Findings Of Fact Davis began working with the Board on September 16, 1974, as a custodian in the maintenance department. In 1980 Davis was transferred to the Stewart Street Elementary School as a custodian. In 1988 Davis was transferred to the Carter-Parramore Middle School as a custodian. On March 23, 1992, Davis was suspended by the Superintendent with pay. On March 25, 1992, Davis was recommended for termination and was suspended without pay by the Board. The suspension and recommended termination were the result of accusations made by Tomeka Mitchell and Tiesha Parker that Davis had made sexually explicit comments to them and had inappropriately touched them. Tomeka and Tiesha both testified regarding their versions of what occurred on January 28, 1992. Two other students, Cheryl Denise Roberts and Lashea Alexander also testified. Based on the demeanor of these witnesses and on the pervasive conflicts in their versions of the events, it is determined that their testimony is not credible or worthy of belief. Tomeka testified that on January 22 or 23, 1992, she and "Sherry" were going to meet Tiesha near the gym and that Davis stopped them, put his arms around Tomeka and Tiesha and said "This is what he wanted" and opened her button. She said nothing else happened. However, she apparently reported to HRS that Davis had touched her breast and unbuttoned her blouse. HRS determined that there was no evidence to verify these allegations. [See Finding of Fact #14] Tiesha said she was going to meet Tomeka, who was already talking to Davis, and when she and Tomeka began to walk away, Davis asked where they were going, called them over to where he was standing, and told them he "wanted some." When they asked what he "wanted," she said Davis pulled their heads together, tried to open her blouse which was buttoned, and then he "did it to Tomeka and looked down her shirt." Tiesha said that Cheryl Roberts and Lashea Alexander were standing next to them and all four discussed what happened and decided to go to the office and report it. On cross-examination, Tiesha acknowledged that Tomeka's blouse was unbuttoned before Davis called them over. Cheryl testified that she saw Davis look down Tomeka's blouse and that she (not Tiesha) was with Tomeka when Davis said he "wanted some." However, when Cheryl talked to Mr. Pace, the principal, on January 28, 1992, she said she had not seen anything, but was reporting what she had been told by Tomeka and Tiesha. Additionally, the information given by Cheryl at the time of the incident, the testimony she gave in her deposition on May 14, 1992, and her testimony at the hearing were inconsistent. Finally, Cheryl never mentioned that Davis had allegedly tried to look into Tiesha's blouse. Lashea's testimony was also contrary to that of Tomeka and Tiesha. According to Lashea's version, Tomeka and Tiesha had told her that Tomeka was afraid to go to class because Davis might say something to her, so Tiesha walked Tomeka part way to class. Lashea was near the gym with Cheryl and she saw Davis try to look into Tomeka's blouse. Lashea and Cheryl discussed what they had seen and Tomeka and Tiesha came back to the gym. Lashea told Tomeka that Davis had tried to look into her blouse and Tomeka said "Yeah, he tried to, but I didn't let him." Lashea denied that Davis tried to look in Tiesha's blouse. However, Mr. Pace recorded that on January 28, 1992, Lashea had not seen anything and had only told him what she was told by Tomeka and Tiesha. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the demeanor of these girls and from the differences in their stories is that no sexually explicit statements were made by Davis and that he did not he touch them in an inappropriate manner. The version of the incident given by Davis is credible and worthy of belief. On January 28, 1992, Davis saw Tomeka and Tiesha in the open corridor near the gym after the final bell for sixth period had rung. They were heading away from the gym. Davis asked them what class they were supposed to be in, and by their responses he thought they were supposed to be in gym. Tomeka's blouse was open and the top few buttons were undone. Davis told her to button her shirt up and he said he was sure that her parents wouldn't want her going around campus "looking like a 10 whore." Davis then told them they should be in class and he put his hand on the upper arm of each girl to guide them in the direction of the class. When it appeared they were going in the correct direction, Davis left them. Davis is a credible witness and his statements at all times between January 28, 1992, and the hearing have been consistent and forthright. According to Mr. Pace, the principal, and Lt. Morris, the school resource officer, Davis is a man of his word who is known to be honest and trustworthy. Further, Davis' reputation in the community is one of honesty and truthfulness. John D. Mathers, a Child Protective Investigator for HRS, sent a letter to Bryant dated March 18, 1992, and therein stated "The victim's statements of language addressed them by Dr. Davis [sic] meets departmental guidelines to verify the allegation of sexual exploitation, i.e. indecent solicitation of a child or explicit verbal enticement, and closing of report with classification of proposed confirmed." While this sentence is so poorly written as to render it unintelligible, Bryant interpreted it as saying that HRS had found that Davis had made inappropriate and explicit sexual comments and that these allegations of sexual exploitation were verified. In fact, the letter from Mr. Mather doesn't quite say that. Additionally, Mather said in his letter that Tomeka Mitchell told him that Davis had touched her left breast and had unbuttoned her blouse, but that no other witness verified Tomeka's allegations, and that those allegations of sexual maltreatment were not classified as proposed confirmed. The letter to Davis from Bryant dated March 23, 1992, advised Davis that the reason for the suspension and recommended termination was Davis' violation of Gadsden County Board Rule 5.112 which provides in pertinent part: Any member of the non-instructional staff may be dismissed by the School Board during his term of appointment, when a recommendation for dismissal is made by the Superintendent, giving good and sufficient reason therefor. Good and sufficient reason shall include but not be limited to: * * * (h) Violation of law, State Board of Education Rules, or School Board Rules. Upon investigation, it has been determined that on January 22, 1992 and January 28, 1992, you made inappropriate and explicit sexual comments to several female students at Carter- Parramore Middle School. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has also completed its investigation and has advised me that based on its investigation and interviews with the victims, their statements regarding your comments verify the allegations of sexual exploitation. Such behavior is violative of Gadsden County School Board rules. This determination by Bryant was based on the "information" he was given in the "final report" prepared by Pace and on the HRS letter. Bryant was unable to articulate the bases for his determination, but that is not surprising when the origin and nature of the "information" he considered is examined. The three men who gathered the information were Cecil Morris, the school resource officer employed by the Gadsden County Sheriff's Office; Rocky Pace, the principal at Carter-Parramore; and James W. Brown, Jr., the assistant superintendent for administrative services. According to Bryant, he was given a "final report" from Pace in a letter dated February 7, 1992, (Exhibit 4) with attachments: Pace's letter to Brown dated January 28, 1992, (Exhibit 5); a case report filed by Lt. Morris (Exhibits 9a and 9b); and a letter of reprimand to Davis from Pace (Exhibit 3). In that letter Pace advised that he had a tape of the interviews of Tomeka, Tiesha, a girl named Aquiana Delapierre, and Davis, however, Pace did not give Bryant the tape until sometime in March, 1992, when Bryant asked for it. Bryant never listened to the tape, but instead read written statements from the girls. No one was able to establish where these written statements came from or how they came to be in Bryant's possession. They first appeared in Lt. Morris' case file when he opened it to prepare for a deposition on July 2, 1992. He doesn't know where they came from or who took them. Pace knew nothing about the statements and did not give them to Bryant. Brown also had no knowledge of the statements. Ironically, there was no written statement from Davis. Bryant says he made his determination based on these written statements which he assumed contained the same information as the tape which he never heard. Bryant did not identify any information which he reviewed that set forth Davis' version of the event. The case report prepared by Lt. Morris contained a brief summary of the accusations made by Tomeka and Tiesha, but Morris apparently never even talked to Davis. In fact, from the testimony of Pace, Morris, and Brown, it cannot even be determined whether any investigation was ever done. Morris talked to Tomeka and Tiesha briefly and then took them to Pace. Pace taped statements from Tomeka and Tiesha and Davis. Morris was in and out of the room during the taping of statements from Tomeka and Tiesha, but he did not hear much of what they said. Brown then came to the school and again talked briefly to Cheryl Roberts because he knew her parents and to some other girls, but he doesn't remember their names. Morris had no investigatory responsibilities in the matter. Pace did no further investigation after he took the taped statements because Brown came to the school and Pace was informed that Bryant had put Brown in charge of the investigation. Brown says he was not in charge of the investigation, but had told Pace to do a thorough investigation and then report his findings to Bryant. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that none of these men did any investigation beyond the interviews conducted on January 28 and 29, 1992. The letter from Pace to Bryant (Exhibit 4), which Bryant calls the "final report," clearly states that Pace thought the investigation was still on going and that action beyond the letter of reprimand (Exhibit 3) may have been warranted at a later date. However the only continuing action involved that of HRS in its abuse investigation, which resulted in a letter which advised that no touching or unbuttoning had occurred. Bryant's accusations against Davis were limited to allegations of explicit and inappropriate sexual comments. These reasons given for the suspension and recommended termination must have been based almost entirely on the letter from Mather at HRS since there was so little competent and probative information considered by Bryant. However, the statements made by Mather in his letter are insufficient to show whether HRS actually took any action against Davis in this matter and no evidence was presented to show whether any such action was taken. Since Bryant never reviewed any statement by Davis regarding his version of the events, Bryant never knew that Davis' words and actions in trying to get the girls to go to their class and to get Tomeka to straighten and button her clothes were routine for Davis. From the time Davis was assigned to Carter-Parramore in 1988 until March 18, 1991, a Mr. White had been the principal at that school. White had asked Davis to assist in keeping order at the school and had authorized Davis to open the gym on cold mornings at around 7:15 a.m. so that early-arriving students could be warm. At times, Davis was the only Board employee on campus and he was to remain in the gym to keep order until other adults arrived. White also used Davis' assistance to break up fights and control campus access by non- students during the school day. With White's knowledge and consent, Davis also directed students to go to class when they were not where they were supposed to be, to straighten up their attire or behavior, and to stay in school and not skip class. Mr. White died unexpectedly in March, 1991, and Pace became the acting principal and ultimately the principal. Pace knew of all these activities by Davis and never told him to restrict himself to duties directly related to his job as head custodian. Pace acknowledges that Davis was friendly and interacted with students and pitched in wherever he was needed. It was entirely consistent with these acknowledged activities of Davis that he would stop two students who were outside after the sixth period bell had rung, would direct them to go to class and would insist that one of them straighten her clothing which was unbuttoned and allowed her breasts to be seen. Finally, the alleged matter involving Aquiana Delapierre must be examined. Aquiana made an allegation against Davis that he said he "wanted some" from her also. Aquiana was subpoenaed to testify at the hearing but she failed to appear. All other documentation of these allegations constitutes hearsay and absent her live testimony, that hearsay cannot form the basis for any findings of fact. Exhibit 9a is the report prepared by Lt. Morris regarding Aquiana's allegations. It is insufficient to support a finding about the alleged incident. Davis was employed pursuant to an annual contract. His contract had been renewed yearly for the preceding eighteen years. Davis had always received satisfactory job ratings. Because of the recommended termination and Davis' suspension in March, 1992, no recommendation or action was taken to renew his annual contract for the 1992-93 school year. Davis' contract for the 1991-92 school year expired on June 30, 1992. Davis has no statutory entitlement to renewal of his contract, but no evidence was presented to show any reason why his annual contract would not have been renewed but for this case. Further, Davis' position has not been filled by another employee. The clear fact is that Davis' contract would have been renewed but for these wrongful allegations and this action which followed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Gadsden County enter a Final Order and therein: Award to Charlie C. Davis back pay for the period from March 25, 1992, until the expiration of his annual contract. Reinstate Charlie C. Davis to his position as head custodian at Carter- Parramore Middle School and renew his annual contract for that position for the entire 1992-1993 school year. Award to Davis back pay for the period covered by the annual contract for 1992-1993 during which has not been working or being paid. Deny the request for Davis' attorney's fees and costs necessitated for his defense against the suspension and termination on March 25, 1992. