The Issue Whether Respondent violated sections 1012.795(1)(g) and 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and 6A-10.081(2)(c)1., as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence, testimony, and stipulated facts, the following Findings of Fact are made. The Commissioner is the head of the state agency, the Florida Department of Education, responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding Florida educator certificates. Upon a finding of probable cause, Petitioner is then responsible for filing a formal complaint and prosecuting the complaint pursuant to chapter 120, if the educator disputes the allegations in the complaint. Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 834897, covering the areas of elementary education, English for Speakers of Other Languages (“ESOL”), and varying exceptionalities, which is valid through June 30, 2023. At the time of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as an exceptional student education (“ESE”) teacher at Wyomina Park Elementary School (“WPES”) in the Marion County School District (“MCSD”). Ms. Miller has served as an elementary education teacher since the 2000-01 school year. Thus, she has a 20-year career with MCSD. From 2008 to 2018, Respondent taught third, fourth, and fifth grades at Reddick Collier Elementary (“Reddick Collier”’). Since she holds certification in ESE, she also taught ESE inclusion students in her general education classrooms. However, she has never taught a classroom of only ESE students. In 2018, Respondent’s value-added model (commonly referred to as VAM) scores rendered her ineligible to continue teaching at Reddick Collier because it was one of the District’s lowest performing schools. As a result, she was involuntarily transferred to WPES. Ms. Baxley testified that Respondent was initially assigned to teach students with academic issues, not behavioral issues. The initial assignment was consistent with her experience and previous work with ESE inclusion students. Respondent had maintained certification in ESE so that she could better serve academically low-performing ESE students in a general education inclusion environment. While Respondent had training in an inclusion environment, she did not have training or certification in Treatment and Education of Autistic and Communication Handicapped Children (“TEACCH”) or Crisis Prevention Intervention de-escalation techniques for use with students with behavioral issues. Ms. Baxley believed that Respondent had been trained to work with children with behavioral issues. After the initial assignment, students were reassigned between Ms. Miller and Patricia Poag. Respondent became responsible for only students with behavioral issues. Some of the students assigned to Respondent had extensive behavioral issues to the extent they required medication treatment. Respondent’s new assignment was a kindergarten through second grade self-contained ESE class of 12 to 13 students. Generally, a self- contained ESE classroom is a group environment with students who have special needs. Respondent’s students required increased supervision, structure, visuals, and very specific direct instruction. Respondent, Ms. Davis, and Ms. Poag testified that the classroom assignment was very “challenging, overwhelming, and distressing.” The new classroom structure included six or seven more students than previously assigned. Respondent had one paraprofessional to assist with supervision of the students. Respondent requested additional staff support, but never received it. In addition to learning to navigate the struggles with the student’s behavioral issues, Respondent was struggling with paperwork. Respondent made the effort to get help with completing necessary documents and learning how to complete IEP’s and behavior plans. She had no experience in completing these documents, or in working with “severe maladaptive behaviors” before being assigned to WPES. Allegations Involving Classroom Management As an ESE instructor, Ms. Miller’s primary responsibility was to ensure compliance with services or accommodations required for ESE students assigned to her classroom. Gina Gazzaniga is the MCSD ESE specialist. Her primary responsibility is to ensure compliance with services/accommodations required for all ESE students. Ms. Gazzaniga visited Respondent’s classroom. While in Respondent’s classroom, Ms. Gazzaniga observed students run on tables, throw items, and elope from the classroom unsupervised. Ms. Gazzaniga testified that while students were engaged in this conduct, Respondent did not intervene. Ms. Gazzaniga also testified that when students eloped from the classroom, they would typically go to the Guidance office or the Dean’s office. Ms. Gazzaniga had the Behavior Team (behavior tech, behavior specialist and analyst, and school academic coaches) assist with structure and behavior/classroom management strategies in Respondent’s classroom. The team implemented procedures to help prevent students from eloping. However, Respondent would change the practices the behavior team implemented. Respondent testified that some of the practices put into place were not effective. For example, when tables were lowered, the students increased their jumping from table to table. In addition, the assistance button was not within the reach of the teachers in the classroom. Ms. Gazzaniga’s overall assessment was that she saw “limited improvement, or refusal to follow taught strategies.” Other members of the WPES administration expressed concerns about Respondent’s classroom management. While visiting Respondent’s classroom, Ms. Baxley, along with Kendra Hamby, saw student W.H. pulling the hair of M.D. W.H., a male student, dragged M.D., a female student, by her hair as she screamed. Ms. Baxley testified that she heard Respondent say “stop.” Ms. Baxley then approached the students and removed W.H.’s hand from M.D. so that he would “stop pulling M.D. around like a caveman on the floor.” Ms. Baxley testified that Respondent did not intervene to help M.D., but rather “she just stood there.” Ms. Hamby testified that “Ms. Miller was standing there, not intervening, not saying or doing anything. So that was extremely concerning.” On another occasion, while in Respondent’s classroom, Ms. Baxley saw