The Issue Did Respondent Siebelts commit the offenses set forth in the petition for dismissal (Case No. 88-4697) and the amended administrative complaint (Case No. 89-0189) filed against her? If so, what discipline should she receive?
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Karen Siebelts has held a State of Florida teaching certificate since 1976. Her current certificate was issued May 1, 1986, and covers the areas of elementary education, elementary and secondary reading, and secondary social studies and psychology. For the past thirteen years Siebelts has been employed by the School Board of Broward County as a classroom teacher. During the early stages of her employment, she taught at Melrose Park Middle School. She then moved to Perry Middle School, where she taught a class of emotionally disturbed sixth graders. Her performance at these two schools was rated as acceptable. In November, 1979, Siebelts was assigned to teach at Charles Drew Elementary School, a neighborhood school located in the predominantly black Collier city area of Pompano Beach. The charges lodged against Siebelts are based on specific acts she allegedly committed while she was a Chapter I Reading/Math and Computer teacher at Charles Drew providing remedial instruction to students whose test scores reflected a need for such special assistance. On January 22, 1985, while seated with her fifth grade students at a table during a reading lesson, Siebelts inadvertently kicked one of the students in the shin. The incident occurred as Siebelts was moving her legs to a more comfortable position. The force involved was minimal and produced no visible injuries. The student immediately demanded an apology from Siebelts. Siebelts responded to this demand with silence. She neither apologized nor said anything to suggest that she had intended to kick the student. Earlier in the lesson, Siebelts had directed the student to stop talking. The student had defied the directive and continued to talk. It was not until approximately three minutes after the student's initial defiance of the directive, however, that the kicking incident occurred. Nonetheless, the student suspected that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her because of her failure to obey Siebelts' order that she not talk. When the student came home from school that day she told her mother that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her during class. The mother immediately reported the incident to the principal of the school, Hubert Lee. The matter was referred to the School Board's Internal Affairs Unit for investigation. The requested investigation was conducted. Following the completion of the investigation, a written report of the investigator's findings was submitted to the administration. No further action was taken regarding this incident until approximately three and a half years later when the instant petition for dismissal was issued. Siebelts was annoyed when she learned that the student and her mother had accused her of wrongdoing in connection with the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. On February 19, 1985, she expressed her annoyance in front of her fifth grade class and in their presence threatened to take legal action against those students and parents who had made libelous or slanderous statements about her or had otherwise verbally abused her. She told the students that they and their parents would be subpoenaed to court and if they did not appear they would be incarcerated. The principal of the school was informed of these remarks shortly after they were made, but it was not until the instant petition for dismissal was issued on August 22, 1988, that Siebelts was first formally charged with having made the remarks. Before coming to work on January 28 1986, Siebelts took a codeine pain medication that her physician had prescribed. When classes started that morning she was still under the influence of the medication. She was listless and drowsy. Her speech was slurred and she appeared incoherent at times. She also had difficulty maintaining her balance when she walked. Because Siebelts had been taking this medication "on and off" since 1979, she had been aware of these potential side effects of the medication when ingesting it on this particular occasion. A teacher's aide in Siebelts' classroom concerned about Siebelts' condition summoned the principal, Hubert Lee, to the classroom. When he arrived, Lee observed Siebelts seated at her desk. She was just staring and seemed "to be almost falling asleep." The students were out of control. They were laughing and making fun of Siebelts. After questioning Siebelts and receiving an answer that was not at all responsive to the question he had asked, Lee instructed Siebelts to come to his office. Siebelts complied, displaying an unsteady gait as she walked to Lee's office. In Lee's office, Siebelts insisted that she was fine, but conceded that she was "on" prescribed pain medication. Throughout their conversation, Siebelts continued to slur her words and it was difficult for Lee to understand her. Pursuant to Lee's request, Dr. Lorette David, Lee's immediate supervisor, and Nat Stokes, a School Board investigator, came to Lee's office to observe and assess Siebelts' condition. A determination was thereafter made that Siebelts was not capable of performing her instructional duties that day, which was an accurate assessment. She therefore was sent home for the day. Because of her impaired condition, rather than driving herself home, she was driven to her residence by Dr. David. Although she believed that she was not suffering from any impairment, Siebelts did not protest the decision to relieve her of her duties because she felt that any such protest would have fallen on deaf ears. Following this incident, Siebelts was issued a letter of reprimand by Lee. She also was referred to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program because it was felt that she might have a substance abuse problem. Siebelts agreed to participate in the program and received counselling. At no time subsequent to January 28, 1986, did Siebelts report to work under the influence of her pain medication or any other drug. During the 1987-1988 school year, Siebelts and two other Chapter I teachers, Rosa Moses and Mary Cooper, occupied space in Charles Drew's Chapter I reading and math laboratory. Their classrooms were located in the same large room and were separated by makeshift partitions. Siebelts is white. Moses and Cooper, as well as the aides who were assigned to the laboratory during that school year, are black. In October, 1987, Moses complained to Principal Lee that Siebelts was not teaching her students, but rather was constantly engaging in loud verbal confrontations with them that disrupted Moses' lessons. Lee had received similar complaints about Siebelts from others. He therefore asked Moses to advise him in writing of any future classroom misconduct on Siebelts' part. Siebelts continued to engage in conduct in her classroom which Moses deemed inappropriate and disruptive. On November 4, 1987, for the last five minutes of one of her classes, she loudly exchanged verbal barbs with her students. Her yelling made it difficult for Moses and Cooper to teach their lessons. On November 5, 1987, throughout an entire 45-minute class period, Siebelts was embroiled in a verbal battle with a student during which she made derogatory remarks about the student's size. She called the student "fat" and told her that she "shake[d] like jelly." The student, in turn, called Siebelts "fruity" and likened her to a "scarecrow." On that same day during a later class period, Siebelts took a student by the arm and, following a tussle with the student, placed him in his seat. Thereafter, she made belittling remarks to the other students in the class. She said that they were "stupid" and "belonged in a freak show." She also referred to them as "imbeciles." Siebelts further told her students that their "mothers eat dog food." On November 25, 1987, Siebelts commented to the students in one of her classes that they would be able to move around the classroom with greater ease if they were not so fat. As she had been asked to do, Moses provided Lee with a written account of these November, 1987, encounters between Siebelts and her students, but Lee did not take any immediate action to initiate disciplinary action against Siebelts. Although she did not so indicate in her report, Moses believed that the unflattering remarks that Siebelts had made to the students on these occasions constituted racial slurs inasmuch as all of the students to whom the remarks had been addressed were black and in addressing these remarks to the students as a group she had referred to them as "you people." Moses thought that "you people" had meant black people in general, whereas Siebelts had intended the phrase to refer to just the students in the classroom. At no time during any of these reported incidents did Siebelts make specific reference to the students' race, nor did she specifically attack black people in general. The target of her demeaning and insulting remarks were those of her students whose unruly and disrespectful behavior she was unable to control. Her efforts to maintain discipline and promote learning in the classroom had failed. She had become frustrated with the situation and verbally lashed out at her students. Unfortunately, these outbursts only served to further reduce her effectiveness as a teacher. On March 1, 1988, Siebelts was involved in an incident similar to the one which had occurred more than three years earlier on January 22, 1985. As on the prior occasion, Siebelts was sitting at a classroom table with her students. Her legs were crossed. When she repositioned her legs, her foot inadvertently came in contact with the top of the head of a student who was crawling under the table to retrieve a pencil the student had dropped. The student had been told by Siebelts not to go under the table but had disobeyed the instruction. She had been under the table for approximately a minute and a half before being struck by Siebelts foot. The blow to the student's head was a light one and produced only a slight bump. Nonetheless, after getting up from under the table, the student, a brash fourth grader who had had confrontations with Siebelts in the past, threatened to physically retaliate against Siebelts. Siebelts did not say anything to the student and the class ended without the student following through on her threat. Following this incident, Siebelts telephoned the student's mother at home to discuss the student's classroom behavior. The call was placed sometime before 9:00 p.m. The conversation between Siebelts and the mother soon degenerated into an argument. They terminated the discussion without settling their differences. Lee subsequently met with the mother. He suggested that a meeting with Siebelts at the school be arranged. The mother indicated to Lee that she would not attend such a meeting unless school security was present. She explained that she was so angry at Siebelts that she was afraid that she would lose her composure and physically attack Siebelts if they were in the same room together.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order suspending Karen Siebelts' teaching certificate for two years and that the School Board of Broward County issue a final order suspending Siebelts until the reinstatement of her teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of June, 1989. STUART M. LERNER 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 29th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 88-4687 AND 89-0189 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: Commisioner of Education's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance in the Findings of Fact portion of this Recommended Order. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Siebelts was not charged with having made threatening remarks the day after the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. These threats were allegedly made, according to the charging documents, on February 19, 1985. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts engaged in name-calling on dates other than those specfied in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint otherwise, it is accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Furthermore, the witness whose testimony is recited in this proposed finding later clarified her testimony and conceded that Siebelts did not use the precise words quoted in this proposed finding. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts made "racial comments" on the dates specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint. Insofar as it states that such comments were made on other occasions, it is rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. According to the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, Siebelts threatened her students with legal action on February 19, 1985. This proposed finding, however, relates to alleged threats of legal action made by Siebelts during the 1987-1988 school year. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Siebelts' Proposed Findings of Fact First unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Second unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and :incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Third unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as unnecessary; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fourth unnumbered paragraph: Rejected as more in the nature of a statement of opposing parties' position than a finding of fact; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fifth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as subordinate; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; tenth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; eleventh sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; twelfth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Sixth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Seventh unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony (The exculpatory testimony of Siebelts which is summarized in the first three sentences of this paragraph has not been credited because it is contrary to the more credible testimony of other witnesses) fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Eighth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as subordinate; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; ninth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Ninth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Tenth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Superintendent of School's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance, except for the fourth sentence, which has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated in substance except to the extent that it asserts that Siebelts "advised the students that they and their parents would be placed in jail because of the lies and the slander." The preponderance of the evidence reveals that she actually told them that they and their parents would be incarcerated if they did not appear in court when summoned. First sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second and third sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument concerning relatively insignificant matters than findings of fact addressing necessary and vital issues. Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts had alcohol on her breath. Any such suggestion has been rejected because it is contrary to the testimony of Investigator Stokes. Stokes, who has been employed by the School Board as an investigator for the past 20 years, testified that he was standing one or two feet away from Siebelts and did not detect the odor of alcohol on her breath. In view of his experience regarding the investigation of these matters, his testimony has been credited. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that this proposed finding states that Siebelts made inappropriate remarks regarding the students' clothing or other matters on dates other than those specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, it has been rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts made derogatory remarks about black people in general on the dates specified in these charging documents, it has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. To the extent that this proposed finding indicates that Siebelts otherwise insulted the students in her class on the dates specified in the charging documents, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "disparaging remarks" which are the subject of this proposed finding were purportedly made during the 1984-1985 school year. The "disparaging remarks" referenced in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint were allegedly made, according to these charging documents, during the 1987-1988 school year, more specifically, on November 4, 5, and 25, 1987. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "critical" remarks referred to in this proposed finding were allegedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. First sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial to the extent it references reactions to "disparaging" and "critical" remarks that were purportedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of the testimony of Siebelts' former students and colleagues rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it reflects that Moses actively monitored Siebelts classroom conduct "through December of 1987." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that such active monitoring actually ceased November 25, 1987; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent it indicates that Noses heard Siebelts tell her students that they "were dirty and needed baths." This comment was purportedly overheard, not by Moses, but by Margaret Cameron, a teacher's aide who had left Charles Drew prior to the commencement of the 1987- 1988 school year; fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. These proposed findings are based on Cameron's testimony regarding offensive comments she had allegedly overheard while an aide in Siebelts' classroom. These pre-1987-1988 school year comments, however, are not mentioned in either the petition for dismissal or the amended administrative complaint. First sentence: As this proposed finding correctly points out, Siebelts' insulting comments only served to heighten the students' hostility and anger toward her. There is no persuasive competent substantial evidence, though, to support the further finding that these comments "resulted in several physical altercations between the students;" second sentence: Rejected inasmuch as there no persuasive competent substantial evidence that there was any "heated verbal exchange" on November 5, 1987, between Siebelts and the student which preceded their "altercation." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the verbal battle with her students occurred immediately after this incident; third sentence: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Although she may used physical force during her encounter with this student, it is unlikely that she actually "tossed" him into his seat. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected inasmuch as there is no persuasive competent substantial evidence to support a finding that Siebelts telephoned the student's mother as a result of the incident near the air-conditioner. The preponderance of the evidence does establish that Siebelts did telephone the mother on a subsequent occasion, but there is no indication that Siebelts threatened the mother or otherwise acted inappropriately during this telephone conversation. Although the mother asked to have security personnel present during a parent-teacher conference with Siebelts, the preponderance of the evidence reveals that this request was not the product of any threats that Siebelts had made against the mother. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Siebelts' testimony that the contact was unintentional is plausible and has been credited. The circumstantial evidence presented by Petitioners (including evidence of prior confrontations between Siebelts and the student) raises some questions regarding the veracity of Siebelts' testimony on this point, but such evidence is not sufficiently compelling to warrant the discrediting this testimony. Given her penchant for verbalizing to her students her thoughts about them, had Siebelts intended to kick the student as a disciplinary measure, she undoubtedly would have made this known to the student, rather than remain silent as she did; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that immediately after kicking the student, Siebelts had a "smirk on her face." To this limited extent, this proposed finding is not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; second, third, fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. To the extent that this proposed finding suggests that Siebelts' behavior at school on January 28, 1986, and her verbal attack of her students on November 4, 5, and 25, 198', reduced her effectiveness as a teacher, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Insofar as it indicates that other conduct in which she engaged resulted in a reduction or loss of effectiveness, it has been rejected as either contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (other conduct specified in charging documents) or beyond the scope of the charges (other conduct not specified in charging documents). COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Whitelock, Esquire 1311 S.E. 2nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Edward J. Marko, Esquire Suite 322, Bayview Building 4,1040 Bayview Drive Post Office Box 4369 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33338 Virgil L. Morgan, Superintendent Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Thomas P. Johnson, Ed.D. Associate Superintendent Human Resources Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire Suite 315 1201 U.S. Highway One North Palm Beach, Florida 33408-3581 Karen B. Wilde Robert F. McRee, Esquire Executive Director Post Office Box 75638 Education Practices Commission Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate 237129, covering the areas of social studies and work experience coordinator. At all times material hereto, the Respondent was employed as a social studies instructor at Columbia High School in the Columbia County School District. Respondent has been a school teacher since January, 1967 and has taught school in the Columbia County School District since 1968, excluding two (2) years for military service. Respondent has a good record as a teacher in the Columbia County School District and has never been accused of any professional misconduct in the past. Adrianne Lewis (Lewis) was a sixteen (16) year old student at Columbia High School in the first semester of the 1985/86 school year and became acquainted with the Respondent when she was a student in his third and sixth period classes. Lewis did not start in Respondent's sixth period class until two (2) weeks after the beginning of school in August, 1985 and was required to make up work missed during the first two (2) weeks. Respondent has a consistent policy with regard to make-up work which requires all students to make up work either before or after school and not during class. During the first six (6) weeks of school, Lewis made up several tests that she had missed both before and after becoming a student of Respondent. The complaining witness, Adrianne Lewis, testified that on two (2) separate occasions, most probably in September, 1985, the first time during a school pep rally and the second time while she was taking a make-up test after school, the Respondent, among other things, kissed her on the mouth and neck, fondled her breasts, rubbed and fondled her derriere, attempted to put a balloon under her shirt and asked why she was afraid of him and sex. However, the more credible evidence is that: (a) On September 13, 1985, Lewis went to Respondent's classroom during a school pep rally to take a make-up test, arriving around 2:50 p.m. She was given a copy of the test by Respondent and took the test in Respondent's classroom; (b) After Lewis turned in the test, Respondent spent approximately ten (10) minutes with Lewis discussing a problem she was having; (c) During the time Lewis was in the Respondent's classroom and office, Ken Stark was in an adjoining classroom with connecting windows which had only a portion of the view blocked; (d) Later in September, 1985, Lewis stayed after school to take another make-up test, arriving around 3:30 p.m. She was given a copy of the test by Respondent and took the test in Respondent's classroom; (e) During the time Lewis was in Respondent's office turning in the test, Respondent's elder son, John D. Evans, III was present and observed no misconduct on Respondent's part in regard to Lewis and; (f) Respondent, at no time during these two (2) occasions or any other occasion, improperly touched Lewis or engaged in any misconduct with respect to Lewis. During the second six (6) weeks of school, Lewis began missing class regularly. Due to a School Board policy concerning unexcused absences, Respondent consulted with Tom Grubb, Guidance Counselor, and was instructed to contact Lewis' parents. Respondent was unable to contact Lewis' parents or her grandmother, with whom she lived, but did contact her aunt, Denise Lewis. Respondent informed Denise Lewis of Lewis' absences and the need for Lewis to makeup her work or risk failing. Respondent's conversation with Denise Lewis occurred during the week of October 28, 1985 and about one (1) week later Denise Lewis conveyed the message to Lewis. Lewis did not mention the alleged improper touching by Respondent to Denise Lewis at this time but did say that Respondent did not like her and was going to fail her anyway. When Denise Lewis informed Lewis' grandmother of her absences, Lewis became upset because her grandmother had not previously known about Lewis' absences. On or about October 31, 1985, Lewis reported to Sergeant James Rutledge that she had been improperly touched and fondled by a teacher but did not disclose the teacher's name. During the week of November 6, 1985, Lewis again reported to Sergeant Rutledge that she had been improperly touched by a teacher but did not disclose the teacher's name. Rutledge went with Lewis and her girlfriend to the dean's office and notified the dean that Lewis was outside and needed to talk to him. On or about November 6, 1985, Lewis became upset with Respondent about calling her aunt and angrily told him not to call her aunt again. Lewis told Respondent that she was going to inform the administration of his alleged misconduct. Thereafter, the matter was reported and investigated by the administrator. As a result of the alleged misconduct, the Respondent was arrested and charged with battery. Subsequent to the arrest, the State Attorney for the Third Judicial Circuit of Florida filed a No Information and the cause was dismissed. There was no evidence to prove that Respondent's conduct had reduced his effectiveness as a teacher. There was no evidence that Respondent had exploited the teacher/student relationship with the minor female student for his own personal gain, exposing her to harm and unnecessary embarrassment. There was no evidence that Respondent had: (a) accepted or offered any gratuity, gift, or favor to, or from, anyone; (b) used institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage; (c) intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement or; (d) failed to make reasonable effort to protect student from conditions harmful to learning or to health or to safety.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. Respectfully submitted and entered this 15th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 15th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3994 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9 but clarified. Rejected that portion of the finding of fact concerning Lewis requesting Respondent to sign, and Respondent signing, a balloon as immaterial and irrelevant. The balance of the finding of fact is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. The fact that Lewis skipped classes is adopted in Finding of Fact 10 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Lewis took a second test before December, 1985, is adopted in Finding of Fact 9 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 11.-12. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Lewis reported the alleged incidents is adopted in Finding of Fact 15 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Lewis told the Respondent that she had reported the alleged sexual contact to the administration is adopted in Finding of Fact 14 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The first sentence is rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. The second sentence is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. The fact that a No Information was filed and the case dismissed is adopted in Finding of Fact 16 but that the State Attorney dismissed because the contact was consensual is rejected as hearsay that does not supplement or explain any other evidence in the record. 19-21. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. In these findings, the Petitioner relies mainly on the testimony of Lewis, testimony which I did not find credible. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent: Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 7.-15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 16.-19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 20.-23. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11, 12, 13 and 14, respectively. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Education Practice Commission Room 418, Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Carolyn Thompson LeBoeuf, Esquire Brooks, LeBoeuf and LeBoeuf 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas W. Brooks Meyer, Brooks, and Cooper, P.A. 911 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32302
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 is whether the termination of Respondent, Barbara Paul, by Petitioner, "for cause," was justified.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Barbara Paul is a teacher covered under the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Laws of Florida, Chapter 21197 (1941), as amended ("Tenure Act") and the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") between Duval Teachers United and DCSB for 2006-2009. Respondent is a tenured or experienced contract teacher, who can only be terminated for "just cause" as defined in the Tenure Act and the CBA. Respondent has used the word "boy" on more than one occasion to address male students. Respondent has told a female student to "shut her mouth" or "shut her face." Respondent worked for DCSB as a full-time "tenured" teacher during the 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009 school years. Respondent, originally born in Jamaica, moved to the United States in March 1989, where she has remained since that time and, with the exception of one year in 1998, has been employed as an English/Language Arts ("E/LA") teacher for DCSB. E/LA consists of primarily literacy, English, grammar, some writing skills, and aspects of reading. During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent, a "tenured/professional contract" teacher, was certified by the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) to teach language arts and was assigned to teach creative writing to 12 and 13-year-old students (sixth grade) at Paxon. DCSB is a duly-constituted school board charged with the responsibility to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Duval County, Florida, pursuant to Section 1001.31, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to her contract with DCSB, and consequent to holding a professional teaching certificate issued by FDOE, Respondent was, at all times material, subject to DCSB's rules and regulations as well as all applicable Florida laws and regulations, including Sections 1012.23 and 1012.33, Florida Statutes, and FDOE Rules 6B-1.001 and 6B-1.006. Teachers employed by DCSB are bound by a "Progressive Discipline" Policy, which generally prohibits adverse employment action based on misconduct unless the following steps are taken: (a) a verbal reprimand, (b) a written reprimand, (c) a suspension without pay, and (d) termination. The policy may be disregarded for "some more severe acts of misconduct." Respondent does not dispute that the following steps in the Progressive Discipline Policy were taken, although she disputes the factual particulars of such disciplinary actions: September 2006, Step I Verbal Reprimand, DuPont Middle School, based on inappropriate comments made during a parent conference; October 2006, Step II Written Reprimand, DuPont Middle School, based on inappropriate, racial comments to students; May 2007, Step III Five-Day Suspension, DuPont Middle School, for battery upon a student; February 2008, Step II Written Reprimand, Paxon Middle School, for threatening to shove a broom down a student's throat. If the instant charges are supported, Respondent's misconduct during school year 2007-2008 would constitute "Step Three," the final step of the Progressive Discipline Policy, which justifies termination of her employment. The instant charges are based on an incident that occurred on March 19, 2009, at Paxon. During the fourth period (toward the end of the school day), six students reported to the sixth-grade administrative office at Paxon and reported that