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 23rd day of September, 1992. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-2375 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Gadsden County School Board 1. Proposed findings of fact 1-7, 10-14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29-35, and 38-41 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 2. Proposed findings of fact 18, 20, 26 and 37 are irrelevant to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Charlie C. Davis Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-5. Proposed findings of fact 6-18 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 8, 9, 15, 23, 28, and 36 are unsupported by the credible, competent and substantive evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert H. Bryant, Superintendent Gadsden County School Board Post Office Box 818 Quincy, FL 32351 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Deborah J. Stephens Attorney at Law The Ausley Law Firm 227 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32302 David Brooks Kundin Attorney at Law Dobson & Kundin, P.A. Post Office Box 430 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a district school board is entitled to dismiss a teacher for just cause based principally upon the allegation that he failed to prevent or stop two students from engaging in oral sex in his classroom.
Findings Of Fact The Miami-Dade County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Miami-Dade County Public School System. As of the final hearing, Respondent Ismael Delgado ("Delgado") had been employed as a teacher in the Miami-Dade County Public School System for approximately 12 years. At all times relevant to this case, Williams was assigned to Booker T. Washington Senior High School, where he taught students with disabilities. The alleged events giving rise to this case allegedly occurred on December 6, 2004. The School Board alleges that on that date, during Delgado's fourth-period class, a female student named R. B. fellated a male student named D. B., while Delgado busied himself on the computer, paying no attention to the brazen carnality on display in his presence. The School Board charges that at about 11:15 a.m., a young man named K. M.——who was not a student of Delgado's——chanced to enter Delgado's locked classroom (somehow without attracting Delgado's attention) to check up on R. B. at precisely the moment she happened to be orally stimulating D. B.'s penis. K. M. was purportedly shocked to see this behavior——too shocked, evidently, to mention anything about it to Delgado, who allegedly remained glued to his computer, oblivious. K. M. later reported the alleged incident to another teacher, investigations ensued, and Delgado ended up being accused effectively of causing the students' sexual misconduct, for which the School Board now wants to fire him. Delgado consistently has maintained——and testified at hearing——that nothing extraordinary occurred in his classroom on December 6, 2004. He claims that he neither saw nor heard R. B. and D. B. engage in any sexual activity; indeed, Delgado insists that such behavior could not possibly have taken place in his presence. The undersigned fact-finder believes Delgado's testimony in this regard, which is more credible and persuasive than the evidence to the contrary, and finds, on the record as a whole, that the evidence is insufficient to establish that R. B. and D. B. engaged in oral sex in Delgado's presence, as charged. Because Delgado witnessed nothing of the sort alleged, it is difficult to make affirmative findings concerning what, if anything unusual, occurred in Delgado's classroom on December 6, 2004. Compounding this difficulty, the students who testified were poor witnesses. The School Board called four purported eyewitnesses to the alleged sexual act: R. B. and D. B., the alleged participants; K. M., the student who serendipitously caught the two flagrante delicto; and A. S., another student in Delgado's class. Each one individually came across as an unreliable witness. None seemed to possess (or was able to articulate) a clear and precise memory of the remarkable alleged events, yet each recounted details that struck the undersigned as being implausible at best. Moreover, taken together, their stories are inconsistent and, in material respects, irreconcilable. In support of these general observations, the undersigned will add the following particular findings, to underscore the care with which the evidence has been weighed. As mentioned, the students who testified gave conflicting accounts about what occurred. The points in conflict are not mere minor details, as the School Board argues, but rather involve material facts, such as when the alleged sexual act took place and what Delgado was doing at that time. The details are critical because it is not enough for the School Board to prove that R. B. and D. B. engaged in oral sex on December 6, 2004. In addition, the School Board alleged and must prove that the sex act took place in Delgado's classroom, while he was present; that Delgado knew or should have known what was going on; and that Delgado failed to take reasonable steps to prevent or stop the students from having oral sex. The following table presents a summary of the eyewitness testimony regarding six basic questions raised at hearing: R. B. D. B. A. S. K. M. When did act occur? In the morning, right before, and continuing after, the bell rang. In the middle of class. It was at the end of class, when the bell rings. Class was over. Before lunch; the bell rang at 11:50 a.m., so between 11 a.m. and 11:30 a.m., but witness is unsure. Before the bell rang. Between 11 a.m. and 11:15 a.m. Before 12:15 p.m. K. M. came after the class was over. Where did At R. B.'s desk, in the At the front of At the At a desk. act occur? front of the class. the room. teacher's desk in the back. (A. S. had to turn around to see.) Where was Delgado? Before the bell rang, at his desk, in the back of the room. After the bell, he was in hallway. At the board, on one side of the classroom, facing away from the students. At the board. Behind the computer. What was Delgado doing? Before the bell, looking at "perfume" on the computer; he didn't see the act. After the bell, Delgado was in the hallway, watching students. Writing on the board with a marker; he didn't know that students were having sex. Not looking at the computer. Writing a science problem (or something) on the board. He didn't see what was happening. Busy looking at the computer. He didn't see any sexual activities. R. B. D. B. A. S. K. M. What did other students do? No one said anything. Students were standing up to shield R. B. and D. B., so Delgado couldn't see the act. Students were not standing up to block Delgado's view. They were playing cards or something. Were other Yes, K. W. & S. J. Yes. T. H. did Doesn't Didn't see that. students Their pants were down something remember; having sex at their ankles. They (unclear). didn't see too? stood by the wall, Also, K. W. that. having regular sex. "jacked" S. J. Students told hem to while they were stop. Delgado couldn’t sitting down at see the couple, but one of the heard the students and teacher's desks. told S. to get off K. No one said They ignored Delgado and continued. anything. Although many discrepancies are obvious, focus on the question of Delgado's whereabouts. Two students placed Delgado behind his computer at the relevant moment. Two others recalled that he was writing on the board. The School Board insists that Delgado was engrossed in his computer; it became invested in this theory during the investigative phase when an examination of the cookies on the hard drive of Delgado's classroom computer turned up electronic evidence that the Yahoo website might have been opened at 11:37 a.m.2 If Delgado were at the computer, however, then both D. B. and A. S. gave unreliable testimony on this significant point.3 Conversely, if D. B. and A. S. were believed, then the reliability of the accounts of R. B. and K. M. would be brought into question. The inconsistencies ultimately undermine the credibility of each of the student witnesses. Apart from the testimonial inconsistencies, none of the students, considered individually, impressed the undersigned as being a trustworthy witness. R. B.'s testimony was vague and childlike, offering little on which the fact-finder could get any traction. Her story, in a nutshell, is that D. B. and some other students goaded her into performing oral sex on D. B., to which she reluctantly consented in the vain hope that compliance would put an end to persistent prodding. R. B. also testified that while she was sucking on D. B.'s penis, two other students (S. J. and K. W., a male and female) were standing by the wall, their pants down at their ankles, having regular sex. This latter is beyond belief and suggests to the undersigned that R. B. has difficulty distinguishing fantasy from fact. That being the case, the undersigned considers her testimony unreliable and has discounted it accordingly. D. B.'s version of the alleged event differs from R. B.'s in one immediately apparent respect: as D. B. tells it, he was practically the victim, R. B. the aggressor who pulled down his pants and commenced sucking on his penis against his wishes. This is unlikely——almost absurd, the undersigned thinks——but D. B.'s testimony in this regard is notable insofar as it exposes a desire (also evident, incidentally, in R. B.'s testimony) to shift the blame——for whatever happened——to someone else. Like R. B., D. B. testified that other students also engaged in sexual activity that morning in Delgado's classroom. In particular, D. B. asserted that K. W. had "jacked" S. J. (i.e. masturbated his penis) while the couple had been sitting down at one of the teacher's desks. The undersigned believes that D. B.'s testimony about K. W. and S. J. is most likely a fabrication.4 Having given testimony that is probably untrue, D. B.'s credibility is suspect and his testimony as a whole must be discounted. A. S. testified that on the morning in question, he turned around and saw R. B. and D. B. at the teacher's desk in the back of room, R. B.'s mouth on D. B.'s penis. Apparently witnessing two classmates openly engaging in a sexual act was not a remarkable event for A. S., for he claims to have looked away and said nothing to the teacher (who was, according to A. S., writing a problem on the board at the time). The undersigned considers this to be implausible. He can scarcely believe that a student in A. S.'s supposed position would react in the blasé manner that A. S. described. The testimony as a whole is not credible. K. M.'s testimony is full of improbabilities. To begin, the undersigned is skeptical that K. M. just happened to be running an errand for his teacher in the middle of fourth period, allowing him to detour to Delgado's classroom to check up on R. B.