students hitting each other with containers. Ms. Baxley testified that Respondent did nothing to intervene. Respondent testified that she approached the students and instructed them to return the containers. Jennifer Foster was a paraprofessional assigned to Respondent’s classroom. On one occasion two students were running around the room, fighting, and chasing each other. Ms. Foster tried to “get in the middle to separate them and they both ran behind the big solid wooden table.” When Ms. Foster went in front of the table in an effort to separate them, the two students picked up the table and tossed it over on the side. Ms. Foster was able to move one foot out of the way, but the table landed on her other foot. Ms. Foster testified “I eventually got up and hobbled over to push the panic button and asked for assistance.” Her foot was injured as a result of the incident involving the students. Ms. Foster indicated that Respondent did not assist her. Allegations Involving Failure to Supervise Students In addition to concerns about classroom management, the Administrative Complaint alleged Respondent failed to supervise students. One of those incidents involved K.C. K.C. was one of Respondent’s kindergarten students. He is an ESE student with a medical condition. On September 6, 2018, a teacher informed Assistant Principal Troy Sanford that Respondent’s student, K.C., was found standing at the exit door of a hallway that opens to the playground. Mr. Sanford saw K.C. approaching the exit doors to the playground alone at 11:24 a.m. K.C. stood there alone until 11:29 a.m., at which time the teacher spoke to K.C. After consulting with another teacher, Ms. Hawthorne, about where K.C. belonged, the teacher took him to Respondent’s classroom. Respondent denied allowing K.C. to stand alone in the hallway for several minutes. She testified that while standing at her classroom door, awaiting the arrival of students coming from the restroom, K.C. began to walk from Ms. Davis toward her. This was customary for her students if children needed additional time in the restroom. As K.C. got close to Respondent, L.G.R. began climbing on the top shelf of a bookcase in the classroom. Since their routine was for the students to come into the classroom, she assumed K.C. would follow the customary practice and enter the classroom. Respondent testified that she made a judgment call to turn her attention to L.G.R. to ensure his safety and prevent harm to him. Instead of entering the classroom, K.C. walked down the hallway. Based on the totality of the circumstances, Respondent’s actions were reasonable. A second incident involved a different student. Two first-grade teachers, Nancy P. Neal and Ireina Hawthorne, were outside on the playground with their students. When recess was over, they were gathering their students and doing a head count to go back inside to their classrooms when they noticed there was “an extra child” in line. The student did not belong in their classroom. The student was nonverbal so they could not determine to which classroom he belonged. Ms. Hawthorne assumed that he belonged in Respondent’s class and took the student to Respondent’s classroom. When Ms. Hawthorne took the student to Respondent’s classroom, Respondent “ushered him into the classroom.” Respondent testified that she was in the hallway, counting her students before going to her classroom. She explained that she had a substitute paraprofessional, Ms. Foster, who did not know all of her students. In addition, this was the first time she had Ms. Foster serve as a substitute. To help remedy the issue regarding the student left outside, Respondent asked her assigned paraprofessional not to take breaks or lunch during recess. Whether Respondent was in her classroom (as stated by Ms. Hawthorne) or in the hallway, the student was left outside without her supervision, which could be harmful to the student’s safety. A third incident related to supervision involved student L.G.R. On October 19, 2019, L.G.R. entered Ms. Gazzaniga’s office and hid under a table. The evidence offered at hearing demonstrated that when the student eloped from the classroom, Respondent immediately followed the student into the guidance office. However, she did not see the L.G.R., so she continued to search for him. A minute or so later, Ms. Gazzaniga saw Respondent walk down the hallway towards the main office. Respondent later learned the student was in the guidance office at the time she initially searched that location. However, Ms. Gazzaniga did not alert Respondent that L.G.R. was in her office. Ms. Gazzaniga testified that she “kept an eye on him while he was there.” After a short time, Ms. Gazzaniga went over to L.G.R. and spoke to him. He came from under the table and went to the doorway of the office. At the same time, Respondent was walking back down the hallway and saw L.G.R. and took him back to her classroom. The credible evidence demonstrates that Respondent made reasonable efforts to locate the student by searching for him immediately after his elopement from the room. DP-3 Assessment On September 10, 2018, Ms. Scott gave Respondent a Developmental Profile Third Edition (“DP-3”) to complete for student A.M.S. Students who are developmentally delayed must have a DP-3 completed for re-evaluation to determine what ESE services need to be continued. A DP-3 is an assessment tool used to evaluate nonverbal or low achieving students that have not reached the cognitive level to take an IQ test. MCSD uses the DP-3 to assess the student’s level of achievement. The DP-3 assesses five areas of development, including the child’s cognitive functioning, physical development, communication skills, social, emotional, and adaptive skills. The assessment is completed by completing a series of questions on whether a student can or cannot perform a particular task. Respondent returned the DP-3 to Ms. Scott on September 25, 2018. Respondent circled items indicating a “yes” response. During the hearing, however, Respondent acknowledged the student would not be capable of performing the tasks. In addition, Ms. Scott did not believe A.M.S. could perform the skills for which Respondent answered yes. Based on the evidence offered at hearing, some of the responses Respondent provided on the DP-3 