The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of inappropriate sexual conduct with a female student, so as to constitute gross immorality, in violation of Section 231.2615(1)(c), Florida Statutes; personal conduct that seriously reduces Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the School Board, in violation of Section 231.2615(1)(f), Florida Statutes; failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning or her mental health or physical safety, in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code; intentional exposure of a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code; or exploitation of a relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage, in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(h), Florida Administrative Code. If guilty of any of these violations, an additional issue is what penalty that Petitioner should impose.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified teacher, holding certificate number 649196. He was first employed by the Miami-Dade School District in January 1989. After working as a substitute teacher, Respondent was hired in a permanent capacity in 1990 or 1991. At the time of the alleged incidents, Respondent was a teacher at Coral Reef Senior High School, where he was the head basketball coach and assigned to teach English classes in the Center for Student Instruction. In the summers of 1998 and 1999, Respondent taught in the Summer Youth Employment Program that took place at Coral Reef. In this program, high-school students from Coral Reef and elsewhere attended classes to develop job skills and received monetary compensation while so enrolled. B. L. was born on November 3, 1982. She graduated from Coral Reef in 2000. During the summers of 1998 and 1999, B. L. took classes at Coral Reef that were sponsored by the Summer Youth Employment Program. The first summer she took a class in business and finance, and the second summer she took a class in legal and public affairs. Respondent was a coinstructor for both classes. During the summer of 1998, B. L., who was not a discipline problem, engaged in an argument with two other classmates, who were sisters. Respondent and his coinstructor intervened before any blows were exchanged. The coinstructor took the sisters and counseled them, and Respondent took B. L. and counseled her. Respondent removed B. L. from the classroom momentarily to talk to her outside of the hearing of her classmates and advise her that he was disappointed in her because she was one of the top-performing students and she should not "lower her standards" to the level of the sisters with whom she had been arguing. Respondent told B. L. that she was a "bright student, . . . articulate," that she was a "beautiful young lady [with] a lot going for her," that she seemed to have come from a "good family" and "had good standards," and that Respondent did not think that she should conduct herself like that in class. In the context in which it was said, "beautiful" refers to the totality of a person, including intelligence, attitude, and personality," and is not an inappropriate focus upon a person's physical appearance. After a couple of minutes of talking to B. L. outside the classroom, Respondent returned her to the classroom. He then spoke to the coinstructor and reported the incident to the counselor who dealt with classroom discipline. Respondent was unaware of what, if any, further action the counselor took against B. L. or the sisters. Respondent's other contact with B. L. was unremarkable that summer. A couple of times, he and the coinstructor cited B. L. for violations of the dress code. Generally, though, he taught her and treated her as he did the other students in his class. The following summer, B. L. signed up for Respondent's legal and public affairs class. Concerned that B. L. would be duplicating some of the material that they had covered the previous summer, Respondent spoke with the job counselor, who worked in his classroom. She and Respondent then advised B. L. to transfer to another class, but B. L. refused to do so. During this summer, B. L. confided in a classmate that she had a crush on Respondent and that her relationship with her current boyfriend was unsatisfactory. Nothing significant occurred during that summer between B. L. and Respondent, who again treated her as he did his other students. Obviously, B. L. has testified differently. She testified that, during the first summer, when Respondent had her out in the hall, he told her that a blue dress that she had worn the prior day had been driving him "crazy." She testified that Respondent asked her if she felt attracted toward him, and she said that she did not. B. L. testified that Respondent concluded the conversation by saying words to the effect, "if you're 'bout it 'bout it, you know where I am." B. L. testified that this meant that if she was serious about getting intimate with Respondent, such as kissing him, he would be available. B. L. testified that this was the only inappropriate conduct the first summer. B. L. testified