——whom, he said, he treated "like a sister"——at the very moment she was performing fellatio on D. B. This is too contrived to be believable. Second, the undersigned does not believe that K. M. could have entered Delgado's classroom—— which, it is undisputed, was locked while class was in session—— without Delgado knowing about it, which is what K. M. claims occurred. Third, the undersigned rejects as incredible K. M.'s testimony that he stood watching R. B. suck on D. B.'s penis for a considerable period of time (several minutes), unobserved by Delgado, without saying anything to the teacher. Fourth, the undersigned disbelieves K. M.'s testimony that he slipped out of the secure classroom unnoticed by Delgado. Finally, K. M. testified at hearing with some certainty that he had reported the incident the next day, after carefully considering whether to do so. Yet, the contemporaneous written record reflects that he reported the matter within hours after its alleged occurrence. Standing alone, this latter would be a relatively minor discrepancy. But viewed in the light of other facially improbable details, this discrepancy is more troubling. All things considered, the undersigned harbors genuine doubt regarding K. M.'s reliability as a witness. The School Board offered the unsworn written statements of eight students, including the four who testified at hearing. These are hearsay and hence can be used, if at all, only to supplement or explain other admissible evidence.5 To give a flavor of the nature and quality of the evidence presented in support of the charges against Delgado, the undersigned will reproduce the statements of the non-testifying students below.6 S. J.7 gave a statement dated December 8, 2004, wherein he recounted:8 it happen when [R. B.] was siting between [D. B.] legs and when I went to get my paper from the printer and I turn around I seen [R. B.] sucking [D. B.] penis I was not the only one seen them [K. M.] seen them also this happen 2 minutes before the bell rang that how the other person which is [K. M.] seen them when he walk into the room and seen them thats how everything started. I was not involved with them. J. signed another statement, dated December 14, 2004, in which he wrote: When the problem happen the teacher was right in front of them but he told her to stop but she wouldnt. He told her plenty of times to go down stairs to see Ms. Thomas but she wouldnt. but when they were doing it in the corner in he see them crowed around he gets up to see what's going on thats the only time he gets up to see. the problem doesn't occur now scense she not in the class anymore. K. W.'s9 December 7, 2004, statement provides as follows: when she came in she started to play with [nickname deleted] and he said to leave him and still cap playing with and he got up side on the other side of the classroom and teacher her to stop she cap on playing with him and I when to sleep after that I does not know that they had sex or not. T. H. gave two written statements. The first, dated December 7, 2004, states: I was seating down on the char in I sha [D. B.] in [R. B.] [R. B.] was sukin [D. B.] penis two times. H.'s second statement is dated December 10, 2004. Therein he wrote: Mr. Dilgado trys to stop hus from having six bet we keep on going in he call ower house bet we cap on going. N. H. provided two statements, neither of which is dated. In one he wrote: [D. B.] in [R. B.] was having sex in the classroom. I was go to the computer lab. In the other, N. H. added: I feel I Mr. Delgado did not see [R. B.] in [D. B.] have sex in the class. These written statements do not explain or supplement the admissible evidence; to the contrary, if accepted they would create additional inconsistencies. Thus, the undersigned has not based any findings of fact on their contents. The undersigned has taken note, however, that out of 15-17 students in Delgado's fourth-period class, fewer than half (seven, to be exact) testified at hearing and/or signed a written statement about the alleged incident that was produced at hearing. This causes the undersigned to wonder what, if anything, the other 8- 10 students in the class witnessed on December 6, 2004. Given the paucity of persuasive evidence, the undersigned is better able to find what was not proved to have happened, than to find what likely happened in Delgado's classroom on December 6, 2004, if anything out of the ordinary. To repeat the key finding above, the School Board failed to prove that R. B. and D. B. engaged in oral sex in Delgado's classroom while he was present. While these students probably did not engage in oral sex, the undersigned believes that there is a slightly better than even chance, and thus he finds, that D. B. briefly exposed his penis in Delgado's classroom after the bell had rung and class had been dismissed, when Delgado was outside of the room monitoring the hallway, which is what he was supposed to be doing at the time.10 The undersigned thinks, based on the evidence presented, that it is reasonably possible (the probability being between, roughly, 25 percent and 35 percent) that R. B. might have placed her mouth on D. B.'s penis, but he cannot make this finding because he is not persuaded that this likely occurred. What is likely, and what the undersigned finds, is that D. B.'s exhibition was a type of taunting, teasing, or sexually harassing behavior directed at R. B. It is found that K. M. likely did enter Delgado's classroom, not during the class period as K. M. claimed, but after fourth period had ended, when Delgado was properly in the hallway and the door to his room was unlocked. It is found that, more likely than not, K. M. then learned about D. B.'s harassment of R. B. It is possible that the incident was already being exaggerated in discussions about what had happened. At any rate, by the time K. M. reported the incident, the facts had become distorted. There is no persuasive evidence that Delgado saw or knew about, or reasonably should have seen or known about, D. B.'s misbehavior, which occurred while Delgado was properly monitoring the hallway between classes. There is no persuasive evidence that Delgado reasonably should have foreseen D. B.'s misconduct or that he reasonably could have stopped or prevented it.11 There is no persuasive evidence that Delgado was in any way the cause of, or responsible for, D. B.'s bad behavior. In sum, the undersigned determines as a matter of ultimate fact that, to the extent anything unusual occurred on December 6, 2004, in Delgado's classroom, it was student misbehavior that took place outside the teacher's presence and beyond the reach of his senses. Delgado neither knew nor should have known that anything untoward was occurring. The student or students who engaged in the misbehavior should have been punished, not the teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Delgado of all charges brought against him in this proceeding; (b) providing that Delgado be immediately reinstated to the position from which he was suspended without pay; and (c) awarding Delgado back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 2006.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent from his employment contract.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is duly constituted and charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control and supervise the public schools within Manatee County, Florida. Art. IX, Fla. Const.; ch. 1012, Fla. Stat. The School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22 (1)(f), Fla. Stat. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the School District. Mr. Gagnon has been in the education field for approximately 23 years, and has been with the School District since 2002. Mr. Gagnon served as an assistant principal at Lakewood Ranch High School and as principal at Palmetto High School, both of which are in Manatee County. Mr. Gagnon was the principal at MHS beginning with the 2007-2008 school year. Mr. Gagnon served as the MHS principal until he transitioned to the position of assistant superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction for the School District in January 2012. Mr. Gagnon served as the interim superintendent for approximately one month in September/October 2012 and then returned to the assistant superintendent position when another person was appointed interim superintendent. In 2005 the School District posted a position for a specialist in the OPS to investigate alleged School District employee misconduct. The then superintendent wanted to establish a standardized method of investigating employee misconduct. Ms. Horne interviewed for the position, and was appointed as the first OPS specialist. As there were no School District policies or rules in place when she started, Ms. Horne assisted in writing the School District’s OPS policies. Sections 39.201 and 39.202, Florida Statutes, are incorporated into the School District’s policies and procedures as Policy 5.2(1), Policies and Procedures Manual, School Board of Manatee County (2013), which provides: Mandatory Duty to Report Suspected Child Abuse. All employees or agents of the district school board who have reasonable cause to suspect abuse have an affirmative duty to report it. Employees or agents so reporting have immunity from liability if they report such cases in good faith. This includes suspected child abuse of a student by an employee. Ms. Horne provided the training on this policy and other policies to School District employees. As the OPS investigator, Ms. Horne was to “investigate alleged employee misconduct and other matters as assigned” to her by her supervisor. Ms. Horne never had the authority to determine whether or not someone had engaged in misconduct or to make any recommendations as to what may or may not have happened. Her role was to simply gather the information, prepare a report of her findings, and provide that report to her supervisor. In November 2012, Mr. Martin was the School District’s assistant superintendent for District Support, and Ms. Horne’s direct supervisor. During her eight-year tenure as the OPS specialist, Ms. Horne investigated over 800 cases of employee misconduct. The School District uses a progressive discipline model for its employees. Should an employee exhibit behaviors that could be considered inappropriate or misconduct, the School District has a step-by-step method of taking disciplinary action, from simply talking with the employee up to termination of employment. If it is an egregious action, such as sexual conduct with a student, immediate termination is an option. The discipline begins on-site by the site-based managers where the incident occurs. Those site-based managers could have that simple conversation, and if need be, it could progress to a verbal directive, a memorandum of conference, and/or a written reprimand. Site-based managers include principals, assistant principals, directors, and assistant directors.3/ In those instances where the disciplinary action could lead to days without pay or termination, actions that could only be taken by the School Board, OPS would open an investigation. During the first two weeks of November 2012, Mr. Rinder was approached by several MHS teachers regarding concerns for their students. When Mr. Rinder spoke with Mr. Sauer, MHS’s principal, about those concerns, Mr. Sauer asked Mr. Rinder to type up the list (Rinder’s List) and give it to Mr. Sauer. Mr. Sauer, in turn, forwarded Rinder’s List to the OPS. Rinder’s List: [1.] One staff member reported a phone call to a female student during class. The student was upset by the call and told the staff member that Mr. Frazier had asked her if “she had gotten her period and did she need him to go to the drug store for her.” [2.] One staff member reported that Mr. Frazier repeatedly called for a female student during class. When asked if it was important, Mr. Frazier said “yes”. [sic] When the staff member asked the student what the problem was, the answer was “My mom wanted to take me to lunch and he helped me do it”. [sic] [3.] Male student was failing a core class. He told the teacher that “Frazier told me that he will change the grade”. [sic] [4.] A female student was observed getting into Mr. Frazier’s vehicle after school hours and was transported. [5.] Female student told a staff member that she overheard students talking about several meetings in the park late at night with Mr. Frazier. She stated that Mr. Frazier placed and [sic] empty water bottle between her legs as she was walking down the sidewalk. [6.] Female student was observed sitting on Mr. Frazier’s lap eating cake off his fork. [7.] Female student reported to a staff member that Mr. Frazier made a comment to a student in the hall that he had put her on skype [sic] and she took a picture and has it saved on her cell phone. She is scared that he will retaliate if she tells. [8.] Female student told a staff member that Mr. Frazier had made comments to her at the Tiki Bar that she was old enough to be there and they could talk. When she refused to talk with him, she started having issues with Mr. Frazier at school. She transferred to LIFE program to get out. [9.] Female student was reported to a staff member by several students who stated that she was having a relationship with Mr. Frazier. She transferred schools. This conversation was overheard by two teachers in the hall. [10.] The Math Department this week was discussing Mr. Fraziers [sic] questionable activities. Upon receipt of Rinder’s List, Ms. Horne was directed to open an investigation into the allegations contained therein. The subject of the investigation was an MHS parent liaison4/ and assistant football coach named Roderick Frazier. In a very general sense, the allegations involved misconduct by a teacher. Rinder’s List initiated the Frazier investigation. However, Rinder’s List contains blatant hearsay which cannot form the basis for a finding of fact without corroboration. There was no testimony provided by any students mentioned in items 2, 3, 5 (first sentence), 7, 8, or 9 above; hence, it is impossible to verify what occurred. Item 10 merely indicates that an entire department at MHS discussed “questionable activities” by an individual, but it provides no specific activities. There was no credible, non-hearsay evidence in this record to substantiate any of these allegations (items 2, 3, 5 (first sentence), 7, 8, 9 or 10). On November 14, 2012, an email with an attached letter from then-Superintendent David Gayler, was sent to Mr. Sauer around 8:40 p.m., advising him that Mr. Frazier was to be placed on paid administrative leave (PAL) on Thursday, November 15. Mr. Sauer notified Mr. Frazier appropriately. The School Board’s policy regarding placing an employee on PAL is dependent upon whether there is a potential for harm to any student and/or the employee could incur a suspension or termination from employment. Due to an on-going investigation at a different school, Ms. Horne did not arrive at MHS to begin the investigation until the afternoon of Thursday, November 15. Ms. Horne first interviewed Mr. Rinder, as Rinder’s List did not contain any names of teachers or students who were allegedly involved. Upon obtaining the names of the teachers who had expressed concerns, Ms. Horne interviewed most of the teachers on November 15. By the time Ms. Horne completed her teacher interviews, the students had been dismissed