were inaccurate. Performance Assessments Throughout her career, Respondent had been assessed as progressing or effective related to instructional practice as an educator. For the 2018 informal classroom teacher instructional assessment performed by Ms. Baxley, Ms. Cino, and Mr. Sanford, Ms. Miller was assessed as unsatisfactory in multiple areas.1 However, in the areas of criticism, it was also noted that Ms. Miller was engaged in instruction of students. Interestingly, she was criticized for a child wandering to her desk, and then, criticized for leaving the group of students she was working with to redirect the wandering student. In another instance, the observers were critical of a Positive Behavioral Interventions Support plan but Ms. Miller was never trained in the area of behavioral management. For the 2019 informal classroom teacher evaluation, Ms. Miller was assessed effective in each category, including areas where she was assessed unsatisfactory in 2018. Disciplinary Action at WPES For the first time in her career, Respondent received disciplinary action while working at WPES. On or about September 10, 2018, Respondent was issued an oral reprimand for purported failure to supervise the students assigned to her. On or about September 26, 2018, Respondent was issued a written reprimand for misconduct for purported falsification of documents. On or about October 26, 2018, Respondent was issued a written reprimand for alleged failure to supervise a student assigned to her. On or about November 26, 2018, Respondent was issued Step One progressive discipline for substandard performance due to behavioral concerns in her classroom and failure to report grades. On or about December 11, 2018, Respondent was issued a Step Two verbal reprimand regarding substandard performance. 1 In 2018, Ms. Miller was assessed unsatisfactory in the following areas: 2b. establishing a culture for learning, managing student behavior; 3b. using questioning and discussion techniques; and 3c. engaging students in learning. On or about December 18, 2018, Respondent was issued a Step Three progressive discipline written reprimand regarding substandard performance. Respondent’s educator certificate has no prior discipline.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that: Respondent violated the statues and rules as referenced above; Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two years, with conditions to be determined by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2021. Emily Moore, Esquire Florida Education Association 213 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lisa M. Forbess Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street, Room 316 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The basic issues in these consolidated cases are whether the Respondent should be dismissed from his employment as a school teacher in the Broward County School District and whether his Florida teaching certificate should be disciplined based upon substantially similar charges filed by the respective Petitioners. Petitioners allege that the Respondent conducted himself improperly on three separate occasions with three different female students. The Petitioner School Board of Broward County seeks the Respondent's dismissal pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, on the basis of allegations that the Respondent is guilty of: (a) immorality, (b) misconduct in office, and moral turpitude. The Petitioner Betty Castor seeks to discipline the Respondent's Florida teaching certificate pursuant to Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, on the basis of allegations that the Respondent is guilty of: (a) gross immoral-ity or an act involving moral turpitude, (b) personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the School Board, and (c) violations of the code of conduct for educators in the State of Florida. The Respondent denies any misconduct.
Findings Of Fact Facts stipulated to by all parties The Respondent, Wayne N. Bailey, holds Florida teaching certificate 478398, covering the areas of Science, Biology, and Physical Education, which is valid through June 30, 1995. At all times pertinent to these consolidated cases, the Respondent was employed as a teacher and coach at South Plantation High School in the Broward County School District, and was so employed since 1980. The Respondent holds a continuing contract as a classroom teacher. Virgil L. Morgan, is the Superintendent of Schools for Broward County, Florida. Facts established at the hearing Facts regarding the student J.F. 1/ During the 1987-1988 school year, a female student named J.F. was a student in the fifth period Biology class taught by the Respondent. J.F. was a student in that class for the entire school year. During the first half of the school year she sat in the front of the classroom. Sometime during the 1987-88 school year, J.F. reported to the school authorities that the Respondent had passed a note to her in class containing words to the effect that the Respondent thought she was a bright girl, that he wanted to get to know her better, and requesting her telephone number. The record in this case lacks persuasive evidence that the incident reported by J.F. actually occurred. 2/ Facts Regarding the Student C.P.C. 3/ During the first half of the 1987-88 school year, a female student named C.P.C. was a student in the second period Biology class taught by the Respondent. One evening after a football game at South Plantation High School, C.P.C. was sent to get some ice from a locked concession stand. When she got to the concession stand, she saw the Respondent holding something that she believed contained beer. 4/ On several occasions thereafter, C.P.C. joked with the Respondent to the effect that she had seen him with beer in the concession stand. Towards the end of the first semester of the 1987-88 school year, in conjunction with seeking a transfer out of the Respondent's class, C.P.C. reported that the Respondent had offered to provide her with beer and had invited her to drink beer with him at his house. The record in this case lacks persuasive evidence that the offer and invitation reported by C.P.C. actually occurred. 