that the following summer, she and Respondent happened to see each other outside of school at a shopping mall while B. L. was with her boyfriend. She testified that they exchanged brief greetings. B. L. testified that the following week at school Respondent brought up their chance encounter and asked if she recalled their conversation last year. She testified that she answered that she did, and he added, "if you want to talk about it, we can talk about it in a private conversation." B. L. testified that this was the only inappropriate conduct the second summer. B. L. testified that Respondent's conduct made her feel "weird," but she was not scared. She testified that her boyfriend was jealous of Respondent; she testified that he probably thought that she was tempted to engage in an inappropriate relationship with Respondent. She testified that she told her boyfriend of Respondent's advances, and he threatened to tell B. L.'s parents and a school counselor if she did not complain about Respondent. One time, while talking to her boyfriend about this matter on the phone, B. L. began to cry and her parents overheard enough of the conversation to learn of B. L.'s claims against Respondent. Several problems preclude crediting B. L.'s testimony. First, she acknowledged that Respondent and the job counselor advised her to change classes the second summer, but she declined to do so because it was too much trouble. Second, she denied having a crush on Respondent, but she described any attention from him as though it came from a "movie star." There is no doubt that she had a crush on Respondent based on her description of Respondent at the hearing, the testimony of the friend in whom she confided, and the testimony of the job counselor, who added that B. L. was breathless and "lovesick" and that she told B. L. that Respondent was happily married and to "get over it." It is likely that B. L.'s obvious infatuation with Respondent bothered her boyfriend. It is plausible that stories of resisted advances would gain B. L. credibility with her boyfriend, although B. L.'s motivation in fabricating these claims against Respondent necessarily remains unknown. Additionally, B. L.'s demeanor while testifying did not add to her credibility. Frequently, her tone and expression suggested that she felt uncomfortable testifying, but her discomfort was not due to victimization by Respondent. Unable to describe her emotions at the time of these claimed advances, B. L.'s discomfort was more likely attributable, at best, to a feeling that Respondent's inappropriate behavior was too trivial for this much attention or, at worst, to an admission of guilt over fabricating these stories and causing Respondent so much trouble. After considering the above-discussed factors, the latter explanation of B. L.'s tone and demeanor is more likely than the former. In any event, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent behaved inappropriately toward B. L. at any time.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Department of Education Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles T. Whitelock Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast Thirteenth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316-1924 Leslie A. Meek United Teachers of Dade Law Department 2200 Biscayne Boulevard, Fifth Floor Miami, Florida 33137
Findings Of Fact Introduction At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Jack E. Ferrell, was a teacher at Parkway Junior High School (PJHS) in Miami, Florida. He holds Florida Teacher's certificate Number 107694 issued by petitioner, Department of Education, Education Practices Commission (Commission). The certificate was reissued in 1987 and covers the areas of health education, physical education and mathematics. With the exception of a short break in the 1960s, respondent has been a teacher in Dade County, Florida since 1959. He taught at PJHS from school year 1967-68 until January 10, 1986 when he was reassigned to administrative duties at a Dade County School Board area office. The school has a racial composition of at least ninety percent black students. On February 18, 1986, Ferrell retired rather than face disciplinary action by the Dade County School Board which might have culminated in his dismissal and loss of retirement benefits. As a condition of accepting his resignation, the School Board stipulated that Ferrell would not be rehired by that school district. At the same time, the charges which prompted his retirement were referred to the Commission. On November 10, 1987, or some twenty-one months later, an administrative complaint was issued against Ferrell charging him with various violations of general law and agency rules. As amended on March 8, 1988, the complaint alleges that Ferrell, who is white, (a) used excessive corporal punishment on a black student and called that student a "nigger" on December 20, 1985, (b) called a black student a "dummy, gorilla and nigger" on December 18, 1985, (c) showed unprofessional conduct at a parent-teacher conference on December 19, 1985, (d) failed to follow school policies and procedures, used unprofessional conduct and defied school personnel, all of which resulted in a letter of reprimand on April 15, 1985, (e) argued with a fellow teacher on June 5, 1984, (f) was guilty of direct insubordination by refusing to accept a student into his classroom on December 14, 1984, and (g) committed battery upon another teacher on April 23, 1982. 