fact. (On the basis of Johnson v. School Board of Dade County, 578 So.2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), the Hearing Officer has reached a conclusion different from the one proposed here.) COPIES FURNISHED: David Rothman, Esquire Thornton, Rothman and Emas, P.A. 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 James C. Bovell, Esquire 75 Valencia Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Dr. Joyce Annunziata, Director Office of Professional Standards Dade County Public Schools 1444 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33132 Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue #403 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33122 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether the Respondent discriminated unlawfully against the Petitioner by discharging him because of a handicap contrary to Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and, if so, the nature and extent of financial loss suffered by the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Shannon M. Spence, was employed from March 1993 until May 1, 1993 by the Respondent. The Respondent is an employer as defined by Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner, who earned on average $125/week, was employed by the Respondent as a bouncer and "bar backer", a person who assisted the bartender. On or about April 29, 1993, the Petitioner suffered an on the job injury which was duly reported to the employer and for which the Petitioner was treated at a local hospital pursuant to arrangements made by the employer. The Petitioner's injury was determined to be a right inguinal hernia, and the Petitioner was cautioned against lifting more than 25 pounds and standing for long periods of time. The Petitioner reported for work the following day, and communicated to his supervisor his inability to lift and to stand for long periods of time. His supervisor, Jess Wall or J.W., placed the Petitioner on security detail for the parking lot and entrance. There were additional light duties available for security personnel within the employer's business in which the employee could have been placed. The Petitioner's employment was terminated later that evening. The testimony is conflicting regarding whether the Petitioner was discharged because he was dating another employee, or because he was injured, or quit in sympathy with Jess Wall, who was also terminated on that evening. The most credible evidence is that the Petitioner was discharged because of his injury, but was told it was because he was dating another employee. The prohibition against dating was a new rule, it was applied against the Petitioner without any prior warning, the female employee was not discharged, and the Petitioner was the only person discharged for this activity although there were others who dated employees. The alternative theory that Petitioner quit in sympathy with the head bouncer, Mr. Wall, is specifically rejected for lack of credibility of the various witnesses. The Petitioner subsequently settled his workman's compensation claim arising from this injury with the Respondent for $15,000. No details were received regarding the allocation of moneys for medical and wages. The Petitioner is entitled to back wages from his discharge until the hearing on April 27, 1995, less any mitigation, including any portion of the settlement of his workman's compensation claim attributable to lost wages, occurring after surgical repair of the hernia when the Petitioner was reemployed. The Petitioner is entitled to reasonable costs and attorneys fees.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Commission find that the Petitioner was unlawfully discriminated against by the Respondent, and that the Respondent be ordered to pay the Petitioner his lost wages from May 1, 1993 until April 27, 1995 less any amounts the Petitioner earned during this period and any amounts included in the workman's compensation settlement specifically provided for wages; that the Commission retain jurisdiction for the award of damages and attorney's fees and costs; and the Commission remand the matter for a determination of the attorney's fees and costs and to permit the Respondent to present any evidence in mitigation of its damages. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX The parties filed proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which of their findings were adopted and which were rejected and why: Petitioner's Recommended Order Findings Paragraph 1,2 Subsumed in Paragraph 1 and 2. Paragraph 3-5 Subsumed in Paragraphs 3-5. Paragraph 6-8 Subsumed in Paragraphs 6-9. Paragraph 9 Subsumed in 3 and 11. Respondent's Recommended Order Findings Paragraphs 1-3 Paragraphs 1-3 Paragraph 4 Rejected because the date was April 29, 1993. Paragraph 5 Subsumed in Paragraphs 4,5. Paragraph 6,7 Rejected as contrary to more credible evidence. Paragraph 8,9 Subsumed in Paragraphs 10,11. COPIES FURNISHED: James P. Tarquin, Esquire Michael B. Staley, Esquire P.O. Box 906190 Ocala, FL 34478 John Daley, Esquire 201 E. Pine Street 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4113