5/ Facts Regarding the Student L.H. 6/ During the 1989-1990 school year, a female student named L.H. was a student at South Plantation High School. During that school year, L.H. was in the twelfth grade. She was never a student in any class taught by the Respondent, and prior to the incident described below she had had very little contact with the Respondent. During the 1989-90 school year, L.H. was a member of the girl's varsity basketball team. The incident described below occurred on an afternoon in early January (probably January 3) of 1990, prior to a home basketball game that was played on the campus of South Plantation High School. Because there was a basketball game later that day, on the day in question L.H. remained on the school grounds when classes were over at 2:35 p.m. Two other students stayed on the campus with her, D.G. 7/ and S.M. 8/ Sometime after 3:00 p.m., but before 4:00 p.m., L.H. wanted to go to the coaches' office inside the gymnasium in order to get some fruit from her gym bag. She and her two student companions went to the gymnasium and found that it was locked. The three students began to knock on the door. Shortly thereafter, the Respondent came to the door and asked why the students wanted to come into the gymnasium. After L.H. explained what she wanted, the Respondent allowed her to enter and then closed the gymnasium door, leaving the other two students outside the gymnasium door. Again, the gymnasium door was locked. L.H. entered the coaches' office inside the gymnasium and proceeded to retrieve her gym bag. The Respondent followed her into the coaches' office and closed the door to the office behind him. Thereupon, the Respondent approached L.H., began trying to fondle her body, began kissing her, and while doing so succeeded in partially unbuttoning the top of L.H.'s jump suit and pulling it down over her shoulder. The Respondent then lifted L.H.'s bra, exposing her breast, whereupon he rubbed her breast with his hands and then placed his mouth on her breast and sucked hard and/or bit on her breast. During the course of this activity the Respondent also unzipped his pants, removed his penis from his pants, and then pushed one of L.H.'s hands until it was in contact with his penis. The Respondent also attempted to get L.H. to lie down on a desk in the coaches' office. During the course of the activities described immediately above, the Respondent was speaking to L.H. encouraging her to consent to sexual intercourse, while she was asking him to stop and struggling to free herself from his clutches. Shortly after the commencement of the activities described above, the two students who had remained outside began to knock loudly on the locked gymnasium door. Shortly after the knocking began, the Respondent released L.H., zipped up his pants, sat down, and pretended to be talking on the telephone. He then said to L.H., "this will be our secret, just between me and you." As soon as the Respondent released her, L.H. rearranged her clothes, left the coaches' office, and then left the gymnasium. When she met D.G. and S.M. outside the gymnasium, L.H.'s hair was messed up and it appeared to both D.G. and S.M. that something was bothering L.H. D.G. proceeded to ask L.H. several times what was bothering her. Because she was embarrassed, frightened, and confused, L.H. did not tell D.G. or S.M. what had happened until sometime later. Later that same evening, L.H. called D.G. on the telephone and told him in detail what the Respondent had done to her in the coaches' office. L.H. did not report the Respondent's conduct to school authorities until February 28, 1990, during the course of an interview by her school guidance counsellor. Her delay in reporting the matter to school authorities was due to her embarrassment and to her concern that the school authorities might not believe her word over that of a teacher. The Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the Broward County School Board has been seriously diminished by the incident involving L.H.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that final orders to the following effect be entered in these cases: In Case No. 90-3615, a final order should be entered concluding that the Respondent is guilty of "immorality" and "misconduct in office" within the meaning of Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes, and terminating the Respondent's employment with the Broward County School Board. In Case No. 90-6154, a final order should be entered concluding that the Respondent is guilty of "gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude," of conduct "which seriously reduces that person's effectiveness as an employee of the school board," and of conduct violating paragraphs (a) and (e) of subsection (3) of Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, within the meaning of Section 231.28(1)(c), (f), and (h), Florida Statutes, and permanently revoking the Respondent's teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of December 1991. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December 1991.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner’s Petition for Relief should be dismissed for failure to allege facts sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Florida Commission on Human Relations (the “FCHR”) under section 760.10, Florida Statutes.1 1 Citations shall be to Florida Statutes (2020) unless otherwise specified. Section 760.10 has been unchanged since 1992, save for a 2015 amendment adding pregnancy to the list of classifications protected from discriminatory employment practices. Ch. 2015-68, § 6, Laws of Fla.