1/ These charges will be discussed separately hereinafter. The December 20 Incident On December 20, 1985 Ferrell was teaching a mathematics class when J.W., then a fourteen year old black student, was brought to his classroom by Mr. Robertson, a school security guard. The student had been caught skipping class earlier and was sent to Roy Scott, an administrative assistant, who gave a "shot" (paddling) to J.W. and several other students. When J.W. entered Ferrell's class, Ferrell asked him "What happened to you?" J.W., who was upset and teary eyed from his paddling, responded "I just got a shot." Ferrell replied "You should have been suspended." J.W. then said words to the effect "Don't worry about me," and went to his desk which was in the back corner of the classroom. Ferrell, who did not hear J.W.'s last remark, asked "What did you say?" When J.W. did not respond Ferrell went to the student's desk and lifted it slightly once or twice and again asked him to repeat his comment. J.W. would not respond and told Ferrell to leave him alone. Using both hands, Ferrell picked up J.W. by his shirt and asked him to repeat his comment. During the process of picking up J.W., Ferrell's hands ended up around the upper chest area or lower part of J.W.'s neck. J.W., who by now was angry and even more upset, tried to break loose but Ferrell pushed him against the wall resulting in J.W. accidentally bumping his head. After Ferrell asked J.W. what he intended to do, J.W. threatened to tell his mother but Ferrell replied that he didn't care. When J.W. again attempted to break away, Ferrell pushed him against the wall a second time. At that point, Ferrell thought he heard J.W.'s shirt tear and released the student. He told a security guard to take J.W. to the principal's office. He later gave J.W. a detention for coming to class without a book. Although at hearing J.W. claimed that Ferrell had called him a "nigger" and "boy," this contention is rejected since J.W. did not allege this in his initial statements and interviews, and nearby students who witnessed the event did not hear Ferrell use those words. 2/ After J.W. related the event to the school administrators, the administrators concluded that J.W. was "okay," and he was sent to his next class, a physical education class. During the interview, one of the school officials noted a small bump on the back of J.W.'s head where it had struck the wall and accordingly reported Ferrell to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for child abuse (excessive corporal punishment) However there is no evidence that formal charges were ever filed against Ferrell by the agency or state attorney. According to J.W., the bump "hurt" and stayed on his head for "about a week." However, he did not ask for nor was he given medical assistance for his injury. In a meeting later that day, Ferrell admitted to the assistant principal in charge of administration, Kenneth Jaworski, that he had pushed J.W. against the wall, that the child may have bumped his head, and that his hands may have slid up around J.W.'s throat area. At that time, Ferrell blamed the incident on a "wise" statement made by the student. In early January, 1986, or some two to three weeks later, school officials contacted J.W.'s mother and told her of the incident. According to school policy, a teacher should never place his hands on a student unless he is in fear of bodily harm from a student or unless a student is about to inflict bodily harm on another student. Since neither situation was present, Ferrell violated school policy. Had Ferrell considered J.W.'s conduct to be disruptive or defiant, Ferrell should have either referred him to the principal's office or contacted a security guard who would escort J.W. to the principal's office. These procedures are outlined in the faculty handbook, and Ferrell was aware of such policies. Finally, under School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D- 1.08 appropriate corporal punishment was considered to be paddling. If corporal punishment was justified, only two persons designated by the principal at PJHS were authorized to administer such punishment and then only under certain conditions prescribed within the rule. Ferrell was not one of the two designated hitters. At hearing, Ferrell contended that he was simply "restraining" J.W. when the student attempted to leave the room and that he did not physically pull the student up with his hands or deliberately shove his head against the wall. He did concede it was possible that J.W.'s head could have accidentally hit the wall during the confrontation. Ferrell strongly disagreed with the contention that his