from school and were no longer available. At some time, Mr. Rinder observed a female student getting into Mr. Frazier’s car after school (Rinder’s List, Item 4). Mr. Rinder was not alarmed by this sight, but merely thought it was Mr. Fazier’s son’s girlfriend getting a ride. There was no testimony that Mr. Rinder ever brought this information to Mr. Gagnon’s attention. Ms. Aragon brought two concerns about Mr. Frazier to Respondent’s attention: 1) she thought that girls were sitting too close to Mr. Frazier in golf carts at MHS; and 2) Mr. Frazier had called her classroom telephone to talk with a female student. Neither Ms. Aragon nor Mr. Gagnon were absolutely certain as to when these concerns were brought to Mr. Gagnon’s attention: Ms. Aragon thought they were brought to his attention during one conversation, and Mr. Gagnon thought there were two separate conversations approximately a year apart, based on the actions that he took to address them. Mr. Gagnon’s testimony is more credible. Upon being told of the golf cart issue, Respondent immediately went to the MHS courtyard and observed Mr. Frazier with a female student sitting in his golf cart. At the same time, Respondent observed two other assistant principals with students of the opposite sex sitting in their golf carts. Respondent addressed Mr. Frazier first, and then issued a directive to his discipline staff that no one was to allow a student to just sit in a golf cart. Respondent directed that if there was a legitimate reason to transport a student, that was fine, but students were no longer to just sit in the golf cart. With respect to the telephone incident (Rinder’s List Item 1), Mr. Frazier called Ms. Aragon’s classroom and bullied his way to speak with the female student. After the student hung up the phone with Mr. Frazier, she appeared to be upset. Ms. Aragon immediately questioned the student, and Ms. Aragon understood that Mr. Frazier had inquired about the student’s menstrual cycle. Ms. Aragon thought it was “inappropriate” for Mr. Frazier to be speaking with a female student about her menstrual cycle, but Ms. Aragon testified that she did not know if the conversation impacted the student’s day. Ms. Aragon was not privy to the actual conversation between the student and Mr. Frazier, and the student with whom the conversation was held did not testify. The actual telephone conversation is hearsay. Ms. Aragon sought guidance from the teacher’s union president as to what to do. When Ms. Aragon spoke with Mr. Gagnon about Mr. Frazier’s telephone call, Mr. Gagnon immediately turned the issue over to an assistant principal for investigation. Based on the report from the assistant principal, Mr. Gagnon was not concerned that anything inappropriate or sexual was happening.5/ At some point in time, Ms. Coates overheard two female students comment about Mr. Frazier. Although Ms. Coates asked the students to tell her directly the basis for their comment, the students declined. (Neither student testified at hearing.) Shortly thereafter, Ms. Coates told Respondent the students’ comment. Ms. Coates heard Mr. Gagnon respond that something was going around on Facebook. Mr. Gagnon did not remember Ms. Coates telling him of the students’ comment. However, Mr. Gagnon routinely reviewed the disciplinary records for the three parent liaisons and was satisfied that Mr. Frazier was not showing favoritism in his discipline to one group of students over another. It is not uncommon for students to perceive that a teacher is showing favoritism towards a student or group of students. At the conclusion of the teacher interviews on November 15, Ms. Horne understood that the allegations had occurred a year or two before they were reported in Rinder’s List. This thought process was reinforced when Ms. Horne met with some of the MHS administrators in Mr. Sauer’s office where they had a telephone conference with Mr. Martin. Following the telephone conference, Ms. Horne returned to the School District’s main office and again conferred with Mr. Martin for directions. On November 15 or 16, 2012, Ms. Horne had a brief conversation with Mr. Gagnon at the School Board building. Mr. Gagnon asked about the Frazier investigation. Ms. Horne responded that the only issues she was hearing had previously been addressed, and that Ms. Horne would be returning for other interviews. Additionally, Mr. Martin had a brief conversation with Mr. Gagnon about the Rinder List allegations. Mr. Gagnon maintained that the allegations were old and had been dealt with appropriately. Ms. Horne shared with Mr. Martin that the Rinder List allegations were old and had been dealt with previously. Based on this information, Mr. Martin, in his sole discretion, determined to remove Mr. Frazier from PAL on November 16, 2012, and return him to work. Ms. Horne was surprised by this, as her investigation was incomplete. Ms. Horne interviewed Mr. Frazier as well as one other teacher, on November 16, 2012. Although Ms. Horne had the name of an alleged victim, Mr. Martin directed her not to interview that student at that time. In January 2013, a former MHS female student, D.K., wrote a letter to MHS alleging that Mr. Frazier did various inappropriate acts towards her while she was a student at MHS during the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. In her letter, D.K. stated that she became close to Mr. Frazier during her two years at MHS. D.K. met Mr. Frazier at a park near her home, but during her second year at MHS (2011-2012), Mr. Frazier “started being weird with [her] and saying inappropriate things to” her. D.K. admitted that she frequently rode in Mr. Frazier’s golf cart around the school, and that Mr. Frazier put a water bottle (Rinder’s List Item 5, second sentence) in between her legs (between her knees and crotch) as they were sitting in the bleachers at the softball field and while sitting in a golf cart. D.K. came forward with the letter because she had heard of the Frazier investigation and that it was being closed. Several days after D.K.’s letter was received in OPS, Ms. Horne interviewed D.K., who was accompanied by her mother. Ms. Horne was unable to confirm D.K.’s credibility completely because Ms. Horne left OPS prior to the conclusion of the Frazier investigation. The most disturbing part of D.K.’s testimony came when D.K. admitted, and Ms. Peebles confirmed, that during the 2010- 2011 school year, Ms. Peebles walked into Mr. Frazier’s office unannounced and observed D.K. sitting on Mr. Frazier’s lap holding a piece of cake (Rinder’s List Item 6). Ms. Peebles immediately instructed D.K. to get off Mr. Frazier’s lap and to sit in a chair on the other side of his desk. Mr. Frazier appeared to be unfazed by Ms. Peebles entering his office unannounced and witnessing this scene. Mr. Frazier proceeded to handle the disciplinary matter that Ms. Peebles had brought to him. Ms. Peebles reported the observation to an assistant principal, Matthew Kane, but not to Respondent. Ms. Peebles did not believe there was abuse on-going, but thought it was “not appropriate” for Mr. Frazier to have a student sitting on his lap. D.K. testified that “after he [Mr. Frazier] got in trouble he started getting me [D.K.] in trouble for things that I had been getting away with the whole time I was there [at MHS].” D.K. did not provide a time-frame or what “trouble” Mr. Frazier had gotten her into while D.K. was at MHS, and no evidence was provided otherwise. Further, D.K. never told Mr. Gagnon of any issues involving Mr. Frazier. D.K. was enrolled at a different local high school when Mr. Frazier was placed on PAL. Ms. Peebles relayed another issue regarding Mr. Frazier; however, it involved hearsay and was not corroborated by the student who initially reported the issue to Ms. Peebles. The absence of direct, non-hearsay testimony precludes a finding of fact as to that issue. In late January 2013, Ms. Horne transferred to an assistant principal position at a school district elementary school. Both Ms. Horne and Mr. Martin confirmed that the Frazier investigation had not been completed when Ms. Horne left OPS. Ms. Horne had not submitted a written report to her supervisor which would have signaled the completion of the Frazier investigation. The specialist position in OPS remained vacant until July 2013 when Mr. Pumphrey assumed the position. Mr. Pumphrey confirmed that there “had been an ongoing investigation both at the School District level and law enforcement surrounding Rod Frazier.” In an effort to gain speed in his investigation, Mr. Pumphrey reviewed the Frazier investigation file and became aware that the School District “had stalled their investigation pending the outcome of the criminal investigation.” Mr. Pumphrey reviewed Mr. Frazier’s personnel file and determined there was “no documentation of any discipline to Mr. Frazier.” Additionally, Mr. Pumphrey pulled all the published information including media accounts and police reports, and reviewed them. As Mr. Martin had been instrumental in hiring Mr. Pumphrey, the two spoke several times “because this thing [the Frazier investigation] was all over the place.” Several days after re-starting the Frazier investigation, Mr. Pumphrey expressed to the superintendent his concern about the close proximity of Mr. Pumphrey’s office to that of Mr. Gagnon and requested that Mr. Gagnon6/ be placed on PAL. The superintendent did so. During the course of the Frazier investigation, Mr. Pumphrey considered that Mr. Gagnon’s actions or inactions during the course of the Frazier investigation constituted “administrative negligence and/or intentional misconduct.” Mr. Pumphrey broadened the Frazier investigation to determine whether district administrators “had prior knowledge of complaints by female students and faculty regarding inappropriate conduct involving Frazier and, if so, why the complaints were not timely addressed.” There is no credible, non-hearsay evidence in the record to substantiate that Mr. Gagnon failed to investigate or report inappropriate conduct by a faculty member. When apprised of questionable or suspect conduct, Mr. Gagnon took the steps necessary to inquire. The absence of direct, non-hearsay testimony precludes a finding that Mr. Gagnon acted in the fashion alleged in the administrative complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Manatee County School Board, enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 30th day of June, 2014.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant thereto, Respondent, Jesse M. Black, was employed in an instructional capacity teaching mathematics at Nautilus Junior High School in Miami Beach, Florida, by Petitioner, the School Board of Dade County. He has been employed at that school since 1976. On or about March 28, 1979, Black was teaching a mathematics class in which one Bobby Jackson, aged 12 years, was a student. After the "tardy" bell had rung, Jackson entered the classroom. Instead of being seated Jackson went directly to the rear of the room and began "yelling" and "playing" with other students. After being told by Black to be seated all other students except Jackson sat down; however, Jackson continued to remain in the rear of the room to borrow a sheet of paper. He then started towards his desk which was at the front of the room and directly in front of Respondent's desk. By this time, Black was approximately 10 minutes late in beginning classroom instruction. In order to prevent any more disruption in the classroom, Black told Jackson to leave the room and reached over and placed his hands on Jackson to escort him to the hall where an assistant principal would take him to the principal's office. When Black placed his hands on the student, Jackson slipped and fell over his desk; however, Black did not use unreasonable force in dealing with the student. Jackson was later suspended from Nautilus for fighting and other disciplinary problems and new attends an Opportunity School in Dade County. On or about November 13, 1980, Black went to his classroom at approximately 6:45 a.m. to prepare an examination to be given that day to his students. At approximately 7:45 a.m. one Nicholas Catania, aged 13 years, entered the classroom. Because class did not begin until 8:30 a.m., Black advised him that he could remain in the classroom to study but otherwise would have to leave. After Catania had placed another student's books on top of a light fixture, Black tapped him on the shoulder and told him to leave the classroom. When class convened at 8:30 a.m. that morning and the Pledge of Allegiance was being conducted, Catania gave a Nazis Salute which prompted laughter in the classroom. After the Pledge of Allegiance was over Black went to Catania, grabbed him on the shoulder, and told him that what the Nazis did was not to be glorified. In the presence of four students, Black then pulled a closed pocketknife out of his pocket, placed it behind Catania's leg, and then replaced it in his pocket. When he did this, he was smiling and did not make the student feel threatened or in danger of physical harm. At no time was the blade on the knife ever opened or exposed. Black has been a public school teacher since September, 1957. His speciality is mathematics and he holds two degrees. His immediate supervisor characterized him as being a dedicated and well-prepared teacher. He was also described by another teacher as having an extensive educational preparation and one who possessed the skills to be a good teacher. Black has had an undisclosed number of problems with discipline in his classroom. He has also been counseled by his principal on several occasions at Nautilus concerning his management skills. However, there was no evidence to show that his effectiveness as a teacher had been impaired by virtue of the incidents herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found not guilty of the allegations in the Notice of Charges dated March 7, 1981, and that he be immediately reinstated be his teaching position with full back pay. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Esquire 3650 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33137 William Du Fresne, Esquire 1782 One Biscayne Tower 2 South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33131