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). The Petition for Relief alleges the following ultimate facts, which are accepted as true for purposes of ruling on the Motion: I believe I have been discriminated against based on my race (Black), sex (male), and age (over 40). I also believe I am being retaliated against for filing a complaint with Florida Commission on Human Relations and in Federal Court. I have been working within the Gadsden County School system since January 2008 as a substitute teacher and have teaching experience. Around or on October 2020, I applied for a Social Studies position and was not offered an interview by the principal because DOE deliberately and maliciously held clearance letter to deny employment. Section 760.10 titled “Unlawful employment practices,” is the statute under which the FCHR exercises jurisdiction of the Petition for Relief. Section 760.10(1)(a) states that it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any individual “with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status.” The Motion states that Petitioner is not, and never has been, an employee of the Department. Respondent’s Chief of Human Resource Management, David Dawkins, conducted a system-wide search and verified that Petitioner has never been employed by the Department. Mr. Dawkins’s affidavit to that effect was attached to the Motion. Mr. Jones did not contest the contents of Mr. Dawkins’s affidavit. The Motion also references section 760.10(5) as a possible avenue under which Mr. Jones might seek relief against the Department. Section 760.10(5) provides: Whenever, in order to engage in a profession, occupation, or trade, it is required that a person receive a license, certification, or other credential, become a member or an associate of any club, association, or other organization, or pass any examination, it is an unlawful employment practice for any person to discriminate against any other person seeking such license, certification, or other credential, seeking to become a member or associate of such club, association, or other organization, or seeking to take or pass such examination, because of such other person’s race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status. In theory, the Department’s alleged “deliberate and malicious” withholding of Mr. Jones’s “clearance letter,” i.e., a Temporary Certificate to teach, could constitute a violation of section 760.10(5). However, the Department pointed out that after Mr. Jones applied for a Florida Educator Certificate, the Department sent him an “Official Statement of Status of Eligibility” on October 12, 2017. A copy of the Department’s letter to Mr. Jones was attached to the Motion. The letter informed Mr. Jones that he was eligible for a Temporary Certificate covering Social Science (Grades 6-12), if he completed the following requirements and documented them to the Bureau of Educator Certification (“BOE”): verification of employment and request for issuance of certificate on the appropriate certification form from a Florida public, state supported, or nonpublic school which has an approved Professional Education Competence Program. results of your fingerprint processing from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the FBI. Your employer will assist you in completing the fingerprint process. If your application or fingerprint report reflects a criminal offense or suspension/revocation record, your file will be referred to Professional Practices Services for further review. Issuance of your certificate will be contingent upon the results of this review. The Motion states that Mr. Jones submitted only the results of his fingerprint processing to BOE. Therefore, BOE was legally precluded from issuing a Temporary Certificate to Petitioner. Attached to the Motion was the affidavit of Daniel Moore, Chief of BOE, attesting to the fact that a request for issuance from a Florida public, state supported, or nonpublic school which has an approved Professional Education Competence Program is required in order for BOE to issue a Temporary Certificate. Mr. Moore’s affidavit is confirmed by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-4.004(1)(a)2., requiring verification of full-time employment by a Florida school district before a Temporary Certificate may be issued. Mr. Jones did not contest the contents of Mr. Moore’s affidavit. Based on the foregoing, the Motion requests entry of a summary recommended order of dismissal because Mr. Jones’s pleadings and admissions of fact, including those in his response to the Motion, are facially and conclusively insufficient to prove that he was ever an employee of the Department, or that the Department’s failure to issue a teaching certificate to Mr. Jones was based on anything more than the ministerial operation of the Department’s own rule. Mr. Jones’s response to the Motion does not address, and therefore appears to concede, the Department’s statement that he is not and has never been an employee of the Department. Mr. Jones did not allege that he has ever been an employee of, or an applicant for employment by, the Department. Mr. Jones’s response does not address the fact that the Department’s rule forbids it to issue a Temporary Certificate without verification of full- time employment. Rather, Mr. Jones pursues an argument alleging that the denial was somehow based on his criminal record and that denial on that basis is discriminatory because of the disproportionate percentage of African American and Latino citizens who have criminal records in comparison to Caucasians. Mr. Jones claims that the Department’s stated reason for denying him a Temporary Certificate was pretextual and that the actual reason was racial discrimination premised on his criminal record. In a related case, Mr. Jones has alleged that the Gadsden County School Board declined to hire him because of his criminal record, and that this declination was a pretext for discrimination based on race, age, and/or sex. The merits of Mr. Jones’s case against the local school board and its subsidiary institutions are not at issue here. The question in this case is whether the Department had anything to do with Mr. Jones’s failure to gain employment by the Gadsden County School Board. The undisputed facts establish that the Department’s role in this process was purely ministerial. Had Mr. Jones secured employment, the school that hired him would have requested the issuance of a Temporary Certificate by the Department. By operation of rule 6A-4.004(1)(a)2., the Department would have issued the Temporary Certificate. The Department had no role in the decisions of the local school officials to hire or not hire Mr. Jones. It is found that Mr. Jones has not alleged facts sufficient to state a case against the Department under section 760.10, and that he would not be able to prove at hearing that he was ever an employee of the Department, or that the failure to issue a Temporary Certificate to Mr. Jones was anything more than the Department’s following the requirements of its own rule.