actions equated to excessive corporal punishment and characterized it instead as an effort on his part to restrain the student from leaving class. It was his contention that the definition of corporal punishment was vague but was generally interpreted only to be paddling. He also said his actions were necessary in order to maintain control and discipline in his classroom. The December 18 Incident During the first semester of school year 1985-86, N.W. was a twelve year old black student at PJHS enrolled in Ferrell's sixth period mathematics class. Around 7:00 a.m. on the morning of December 18, N.W. was standing with two other black female students outside the school building when Ferrell walked by on the way into his classroom. There may have been as many as ten or twenty other black students who were within hearing distance of Ferrell but the exact number, if any, is unknown. One of the students, S.W., called out to Ferrell "Do you have a brother named Fred?" Ferrell replied "No, do you have a brother named Dummy?" He also asked S.W. if she was in his class. The student then retorted "No, but you remind me of Fred Flintstone." Ferrell replied "You remind me of a nigger." The evidence is conflicting as to whether Ferrell used the word "gorilla" during the incident, but it is found he did not. N.W. told her mother of the incident that day. Even though she was extremely upset with Ferrell, the mother chose not to bring the matter up until after the Christmas holidays. On January 9, 1986 N.W.'s mother met with Ferrell and a counselor, who was also black, to discuss her daughter's poor grades and the name-calling incident that occurred on December 18, and to request that her daughter be transferred out of Ferrell's classroom. At the conference, Ferrell acknowledged to both N.W. and the counselor that he had used the word "nigger." However, he explained that he was from North Carolina, that the word was always used to describe blacks and that the term was not used in a derogatory sense. In a conference with the principal, Fred Damianos, Ferrell freely admitted he had used the word "nigger" in his exchange with the three black students but, as he had told the mother, stated the word was a common one in North Carolina and was not meant to be derogatory. The principal did not consider this to be justification for his conduct and had a letter of reprimand placed in Ferrell's file. At hearing, Ferrell agreed his use of the word showed a lack of good judgment and could have offended the students in question. Direct Insubordination On December 14, 1984 Ferrell sent N.C., a female student, to Jaworski's office for using profanity in class. She had already been sent out of class on several prior occasions for disciplinary reasons. Ferrell did not want her back in class until after a parent-teacher conference had been held. However, Jaworski was "extremely busy" at the time and sent her back to the classroom with a note requesting that Ferrell take her, and they would talk about the student's situation later on. When N.C. returned to his class, Ferrell refused to accept her and sent her back to Jaworski's office with a note saying he would not admit her. Jaworski considered Ferrell's refusal to accept N.C. to be in defiance of his authority and therefore direct insubordination. Jaworski explained that, under then-existing school procedures, if the student continued to be a disciplinary problem, Ferrell should have prepared another referral slip rather than simply refusing to accept her. Jaworski discussed the incident with Ferrell that afternoon and later placed a memorandum describing the matter in Ferrell's file. However, the memorandum did not constitute disciplinary action since Jaworski had no authority to discipline Ferrell. Ferrell considered N.C. to be a persistently disruptive student who had to be removed from the classroom. He also felt his conduct in the matter was consistent with the school's Code of Student Conduct which authorized a teacher to temporarily remove that type of student from the classroom, request a parent-teacher conference, and to send the student to a predesignated area determined by the school principal. In Ferrell's view, Jaworski overreacted to the situation and had failed to give consideration to all the facts before the memorandum was written. Angry Parent-Teacher Conference On December 19, 1985, Ferrell held a parent-teacher conference with a Mr. and Mrs. Sterling and a school counselor. The conference concerned the Sterlings' son, R.S., who had been a disciplinary problem in one of Ferrell's classes. The mother carried a small baby with her to the conference. The four (plus baby) met in the counselor's 8'x 10' office which was approximately twenty feet from Jaworski's office. After the meeting had been underway for some time, another administrator asked Jaworski to check out the loud voices emanating from the counselor's office. When Jaworski went over to see what was happening, he found what he considered to be a "heated" meeting taking place. He described Ferrell's tone of voice as