their creative writing teacher, Respondent, would not allow them into her classroom. Ronnie Williams was the assistant principal and the sixth-grade house administrator at that time. Mr. Williams instructed the school's security officer, J.R. Johnson, to escort the students back to the classroom to find out what was going on, because they had no passes or referrals from the teacher, as required by school policy. Mr. Johnson returned about 15 or 20 minutes later with the students and reported that, contrary to school policy, Respondent still refused to allow them back into her class, and that she stated she would be writing them referrals. Two of the students, K.W. (female) and D.P. (male), told Mr. Williams that Respondent had pushed K.W. and also stepped on K.W.'s foot. D.P. stated that Respondent had hit him in the face with a book. After that, because of the seriousness of the allegations, Mr. Williams asked each student to complete a written statement of what they observed in the classroom. The students were kept separated from one another while they wrote their statements, so that Mr. Williams could observe them. Mr. Williams testified that the children did not have an opportunity to speak with one another or to compare statements, and did not collaborate in any manner when the written statements were done. Mr. Williams then individually interviewed each student. Each of the student's statements was consistent with one another and with K.W.'s and D.P.'s accounts. According to the students' written statements (all of which were entered into evidence without any objection from Respondent) and interviews, D.P. and K.W. had entered Respondent's classroom before the final bell had rung. After she entered the class, K.W. realized she had left her purse with another student and stepped out of the class to retrieve it. D.P. reported that he asked Respondent for permission to go the restroom, which she granted. Both children had put their book bags and books down in the classroom. D.P. reported that when he returned, there was a line of students about four or five deep waiting outside the classroom trying to get in. Respondent was standing in the doorway blocking their entrance and trying to close the door against the students. D.P. went around the line to try to get back in the classroom, reminding Respondent that she had given him permission to go the restroom. Nonetheless, she would not let him back in. Instead, she twisted D.P.'s arm to remove his hand from the classroom door handle, pushed him back and back-handed him with a book across the bridge of his nose and his face. When K.W. tried to enter the classroom to retrieve her book bag, Respondent yelled at her and pushed her back with her forearm and elbowed her two or three times in the chest and in the course of doing so, Respondent also stepped on K.W.'s foot and scratched her. After striking K.W. and D.P., Respondent pushed them out of the classroom door and sent them and four other children to Mr. Williams, the sixth-grade house administrator, without passes or referrals. The following morning, Mr. Williams sent an e-mail to the principal, Dr. Darrell Perry, summarizing the incident. Mr. Williams described a telephone conversation he had with Ms. W. (mother of K.W.), in which Ms. W. told Mr. Williams that her daughter reported to her that Respondent had made several derogatory racial comments to students in class, including using the phrase "negro power," which Ms. W. found to be offensive. The mothers of both K.W. and D.P. came to the school to complete statements. Ms. P. also filed a formal complaint against Respondent to the DCSB police officer on duty at Paxon, Officer Green. Mr. Williams received a referral from Respondent concerning K.W. on the date of the incident, Thursday, March 19, 2009, but did not receive a referral concerning D.P. until Monday, March 23, 2009. Mr. Williams concluded from this delay that "the reason the referral [for D.P.] was written was because there were allegations made against Respondent from D.P." Mr. Williams also observed on the date of the incident a recent scratch on K.W.'s arm that K.W. told him was caused by Respondent. Respondent called Ms. P. (mother of D.P.) on March 19, 2009, telling her that Respondent was writing her son up for skipping class. When Ms. P. tried to ask her about the details, Respondent proceeded to talk about other students in her class. When Ms. P. asked Respondent to tell her what happened with her son, Respondent got short with her and hung up. About five or ten minutes later, her son, D.P., called her and told her that when he got to the classroom, he asked Respondent for permission to go to the restroom, which Respondent granted. When he returned to the classroom, there was a line of children at the door of the classroom trying to get in, and Respondent was in the middle of an altercation with another female student, K.W. Respondent and K.W. were "going back and forth," and D.P. said that he saw Respondent push K.W. and then step on K.W.'s foot. When he tried to enter the classroom, Respondent pushed him and hit him in the face with a book. When Ms. P. returned home, she received a call from Ms. W., the mother of K.W. Prior to the telephone conversation, Ms. P. had never spoken to Ms. W. They did not know each other because they lived in different parts of town. D.P. and K.W. did not have a chance to speak with each other after the incident, because it was the end of the day and Ms. P picked up her son from the office when he telephoned her. The story K.W. told her mother concerning the incident with Respondent was the "same exact thing that my son had just told me when I picked him up from school and when he had called me." Prior to this incident, D.P. had received only one referral at any time in his school history for an altercation with another student. Ms. P.'s testimony was consistent with the written statement that she made on March 20, 2009, the day after the incident. At the hearing, D.P. testified that after the warning bell had rung, but prior to the late bell ringing, he asked Respondent if he could leave the classroom and go to the restroom. Respondent said yes. When he was trying to get back into the classroom, another student was also trying to get into the class to get her things. Respondent was pushing her and stepped on her foot. When D.P. tried to go in, Respondent pushed him and then she hit him in the face with a book. D.P., a small-framed, 11-year-old male of only about five feet tall at the time of the incident, demonstrated how Respondent had hit him, and described the book she used as an oversized literature book with a hard cover. He demonstrated and testified that Respondent hit him with the book across the face, striking him in the nose, that it hurt him when she struck him and that it looked like it was intentional on her part and not an accident. D.P.'s testimony was consistent with the written statement he made to Mr. Williams on the day of the incident. Upon receipt of the incident report, DCSB's Office of Professional Standards (OPS) initiated an investigation. The investigation was primarily handled by OPS Investigator John G. McCallum, an experienced former detective with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Department and investigator with the State Attorney's Office, now serving DCSB. While the principals generally handle Step I and Step II disciplinary actions, OPS normally investigates more serious cases, such as the instant case, alleging a battery on a student. Within days of the incident, on Monday, March 23, 2009, Mr. McCallum went to the school and interviewed Assistant Principal Ivey Howard, who was in charge of curriculum; Mr. Williams, the sixth-grade house administrator; student- victim K.W.; student-victim D.P.; Security Officer Johnson; and Christina Price, a reading resource teacher assigned to Respondent's classroom that day. Mr. McCallum also attempted to interview Respondent, but she elected to provide her statement through her counsel. Mr. McCallum also reviewed all the statements that Mr. Williams had received from the students and Ms. P., the mother of D.P. When he individually interviewed students D.P. and K.W., Mr. McCallum asked them also to demonstrate with him what happened, putting Mr. McCallum in the positions that they were in relative to Respondent and the other students. This helps him evaluate witness credibility, in that sometimes a child witness will demonstrate details in the "role play" that he or she may not have put down in the written statement. Similarly, D.P. demonstrated to Mr. McCallum that Respondent "back-handed him" with a workbook across the bridge of his nose and across his face and yanked, twisted, and pulled his arm. Mr. McCallum reported that K.W.'s and D.P.'s verbal statements from his interviews were consistent with their and the other students' written statements. Respondent's version of the events of March 19, 2009, differs dramatically from those of the seven student and two adult witnesses. Respondent asserted that six students were seven minutes late to class, yet she allowed them in the class and wrote their names on the tardy log. She then stated that two students, C.B. and B.P. were "skipping class" and that she saw them at the end of the hallway. Although this detail was not mentioned in her written statement (and is completely contradictory to the testimony of Paxon Principal Darrell Perry), Respondent testified at the hearing that the teachers at Paxon were required to keep their classroom doors locked because "this is the inner city where guns were rampant in our classrooms and outside." She stated that someone knocked on the classroom door, and when she opened it, three students, K.W., D.P., and V.C. (a male student), ran out of her classroom. She then said that the three students stopped "at my door," and K.W. tried to come back in to get her "stuff" from the room and in doing so "slammed" her body into her and cursed at Respondent, demanding her "stuff." Respondent claims to have received an injury from that contact which was treated at an emergency walk- in medical clinic later that evening. She further testified that V.C. and D.P. "forcefully kept the door ajar" as she attempted to close it "to diffuse the situation." Further, contrary to all of the students' statements, Respondent denies pushing or striking any student, although she admits she may have "accidentally" stepped on K.W.'s foot. In her written statement, she asserted that she "wrote referrals on all students who were outside, except A.W." In fact, the only referrals she wrote were for K.W. and D.P. Mr. McCallum found the interviews with the two student victims to be credible and consistent. Conversely, he found Respondent's statement to be markedly distinct from the other statements. Respondent's claim that she was injured and sought medical treatment is doubtful when she failed to report any such claim to the school's administration nor produce at any time any records or medical reports to support this claim. Prior Discipline: A Pattern of Similar Misconduct Paxon Middle School – February 2008 (Step II Written Reprimand) Respondent was hired by Dr. Darrell Perry, principal of Paxon, to teach English and Language Arts to sixth-grade Paxon students beginning with the 2007-2008 school year, which was also Dr. Perry's first year at Paxon. Dr. Perry selected Respondent from the "voluntary surplus list" and interviewed her for the position. Based on her experience as a "seasoned English language arts teacher," he hired Respondent. Dr. Perry was aware of Respondent's prior disciplinary history when he brought her to Paxon, partly because Respondent had to serve out a suspension she received while at DuPont the prior school year for a Step III disciplinary action charging battery upon students. Notwithstanding her prior disciplinary history, Dr. Perry testified that he believed Respondent possessed the right skills and was willing to give her an opportunity to grow in a different setting. Nonetheless, on May 24, 2008, Dr. Perry issued to Respondent a Step II Written Reprimand for Respondent's "inappropriate and offensive" remarks made and actions taken with female student, A.H., on February 14, 2008, in which A.H. alleged that Respondent placed a broom handle in A.H.'s face and stated, "I will shove this broom down your throat." Before issuing the discipline, however, Dr. Perry referred the matter to the OPS (Director John Williams and Investigator Leroy Starling) to investigate. Based on their investigation, interview of Respondent, and review of witness statements, Investigator Starling issued his report sustaining the allegations. Allen Moore, who was, at the time of the A.H. incident, assistant principal at Paxon and eighth-grade house administrator, performed the initial investigation of the alleged misconduct, which was part of his responsibilities as house administrator. Mr. Moore recalled that A.H. came to his office, directly from Respondent's class, and told him that after a verbal exchange between the two, Respondent held a broom handle in A.H.'s face and threatened to shove the broom handle down her throat. Mr. Moore then selected at random five other students from Respondent's class, those whom he knew to be credible and good students, and separately interviewed them and asked them to prepare statements. He also asked A.H. to prepare a written statement. Each student confirmed A.H.'s statement that Respondent threatened to put the broom handle down A.H.'s throat. Mr. Moore concluded that the incident took place as A.H. had stated. In direct contrast to this set of facts, according to Respondent, one of the other female students in the class picked up the broom and asked if she could sweep the floor. Respondent testified that she thought the student was going to hit A.H. or sweep her feet, because A.H. had tripped her. She asked the student to put the broom away. Respondent took the broom from her and was on her way to put it away, stating that she was walking away from A.H., when A.H. began cursing at her, telling Respondent to move or she would "beat" her "a - - " with the broom. Respondent stated that she responded: "and what should I do, stick [the broom] in your mouth?" With respect to the level of discipline he gave to Respondent for the incident, a Step II Written Reprimand, Dr. Perry testified that while he could have given her a Step III termination based on the allegations of the A.H. incident and Respondent's previous Step III discipline issued at Dupont for similar behavior, he decided to give her a Step II. Dr. Perry believed Respondent had some strengths that she could contribute at Paxon. He hoped to rehabilitate her. Shortly before the end of the 2006-2007 school year and before requesting a voluntary transfer to Paxon, Respondent received a five-day suspension for battery upon two DuPont students and for physically blocking another student from leaving her classroom in three separate incidents that took place within days of one another, on April 24, May 2, and May 3, 2007. April 24, 2007 - Alleged Battery of Female Student P.C. In the first occurrence on April 24, 2007, a female seventh-grade student, P.C., was trying to leave Respondent's classroom. P.C. reported that in an attempt to keep her from leaving the classroom, Respondent grabbed P.C.'s ID lanyard, which was around P.C.'s neck, as P.C. walked by Respondent and Respondent yanked her back, leaving her with a rope burn mark on her neck. P.C. reported the incident right away to Assistant Principal Shannon Judge, who testified at the hearing and, shortly after the occurrence, had prepared a written statement to then-school Principal Gary Finger summarizing the incident and her investigation. P.C. stopped Ms. Judge in the hallway, coming straight from the classroom moments after the incident with Respondent, and was visibly upset. P.C. told Ms. Judge that Respondent had stopped her from leaving the room and had grabbed her by her badge as she attempted to leave, which she wore on a lanyard around her neck. P.C. said to Ms. Judge, "look at this," and P.C. turned around and held up her hair in the back. Ms. Judge could see "one dark red line and a smaller red line" on the back of P.C.'s neck, which was not a cut, but which looked like a "burn" where the lanyard had been pulled. P.C. told her that some students had been told by Respondent to stay after class, but that P.C. was not one of them. When P.C. tried to leave the classroom, Respondent blocked the doorway. As she attempted to go around Respondent, Respondent grabbed her ID lanyard. Ms. Judge, who was on her way to another assignment in the lunch room, instructed P.C. to go to Ms. Judge's office and fill out an incident form. When Ms. Judge returned to her office approximately 45 minutes later, she reviewed P.C.'s statement, interviewed her, and took a photograph of the marks on the child's neck, which by then had