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that the Department of Education did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of July, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of July, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Dan Saunders Florida Department of Education Turlington Building, Room 101 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Ronald David Jones 1821 McKelvy Street Quincy, Florida 32351 Paula Harrigan, Esquire Department of Education Suite 1544 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), 1012.795(1)(f), and 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2003),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(h), and 6B-4.009(2), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Ruffin holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 893557 for teaching mathematics. His certificate is valid through June 30, 2010. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Ruffin was employed as a mathematics teacher at Dixie Hollands High School (Dixie Hollands) in the Pinellas County School District. During 2003, T.C. was an eleventh-grade student at Dixie Hollands. Mr. Ruffin tutored T.C. in mathematics over the summer of 2002 to prepare her for the Florida Achievement Test (FCAT). During the following school year, Mr. Ruffin developed a mentoring relationship with T.C., and T.C. became Mr. Ruffin's teaching assistant. Mr. Ruffin provided his cellular telephone number to all of his students, including T.C., in case they needed to contact him. On or about May 3, 2003, Mr. Ruffin was in his classroom with two other students during lunchtime. T.C. entered the room to speak to Mr. Ruffin because she was upset and sought advice. The other two students eventually left, and T.C. and Mr. Ruffin were in the room alone. T.C. shut the door, which contained a window covered by paper. School policy required that the doors remain locked, but propped open. After she shut the door, T.C. sat at the teaching assistant's desk, but soon started to cry and sat on Mr. Ruffin's lap. Mr. Ruffin and T.C. then hugged, and Respondent patted T.C. on her back. Both T.C. and Mr. Ruffin maintain that no other touching occurred during this incident and that T.C. was not on Mr. Ruffin's lap for more than 30 seconds. During the time period when T.C. was in the classroom with Mr. Ruffin, other students were looking into the classroom through a hole in the paper on the window. The hole in the paper was small, which allowed only one student at a time to look into the classroom through the hole. Approximately seven to nine students observed T.C. and Mr. Ruffin. The school has video cameras in the hallways, which recorded the students looking into the classroom for a period of several minutes. While observing from the hallway, the students witnessed T.C. sitting on Mr. Ruffin's lap behind the desk for several minutes. One student claimed she saw Mr. Ruffin rubbing T.C.'s leg; however, the student's testimony was not distinctly remembered and it was not precise and explicit. The students also saw T.C. going through some pictures from Mr. Ruffin's wallet. Mr. Ruffin acknowledged at the final hearing, that T.C. came around to his desk, sat on his knees, put her arm around his neck, and initiated a hug. He patted her on her back. At the final hearing, T.C. also acknowledged that she sat on Mr. Ruffin's knee and that he hugged her. T.C. denied that there was any inappropriate touching by Mr. Ruffin. One student, P.H., observed the encounter through the window. P.H. confronted T.C. about the incident and told T.C. that she could have gotten into trouble. T.C. told Respondent about the confrontation with P.H. P.H. then reported the incident to the School Resource Officer, Deputy Todd Pierce. Following the reporting of the events, Michael Bessette of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards investigated the incident. When Mr. Bessette spoke with Mr. Ruffin, Mr. Ruffin claimed that he did not have any other contact with T.C. after the incident and did not know whether or not the other students had confronted T.C. about it. Mr. Bessette then reported the incident to the principal, and the school district began an investigation. After speaking with all of the witnesses, T.C., and Mr. Ruffin, the School Board concluded that Mr. Ruffin acted inappropriately when he allowed T.C. to sit on his lap. Respondent's proper course of conduct when T.C. sat on his lap would have been to stand up and politely push T.C. away from him. Following the investigation, Mr. Ruffin signed a Stipulation Agreement with the school district where he agreed to a transfer to another school, a suspension without pay for 20 days, a retention of his annual contract for an additional year, and the designation of an "at will employee" for the 2004- 2005 school year. By signing the agreement, Mr. Ruffin also conceded that he was aware that his actions violated the Code of Ethics and the Principals of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. Mr. Ruffin was transferred to Lakewood High School, where he is currently employed as a teacher. Mr. Ruffin has not been the subject of any other disciplinary proceedings since the incident giving rise to these allegations, and is an effective teacher at Lakewood High School.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Walter Ruffin violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(f), and 1012.795(i), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a); suspending his teaching certificate for 30 days; and placing him on probation for three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 19th day of April, 2006.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offenses alleged in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Paul W. Lane, holds teacher's certificate number 323312, issued by the Florida Department of Education, covering the area of substitute teaching. Such certificate is valid through June 30, 1993. Pertinent to this case, respondent was on a list of authorized substitute teachers in the Broward County School District, and during the 1989- 90 school year he was assigned as a substitute teacher at Plantation Middle School. In May 1990, a complaint was lodged with school authorities by one of respondent's students, Debi Keefe, regarding respondent's conduct. Following investigation, respondent was removed from the list of approved substitute teachers for the Broward County School District. 