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a high-school assistant principal made inappropriate remarks to two female students on campus during school hours, and then later harassed one of them, thereby entitling the district school board to suspend the administrator for 30 workdays without pay.
Findings Of Fact The Miami-Dade County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Miami-Dade County Public School System. As of the final hearing, Respondent Anthony C. Brooks ("Brooks") had been employed as either a teacher or administrator in the Miami-Dade County Public School System for approximately 23 years. At all times relevant to this case, Brooks was an assistant principal at Miami Jackson Senior High School, where his primary responsibility was discipline. The operative contract of employment between Brooks and the School Board required Brooks to "observe and enforce faithfully the state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and School Board Rules insofar as such laws, rules, regulations, and policies are applicable to the position of employment." Pursuant to the contract, Brooks agreed "to become familiar and comply with state and federal laws, rules, regulations and policies of the School Board and of the Department of Education for which [he] w[ould] be held accountable and subject to[.]" The agreement entitled the School Board to suspend or dismiss Brooks for just cause including "the failure to fulfill the obligations under this Contract." The Alleged Inappropriate Remarks The School Board alleges that on February 12, 2004, Brooks told M. D., a female student, that she should consider becoming a model, and that he would take pictures of her at the beach. The School Board alleges further that, the same day, Brooks separately encouraged another female student, F. J., to think about modeling. The evidence presented at hearing failed persuasively to substantiate these charges. The findings that follow in this section, based on evidence that is in substantial conflict, depict the likeliest scenario derivable from the instant record,1 though the undersigned's confidence in the accuracy of some aspects of this historical narrative is relatively limited.2 On the morning of February 12, 2004, a security monitor called Brooks to a classroom where some students were creating a disturbance. Upon his arrival, the teacher pointed out to Brooks the four students who had been causing problems. Brooks asked them to step outside. One of the four was M. D. Brooks told the students, in effect, to straighten up. In the course of lecturing the students, Brooks said to M. D., "You could be a model or something like that." Brooks was not attempting to proposition M. D. His remark was intended to boost her self-esteem and encourage M. D. to set higher standards of personal behavior for herself. Later that day, Brooks ran into M. D. outside the cafeteria. M. D. was talking to a security monitor, and Brooks overheard her say, "Mr. Brooks said I could be a model." The security monitor loudly and rudely scoffed at that idea. Thereafter, Brooks took M. D. aside, to the doorway of the SCSI (indoor suspension) room, and warned her not to discuss her personal business with everyone. Sometime later (perhaps the same day), Brooks was walking in the cafeteria, and F. J., a friend of M. D.'s, stepped on his foot. F. J. continued on her way without pausing and sat down at a table outside the SCSI room. Brooks walked over to her and invited an apology. F. J. declined. Brooks informed her that he would "model" good manners for her and proceeded to deliver an apology. Then, he left. Soon M. D. and F. J. reported to their cheerleading coach that Brooks had expressed interest in taking them to the beach for a photo shoot. The coach passed this allegation along to the administration, which in turn called the school police and the State Attorney's Office. The prosecutor declined to press criminal charges against Brooks; the Office of Professional Standards ("OPS") requested a personnel investigation. Detective Pedro Valdes conducted the investigation. He interviewed M. D., F. J., Brooks, and Trust Counselor Patricia Manson (who disclaimed personal knowledge of the events in dispute). The detective evidently did not believe (or at least gave little weight to) Brooks's denial of wrongdoing, for he determined that the students' statements were sufficiently credible to support the conclusion that Brooks had violated a School Board rule prohibiting improper employee/student relationships. The detective's report announcing that this charge had been "substantiated" was released in July 2004. Having effectively been found guilty by the detective, Brooks was summoned to a conference-for-record ("CFR"), which was held on August 11, 2004. There, Brooks was given an opportunity to deny the charge (but not to confront M. D. and J., whose statements comprised the "evidence" against him). He failed to persuade the administrators that the detective had reached the wrong conclusion. The administrators issued several directives to Brooks, including the following: Refrain from contacting anyone involved in this investigation at any time. Refrain from inappropriate contact and/or comments with students. The Alleged Harassment On August 25, 2004, F. J. came to school dressed inappropriately, in a short skirt and tank top. At the beginning of second or third period, a security monitor named Frantzy Pojo noticed that F. J. was in violation of the dress code and attempted to remove her from class. The teacher refused to let F. J. leave with the security monitor. Faced with the teacher's obstructiveness, Mr. Pojo called Brooks, the assistant principal in charge of discipline whose portfolio included dress code enforcement. Mr. Brooks came to the classroom and spoke with the teacher. He asked that the teacher instruct F. J. to put on a jacket to cover up. The teacher——and F. J.——complied. The very next day, Mr. Pojo spotted F. J. and saw that she was, once again, not dressed appropriately. Mr. Pojo called Brooks to handle the situation. Brooks found F. J. in the library and agreed that she was in violation of the dress code. He observed that two or three other girls were also dressed inappropriately. Mr. Pojo and Brooks escorted these girls to the SCSI room and left them there. Brooks instructed the teacher-in-charge not to suspend the students but rather to let them call their parents and request that appropriate clothes be brought to school. F. J. called her mother and complained that Brooks was harassing her. F. J.'s mother became angry and arranged to meet with the principal, Deborah Love, that afternoon. When F. J., her mother, and Ms. Love met as scheduled, F. J. accused Brooks of having followed her to classes and singled her out unfairly for discipline in connection with the dress code violations. At Ms. Love's request, F. J. submitted written statements concerning the events of August 25 and August 26, 2004.3 Ms. Love believed F. J. and apparently had heard enough. Without investigating F. J.'s allegations or even asking Brooks to respond to them, Ms. Love prepared a memorandum, dated August 27, 2004, in which she charged Brooks with insubordination. Specifically, Ms. Love alleged that Brooks had violated the directive, given at the recent CFR, to refrain from contacting anyone involved in the investigation stemming from the allegation that Brooks had made inappropriate remarks to M. D. and F. J. On or about August 27, 2004, Ms. Love ordered Brooks not to return to campus but instead to report to an alternate worksite pending further action on the charges against him. At its regular meeting on December 15, 2004, the School Board voted to accept the recommendation of OPS that Brooks be suspended without pay for 30 workdays. Ultimate Factual Determinations Brooks's conduct was not shown to have been outside the bounds of accepted standards of right and wrong. He is therefore not guilty of immorality, as that offense is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(2). Brooks did not fail to make a reasonable protective effort to guard either M. D. or F. J. against a harmful condition; had he neglected such duty, Brooks could have been disciplined for misconduct in office. Brooks did not intentionally expose either M. D. or F. J. to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; had he done so, Brooks could have been disciplined for misconduct in office. Brooks did not harass or discriminate against M. D. or F. J. on the basis of any improper consideration, such as race, color, or religion; had he done so, Brooks could have been disciplined for misconduct in office. Brooks did not exploit a relationship with either M. D. or F. J. for personal gain or advantage; had he done so, Brooks could have been disciplined for misconduct in office. Brooks did not constantly or continually refuse intentionally to obey a direct and reasonable order, which willful defiance, had he shown it, would have constituted "gross insubordination" under Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B- 4.009(4). Brooks did not violate School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A- 1.21, which prohibits unseemly conduct and abusive or profane language. Brooks did not violate School Board Rule 6Gx13-4-1.09, which prohibits unacceptable relationships and/or communications with students. Accordingly, it is determined that Brooks is not guilty of the charges that the School Board has brought against him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order (a) rescinding its previous decision to suspend Brooks without pay and (b) awarding Brooks back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during the suspension period of 30 workdays, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 2005.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend without pay and terminate Respondent’s employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within St. Lucie County, Florida. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a music teacher at Manatee Academy K-8 School (“Manatee”), pursuant to a Professional Services Contract, issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Respondent’s employment with the School Board as a teacher began in 2006. At all times material hereto, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law and the School Board’s policies. Prior to the incidents giving rise to this proceeding, Respondent was not the subject of any discipline. She had received overall ratings of “Exceptional” or “Above Expectation” on her teaching evaluation forms. The incidents giving rise to this proceeding occurred on October 18 and 19, 2012, during the 2012-2013 school year. October 18 and 19 Respondent awoke around 6:00 a.m. on Thursday, October 18, 2012, and reported to work at Manatee. That afternoon, Respondent finished her work day at Manatee and left the school sometime after 3:15 p.m. After running some errands, Respondent arrived at her single-family residential home in Fort Pierce, sometime after 5:00 p.m. Respondent shared the home with her long-time boyfriend and fiancé, Dominic Madison (“Madison”). Madison was also a teacher employed by the School Board. At that time, Madison was a band director at a local high school. By the time Respondent got home, Madison had not yet returned home from his work day at the high school. Shortly after arriving home, Respondent sat down at her personal laptop computer to check e-mails and do some work. The computer was connected to the home’s wi-fi network. While working on the computer, Respondent discovered an unfamiliar icon and link to a file on the home network. The icon peaked Respondent’s interest. Upon clicking on the icon, a video opened with Madison’s face. Respondent then observed Madison and a white female engaged in sexual activity in a room inside their home.1/ While Respondent was unsure, it appeared that the female might be a former student of Madison’s who might also be a minor. As she continued watching the video, Respondent recognized the female as one of Madison’s 17-year-old students, K.M. After watching the video, Respondent was devastated, upset, angry, and unable to process what she saw. She called Madison at 6:36 p.m., to confront him about the video and confirm her suspicions that he, in fact, engaged in sexual activity with a minor student. They spoke for approximately 36 minutes. During the call, they argued, and Madison neither admitted nor denied engaging in sexual activity with K.M. By this point, Respondent was in tears and so upset and completely devastated that she experienced chest pains. After getting off the phone with Madison and while still at home, Respondent called her pastor, Theodore Sanders, for guidance. They spoke around 7:13 p.m., for approximately 14 minutes. Pastor Sanders knew Madison because his children had been members of the band at Madison’s high school. Pastor Sanders was shocked by Respondent’s allegation that Madison had engaged in sexual activity with a minor student. Due to the ramifications of such a “huge allegation,” Pastor Sanders was cautious and wanted to make sure that Respondent was certain