somewhat faded. P.C. had listed some witnesses in the classroom to the event, whom Ms. Judge interviewed and asked to complete written statements. Ms. Judge also "pulled some random kids from the class" who were not listed on P.C.'s list, each of whom also individually gave written statements and were separately interviewed by Ms. Judge. Ms. Judge also called Respondent and took a verbal statement from her over the telephone. Respondent relied upon her written statement made through her attorney, delivered to DCSB nearly three months later on July 16, 2007, concerning the incident with P.C. Respondent admitted she did have "words" with P.C., and that P.C. was trying to leave her class when she was not supposed to, but that she had not grabbed P.C. by her lanyard. Perhaps, she stated, her lanyard "got caught" on Respondent's arm as P.C. tried to push past her. In her written statement, Respondent also speculated that the marks on P.C.'s neck may have been "self-inflicted or occurred at another time and place." When further questioned about that statement at the hearing, Respondent replied: "She did yank on her lanyard, but I don't know if that was sufficient to leave a mark." When questioned whether Ms. Judge would have any reason to lie about what P.C. told her and the marks on P.C.'s neck that Ms. Judge observed, Respondent replied: "I don't know of any reason." Respondent's statement and testimony, with no evidence to support it, does not support her version of the events. Based on Ms. Judge's investigation, the consistency among all the student witness statements with P.C.'s account, the fact that P.C. was a good student who rarely, if ever, received any referrals or got into trouble, and Ms. Judge's observation of the red marks on P.C.'s neck within moments after the altercation, Ms. Judge concluded that the P.C.'s allegations were substantiated and recommended to Mr. Finger that Respondent should be disciplined for her actions. May 2, 2007 – Alleged Battery of Male Student D.W. On May 2, 2007, within days of the P.C. incident, Respondent had taken her class out into the hallway so that some of the children could use the restroom. One of the male students, D.W., came out of the restroom, and, according to Respondent, she thought he had not washed his hands and was attempting to wipe his hands on Respondent. Carmen Polenco, a science and math teacher for seven years at DuPont and a former director of a program in New York treating women dually diagnosed with psychiatric problems and drug additions and their infant children, was coming out of the administrative office on May 2, 2007, and walking down the main hallway where Respondent and her students were located. As Ms. Polenco approached, she heard students yelling "let him go, let him go" and saw that Respondent had grabbed a male student, D.W., by the collar of his shirt held up around his throat and was pushing him backwards down the hallway toward Ms. Polanco, saying something like "Oh, no you won't" to the student. Ms. Polanco demonstrated at the hearing how Respondent was holding D.W. with one hand around his shirt collar and her other hand in the air. Ms. Polanco told Respondent to stop, and she let D.W. go. D.W. yelled to her, "she grabbed me and she wouldn't let me go and I was scared she was going to hit me." After Respondent let D.W. go, Ms. Polanco noticed that Respondent had scratched the student's neck and broken his necklace. Respondent told Ms. Polanco that the student had placed his hands, open palm on the top of her shoulder. Respondent was "very angry" by this and proceeded to grab him, because, as she stated to Ms. Polanco at the time, "I did not want his dirty hands on me." Ms. Polanco also made a written statement to Assistant Principal Steele the day after the incident. Mr. Steele had also observed some of the incident, and had also memorialized his observations in a memorandum to Mr. Finger one day later. Respondent's version of events again differs dramatically from all the other witnesses' testimony. Again, Respondent relied on her written statement of July 16, 2007, which she affirmed at the hearing. Respondent admitted that she held D.W. by his lapel (not his collar), but stated that she was walking with him "side by side," and not walking him backwards down the hallway as Ms. Polanco observed. At the hearing, Respondent did not have any explanation for Ms. Polanco's contradictory testimony other than that she "was not within close proximity enough to see what happened." In light of Ms. Polanco's testimony that she had a clear view of exactly what Respondent was doing, and the other witness testimony, Respondent's testimony is not credible. May 3, 2007 – Blocking Student's Exit One day later, while he was still in the process of writing up Respondent for the previous two incidents, Mr. Finger received a phone call in his office from Respondent telling him that one of her students would not leave her classroom. When he got there, Mr. Finger took the student out in the hallway and asked him why he did not leave the room. The student responded that it was because Respondent was blocking the door and would not let him out. Mr. Finger then selected some other students at random from the class to find out if the student was telling the truth, and the other student statements were consistent – that Respondent had blocked the door. Respondent's statement summary as to these three incidents is typical of her response of outright and blatant denial to all of the allegations of misconduct that have been lodged against her over a period of years and across two schools and administrations. Despite credible evidence to the contrary, Respondent has repeatedly placed the blame on the very students that she victimized. As a result of the three incidents, on May 23, 2007, Mr. Finger recommended that Respondent receive a Step III five- day suspension, which was approved by DCSB, and which Respondent served out after she voluntarily transferred to Paxon. DuPont Middle School – October 2006 (Step II Written Reprimand) Respondent received a Step II Written Reprimand for comments that she made in class and during a parent-teacher conference in October 2006, in which Mr. Finger and then- Assistant Principal Loretta Hines were also present. The meeting was initiated by the female parent when her son came home and told her that Respondent exhibited prejudicial behavior toward the African-American children as compared to the white children, and made racist comments in the classroom. For example, the child told his mother that Respondent would let the white children go to the bathroom, but not the African-American children, and that she told a white student that she had to send him to a "time-out" because she didn't want the others to think she was a racist. She also referred to African-Americans as "negroes" and called male black students "boy." During the conference, Respondent told the parent that she had no problem referring to African-American male students as "boy" because in her country of origin, Jamaica, this was not an offensive salutation. Respondent made other comments in the conference that angered the parent, and "embarrassed" and "disgusted" Ms. Hines and Mr. Finger. At that time, Respondent had been in the United States for approximately 16 years. Respondent stipulated that she used the term "boy" to address male students, but denies she used it specifically with African-American male students. At the hearing, rather than testify concerning the specific allegations of her misconduct, Respondent "reaffirmed" the written statement she made to Principal Finger on October 18, 2006, in which she denied being a racist, although she admitted that "sixteen years should be long enough to be able to use the proper terminology. However, habits do not just disappear overnight." DuPont Middle School – September 2006 (Step I Verbal Reprimand) Respondent received a Step I verbal warning for telling students to "shut their mouths" or "shut their faces." In her written statement, Respondent stated that she told a female student on at least one occasion to "shut her face because her face was in mine." She also stipulated to this fact in her pretrial stipulation.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Duval County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Barbara Paul as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 6th day of May, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Hertz, Esquire Duval Teachers United 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Carol Mirando, Esquire City Hall St. James Building 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ed Pratt-Dannals, Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to the Best and Brightest Scholarship as established and defined by section 1012.731(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2017).
Findings Of Fact In 2015, the Legislature enacted, by way of a line item in the annual appropriations bill, the Best and Brightest Program to award cash scholarships to Florida teachers who have been evaluated as “highly effective” by their school districts and who scored at or above the 80th percentile (top 20%) on the SAT or ACT when they took the test. Ch. 2015-232, § 2, line item 99A, Laws of Fla.1/ In 2016, the Legislature enacted a stand-alone statute for the Best and Brightest Program, codifying the appropriations bill language and providing that the program is to be administered by the Department of Education (the “Department”). Ch. 2016-62, § 25, Laws of Fla., codified at § 1012.731, Fla. Stat. (2016). Rather than enacting a statutory scholarship amount, subsection (5) of the 2016 version of section 1012.731 provided that the scholarships would be awarded to every eligible classroom teacher “in the amount provided in the General Appropriations Act.”2/ The 2016 statute also explained that the Best and Brightest Program was intended to provide “categorical funding for scholarships to be awarded to classroom teachers, as defined in s. 1012.01(2)(a), who have demonstrated a high level of academic achievement.” § 1012.731(2), Fla. Stat. (2016). Section 1012.01(2) defines “instructional personnel,” including “classroom teachers,” as follows: INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL.— “Instructional personnel” means any K-12 staff member whose function includes the provision of direct instructional services to students. Instructional personnel also includes K-12 personnel whose functions provide direct support in the learning process of students. Included in the classification of instructional personnel are the following K-12 personnel: Classroom teachers.--Classroom teachers are staff members assigned the professional activity of instructing students in courses in classroom situations, including basic instruction, exceptional student education, career education, and adult education, including substitute teachers. Student personnel services.--Student personnel services include staff members responsible for: advising students with regard to their abilities and aptitudes, educational and occupational opportunities, and personal and social adjustments; providing placement services; performing educational evaluations; and similar functions. Included in this classification are certified school counselors, social workers, career specialists, and school psychologists. Librarians/media specialists.-- Librarians/media specialists are staff members responsible for providing school library media services. These employees are responsible for evaluating, selecting, organizing, and managing media and technology resources, equipment, and related systems; facilitating access to information resources beyond the school; working with teachers to make resources available in the instructional programs; assisting teachers and students in media productions; and instructing students in the location and use of information resources. Other instructional staff.--Other instructional staff are staff members who are part of the instructional staff but are not classified in one of the categories specified in paragraphs (a)-(c). Included in this classification are primary specialists, learning resource specialists, instructional trainers, adjunct educators certified pursuant to s. 1012.57, and similar positions. Education paraprofessionals.--Education paraprofessionals are individuals who are under the direct supervision of an instructional staff member, aiding the instructional process. Included in this classification are classroom paraprofessionals in regular instruction, exceptional education paraprofessionals, career education paraprofessionals, adult education paraprofessionals, library paraprofessionals, physical education and playground paraprofessionals, and other school-level paraprofessionals. In 2017, the Legislature amended section 1012.731(3) to establish that the scholarship award would be $6,000 for those classroom teachers rated “highly effective” who also had the requisite SAT or ACT scores: (3)(a) To be eligible for a scholarship in the amount of $6,000, a classroom teacher must: 1. Have achieved a composite score at or above the 80th percentile on either the SAT or the ACT based on the National Percentile Ranks in effect when the classroom teacher took the assessment and have been evaluated as highly effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 in the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded, unless the classroom teacher is newly hired by the district school board and has not been evaluated pursuant to s.1012.34. * * * In order to demonstrate eligibility for an award, an eligible classroom teacher must submit to the school district, no later than November 1, an official record of his or her qualifying assessment score and, beginning with the 2020-2021 school year, an official transcript demonstrating that he or she graduated cum laude or higher with a baccalaureate degree, if applicable. Once a classroom teacher is deemed eligible by the school district, the teacher shall remain eligible as long as he or she remains employed by the school district as a classroom teacher at the time of the award and receives an annual performance evaluation rating of highly effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 or is evaluated as highly effective based on a commissioner- approved student learning growth formula pursuant to s. 1012.34(8) for the 2019-2020 school year or thereafter. Ch. 2017-116, § 46, Laws of Fla. The 2017 amendment to section 1012.731 also added a new subsection (3)(c), providing that lesser amounts could be awarded to teachers rated “highly effective” or “effective,” even if they could not demonstrate scores at or above the 80th percentile on the SAT or ACT: Notwithstanding the requirements of this subsection, for the 2017-2018, 2018- 2019, and 2019-2020 school years, any classroom teacher who: Was evaluated as highly effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 in the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded shall receive a scholarship of $1,200, including a classroom teacher who received an award pursuant to paragraph (a). Was evaluated as effective pursuant to s. 1012.34 in the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded a scholarship of up to $800. If the number of eligible classroom teachers under this subparagraph exceeds the total allocation, the department shall prorate the per-teacher scholarship amount. This paragraph expires July 1, 2020. Id. By December 1 of each year, each school district must submit to the Department the number of eligible classroom teachers who qualify for the scholarship, as well as identifying information regarding the schools to which the eligible classroom teachers are assigned. § 1012.731(4)(a)-(c), Fla. Stat. For the 2017-2018 school year, the December 1, 2017, submission deadline was extended to January 2, 2018, due to a hurricane. The School Board’s deadline for teachers to apply for the scholarship was accordingly extended from November 1, 2017, to December 1, 2017. By February 1 of each year, the Department is required to disburse scholarship funds to each school district for each eligible classroom teacher to receive a scholarship. § 1012.731(5), Fla. Stat. By April 1, each school district is required to award the scholarship to each eligible classroom teacher. § 1012.731(6), Fla. Stat. In 2018, the Legislature amended section 1012.731 to provide that a school district employee who is no longer a classroom teacher may receive the $6,000 award if the employee was a classroom teacher in the prior school year, was rated highly effective, and met the requirements of this section as a classroom teacher. § 1012.731(3)(b)2., Fla. Stat. (2018). The Legislature did not add a similar provision stating that former classroom teachers who are still school district employees remain eligible for the $1,200 and $800 awards. § 1012.731(3)(c)2., Fla. Stat. (2018). The