1/ Regarding the complaint lodged by Debi Keefe (Debi), the proof demonstrates that during the course of the 1989-90 school year, she was an eighth grade student at Plantation Middle School and was occasionally assigned to respondent's internal suspension class (ISC). On or about May 10, 1990, she was informed by a member of the faculty that he was going to return her to respondent's ISC, at which time Debi objected and accused respondent of various acts of misconduct which she contended occurred while previously assigned to his ISC. The acts of misconduct voiced by Debi, that were identified at hearing, were essentially four in number. First, she testified that when she wore her bicycle shorts to school, respondent would tell her to lift her shirt so he could see her "fat thing" (vagina). Second, when, following respondent's inquiry as to where she would be going for spring break, and Debi informing him that she would be at the beach, respondent stated that if she did "they could do it in [the] car". Third, upon becoming aware that Debi was dating her friend's cousin, respondent stated "I hope he fucks you so he makes you scream." Finally, Debi testified that on one occasion during ISC, respondent grabbed her on the leg, and she pushed his hand away. Regarding the later allegation, Debi had no recollection of the circumstances surrounding the event, and no conclusion can be drawn regarding the propriety of respondent's action in grabbing Debi's leg from the paucity of proof. According to Debi, she at first thought respondent's remarks to be a joke, but because they had continued, she elected to make her disclosure when faced with reassignment to his ISC. She was not really scared or embarrassed by respondent's remarks, but they did make her feel uncomfortable. Following Debi's revelations to the authorities at Plantation Middle School, an investigation was undertaken which included interviews with other students who had been in respondent's classes that school year. During the course of that investigation, three other students revealed what they felt was objectionable conduct by respondent. Those three students, Chantalle Habersham, Marilyn Gonzales, and Catherine Illiano testified at hearing as to the events which follow. Chantalle Habersham (Chantalle) was a seventh grade student in respondent's drop out prevention class for the 1989-90 school year. On Chantalle's fourteenth birthday, in May 1990, respondent announced that, following the end of class, he was going to give Chantalle some birthday "licks" (spanks), thereafter took her over his knee, and gave her fourteen licks across her buttocks. According to Chantalle, each time respondent gave her a lick, he rubbed his hand across her buttocks, but she declined to characterize such contact as a caress. At the time, Chantalle was wearing slacks and the spanking occurred in front of approximately four other students. Although embarrassed by the incident, it did not really scare Chantalle or make her angry. Nor was Chantalle's birthday spanking the first of such events in respondent's class. Rather, such had become a ritual or game, although perhaps ill advised, during the course of the year. Chantalle further testified regarding a spelling test where respondent used the word "saliva" in a sentence to demonstrate its meaning to the class. According to Chantalle, the sentence selected by respondent was as follows: "When I kiss Chantalle, saliva ran out my mouth". Chantalle did not, at the time, interpret respondent's statement to be a sexual or intimate reference on his part, but did find it embarrassing. Marilyn Gonzales (Marilyn) was a seventh grade student in respondent's language arts class, during the 1989-90 school year and also participated in track, where respondent was her coach. According to Marilyn, on one occasion during the school year she experienced a cramp in her thigh while running and respondent offered his assistance to alleviate the problem. While rubbing her thigh to isolate the area where the pain was located, Marilyn says that respondent "touched [her] vagina" once. Marilyn further testified that respondent, on another occasion, "touched [her] butt". On each of these occasions Marilyn was wearing shorts, and respondent did not then, nor did he ever, make any sexually suggestive remarks toward her. Regarding Marilyn's allegations of "touching," the record is devoid of any specificity as to the manner in which respondent "touched" Marilyn's vagina on one occasion and the manner in which or the circumstances surrounding the one occasion on which he "touched" her buttocks. Under such circumstances, the proof is as susceptible of demonstrating accidental contact, as it is an improper touching on respondent's part. Finally, Marilyn testified regarding an event that occurred in respondent's ISC while she and Chantalle were passing out papers. According to Marilyn, she and Chantalle were discussing, in respondent's presence, Marilyn's sister, who was single and pregnant with her second child. During the course of that conversation, respondent was attributed with saying something to the effect that, "if a girl lay down and spread her legs something would happen." Such statement was not, however, shown to be a sexually suggestive remark, nor was it so taken by Marilyn. Rather, considering the context in which it was uttered, such remark was, as likely as not, intended to evoke caution least the girls find themselves in the same predicament as Marilyn's sister. Catherine Illiano (Catherine) was an eighth grade student at Plantation Middle School during the 1989-90 school year and participated in after school athletics, discus and shot put, for which respondent was the coach. According to Catherine, on one such afternoon she and Marilyn Gonzales, along with the other girls who were participating in shot put and discus, were gathered, and respondent stated to Marilyn that "he liked her big titties", and then turned to Catherine and stated "don't worry, I like little ones too." While such statements were