about what she saw on the video. It is understandable that Respondent needed some period of time in which to process the situation, given that Madison was her fiancé; they had a long relationship together; and she observed Madison on her personal computer engaging in sexual activity with a minor student in their home. Sometime after 7:30 p.m., Respondent left the home. At 7:26 p.m., Respondent and Madison spoke again on the phone for approximately 38 minutes. Respondent and Pastor Sanders spoke again on the phone at 8:03 p.m. and 8:45 p.m., with such calls lasting one minute and 10 minutes, respectively. In the interim, Respondent spoke again on the phone with Madison for 43 minutes starting at 8:03 p.m. As a teacher, Respondent is a mandatory reporter of child abuse under sections 39.201(2)(a) and 1006.061(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent clearly understood that she had a mandatory obligation to report the sexual activity she saw on the video between Madison and K.M.2/ Respondent and Pastor Sanders discussed the need to report what Respondent saw. There was never any doubt that the abuse needed to be reported. Because of Respondent’s distraught emotional state at the time, they agreed that Pastor Sanders would make the call. Pastor Sanders told Respondent to get off the road and go home. Pastor Sanders then called “911” at some point after they got off the phone at 8:55 p.m., to report the abuse. At the hearing, Respondent acknowledged that there was almost a four-hour gap from when she first saw the video until the time that Pastor Sanders stated he was going to report the abuse. Respondent further acknowledged that prior to 8:55 p.m., she had never made a phone call to report the abuse to 911, DCF, or her principal. However, given that Respondent had just recently seen a video on her personal computer of her fiancé engaged in sexual activity with a minor female student in their home, it was understandable that Respondent needed time to process the situation. A less than four-hour delay from when Respondent first saw the video to Pastor Sanders’ call to 911 was immediate, and not an unreasonable delay given the unique facts of this case. Sometime before 10:00 p.m., Respondent returned to her residence. She saw Madison’s vehicle and assumed he was inside the home. According to Respondent, she knew the police were on their way. Respondent nevertheless entered the home, but she did not approach Madison in any manner. At approximately 10:00 p.m., two St. Lucie County Sheriff’s deputies arrived at the home and rang the doorbell at the front door. Madison answered the door, and was told by one of the deputies that they were there to talk to Respondent. The officer asked Respondent to step outside to speak with them and Madison was directed to step back. Madison then went back inside the home and closed the door behind him. One of the deputies remained at the front porch area while Respondent and the other deputy began to discuss what Respondent had seen on the video. At this point, one of the deputies requested to see the video so Respondent and the deputies proceeded to attempt to go back inside the front door. However, they discovered that Madison had locked the door behind him when he re-entered the home. By this point, no law enforcement officer had explored the perimeter of the home to determine whether there were any other entrances or exists from the home. Nor was Respondent asked by either deputy if there were any other entrances or exits from the home. Respondent began ringing the doorbell and knocking on the front door. In the midst of Respondent ringing the doorbell, knocking on the door, and receiving no response from Madison, the deputies asked Respondent, for the first time, if there were any guns in the home and any other entrances and exits. Respondent advised the deputies that there was a back door. Ultimately, it was determined that Madison had snuck out the back door of the home to elude law enforcement. Respondent gave the deputies permission to enter and search the home. They entered through the open back door. Once the house was cleared by the officers, Respondent and the officers went inside the home. Respondent was cooperative during the search of the home and she consented to allowing the officers to look at the computer. Respondent attempted to show one of the deputies what she saw on the computer, but nothing would come up. Ultimately, it was determined that Madison took the evidence with him when he fled the home. When officers went into the front office and wanted to collect some items belonging to Madison, Respondent told the officers that she would prefer if they got a search warrant. The officers obtained a search warrant and stayed all night searching the home until approximately 5:00 a.m. Respondent did not sleep or eat while the officers were at the home and she was visibly “shaken-up” and crying at times during the evening and early morning hours of October 19. Detective Wentz was at the home and spoke with Respondent throughout the night and early morning of October 19. At some point, Detective Wentz “flat out asked” Respondent if she knew where Madison was located. Respondent responded, indicating she did not know where he fled to. Detective Wentz made it clear to Respondent on multiple occasions during the evening of October 18 and early morning of October 19 that if she knew Madison’s whereabouts, she should let him know. Before he left the home on the morning of October 19, Detective Wentz reiterated to Respondent that she needed to contact law enforcement immediately if she had any information about Madison’s whereabouts. Respondent clearly understood this directive. At no time during the evening of October 18 and early morning of October 19 did Respondent ever volunteer information as to where she thought Madison might be. On the other hand, the persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent did not know of Madison’s whereabouts at any time during the evening of October 18 and early hours of October 19 after he fled the home. However, by 11:45 a.m., on October 19, Respondent discovered that Madison might be staying at the local Holiday Inn Express, based on information she received from Madison’s father. Respondent called the front desk of the hotel at 11:47 a.m. and 12:01 p.m., in an effort to confirm that Madison was indeed at the Holiday Inn. Respondent and Madison spoke at 12:09 p.m., at which time Respondent knew Madison was still at the hotel, about to check-out of the hotel. At no time between 11:47 a.m. and 1:39 p.m., did Respondent make any calls to law enforcement to let them know that Madison might be at the Holiday Inn. Master Deputy Horowitz was at Respondent’s home before 1:39 p.m. However, Respondent failed to inform Master Deputy Horowitz that Madison was at the Holiday Inn. Master Deputy Horowitz specifically asked Respondent if she knew where Madison was. Respondent responded, stating that she “did not know where his whereabouts were at the time.” Respondent spoke with Master Deputy Horowitz by telephone on two or three occasions later that afternoon. Respondent’s testimony that she told Master Deputy during one of these telephone conversations that Madison had been at the Holiday Inn is not credited and is rejected as unpersuasive. Later that afternoon, Respondent was transported to the Sheriff’s Office for an interview. During the interview, Respondent admitted she failed to inform law enforcement that Respondent had been staying at the Holiday Inn: DETECTIVE NORMAN: I know you’ve talked to several detectives throughout yesterday evening, last night, this morning, this afternoon. Probably seen more faces that you want to see. Here’s--here’s what we’re trying to figure out, where your fiancé is. Do you know where he is? MISS THOMAS: And I understand that. And like I told the officers that came to the home, it was information that was left out. And it truly was not intentional. I know the way it looked, intentionally, it made me look bad, but I honestly do not know where he is. At the time when I did speak to him, he told me that’s where he was, that he was leaving that location so I haven’t a clue. He hasn’t contacted me since the last time I spoke with him today. * * * And I mean, I’m disappointed because I made a mistake. I did. I omitted something that I didn’t realize at the time and I don’t know if it was, you know, just, you know, just did it just because I guess deep down I was maybe trying--you know, I don’t know why I didn’t say, “Oh yea, by the way this.” I don’t know why. That was so stupid. Petitioner’s Exhibit 12, pp. 5-7. Following the interview, Respondent was placed under arrest and charged with one felony count of failing to report child abuse in violation of sections 39.201(1)(b) and 39.205, Florida Statutes, and one felony count of being an accessory after the fact, in violation of section 777.03(1)(c), Florida Statutes. After Respondent was arrested, she was placed on temporary duty assignment at home with pay. On Monday, October 22, Respondent self-reported her arrest and the abuse of K.M. by Madison to her principal and the District. Subsequently, the State Attorney charged Respondent in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit for the felony charges of failing to report child abuse in violation of sections 39.201(1)(b) and 39.205, and for the felony charge of being an accessory after the fact in violation of section 777.03(1)(c). The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent did not call Madison while he was at the Holiday Inn Express to warn him so that he could elude arrest. Nevertheless, Respondent knew Madison was at the Holiday Inn at least by 12:09 p.m. on October 19, when she spoke to Madison on the telephone. Respondent failed to inform law enforcement that he was at the Holiday Inn, or that he had been at the Holiday Inn, until her interview at the Sheriff’s office later that afternoon just prior to her arrest. After a 23-hour manhunt, law enforcement officers found and arrested Madison at the Holiday Inn Express around 7:00 p.m. Respondent’s delay in informing law enforcement of Madison’s whereabouts or that he had been at the Holiday Inn Express delayed his arrest by at most, approximately seven hours. Notably, the video was discovered by Respondent, reported by Respondent to law enforcement, and Madison was arrested, within the span of approximately 25 or 26 hours. Ultimately, it was Respondent who identified the victims of Madison’s crimes. It was Respondent’s discovery of the video, her immediate reporting of the abuse, and her later identification of the victims, which led to Madison’s arrest and his conviction on all charges. The State Attorney charged Madison in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit with 40 counts of criminal activity: 34 felony charges of sexual activity with a minor; five felony charges of sexual battery on a child in custodial relationship; and one felony charge of using a child in a sexual performance. On April 1, 2016, Madison was adjudicated guilty on five counts of sexual activity with a minor. Madison was sentenced to 15 years, consecutive, for each count. On August 7, 2013, Respondent pled no contest to both charges. On the plea form, Respondent checked section 25, which states: “I specifically believe the plea is in my best interest even though I am innocent of the charge, charges, or violations, or may have defenses to them.” After Madison was adjudicated guilty, all criminal charges against Respondent were Nolle Prossed. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 5.056(2)(d) or (e). The evidence does not establish that Respondent engaged in behavior that disrupted a student’s learning environment or reduced her ability or his or her colleagues’ ability to effectively perform duties. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a). The evidence does not establish that Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental and/or physical health. Indeed, Respondent protected students from any further abuse by Madison. Respondent is responsible for Madison’s abuse of K.M. being brought to the attention of law enforcement immediately after she observed the video on her personal computer. Within about four hours after observing her fiancé engaging in sexual activity with a minor on her personal computer and processing the situation and speaking with her pastor, the matter was reported to 911, and law enforcement arrived at Respondent’s home. Madison was at the home when the deputies arrived. Notably, the deputies who arrived at Respondent’s home did not ask to speak with Madison first. Instead, they asked to speak with Respondent, and Respondent was asked to step outside the home. Madison, the alleged perpetrator of the sexual abuse, was ordered by one of the deputies to go back inside the home. Knowing full well that the suspect, Madison, went back inside the home through the front door, neither deputy undertook any efforts to determine whether Madison might have an escape route through another door. A perimeter was not established until after law enforcement officers discovered that Madison had fled the home. Respondent cooperated with law enforcement while they were at her home. She cooperated fully in the prosecution of Madison and she was instrumental in securing Madison’s criminal conviction for the abuse. Given the totality of the circumstances, Respondent’s failure to inform law enforcement during the afternoon of October 19 of Madison’s whereabouts at the Holiday Inn, which delayed the arrest of Madison by seven hours, at most, does not rise to the level of conduct sufficient to support a finding of guilt in violation of rule 6B-1.006(3)(a). The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated rule 6B-1.006(3)(n). Respondent reported the abuse to appropriate authorities when Pastor Sanders called 911. She also reported the abuse to appropriate authorities when deputies arrived at her home. Respondent also self-reported the incident to her principal and the District on the following Monday, October 22. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent is guilty of immorality in violation of rule 6A-5.056(1). Insufficient credible and persuasive evidence was adduced at hearing to establish that Respondent engaged in conduct inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals, and that the conduct was sufficiently notorious so as to disgrace or bring disrespect to Respondent or the teaching profession and impair Respondent’s service in the community. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated Policy 5.37(8)(a). Respondent “directly” reported her knowledge of Madison’s abuse of K.M. as required by the policy when Pastor Sanders called 911 within four hours of Respondent’s view of the video. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated Policy 6.301(3)(b). As to Policy 6.301(3)(b)(viii), Respondent did not engage in immoral conduct, nor was it shown that Respondent’s conduct was “indecent.” As to Policy 6.301(3)(b)(xxx), the School Board failed to prove that Respondent engaged in off-duty conduct that does not promote the good will and favorable attitude of the public toward the School District, its programs, and policies. In reaching this conclusion, it is notable that the School Board did not call any members of the public or any administrators, teachers, or other personnel as witnesses to support this claim. Moreover, the School Board does not argue in its proposed recommended order that it proved that Respondent violated Policy 6.301(3)(b)(xxx). Paragraphs 71 through 73 refer to another specific subdivision within Policy 6.301(3)(b), 6.301(3)(b)(viii). However, there is no specific argument that Respondent violated Policy 6.301(3)(b)(xxx). The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated Policy 6.94(2)(a). As detailed above, Respondent reported the abuse when Pastor Sanders called 911. Respondent also reported the incident to the deputies when they arrived at her home shortly after Pastor Sanders called 911, and when she self-reported the abuse to her principal and the District on the following Monday, October 22.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Lucie County School Board enter a final order rescinding Respondent’s suspension without pay and termination, and reinstate her with back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 23rd day of May, 2017.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Michael Fort, at times pertinent to the charges in the Administrative Complaints, held teacher's certificate number 514033, issued by the State of Florida Department of Education (Department). That certificate authorized practice as a teacher in the area of music education. The Respondent was employed as a teacher at Lake Weir Middle School in the Marion County School District. The Respondent was under an annual contract with that school system from November 23, 1983, through the 1984-85 school year. The Respondent's last annual contract expired on June 7, 1985. The Respondent's teacher's certificate expired on June 30, 1985. Some time prior to the expiration of his teacher's certificate, the Respondent applied to the Department for its renewal. That application still pends before the Department. In October 1983, the Respondent had a minor student spend the night at his apartment. The minor student had previously been a close friend of the Respondent and had socialized with him in the past, including spending the night at his residence on other occasions. The Respondent had entered into a close, friendly relationship with the minor, Darien Houston, by frequently letting him stay at his residence during periods of time when Darien Houston's parents were fighting or otherwise engaging in domestic discord, which apparently was very disturbing to the student. Darien Houston, although a student in the Marion County School System, was not a student of the Respondent. Indeed, the Respondent was not yet employed by that school district. In any event, during the course of the evening in question, while they were sitting near each other watching television, the Respondent placed his hand on the student's leg and the student requested that he remove his hand. The student at the time thought Fort was joking or had no serious intent by this action. Fort then went to bed and the student went to bed, sleeping on the floor in his jeans in a sleeping bag. Some time later that night, the student was awakened and realized that the Respondent had undressed himself and undressed the student and had proceeded to place his hand on and fondle the student's penis. He thereafter attempted to roll Houston over onto his stomach in spite of Houston's objections. In response to the student's objections, the Respondent made a statement to the effect, "Do you want to do it with me?" The student continued to object and to retreat from the Respondent's advances. He retreated to the bathroom where he locked himself in and remained for the remainder of the night. The student was embarrassed because of the incident and elected not to report it to school officials or others for approximately a year and a half. However, Houston did tell his best friend what had happened, who in turn informed Houston's mother of the incident. Eventually, Houston's brother informed another individual of the occurrence, who then informed Mr. Springer, the principal at Lake Weir Middle School, of the incident. Darien Houston, a student there, was then called before Mr. Springer, who investigated the matter. Houston related the information about the subject occurrence to him, in approximately May 1985. Thereafter, the criminal proceeding against the Respondent related to this incident and the instant administrative Prosecutions ensued. The matter became public knowledge among students at Lake Weir Middle School, who teased Houston about the incident, causing him great embarrassment and humiliation. The occurrence was widely reported in local newspapers. Sometime in May 1985, while a teacher at Lake Weir Middle School, during the course of a puppet show being Presented in a sixth grade classroom, Respondent stuck his hand down the back of a minor male student's pants between his underwear and his trousers. This action by the Respondent shocked and embarrassed the student, although it was not established that any bystanders, of which there were a number present, observed the incident. The student, Patrick Hammer, was embarrassed to tell anyone of the occurrence, but ultimately informed his teacher of the incident by writing a note to the teacher concerning it. Other students at the school ultimately became aware of this and teased Patrick Hammer about it, causing him embarrassment and humiliation. In approximately May 1985, the Respondent attended a party at a local hospital. The Respondent was in the company of three minor male students who were then enrolled at Lake Weir Middle School. The students, Steve Hall, Richard Slaughter and Eddie Ericson, or some of them, were drinking beer from a keg or draft dispenser at the party. Steve Hall's mother, who was employed at the hospital, was present at the party and was aware that her son was drinking beer. All three of the boys later left the party and went with Mr. Fort to his apartment. While en route, the Respondent stopped at an ABC Liquor Store and purchased approximately two six-packs of beer. After purchasing the beer, the Respondent took the three students to his apartment where the students swam in the swimming pool and, in his presence and with his knowledge, drank the beer that the Respondent had purchased. It was not established that the Respondent bought the beer with the specific intent of giving it to the students but, by his own admission, he offered no objection to the students' consumption of the beer in his presence at his residence. On May 12, 1986, the Respondent pled nolo contendere to one count of attempted sexual battery and one count of lewd and lascivious behavior. He was sentenced to ten years probation, fined $200, ordered to undergo mental health counseling, to complete 100 hours of community service and to refrain from any custodial or supervisory contact with any person under the age of 16 years. Respondent's arrest, the circumstances surrounding the charges and his plea regarding the above incidents received widespread publicity in the local media and was known to students, faculty and other School Board personnel and the public at large. On or about April 10, 1985, the Respondent received a letter from Nick Marcos, Assistant Superintendent of Administrative Services with the School Board of Marion County, informing him that he would be reappointed to a position as an annual contract teacher with the Marion County School System as soon as he had been issued a regular or temporary teaching certificate for the 1985-86 school year. On or about May 16, 1985, the Respondent submitted a reapplication for a temporary certificate to the Florida Department of Education. On or about August 9, 1955, Respondent received a letter from R. S. Archibald, District School Superintendent, advising him that he had been suspended as an instructional employee of the Marion County School System, pending a meeting of the School Board. Thereafter, on or about August 19, 1985, the Respondent received a letter from Jim Ergle, as Chairman of the School Board, advising him of the Board's decision to suspend him without pay based upon the above-described arrest and charges. In the April 10, 1985 letter, the Assistant Superintendent had informed him that he had been recommended for reappointment for the 1985-86 school year, but reminded him that he would have to renew his teaching certificate to be eligible for reappointment. Upon his application for renewal of his teaching certificate, the application demonstrated that all requirements for renewal had been met. His teaching certificate expired on June 30, 1985. The renewal application was never acted upon by the Department, although it informed Mr. Fort, sometime prior to August 1985, that his application was in order and the certificate would be forthcoming. His suspension without pay was predicated upon the charges pending before the Circuit Court for Marion County concerning the alleged sexual battery and lewd and lascivious conduct, and the letter informing Mr. Fort of it did not indicate that it was at all based on his failure to renew his teaching certificate. The School Board employed the formal suspension process against the Respondent, although his express annual contract had already expired, in an abundance of caution because a grace period is normally allowed teachers to re- apply for renewal of their certificates after expiration and because the Board allows a grace period for reappointment of a contract teacher after the expiration of a teaching certificate, provided the teacher provides evidence that the certificate has been properly renewed. The Respondent was paid for all services rendered by him to the Marion County School Board through the last day of the 1984-85 school year, which was also the last day of his employment pursuant to his last express annual contract. He has never taught in the district since that time.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the EPC permanently revoking the certificate of the Respondent, Michael Fort, and that he be finally dismissed by the Marion County School District and forfeit any back pay. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of July 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: William E. Williams, Esquire Rex D. Ware, Esquire 111 North Calhoun Street Post Office Box 1739 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Philip J. Padovano, Esquire Post Office Box 873 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Karen B. Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission 215 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of July 1987.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a veteran teacher should be dismissed for having drawn and displayed a kitchen knife while quieting a noisy class.