Legislature funds the Best and Brightest Program. The School Board had no role in creating the Best and Brightest Program. The School Board is required to determine the eligibility of classroom teachers who qualify for the Best and Brightest Program pursuant to the requirements of the statute. Petitioners in this case claim entitlement only to the $1,200 award established by the 2017 version of the statute. Brenda Troutman, director of Instructional Personnel, is the School Board employee in charge of the Best and Brightest Program application and submission process. Ms. Troutman has worked for the School Board for 17 years. She has been a junior high classroom teacher and an assistant principal and vice principal at the high school level. Though no longer teaching in the classroom, Ms. Troutman retains her certifications in math grades 5-9, exceptional student education (“ESE”), educational leadership, and school principal. When working as a high school administrator, Ms. Troutman was the master scheduler for her school, meaning that she built the schedule for every teacher at the school. This task required that she become very familiar with the School Board’s course code directory. Ms. Troutman also had to understand the certification system in order to hire and assign teachers. If a teacher asked to teach a certain course, Ms. Troutman had to know both the course requirements and the teacher’s certifications to determine whether the teacher was eligible to teach the course. As part of her current position in the School Board’s human resources department, Ms. Troutman is required to know the School Board’s various job titles and descriptions. She is responsible for replacing obsolete job descriptions and posting current job descriptions on the School Board’s website. Ms. Troutman testified as to how she manages the application and submission process of the Best and Brightest Program. She starts by making herself familiar with any changes the Legislature may have made to the program. She then issues a notice to teachers about the program and the current eligibility requirements. For the 2017-2018 Best and Brightest Program, Ms. Troutman prepared a draft email that Superintendent Addison Davis reviewed and sent to all of the school district’s teachers and administrators on September 28, 2017. The email explained that to be eligible for the $6,000, $1,200 or $800 scholarship, an applicant must meet the definition of classroom teacher as set forth in section 1012.01(2)(a). Ms. Troutman developed the School Board’s application for the Best and Brightest Program, based upon her understanding of the statutory requirements. All completed applications for the Best and Brightest Program come into Ms. Troutman’s office. Ms. Troutman testified that she received approximately 2,000 applications for the 2017-2018 award. Ms. Troutman, with the aid of her assistant, reviews and verifies the information on the applications. If Ms. Troutman has any questions about an application, she seeks the opinion of her direct supervisor David Broskie, the director of Human Resources. In some cases, they also have discussions with Superintendent Davis and School Board Attorney David D’Agata. The School Board employs two major data programs. FOCUS is the program/database that holds all student information, including attendance, grades, disciplinary actions, test information, and demographics. TERMS is the program/database that houses all employee information. When verifying information on the Best and Brightest Program applications, Ms. Troutman uses both FOCUS and TERMS, and on occasion conducts additional investigation. The School Board’s application asks for the teacher’s assignment. Because the application was titled “2017-2018 Clay County Application: Florida Best & Brightest Teacher Scholarship,” Ms. Troutman believed that the teachers were required to provide their 2017-2018 teacher assignments. As will be discussed in more detail below, the year of the teacher assignment was a major point of disagreement between Petitioners and the School Board. The application provided a checkmark system for the teacher to indicate which scholarship was being sought. The $1,200 scholarship line provided as follows: I am applying for the $1,200.00 highly effective scholarship. I have attached a copy of my 2016-2017 highly effective final evaluation (with student performance measures). The application’s language led Petitioners to believe that the 2017-2018 scholarship awards would be based on their teacher assignments and evaluations for 2016-2017. Ms. Troutman explained that this belief was incorrect. Eligibility for the 2017-2018 scholarship was based on a teacher’s assignment for the 2017-2018 school year. The plain language of the statute requires that one must be a “classroom teacher” in order to be eligible for the scholarship; having been a classroom teacher in a previous year does not suffice. Ms. Troutman stated that she verified with Mr. Broskie, Mr. Davis, and Mr. D’Agata that the School Board should base the award on the teacher’s 2017-2018 assignment. Petitioners, on the other hand, argue that the statutory language requires only an evaluation of “highly effective” for the 2016-2017 school year. The statute is silent as to whether a teacher applying for the $1,200 scholarship must be teaching in a classroom situation during the 2017-2018 school year. Petitioners argue that the School Board is reading a requirement into the statute that is not evident from the plain language. Ms. Troutman further explained that the applications for the 2017-2018 scholarships were to be submitted prior to the conclusion of the 2017-2018 school year. Therefore, as required by section 1012.731(3)(a)1. and (3)(c), the application requested the evaluation for “the school year immediately preceding the year in which the scholarship will be awarded.” Ms. Troutman testified that it is sometimes obvious from the teaching assignment that the teacher qualifies as a “classroom teacher.” If an application states that the assignment is “chemistry teacher” or “algebra teacher” or “fifth grade classroom teacher,” it is clear that the applicant meets the definition. Aside from verifying the assignment in the TERMS database, Ms. Troutman takes no further action. However, some applications require additional research before Ms. Troutman can conclude that the applicant qualifies as a classroom teacher. For example, Petitioner Abbie Andrews identified her assignment on her application as “classroom teacher.” Ms. Troutman went to TERMS and saw that Ms. Andrews was designated as an “ESE Support Facilitator” for the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Troutman testified that ESE Support Facilitators are sometimes assigned to teach classes and therefore could be classified as “classroom teachers” for purposes of the Best and Brightest Program. Ms. Troutman examined both the master schedule and the teacher’s personal account in FOCUS to determine whether Ms. Andrews was assigned to teach any courses. Ms. Andrews had no teaching assignments for 2017-2018 in FOCUS. Ms. Andrews and fellow Petitioners Cherry Deaton, Donna Foster, and Danielle Perricelli held the position of ESE Support Facilitator during the 2017-2018 school year. The School Board concluded that these Petitioners did not qualify for the $1,200 scholarship because their schedules did not assign them the professional activity of instructing students in courses in a classroom situation, as required by the statute. It was undisputed that these Petitioners had been rated “highly effective” for the 2016-2017 school year. It was also undisputed that Ms. Andrews, Ms. Deaton, and Ms. Foster met the statutory definition of a classroom teacher for the 2016-2017 school year. The School Board’s general job description for an ESE Support Facilitator provides as follows: The teacher is responsible directly to the Principal. He/she provides for the instruction, supervision, and evaluation of assigned students on an as needed basis. He/she supports both general education and ESE teachers. He/she serves in a staff relationship with other teachers and supports and promotes ESE inclusion activities. (Emphasis added). The School Board contrasts this job description with that of “Classroom Teacher,” which provides: “The teacher is responsible directly to the principal for the instruction, supervision, and evaluation of students.” The classroom teacher is fully responsible for the “instruction, supervision, and evaluation” of the students in her classroom, whereas the ESE Support Facilitator performs those activities only “as needed.” The School Board also points out that, unlike a classroom teacher, an ESE Support Facilitator is not required to be certified in-field for the position. The ESE Support Facilitator is not the teacher of record for any particular course. Their schedule is fluid. The ESE Support Facilitator comes and goes as needed (“pushes in,” to use the teaching vernacular) in the classroom, and is expected to be wherever the ESE student assigned to them needs their services. Sometimes they push into the classroom and sometimes they pull students out of the class to work on a specific concept or skill. An ESE Support Facilitator is assigned “contact students” for whom individualized educational plans (“IEPs”) are prepared. The classroom teacher of record is responsible for giving the student course credit or a grade and is responsible for recording attendance in FOCUS. One-third of the classroom teacher’s evaluation is tied to student performance. Only the classroom teacher has default access to FOCUS in order to enter attendance and grade information for the students in the class. An ESE Support Facilitator must seek and be granted access to student’s FOCUS information. An ESE Support Facilitator is expected to meet with each contact student at least once a month; in practice, these meetings tend to occur more frequently. The ESE Support Facilitator goes over accommodations the student needs and assignments the student did not understand. The facilitator reteaches the course material if need be and stays in touch with the student’s teachers and parents, making sure all stakeholders in the student’s success are on the same page. The evidence presented at the hearing indicated that all of the students served by the ESE Support Facilitators in this case attended classes in regular classrooms, not in separate ESE classes. In such “inclusion” classes, the ESE Support Facilitator’s role is to push in and assist contact students in the regular classroom, ensuring that their IEP requirements are met and that the students are progressing satisfactorily through the course material. Based on these definitional and operative distinctions, Ms. Troutman considered ESE Support Facilitators to be “other instructional staff” as defined by section 1012.01(2)(d), rather than “classroom teachers” as defined by section 1012.01(2)(a). Ms. Andrews was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She taught two periods of English and spent the remaining four periods fulfilling her ESE duties. She was evaluated as “highly effective.” As noted above, there was no dispute that Ms. Andrews met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. During the 2017-2018 school year, Ms. Andrews was a full-time ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School, not assigned to teach any courses. In FOCUS, she was assigned as the “contact teacher” for approximately 60 students, meaning that she was primarily responsible for writing their IEPs and ensuring that they made adequate progress in their classes. She met with all of her contact students on an as needed basis, at least once per month but often as much as twice per week. However, Ms. Andrews was not listed in FOCUS as the teacher of record for any class. Even though she routinely pushed into classes to support her assigned ESE students, Ms. Andrews was not the primary teacher of record. She was there to assist her contact students with whatever they needed to learn the course, but the course was not assigned to her to teach. Ms. Andrews did not have a traditional classroom. She was not the teacher of record in any course for which students received academic credit, and she did not assign grades to students for the material she was teaching. Ms. Andrews prepared IEPs that were individualized to particular contact students. She did not prepare daily lesson plans in the manner of a classroom teacher. Ms. Andrews described her job as an ESE Support Facilitator as follows: My job is to teach, mentor, challenge students to make them -- make them ready for graduation, become productive members of society. I believe that’s the same thing a classroom teacher does. I am using the Florida standards to prepare lessons for remediation if a student needs it. I am constantly having conversations with not just students, but their parents, keeping them on track or making sure their students are on track because ultimately, a parent wants that student to graduate on time as well. I believe that the questions that are asked of me as a support facilitator are the same questions that parents would ask of a classroom teacher because they are very concerned. I am not just answering questions based on one classroom. I'm answering questions based on six classes. I'm responsible for that student being successful in six classes. The IEPs that I write, they're legally binding. I am involved in the academics, behavior, discipline. I deal with discipline problems. All of these things are the same things that a classroom teacher would deal with. I do not have a schedule in Focus; however, when a need arises, I'm there, I'm in a classroom, I'm helping, and I'm doing what's needed to be done for the kids to be successful. Ms. Deaton was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School during the 2016-2017 school year. She taught two periods of English and spent the remaining four periods fulfilling her ESE duties. She was evaluated as “highly effective.” As noted above, there was no dispute that Ms. Deaton met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. In 2017-2018, Ms. Deaton was a full-time ESE Support Facilitator at Middleburg High School, with approximately 60 contact students assigned to her in FOCUS. She was not assigned to teach any courses. If she pushed into a class to support her assigned ESE students, she was not the primary teacher of record. She was not designated as a co-teacher,3/ but she would assist teaching classes on an as-needed basis if she was not busy testing students or preparing IEPs. For those classes, she was provided access to view grades in FOCUS, but she did not have access to give grades. She would meet students as needed in her office, in another teacher's classroom, or in the computer lab. She did not develop lesson plans on her own, but provided suggestions and advice on lesson plans to the primary teacher. As an ESE Support Facilitator, Ms. Deaton did not have a classroom or teach a classroom full of students. She had no schedule assigned to her in FOCUS, but had contact students assigned to her in FOCUS. Ms. Foster was employed as an English/language arts and ESE Inclusion Teacher during the 2016-2017 school year. She taught four classes as ESE inclusion teacher. The remaining two periods were devoted to her position as ESE department head. Ms. Foster had a schedule in FOCUS. She had her own classroom and students, prepared daily lesson plans, and assigned grades. Students in her classes received academic credit. Ms. Foster was evaluated as “highly effective.” As noted above, there was no dispute that Ms. Foster met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. Ms. Foster was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator and ESE department head during the 2017-2018 school year. She retired at the end of the school year, effective June 7, 2018. As an ESE Support Facilitator, Ms. Foster did not have a set schedule. Ms. Foster’s assigned ESE students did not receive academic credit for the services she provided, but her assistance was integral in helping them pass their courses. Ms. Foster assisted with an American history class during the 2017-2018 school year, but was not assigned as the primary teacher in FOCUS. Ms. Foster testified that she did not believe she had ever been identified as a co-teacher in FOCUS, though she thought she should have been. Ms. Foster testified that she had IEPs for the American history class that listed both the class setting and the service delivery method as “co-teach.” She explained that because the class had both general education and ESE students, the teacher had to be certified in both the subject matter and ESE. Because the primary teacher was certified only in the subject matter, it was necessary for Ms. Foster to co-teach the class. Ms. Foster testified that she split lesson plan preparation with the primary teacher. Ms. Foster