being loud and aggressive. After a few minutes had passed, Ferrell stood up and, in an irritated manner, said words to the effect "I can't add anything else, I don't know what else to say" and departed the meeting. As Ferrell left, Mr. Sterling said he had heard that Ferrell was "prejudiced." Upon hearing this comment, Ferrell returned to the doorway and said "If you believe that, you're as immature as that baby." At that point Jaworski, who was still standing near the office, felt that there was going to be a physical confrontation between Ferrell and Mr. Sterling and placed his arm across the doorway to prevent Ferrell from entering the room. Ferrell then left the area. However, Ferrell did not "physically push" Jaworski as alleged in the complaint. At hearing Ferrell admitted the conference "did not go well" and that, at one point, he and Mr. Sterling may have been "trying to out talk the other." Ferrell's contention that he did not use "threatening" words at any time was corroborated by Jaworski. Ferrell also pointed out that between September 5, 1985 and January 10, 1986, he had twenty-six parent-teacher conferences and only this conference drew a complaint from administrators. Even so, Ferrell was cited for unprofessional conduct in a memorandum prepared by Damianos on January 9, 1986. Battery on a Teacher On April 23, 1982 Ferrell was involved in an altercation with another teacher named Bellis. The incident occurred around 9:00 a.m. that day when some students left Bellis' classroom and congregated in the hallway outside of Ferrell's classroom. Because this disturbed his class, Ferrell first complained to Bellis, who did nothing about the matter. Ferrell then complained to the principal (Mr. Hanna) A short time later, the three men met in the hallway in front of Ferrell's classroom and, when Bellis turned and began walking away, Ferrell grabbed his upper bicep and told Bellis to turn around and tell Hanna the truth about the situation. Because Ferrell had touched him, Bellis filed criminal battery charges against Ferrell. However, there is no evidence that Ferrell was ever prosecuted for this crime. Even so, Ferrell was administratively charged with battery by school administrators and was suspended from school without pay for ten days. Ferrell contends he accepted the punishment only because he was promised a reassignment to another school. The promised reassignment did not materialize. Failure to Follow School Policy, Etc. The complaint alleges that Ferrell was guilty of "tearing up three discipline referrals in front of (Damianos) during a fit of anger." In the spring of 1985, a new countywide school policy was implemented requiring teachers to contact the student's parents before referring the student to the principal's office for "minor infractions." This policy was explained to all PJHS teachers, including Ferrell, at a faculty meeting on March 26, 1983. However, Ferrell had referred three students to the principal's office during the week preceding the meeting without first making such parent contact. By March 27, Ferrell had contacted the three sets of parents, albeit after the referrals had already been sent to the principal's office. On March 27, Ferrell and Damianos met in the school cafeteria to discuss the three referrals and the need to follow the new procedure. When the meeting ended, Ferrell was "upset," but not in "a fit of anger," and as he walked out of the cafeteria, he tore up the referrals and threw them in the wastebasket. Damianos considered this to be "unprofessional conduct" and "immature" and Ferrell's way of showing the administration that he was "upset." Ferrell justified his tearing up the forms on the ground the forms were no longer necessary since they failed to comply with the new school directive. He added that he meant no disrespect towards Damianos. Ferrell admitted being late to his classroom a few times in the spring of 1985 due to heavy traffic and parent- teacher conferences that lasted beyond the school starting hour. He also acknowledged that he had told another teacher (Scott) that Jaworski was "fat and lazy." In hindsight, Ferrell realizes he may have been "a little off base" for doing so. Unfortunately for Ferrell, his comments were relayed to Jaworski. Ferrell was charged with having received a letter of reprimand dated April 15, 1985 for various matters, including those discussed in findings of fact 17-19. He was also placed on two weeks' prescription in May, 1985 and satisfactorily completed all conditions by the prescribed time. Other than Ferrell's admission of being late, calling Jaworski certain names, and tearing up the three referral forms, there was insufficient evidence to support findings concerning any other incidents which form the basis for the reprimand and prescription. Incident on May 4, 1984 The complaint charges that Ferrell and Bellis supposedly had another altercation on June 4, 1984 albeit one of a purely verbal nature. No specifics are of record, and Ferrell's contention that he was completely exonerated was not contradicted. Indeed, the