Findings Of Fact The Broward County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Broward County Public School System. As of the final hearing, Respondent Lynn Deering ("Deering") had been a teacher for about 34 years. She holds a certificate to teach in Florida. During the 2004-05 school year, Deering was employed as a science teacher at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, which is a public school in Broward County. For reasons that will soon be apparent, it is pertinent to note that Deering contracted polio at a young age and as an adult has suffered from post-polio syndrome. As a result of these illnesses, Deering's upper-body is weak, the range of motion of her upper extremities is limited, and she has little grip strength in her right hand, which is dominant. Since 1985, Deering has been confined to a wheelchair.1 The incident giving rise to this case occurred on March 2, 2005. When the bell rang that day to start Deering's sixth period anatomy and physiology class, the students were excited and talkative. As was her practice, Deering raised her hand to signal that she was ready to begin teaching; this gesture usually quieted the class. This time, however, the students continued to talk, and the classroom was noisy——too noisy for Deering to be heard. So Deering, who was sitting (in her wheelchair) in front of a demonstration table located at the head of the classroom, hitched up her right shoulder, reached back behind her body, and grabbed a utensil from the top of the table. She then used the utensil to tap on a glass beaker——which was filled with water and flowers——to get the students' attention. The "utensil" in question happened to be a knife. It was a chef's knife,2 bearing the Chefmate™ brand on its blade. Measured from butt to point, the knife was approximately 10 and one-half inches long. From heel to point, the blade was roughly five and three-quarters inches in length; it was no wider than about three-quarters of an inch from edge to spine. The knife was in Deering's classroom at the time because she had been using it to slice flowers and potatoes for demonstrations in her biology class.3 Upon hearing the distinctive "tap, tap, tap" of blade on beaker, most of the students stopped talking. Some in the back of the room, however, perhaps being out of earshot, continued to converse. Two were especially oblivious. Presently, Deering wheeled over to their lab table, still holding the knife in her right hand, between her thumb and fingers. When she reached the students' table, Deering turned the knife over in her hand, so that the point was down and the edge faced away from the students (toward Deering herself). Deering leaned over the table, in front of the where the two students were sitting, raised the knife an inch or two above a couple of sheets of paper that were lying on the tabletop, and, loosening her grip, let gravity pull the knife down between her fingers.4 Driven by the knife's own weight, the point punched through the papers, leaving small slits in them, and scratched the surface of the tabletop. Now gripping the knife's handle more tightly (for had she let go the knife would have fallen), Deering said, "Hello!"——which she pronounced "Heh-LOW!"——"Do I have your attention?" She did. The students stopped talking. Some were startled or frightened; others were amused or nonplussed. None, however, reacted as one might when facing a genuine threat of harm, e.g. by screaming or fleeing. As she returned to the front of the classroom, Deering joked, "Don't mess with a postmenopausal woman . . . with a knife!" This was meant to be humorous and was not uttered in a threatening tone of voice. Following this incident, Deering taught her lesson as usual, and the class unfolded in routine fashion. Her use of the knife, in other words, produced no discernible immediate fallout. At least a few students, however, were sufficiently upset by Deering's conduct to report the matter to the administration, and they did.5 The students' report not only set in motion an internal investigation, but also prompted the administration to call the police. Somehow, as well, the incident rapidly made its way into the local news. At least one local TV station aired a brief, 35-second story on the incident, which was short on facts, long on sensationalism, and notably unbalanced, in that Deering's side was not shown. The undersigned cannot comment on the contents or accuracy of other media reports, for they are not in evidence. In due course, the Broward County Sheriff's Office commenced an investigation that brought forth a criminal charge against Deering, who found herself accused of having improperly exhibited a dangerous weapon. The crime of improper exhibition, which is a misdemeanor, is defined in Section 790.10, Florida Statutes, as follows: If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self- defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree[.] Deering ultimately pleaded no contest to the criminal charge and was sentenced by the county court to three months' probation and a $30 fine. Meantime, the School Board decided that Deering should be fired, voting at its regular meeting on August 2, 2005, to accept the superintendent's recommendation that she be suspended without pay pending termination of employment. Following her suspension, Deering accepted a teaching position at the Upper Room Christian Academy, where she was working as a science and math teacher at the time of the final hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order (a) rescinding its previous decision to suspend Deering without pay pending dismissal and (b) awarding Deering the back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during the administrative proceedings, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 2006.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board ("Petitioner" or "School Board") proved by clear and convincing evidence that it has just cause to discipline Respondent, Jeffrey Schector, and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The undersigned makes the following findings of relevant and material facts: The School Board is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Palm Beach County Public School System. At all times relevant to this case, Respondent was employed as a math teacher at Eagles Landing Middle School in the School District of Palm Beach County, Florida. A Collective Bargaining Agreement existed, which governed relations between the School Board and certain employees, including Respondent. Resp. Ex. 7. Article II, Section M of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Discipline of Employees (Progressive Discipline), provided, in relevant part: Without the consent of the employee and the Association, disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. All disciplinary action shall be governed by applicable statutes and provisions of this agreement. Further, an employee shall be provided with a written notice of wrong doing, setting forth the specific charges against that employee prior to taking any action. * * * 5. Only previous disciplinary actions which are a part of the employee's personnel file which are a matter of record as provided in paragraph 7 below may be cited. * * * 7. Except in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the district or the actions/inactions of the employee constitute such clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable school rules and regulations, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal Reprimand With A Written Notation * * * Written Reprimand * * * Suspension Without Pay * * * Dismissal . . . . Respondent acknowledged receipt of the School Board's Code of Ethics on October 13, 2010. See Pet. Ex. 1. While teaching at Eagles Landing Middle School, Respondent received a Memorandum of Specific Incident dated January 29, 2013, for a lack of professionalism displayed during interactions with the mathematics team. Pet. Ex. 2. Written Reprimand on December 2, 2013 Respondent was disciplined and issued a written reprimand on December 2, 2013, for violations of School Board policies regarding Commitment to Student Principles, Code of Ethics, and state statutes regarding the education professional. He had been found to have engaged in inappropriate horseplay with a student which ended with the student falling to the floor. Additionally, Respondent tossed a student's crutches from his classroom and referred to the student as a "cripple." In the reprimand, Respondent was advised to cease and desist from engaging in the same or similar conduct in the future, and, if he did not, he would be subject to further discipline up to and including termination. Pet. Ex. 7. The evidence during the hearing reflected that Respondent had received several recent performance evaluations during his tenure with the School Board. For the 2013 school year, his performance evaluation was "effective." For an evaluation submitted April 17, 2014, he received "highly effective" marks in instructional practice. For the 2015 school year, he received an annual evaluation of "highly effective" for instructional practice, "effective" for student growth, "highly effective" for deliberate practice, and "highly effective" for evaluation level. Resp. Ex. 4. Classroom Incident on May 4, 2015 Respondent was teaching math to eighth-grade students in a portable building at Eagles Landing Middle School. Near the end of the lesson, Respondent became aware that two male students were engaged in horseplay with another student, J.G.1/ One of the two male students grabbed a water bottle from J.G. intent on annoying and/or harassing J.G. This horseplay caused the water bottle top to come off, resulting in water spewing on several of the boys and also dousing several school documents Respondent had on his desk. Upon seeing the mess that was created, Respondent stood up and screamed "I am fucking tired of this shit and I don't appreciate having my stuff destroyed." The comment was not directed at anyone in particular. Respondent then took the water bottle, walked to the back door of the classroom, and threw it outside. He then went back to his desk and, as he put it, "was stewing about what had happened." Sometime later, just before the end of the class period, Respondent noticed that one of the males had dropped his cell phone on the floor by his desk. Respondent walked over, bent down and picked up the phone, and put it in his pocket. Apparently, the student was not aware that Respondent had picked up his phone. Respondent admitted that he had taken the cell phone for the purpose of teaching the student a lesson and that he intended to hold on to it until dismissal. As he put it, "it would be nice to watch G.P. [the student who owned the phone] squirm for a little bit." When the dismissal bell rang, the student started looking frantically for his cell phone. At that point, J.G. went over to G.P. and told him that Respondent had his phone. This made Respondent angry. He stated that he felt that J.G. "had sabotaged his plans." Respondent raised his voice and began yelling at J.G. claiming that he had "sold him out" and why could he do such "an idiotic thing." There was conflicting evidence concerning whether or not any profanity was used by Respondent.2/ Respondent then followed J.G. outside the classroom and continued to berate him. Respondent used some other choice words against J.G. including calling him "stupid" and "idiotic." Respondent admitted that the May 4, 2015, incident was not the first time he used profanity in the classroom and that it was not the first time he ever become angry, or made any harsh comments to a student. J.G. testified by way of deposition taken on February 1, 2016. He claimed that when the water bottle incident occurred, Respondent was yelling in general.3/ J.G. testified that the conduct of Respondent shocked him and made him nervous because he had never seen a teacher react like that to anything. When J.G. told the other student that Respondent had his phone, Respondent started screaming at him and had a "melt down," as he described it. J.G.'s recollection of the event was fairly detailed and consistent. He said that Respondent called him "stupid," "retarded," and an "idiot." He cursed at J.G. using the F_ _ _ word, the S_ _ _ word, and accused J.G. of being a "F_ _ _ing idiot." When Respondent cursed at him, it made J.G. feel very shocked and embarrassed, particularly in front of the other students. He acknowledged, however, that this was the first time that Respondent ever got in his face and yelled or cursed at him. Notably, J.G. admitted that since the May 4, 2015, incident his academic career has been the same and that he is actually doing better this year, than last year. Also, after the incident on May 4, 2015, J.G. testified that much of the harassment decreased. Apparently, one of the male students involved in the incident received an in-school suspension for the name-calling incident and stayed away from J.G. The other student, as well, was not making fun of him like he had done previously. Several students, including the two male students involved, testified by way of their deposition transcripts. Each recalled the incident on May 4, 2015. The students each had a similar recollection of the basic events. They confirmed that Respondent got very upset, was screaming, and used some curse words and demeaning language. Several of the students acknowledged, in general, that the incident resulted in the classroom antics and horseplay subsiding. Each provided a written statement which was reviewed by the undersigned. Following the incident on May 4, 2015, Respondent was removed from the classroom, but was allowed to return to school on May 11, 2015, to begin teaching again. He taught until the end of that school year-–until approximately June 6, 2015. During the summer of 2015, Respondent received a letter from the principal reappointing him to his teaching position at Eagles Landing Middle School for the 2015-2016 school year. Approximately 11 days after the new school year began, Respondent was requested to attend a pre-disciplinary hearing relating to the May 4, 2015, incident. After the pre- disciplinary meeting, he was allowed to return to his classroom until October 9, 2015. In early October 2015, Respondent was directed to attend several Employee Assistance Program meetings. He attended four different sessions through November 4, 2015, when he was terminated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board discipline Respondent with an unpaid suspension covering the period of time Respondent has been suspended from his teaching duties, but immediately reinstate him to his teaching duties. No back pay is recommended. The undersigned also recommends that Respondent be required to attend and successfully complete an anger management class after reinstatement. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 13th day of April, 2016.