believed she was not listed in FOCUS as the co-teacher because the school administration never bothered to remove the name of Kristin Heard, the ESE teacher originally assigned to the class, who was moved to a science class early in the year. Ms. Foster pursued the matter with the assistant principals at Lakeside Junior High, but nothing came of it. Mallory McConnell, the principal at Lakeside Junior High School during the 2017-2018 school year, confirmed that Ms. Foster was not listed as a co-teacher on the master schedule. Ms. McConnell testified that in 2017-2018 there were no “true co-teacher” situations, by which she meant two teachers who equally shared responsibility for the instruction and grading of every student in the class. Ms. McConnell was aware of situations in which a student’s IEP mandates co-teaching in a class, but she testified that she was unaware of any student at Lakeside Junior High School in 2017-2018 whose IEP required a co-teacher. Ms. McConnell conducted infrequent walkthrough observations of the American history class. She testified that she saw Ms. Foster providing support services to the ESE students but never saw Ms. Foster teaching at the front of the class. Ms. McConnell stated that she would not have expected to see Ms. Foster teaching the class or creating lesson plans for the class as a whole because those tasks were not her job responsibility. Ms. McConnell was in no position to state whether Ms. Foster did, in fact, prepare lesson plans and teach the class. Ms. McConnell was able to state that for at least one month during the school year, Ms. Foster administered tests to her ESE students, meaning that she could not have been co- teaching the American history class. Ms. Foster did not tell Ms. Troutman that she had assisted teaching the American history class during the 2017- 2018 school year, nor did she include such information on her application for the Best and Brightest Program, because she believed the award was based upon her position in 2016-2017 and because she believed the school administration’s failure to include her as teacher of record in FOCUS was an “in-house” issue. Ms. Perricelli was employed as an ESE Support Facilitator, ESE department head, and MTSS intervention team facilitator at Orange Park Junior High School. “MTSS” is an acronym for Multi-Tiered System of Support, a framework for providing support to students who are struggling academically or have an identified need in a specific area such as speech, language, or behavior. MTSS interventions may be used for regular education or ESE students. Ms. Perricelli testified that she was not the teacher assigned by FOCUS for any class in 2016-2017. In addition to her regular ESE duties, Ms. Perricelli taught “grade recovery” to two students in language arts, science, and math. Grade recovery is a class offered to students who have failed a course and lack the credits to move on to the next grade level. Ms. Perricelli designed lesson plans and curriculum assessments for each subject, graded papers and tests, and reported the students’ grades to the school. Ms. Perricelli testified that she was not given the authority to enter the grade recovery students’ grades into FOCUS in 2016-2017. She requested a course code but was never provided one. Ms. Perricelli taught grade recovery for two periods, one for each student. For the other four periods of the school day, Ms. Perricelli would push into classrooms and work with ESE students, usually in small groups with students who needed remediation. She had around 40 contact students and developed IEPs for each of them. Most of her contact students were in the classrooms that she was going into, so she would see them throughout the week. She would meet with her other contact students about once a week. Ms. Perricelli would work with the assigned teacher to modify the course material to meet the needs of the ESE students. Ms. Perricelli was evaluated as “highly effective” for the 2016-2017 school year, based on standard classroom teacher criteria. She was observed working with her grade recovery students and in the classrooms in which she pushed in. Ms. Perricelli testified that her assignments were the same for the 2017-2018 school year. She taught one student in a grade recovery course. Due to her persistence, Ms. Perricelli was able to get a course code from Ms. Troutman for the grade recovery course in 2017-2018. The grade recovery course was named “Unique Skills.” In 2017-2018, Ms. Perricelli was assigned around 70 contact students for whom she prepared IEPs. As department head, Ms. Perricelli oversaw 22 ESE instructors. She was the only ESE Support Facilitator at the school. Janice Tucker was vice principal at Orange Park Junior High School in 2017-2018. She testified that early in the school year, the assigned teacher for seventh grade math left for another county. A long-term substitute, Lashonda Campbell, took over as teacher of record. Ms. Perricelli testified that she developed some of the curriculum in Ms. Campbell’s math classes, which included ESE and non-ESE students. She stated that she taught the class alone once a week when Ms. Campbell started, then tapered off into pulling out small groups of ESE students who needed remediation. She worked with four periods of seventh grade math classes that year. Ms. Perricelli testified that she gave grades to students in those courses and gave them to Ms. Campbell for entry into FOCUS. Ms. Tucker testified that Ms. Perricelli was not a co- teacher for the math class. Ms. Campbell was the teacher of record. Ms. Tucker testified that when she observed the math class, she saw Ms. Perricelli working with small groups in the back of the class or at a table in the hallway, and Ms. Campbell at the front teaching the class. Ms. Tucker never saw Ms. Perricelli at the front of the class teaching. Ms. Tucker conceded that she had no knowledge whether Ms. Perricelli was involved in creating lesson plans or assigning grades for the math class. Ms. Perricelli was evaluated by Ms. Tucker for the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Tucker observed Ms. Perricelli in the seventh grade math class and in the Unique Skills class. Ms. Perricelli was again rated “highly effective.” Ms. Perricelli testified that she did not mention teaching the math class on her scholarship application. She stated that she did not tell Ms. Troutman about the math class because at the time, the school was still attempting to get a full-time teacher for the class. Ms. Troutman obviously knew about the “Unique Skills” class, having issued the course code to Ms. Perricelli. Ms. Troutman testified that she consulted with Mr. Broskie and Mr. D’Agata as to whether having one assigned class in FOCUS should qualify Ms. Perricelli for the scholarship. They concluded that teaching one class with one student was insufficient to qualify as a “classroom teacher” for purposes of the Best and Brightest Program. Ms. Troutman testified that this conclusion was consistent with the School Board’s historic practice of considering two or more classes as the “cutoff” for a classroom teacher. Ms. Troutman believed that if an ESE Support Facilitator taught two classes, then she would qualify as a “classroom teacher.” Petitioner Easter Brown taught a fourth grade classroom at Grove Park Elementary School during the 2016-2017 school year and was rated “highly effective.” It is not disputed that Ms. Brown met the definition of a “classroom teacher” for the 2016-2017 school year. In 2017-2018, Ms. Brown was a full-time SPRINT specialist. “SPRINT” stands for Supervisor of Pre-Interns and New Teachers. SPRINT specialist is a support position for teacher trainees and new teachers, operating under an agreement between the School Board and the University of North Florida (“UNF”), each of which pays half of the SPRINT specialist’s salary. Ms. Brown taught field classes at UNF and conducted workshops for clinical educator training and professional development. Ms. Brown kept Grove Park Elementary as her home base and shared a classroom there with two other teachers. She taught UNF students in classes at the university and worked with new teachers at the school. She estimated that she spent half her time at UNF and half at Grove Park Elementary. Ms. Brown had no K-12 courses or K-12 students assigned to her in 2017-2018. She had no courses assigned to her in FOCUS. She gave grades to only UNF students. Ms. Brown did not create traditional lesson plans but did assist new teachers in writing lesson plans. Ms. Brown testified that she did some teaching in a regular classroom for purposes of modeling teaching techniques for her student teachers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Clay County School Board enter a final order: Finding that Petitioners Abbie Andrews, Cherry Deaton, and Donna Foster were not eligible for a $1,200 scholarship under the 2017 Florida Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program because they were not classroom teachers during the 2017-2018 school year; and Finding that Petitioners Easter Brown and Danielle Perricelli were eligible for a $1,200 scholarship under the 2017 Florida Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program because they were classroom teachers during the 2017-2018 school year, and directing staff to take all practicable measures to secure the scholarship monies for Ms. Brown and Ms. Perricelli. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 2019.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner, Pinellas county School Board, operated the primary and secondary public school system for Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent, Herbert Latimore, was employed by the Petitioner as a continuing contract teacher of physical education at Tyrone Middle School, a school operated by Petitioner. On August 25, 1993, very early in the school year, Respondent made a presentation to a group of sixth grade students in a physical education class. In prior years, Respondent had experienced a reluctance on the part of some students to take showers after physical education classes, and to forestall that problem, he indicated verbally that he did not want the boys to stand outside the showers looking at each other because, "...there were no faggots around here." He also told the students he expected compliance and that he did not want parents calling the administration about student shower misconduct because that created problems for him and would get him "pissed off." It is also alleged that in the course of his presentation he told a group of male students who were not paying attention that he spoke clearly and did not talk like a "nigger." Respondent, who is, himself, African-American, denies making that comment though, according to Mr. Valdes, the vice principal, Respondent admitted doing so to him in an interview the day after the alleged incident took place. It is found that Respondent did, in fact, use the word, "nigger" in his discussion with the students, but it can not be said, under the circumstances, that it was used in a racist or manner derogatory toward any student or group of students. One of the students in the Respondent's class to whom he made the comments complained of was Stephanie Zavadil, a young female who did not want to be in a physical education class in the first place and who was supposed to be in a music class instead. The incident took place the first day of school which was, coincidentally, the first day of middle school for the students in this particular class. After school that day, Stephanie, who was quite upset by the Respondent's use of the language alleged, told her mother what had happened and indicated she would rather go to summer school than be in Respondent's class. She also cried when recounting the story and indicated she was so afraid of Respondent, she would not appear to testify at hearing even under subpoena. Mrs. Zavadil, herself a high school teacher in the Pinellas County system, after discussing the matter with her husband, reported it to the school principal, Ms. Desmond. She also indicated she did not want her daughter in Respondent's class. There is no indication any other student or parent has indicated a similar objection, though as a result of the press' attendance at a School Board meeting at which this matter was discussed, an article appeared in the Clearwater edition of the St. Petersburg Times reporting the incident. Before she could call Respondent in to discuss the matter, Ms. Desmond was approached by him in the school cafeteria the following day. Ms. Desmond, who was on cafeteria duty at the time, told Respondent she would discuss the matter with him later, but he followed her to the side of the room, still trying to talk with her. When she finally had the quiet to talk with Respondent, she reported to him the substance of the complaint she had received from Mrs. Zavadil and told him that in her opinion his use of the words alleged was inappropriate and a demonstration of bad judgement. Respondent acknowledged he had used the words. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the office of the Superintendent of schools, where the matter was investigated by Mr. Barker who interviewed Stephanie and other students involved. He also spoke with Respondent who admitted the use of all words alleged except "nigger." Mr. Barker also reviewed Respondent's personnel file in which he found two prior disciplinary actions taken against Respondent. In 1982, Respondent was reprimanded for pushing a student, and in 1992, was again reprimanded for using poor judgement in making inappropriate statements in front of a student and the use of physical force with a student. On the basis of his investigation, Mr. Barker, utilizing the school board's unwritten progressive discipline policy, recommended that disciplinary action to include a suspension without pay for five days be imposed. His recommendation was based on his conclusion that Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher had been impaired by his use of the words alleged. Mr. Barker is of the opinion that teachers should comport themselves in a manner which causes students to look up to them. Here, Respondent's comments could affect the way students perceived him and also might frighten some students who, as a result, might not want to take classes from him. Respondent's use of the word "faggot", as alleged here, complicates the already existing problem schools have regarding the reluctance of some elementary and middle school children to dress out for physical education training. Mr. Barker's opinion regarding Respondent's effectiveness was reinforced by those of Dr. Hinesley, Ms. Desmond, and Mr. Valdes. Dr. Hinesley believes that teachers should be role models and Respondent's use of the language alleged was a violation of the Teacher Code of Conduct which could undermine public support for the educational process if left unpunished. Ms. Desmond agrees with the proposed suspension because of her belief that Respondent's language was both frightening to the students and inappropriate. Students and their families discuss what happens at the schools and if Respondent, because of his language, were to develop an unfavorable reputation within the community, it would make it difficult for him to establish credibility and would also impact the school's effectiveness in the community. Respondent does not contest his use of the terms "pissed-off" and "faggot" but claims he has heard them used many times by other teachers and had never been told by the principal or anyone else that they were bad words. He claims that had he considered the words to be inappropriate, he would not have used them. He also claims, and it is so found, that he did not call any student either a "faggot" or a "nigger", not did he claim to be "pissed-off" at any particular student. Respondent has three daughters and professes to love children, asserting he would never intentionally use bad language to hurt anyone. With regard to his alleged admissions to Ms. Desmond and Mr. Valdes, he claims neither one specifically asked him about his use of the words alleged. Mr. Barker did do so, however, and Respondent admitted to the use of "faggot" and "pissed-off." He has been a teacher for 18 years and during that time has never received a bad evaluation. He claims he has never been cautioned about his language, and the reprimand administered in 1992 relates more to the use of poor judgement in attempting to intimidate student rather than to the use of "inappropriate" language.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Herbert Latimore, be suspended from employment as a teacher with the Pinellas County School Board, without pay, for a period of five (5) days. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-5748 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14. & 15. Not relevant to the issues herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: ARGUMENT paragraphs, unnumbered, as treated in sequence. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 4. Accepted as a correct comment on the state of the testimony. 5. & 6. Accepted as a correct comment on the state of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not evidence but argument and statement of position. Accepted as an accurate recounting of Respondent's testimony. Accepted as an accurate comment on the evidence. Accepted as Respondent's position. COPIES FURNISHED: Keith B. Martin, Esquire Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street, Southwest Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Lawrence D. Black, Esquire 650 Seminole Boulevard Largo, Florida 34640-3625 J. Howard Hinesley, Ed.D. Superintendent Pinellas County Schools 301 4th Street, Southwest Largo, Florida 34649-2942