certainly improper, the circumstances surrounding such remarks were not adequately explicated at hearing to demonstrate baseness or depravity. Finally, Catherine also testified that on another afternoon respondent stated to her that her "father wouldn't like it if [she] had a black hand across [her] ass". When asked why respondent made such a statement, Catherine answered: I don't know. We were just talking about the shot put and we were all playing around and he bursted out with that. While the circumstances surrounding the incident are sparse, they suggest, as likely as not, that respondent's statement was intended as a reproach for Catherine's disruptive conduct at the time, rather than for any improper motivation. Contrasted with the recollections of Debi, Chantalle, Marilyn and Catherine, respondent testified that, but for the birthday spanking of Chantalle, which did occur, and his current lack of recollection regarding the statement made by him during the spelling test, that the remaining statements or conduct attributed to him by the other students did not occur. Considering the proof offered in this case, with due deference to the standard of proof applicable to these proceedings, discussed infra, compels the conclusion that respondent was not shown to have committed any improper or immoral act when he touched Debi and Marilyn, and was not shown to have committed an improper or immoral act when he spanked Chantalle on her birthday. Such conduct was also not shown to seriously reduce respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the District, or to constitute the intentional exposure of a student to unnecessary embarrassment or the exploitation of a professional relationship for personal gain or advantage. 2/ Regarding the remarks attributed to respondent by Debi, Chantalle, Marilyn, and Catherine, the proof in this case is compelling that respondent did utter such remarks. The remarks uttered to Debi, a fourteen-year-old girl at the time, were base, exposed her to unnecessary disparagement, and seriously reduced respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the District. The remarks uttered to Chantalle, Marilyn and Catherine, while not shown to be of such inherent baseness as to rise to the level of gross immorality, were nevertheless improper and, to varying degrees, demonstrated respondent's failure to fulfill his duty of providing leadership and effectiveness as a teacher.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be rendered which permanently revokes respondent's teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of August 1991. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August 1991.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner Lawrence A. Longenecker formerly held a Florida teaching certificate, and was employed as a science teacher at Madeira Beach Middle School in Pinellas County until January of 1978. In January of 1978, administrative charges were brought against the petitioner by the Professional Practices Council (the predecessor to the Education Practices Commission) for the revocation of his teaching certificate. After a hearing before a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, it was found that petitioner had made sexual advances toward three female students on four separate occasions during 1977 and that petitioner was thus guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduced his effectiveness as a school board employee. The Hearing Officer recommended, by order dated November 25, 1980, that petitioner's teaching certificate be permanently revoked. Professional Practices Council v. Lawrence Longenecker, DOAH Case No. 80-1276 (November 25, 1980). By Final Order filed on February 2, 1981, the Education Practices Commission adopted the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order and permanently revoked petitioner's teaching certificate. Professional Practices Council v. Lawrence A. Longenecker, Case NO. 80-005-RT (February 2, 1981). No appeal was taken from this Final Order. In approximately March of 1983, petitioner filed an application for a Florida Teaching Certificate, which application was denied by the Department of Education. Its "Notice of Reasons" for denial, filed on June 30, 1983, recited the events which formed the bases for the prior permanent revocation of petitioner's teaching certificate, and concluded that petitioner had failed to demonstrate that he is of good moral character, as required by Section 231.17(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and that petitioner had committed acts for which the Education Practices Commission would be authorized to revoke a teacher's certificate. Petitioner was 28 and 29 years of age during the time of the acts which formed the basis for the prior certificate revocation. He is now 34 years old. Since 1978, he has obtained a Master's degree in personnel administration from the University of South Florida and has been employed in the area of retail management. He fees that he is now more mature and more wise and would like to return to his chosen profession of teaching school. During the pendency of the instant proceeding, petitioner visited Dr. Alfred Fireman for psychiatric counseling and evaluation on three occasions. It was Dr. Fireman's opinion that petitioner is psychologically fit to reenter the teaching profession provided that his behavior is monitored. He concluded that petitioner "was a suitable candidate for a probationary restoration of privileges." The Education Practices Commission has never reinstated a former certificate or issued a new teaching certificate to an individual whose certificate had been previously permanently revoked.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order denying petitioner's application for a Florida teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1984. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 9th day of March 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence D. Black, Esquire 152 Eighth Avenue SW Largo, Florida 33540 J. David Holder, Esquire Berg & Holder 128 Salem Court Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald L. Greisheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission Room 125, Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