The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment action by discriminating against Petitioner based on his age and gender in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes; and (b) whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner for filing a grievance.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a public taxing district responsible for educating Bay County's children from pre-kindergarten through high school. Respondent employs roughly 6000 instructional, support, and administrative personnel. Respondent's instructional employees are covered by Respondent's anti-discrimination policy and a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Respondent and the local bargaining unit, the Association of Bay County Educators (ABCE). The CBA governs many aspects of the employment relationship between the District and its teachers, including procedures for involuntary transfers and lay offs due to funding issues. Respondent's schools are divided as follows: (a) high school includes ninth grade through twelfth grade; (b) middle school includes sixth grade through eighth grade; and (c) elementary school includes kindergarten ages through fifth grade. Petitioner is a 51-year-old male. He began working for Respondent as a teacher in 1990. For the 2008/2009 school year, Petitioner worked as a teacher at Respondent's Haney Technical High School and Center (Haney). At that time, Haney operated two concurrent programs: a technical education program and a high school program. Petitioner taught physical education and science in the high school program. During the 2008/2009 school year, Respondent decided to eliminate the Haney high school program due to budget cuts and lower student census. Respondent also made the decision to combine the Haney technical education program with an adult education program from another closed school. The Haney high school program was not Respondent's only major adjustment for economic reasons. Respondent also closed five other schools and cut over 100 positions. This process resulted in 154 displaced teachers. All of Haney's high school teaching positions, including Petitioner's, were to be eliminated. Sandra Davis, principal at Haney, asked for voluntary transfers. No one in the high school program volunteered to transfer. Ms. Davis requested that certain high school teachers remain at Haney to teach in the restructured program at Haney. Ms. Davis made the decision to keep the teachers at Haney based on consideration of the projected need in the restructured Haney program for the upcoming year and after considering the teachers' certifications and experience. Teachers with continuing contracts or professional service contracts, who were not to remain at Haney, were placed in the displaced teachers' pool. The pool included Petitioner and all teachers who worked in schools or programs that Respondent intended to eliminate. There was a meeting on April 20, 2009, between Superintendent William Husfelt, the District's Personnel Department, and the displaced teachers in the District. At the meeting Respondent explained the procedures for transferring/reassigning displaced teachers. The displaced teachers were provided with a list of all of Respondent's vacant positions. Respondent then asked each displaced teacher to list their top three positions. Every teacher was granted an interview for their top three positions. Petitioner selected positions at Hiland Park Elementary School, Lynn Haven Elementary School, and Mowat Middle School. According to Petitioner, he listed the middle school because it was close to his home. He was granted and attended interviews for all three positions. Petitioner recently obtained his certification in elementary education. However, he had no recent substantive experience teaching elementary students. The principals who interviewed the displaced teachers selected the people to fill vacant positions at their respective schools on a competitive basis. During one such interview, it became apparent that Petitioner was not as familiar with the method of teaching reading as more experienced teachers and/or even other recently certified elementary education professionals. The vast majority of Petitioner's experience was teaching high school students. He was used to working with students more similar in age and behavior to middle school students. The principals who interviewed Petitioner did not select him to fill any of his top three positions. At the end of this interview/selection process, there were 34 teachers who were not selected for any position, including Petitioner. During the hearing, Petitioner confirmed that he did not believe any discrimination or retaliation took place prior to and through the time of the interviews. Petitioner understood it was a competitive selection process with over 100 applicants. On or about April 28, 2009, Respondent conducted a second meeting with the remaining displaced teachers. At the meeting, displaced teachers were again asked to list their top three choices for placement from the remaining vacant positions. Petitioner listed Hiland Park Elementary, Tommy Smith Elementary, and Lucille Moore Elementary. Superintendent considered the displaced teachers' lists, their certifications and experience, the vacant positions, and other factors. At no time did Respondent promise to place a displaced teacher in a position of the teachers' choice. Superintendent Husfelt placed Petitioner at Everitt Middle School, teaching science. Petitioner was qualified to fill the position, but it was not one of his choices on his second top-three list. Female applicants were appointed to fill all of the positions at the elementary schools. On or about May 11, 2009, Petitioner and Ms. Davis met to discuss Petitioner's informal grievance relative to his involuntary transfer. Ms. Davis denied the informal grievance. On May 26, 2009, Petitioner filed a formal Grievance with Ms. Davis regarding his involuntary transfer/reassignment. She denied the grievance. On June 10, 2009, Petitioner and Superintendent Husfelt's designee, Pat Martin, had a Step II grievance meeting. Respondent subsequently denied Petitioner's grievance. Sometime in June 2009, Petitioner applied for five vacant positions at Hiland Elementary School. There were fifth grade vacancies, two fourth-grade vacancies, and one third-grade vacancies. Petitioner received an interview for these positions. However, all five positions were filled with female teachers. The involuntary transfer did not cause Petitioner to suffer any loss of pay, benefits, or seniority. The new position was approximately five miles away from his former position. During the hearing, Petitioner testified that he researched the Internet to determine the percentage of male teachers in Respondent's elementary schools, kindergarten through grade five. According to Petitioner, four percent of the teachers are male. Respondent presented evidence that approximately 11.58 percent of its elementary school teachers, kindergarten through sixth grade, are male. These raw statistics, standing alone, are not competent evidence that Respondent is intentionally excluding male teachers in its elementary schools. Petitioner admitted during the hearing that he had no evidence regarding the age of Respondent's elementary school teachers, male or female. Therefore, there is no evidence of age discrimination. Petitioner stated at hearing that the transfer to the middle school caused him to suffer an adverse action because industrial air pollution in the area caused him to take more sick leave than when he taught at Haney, about five miles away. This argument has not been considered here because Petitioner raised it for the first time during the hearing and because Petitioner had no competent medical evidence to support his claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Christopher Jackson, Esquire Harrison, Sale, McCloy, Duncan & Jackson, Chtd. 304 Magnolia Avenue Panama City, Florida Gerry D. McQuagge 1608 Georgia Avenue 32401 Lynn Haven, Florida 32444 Jerry Long, Ed. D. 803 Skyland Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner established, pursuant to section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2014),1/ that Respondent, Susan Steverson (Respondent), committed gross insubordination and should have been disciplined therefore.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is responsible for the public education of students in grades pre-K through 12 in Holmes County, Florida. The School Board is also responsible for the hiring, firing, and overseeing all employees within the Holmes County School District (District). The District has a total of approximately 3,250 students enrolled and employs just under 475 persons. Mr. Eddie Dixon is the Superintendent of School for the Holmes County School District. He was elected as Superintendent in 2012. As Superintendent, Mr. Dixon is responsible for the management of district employees and regularly makes recommendations to the School Board regarding the suspension, discipline, or termination of such employees. The District is comprised of seven traditional schools and one alternative school. One of the traditional schools within the District is Bethlehem School, a Pre-K through 12 school. Approximately 500 students are enrolled at Bethlehem School, which has roughly 55 faculty and staff members. Brent Jones is the current principal of Bethlehem School and was principal during the 2014-15 school year. Rosanne Mitchell is the current assistant principal of Bethlehem School and was assistant principal during the 2014-15 school year. At all relevant times to these proceedings, Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a classroom teacher. Respondent was employed at Bethlehem School for over 28 years. Respondent met Superintendent Dixon shortly after he became superintendent. Superintendent Dixon removed Zeb Brown as principal of Bethlehem School in the middle of the 2012-13 school year, around December of 2012. Respondent, along with a number of teachers, disagreed with the decision and voiced her concerns. According to Respondent, Superintendent Dixon was dismissive of those concerns. Respondent also disagreed with a policy change that took place at Bethlehem school after Principal Brown was removed during the tenure of an interim principal, Principal Thompson. The policy had to do with pre-approved permission forms for student activities. Before the change, teachers could decline to sign the form if a student was not performing or behaving well in class. After the change, teachers no longer had veto power over the forms. They were told that they were to sign the forms, even before the student received it. During the 2014-2015 school year, while Respondent was employed as a classroom teacher at Bethlehem School, Principal Jones received reports that Respondent was leaving students outside of her locked classroom during instructional time. The standard policy that had been put in place at Bethlehem School at the time required that after classes began, classroom doors were to be locked from the inside, requiring late-arriving students to knock on the door to gain entrance. During the fall of 2014, Respondent became "fed up" with the situation, especially during her first period, because late- arriving students interrupted her class. Therefore, she told her students that, after Thanksgiving break, if a student was tardy, they were to knock on the door only once, and that she would open the door when there was a convenient break. According to Respondent, the strategy worked well, and students were never left outside for more than a minute or two. On December 11, 2014, while taking attendance during her first period, a student knocked on her door, and Respondent called out "Just a minute." In less than a minute, she opened the door but no one was there. Shortly thereafter, there was an intercom announcement that there was a late bus and to please allow students in the classrooms. The announcement was followed by a phone call to Respondent in her classroom from the receptionist who had made the announcement, who asked Respondent to allow students in her classroom. That phone call was followed by another from Principal Jones, who asked Respondent why she was locking students out. While Respondent was explaining, the phone call was interrupted by another knock on the door by a late-arriving student. The next day, Friday, December 12, 2014, Principal Jones and Assistant Principal Mitchell met with Respondent during her planning period. During the meeting, Principal Jones told Respondent that they were not running a military-styled school and instructed Respondent to stop leaving students locked outside of her classroom. Principal Jones also gave Respondent instructions regarding the handling of student tardies, acceptance of late work, and the accommodations for ESE students. Regarding leaving students locked outside, Principal Jones told Respondent that she needed to keep her door locked and suggested that she have a student open the door when a late student knocks. Respondent advised Principal Jones that it disrupts educational time, but that she would open the door. On the issue of tardies, Principal Jones explained that the administration's hands were tied because Holmes County had not adopted an attendance policy. In fact, Bethlehem School did not differentiate between excused or unexcused tardies. Some of the teachers at Bethlehem School, including Respondent, had stopped filling out referrals for tardies because they had been told by the school administration that they were not going to be counted. Prior to the meeting, Respondent had a policy of not accepting late work in an effort to promote students’ personal responsibility and fairness to other students. Respondent told Principal Jones that her policy of not accepting late work had been effective. Nevertheless, Principal Jones instructed Respondent to accept late work. He also instructed her to allow students who came unprepared to leave the classroom to get their materials if it was just outside the room in their locker. Principal Jones also mentioned that Respondent needed to make accommodations for ESE students with Individual Education Plans so that those students could succeed and pass. Respondent advised Principal Jones that if the student does nothing, she would not give them a passing grade. Respondent became visibly upset during the meeting, which ended abruptly. The following Monday morning, December 15, 2014, Assistant Principal Mitchell and Principal Jones received reports that Respondent was reading a prepared statement about Principal Jones to her classes. Principal Jones reported the incident to Superintendent Dixon, who asked Principal Jones to obtain a copy of the statement which Respondent had read to the students. Thereafter, Principal Jones went to Respondent’s classroom and asked for a copy of the prepared statement. Respondent stated that she would have to talk to her lawyer. Principal Jones said, "Okay," and walked away. Petitioner did not receive a copy of the statement until many months later when it was produced as part of this proceeding. Later that day, Respondent was called down to the Bethlehem School office during her seventh period to meet with Superintendent Dixon. Respondent was accompanied by fellow teacher, Donna Mollet, at Respondent’s request. When they arrived, Superintendent Dixon handed Respondent a memo on Holmes County School Board stationary from the Superintendent to Respondent dated December 15, 2014, which stated: This is notification that you are suspended with pay from your regularly assigned duties pending the outcome of an investigation concerning gross insubordination of Principal Brent Jones with students at Bethlehem High School. Please be advised that this suspension does not constitute a disciplinary action. We will keep you apprised as the investigation continues; including written notification of the outcome once the investigation is concluded. You are to immediately leave school grounds and not return until further notice. The Superintendent asked Respondent to sign the letter, which she did. When she asked him what she had done, the Superintendent declined to discuss it further at that time and asked her to leave. Respondent was then accompanied to her classroom by Assistant Superintendent Goodman and Carmen Bush from the District office, where she gathered her personal belongings and left. Mr. Goodman and Ms. Bush told Respondent not to return to the school until notified. Principal Jones and Superintendent Dixon conducted an investigation, which included obtaining statements from students who witnessed her conduct. The witness statements indicated that Respondent had told her students that Principal Jones would not enforce her rules and that students might be better off taking an on-line, virtual class, rather than attending Bethlehem School. Following the investigation, the Superintendent determined that Respondent had been grossly insubordinate and had violated the School Board policy regarding Employee Communications. On December 17, 2014, Pam Cameron from the District office called Respondent and asked that she come to the District office the next day. When Respondent arrived at the District office on December 18, 2014, she met with Superintendent Dixon and Principal Jones. Principal Jones handed her a letter of reprimand (Letter of Reprimand) which he had signed, stating: This correspondence is a formal reprimand of your actions and behavior on Monday, December 15, 2014. Our investigation has found that you were grossly insubordinate. The gross insubordination includes reading the prepared statement to your classes and your refusal to provide a copy to me when I requested it. You have been found to be unprofessional and inappropriate in relation to this situation. Please know and understand by way of this correspondence that you are directed to refrain from such unprofessional actions and behaviors in the future. To violate this directive, any School Board Policy, State Statute, or any other School Board Rule can result in further disciplinary action. Please plan to attend the professional practices workshop that will be held during preschool next year. Further, State Board of Education Rule 6B- 1.001, FAC, Section (2) states the educator " . . . will seek to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity." Section (3) states "Aware of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of one's colleagues, of students, of parents, and of other members of the community, the educator strives to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct." Respondent did not sign the bottom of Letter of Reprimand in the place for her acknowledgement. She did, however, read a statement to Superintendent Dixon and Principal Jones about her frustrations regarding lack of discipline and the attendance policy at Bethlehem School. In a letter addressed to Superintendent Dixon dated December 19, 2014, Respondent stated: This document is my response to my letter of reprimand that you issued on December 18, 2014, in your office. I refute the accusation of gross insubordination that you and Principal Jones have made against me. You both refused to give me specific examples of the alleged insubordination other than “reading the prepared statement to your classes and your refusal to provide a copy to me when I requested it.” Never at any time did you or Principal Jones ask me to tell you what I conveyed to my students. During the brief meeting of December 18, 2014, I explained that I told my students of changes in my classroom rules and that I divulged to students Principal Jones’s statements regarding those changes. Principal Jones said that I had undermined his authority. I fail to see that telling students exactly what Principal Jones said can be construed as undermining his authority or insubordination. Furthermore, the method of my suspension was, I firmly believe, meant to humiliate me in front of my students and colleagues. On Monday, December 15, 2014, Principal Jones called me into his office. Superintendent Dixon gave me the paper regarding my suspension from duties, refused to answer my questions regarding the charges, and told me to get my personal belongings and leave the campus immediately. That meant returning to my classroom of sixth graders—including my own child—and gathering my belongings to leave. My son kept asking what was wrong, why we were having to leave, etc. The emotional distress that you caused not only me, but my son in front of his peers, is unconscionable and unforgivable. I was escorted to my classroom by two county office personnel, Jim Goodman and Carmen Bush, and they followed from there to make sure that I left the building and the campus. I was treated as though I were some kind of desperate criminal, which I definitely resent. I contend that I am innocent of the charges and further contend that your handling of this situation has been conducted purposely to damage my reputation. Respondent wanted to challenge her suspension, but was told both in the letter of suspension, as well as by the Chairman of the School Board, that a suspension with pay is not “discipline” that can be challenged or for which there is a right to a hearing. After Respondent was suspended with pay, Principal Jones informed her that she could return to school from her suspension on January 5, 2015, the day that winter break was over. Shortly after her return, Respondent received a telephone call from a concerned parent because, prior to the winter break, Respondent had deducted points from an essay that the parent’s child had submitted to Respondent. The incident involving the student and the essay occurred during the week of December 8, 2014. In fact, the incident involving that student appears to have been one of the issues that Principal Jones discussed with Respondent on December 12, 2014. The student in question was one of Respondent’s first-period students. The essay was due Monday, December 8, 2014. The student was not in Respondent’s class that day, but Respondent saw the student at school later that same day. When she saw the student, she asked him if he had his essay to turn in and the student replied that he did not. The same thing happened on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of that week. Each of those days, the student was absent from Respondent’s first-period class, but was seen by Respondent later in the day. When asked by Respondent whether he had his essay, he responded that he did not. Then, on Friday, December 12, 2014, the student arrived very late to Respondent’s first-period class. When he arrived, he put his essay assignment on Respondent’s desk. Respondent told the student that she could not accept the assignment because it was late. He picked up the essay and sat down. Upon noticing that other students were working from their books, the student asked Respondent for permission to go get his book. Respondent refused. The student then left Respondent’s class without her permission. Later that same period, the student came back to Respondent’s class with a note from Principal Jones directing the student back to Respondent’s class. Respondent accepted the student back into her class as directed. Later, Respondent accepted the student’s late work as directed by Principal Jones, but she deducted points from the essay because it was late. When Respondent spoke to the parent of the student after winter break, it was agreed that the parent would come in for a parent-teacher conference to be held during Respondent’s seventh-period planning period on Wednesday, January 7, 2015. Respondent informed Assistant Principal Mitchell of the planned parent-teacher conference and asked her to attend. Principal Jones was also aware that Respondent was going to have the parent-teacher conference. The parent-teacher conference was held on January 7, 2015, with Respondent, the parent, and Assistant Principal Mitchell present in a conference room at Bethlehem School. At the beginning of the meeting, the parent apologized for his son leaving Respondent’s classroom without permission. The parent, however, wanted an explanation of why points had been deducted from his son’s essay. Respondent explained that the points were deducted because the paper was late. The parent was under the belief that his son had only been absent for three days and had not been tardy during the time period in question. Respondent advised the parent that her records showed that the student had been absent seven days and tardy 24 times within the nine-week period. The parent wanted to know why he had not been informed that his son had been tardy so many times. Respondent stated to the parent, “We don’t do much about tardies.” Respondent further explained that they had stopped using paper-based referrals after the first nine-week period. Assistant Principal Mitchell advised the parent that phone calls and letters are sent out to parents of students with excessive absences and tardies. Respondent did not disagree with Assistant Principal Mitchell, nor did Respondent question or criticize the school’s administration during the parent-teacher conference. At the parent’s request, the student joined the teacher-parent conference. The parent spoke to his son and then advised that there should be no more problems out of his son. Thereafter, the student left the conference. After the student left, the parent still wanted Respondent to remove the point deduction from his son’s essay. When Respondent advised that she would not do that, the parent suggested that, if she did not remove the deduction, he would just go to the School Board about it. Respondent said, “I guess you will just have to do that.” Assistant Principal Mitchell then suggested that she would like to speak with Principal Jones about the matter prior to the parent going to the School Board. The parent said that would be fine. Thereafter, Respondent then left the meeting. After Respondent had left, Assistant Principal Mitchell told the parent that she would contact him as soon as the matter had been resolved. The parent thanked Assistant Principal Mitchell and left. On Friday, January 9, 2015, Respondent met with Principal Jones. Lisa Matthews accompanied Respondent at Respondent’s request. During the meeting, Principal Jones told Respondent that she could not deduct points from the student’s essay discussed at the January 7, 2015, teacher-parent conference. When Respondent questioned why she should not be able to deduct points under the circumstances, Principal Jones explained that the student had turned in the paper the next time he was in class and that was good enough. Respondent did not refuse to comply with Principal Jones’ request and, in fact, Respondent complied by removing the point deduction from the student’s essay. Further, after discussing what occurred at the parent- teacher conference with Assistant Principal Mitchell, Principal Jones felt that Respondent’s conduct and statements were designed to undermine the administration of Bethlehem School. Therefore, he reported Respondent’s conduct to Superintendent Dixon, who then determined that there was just cause to suspend Respondent, without pay, for a period of five days. On January 9, 2015, Superintendent Dixon suspended Respondent, without pay, for a period of five days which commenced on Monday, January 12, 2015, and ended on Friday, January 16, 2015. That same day, January 9, 2015, Superintendent Dixon signed a document prepared on Holmes County School Board letterhead regarding Respondent’s suspension without pay. The document stated: Friday, January 9, 2015 Susan Steverson RE: SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY Pursuant to School Policy 6.38, and Section 1012.33(6), Florida Statutes, Eddie Dixon, Superintendent of Schools for Holmes County School District, recommends that Mrs. Susan Steverson, be suspended without pay for a period of five (5) days from employment with the School Board. Mrs. Steverson has engaged in conduct that constitutes grounds for suspension without pay for a period of five (5) days. The grounds for suspension include, but are not limited to being grossly insubordinate of Principal Brent Jones in a parent meeting after having been reprimanded prior to this school year and violating School Board rules to the extent that disciplinary action is required. The foregoing conduct by Mrs. Steverson constitutes grounds for suspension without pay for a period of five(5) days, in violation of School Board Policy 6.38(III)(B), and (F). Mrs. Steverson’s behavior also violates Department of Education Rules, including but not limited to: Rule 6A-10.080 and Rule 6B-5.056, FAC, and other applicable Florida Law. Accordingly, Mrs. Steverson will be suspended from employment for a period of five (5) days beginning Monday, January 12, 2015 at 7:30 a.m. and ending Friday, January 16, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. During this suspension, Mrs. Steverson will not be allowed on any School Board property. Please know and understand that you are directed to refrain from such unprofessional actions and behaviors in the future. Further, State Board of Education Rule 6B- 1.001, FAC, Section (2) states the educator “ . . . will seek to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity.” Section (3) states “Aware of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of one’s colleagues, of students, of parents, and of other members of the community, the educator strives to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct.” Subsequently, Superintendent Dixon presented the suspension to the School Board at its next meeting and recommended that the suspension be upheld. The School Board voted on January 20, 2015, to approve the suspension without pay. On January 27, 2015, a Notice of Charges against Respondent in this case was signed by Superintendent Dixon. The Notice of Charges states: NOTICE OF CHARGES Pursuant to Section 1012.33(6), Florida Statutes, Eddie Dixon, Superintendent of Schools for the Holmes County School District, recommended that Mrs. Susan Steverson ("Mrs. Steverson"), be suspended without pay for a period of five (5) days by the School Board. Mrs. Steverson has engaged in conduct that constitutes "just cause" for her suspension without pay. The grounds for suspension include, but are not limited to, the following: gross insubordination. Mrs. Steverson has a history of engaging in insubordinate behavior toward administrators, which began under prior superintendents and continued with recent incidents involving comments made to and about the administration of the Bethlehem School in December 2014 and January 2015. Mrs. Steverson has been repeatedly instructed by persons in authority to correct her behavior, but she has failed to do so. INCIDENTS INVOLVING MRS. SUSAN STEVERSON On or about Monday, December 15, 2014, Mrs. Steverson made unprofessional and derogatory statements to her class about what she believed to be a lack of support from her school principal, Mr. Brent Jones. A statement was apparently read to the class strongly criticizing the principal, and advising the class that there were no longer any rules for the class as a result of a lack of support by her school principal. Students reported the statement to administrators out of concern for the class. Mrs. Steverson was asked for a copy of the written statement by Principal Jones but she refused to provide a copy. Mrs. Steverson was reprimanded for her conduct and advised not to allow her unprofessional conduct to continue. Then again, on January 9, 2015, Mrs. Steverson, during a parent teacher conference scheduled by Mrs. Steverson with Vice-Principal Mrs. Roseanne Mitchell present, was grossly insubordinate by criticizing and questioning Principal Brent Jones, in front of a parent. Her obvious intent was to embarrass and humiliate the Principal, and challenge his authority to administer the operations of the school in a manner he deemed appropriate. Mrs. Steverson was suspended without pay for a period of five (5) days beginning on January 12, 2015 to January 16, 2015, immediately prior to the School Board meeting on January 20, 2015, at which this issue was heard.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Holmes County School Board: Dismissing the charge of gross insubordination against Respondent and setting aside any discipline subsequent to Respondent’s suspension with pay and reprimand received in December 2014; Dismissing the allegations set forth in the Notice of Charges to the extent they seek to impose or support any discipline subsequent to Respondent’s suspension with pay and reprimand received in December 2014; and Reimbursing Respondent for the five days of pay that Respondent did not receive during her suspension from January 12, 2015, through January 16, 2015, plus interest, as appropriate under applicable law. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 17th day of March, 2016.