assistant principal did not dispute this contention and admitted that Bellis was an "unusual" person who had a tendency to lie. Loss of Teacher Effectiveness According to the testimony of various administrators, Ferrell's conduct in its totality, if shown to be true, has resulted in the loss of his effectiveness as a teacher in the public school system. Ferrell's Case Ferrell contended that all allegations were either untrue or exaggerated. He suggested the School Board of Dade County began compiling a paper trail in 1984 in an effort to dismiss him. According to Ferrell, this began when Ferrell met with the area superintendent in July, 1984 after the second Bellis incident. The superintendent told him that if one more incident occurred, Ferrell was "through as a teacher in Dade County." Ferrell also attributed many of his problems to a personality conflict with Jaworski and Damianos. Ferrell admits that he is a strict disciplinarian in class and assigns a great deal of homework. As a result, he is unpopular with many students. Ferrell's reputation as a strict disciplinarian was corroborated by one administrator who described Ferrell's class discipline as "extremely good." Ferrell also describes himself as "blunt," "frank," "to the point," and "very firm" in dealing with students, parents and teachers. However, these characteristics have tended to cause strained relations with his counterparts. Except for the December 18, 1985 incident, Ferrell denies ever using derogatory terms during his lengthy school tenure. This was corroborated by Jaworski and Damianos to the extent that they had contact with Ferrell while they were at PJHS. Indeed, they stated that Ferrell never gave any prior hint of racial bias. Ferrell was also described as an adequate teacher in terms of teaching skills as evidenced by his continuous receipt of satisfactory annual evaluations during his tenure with the school system. Further attributes included his never being absent and a willingness to stay after regular school hours to tutor students. Finally, Ferrell was offered the opportunity by Damianos in both 1984 and 1985 to teach extra classes because of the principal's confidence in his capabilities. Ferrell has not taught since his retirement in February, 1986 but wishes to retain his teacher's certificate. He thinks revocation of his certificate is too harsh a penalty given his otherwise satisfactory twenty-five year tenure as a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Jack E. Ferrell be found guilty of violating Subsections 231.28(1)(c), (f) and (h), Florida Statutes (1987), as more specifically discussed in the conclusions of law, and that his teaching certificate be suspended for three years retroactive to his date of retirement in February 1, 1986. DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 4th day of May, 1988.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Teresa Wimmer, violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.080, the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida (Code of Ethics), or 6A-10.081, the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida (Principles of Professional Conduct), as alleged in the Hernando County School Board’s March 9, 2015, notice of recommendation of termination, and March 24, 2015, modification of that notice; and, if so, the nature of the sanctions.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the system of public schools in Hernando County, Florida. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner has the authority to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Respondent has been a teacher at Pine Grove for roughly 11 years. During the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent was a teacher of first-grade students, with a class of approximately 18 students. As a classroom teacher, Respondent was expected to comply with the 2014-2015 Staff Handbook. Among the provisions applicable to Respondent was the following: TOUCHING STUDENTS Employees are advised that they should not touch students in any way except for the protection of the health, safety and/or welfare of a student or for protection of themselves. Respondent has been the subject of several disciplinary proceedings over the years. In September 2004, Respondent was involved in an employee conference for grabbing a student’s arm on two occasions to correct misbehaviors, the result of which appeared to be a reprimand. The report of the employee conference was to remain in the school file for one year. In January 2006, Respondent was involved in an employee conference for making derogatory comments regarding a student and allowing classmates to do the same. Respondent was required to re-read the Code of Ethics and Professional Practice forms and write a letter of apology to the student and parents. The employee conference report closed with “[a]ny further behaviors involving embarrassment to students will result in further disciplinary action.” In September 2013, Respondent was involved in an incident that is of more direct relevance to this proceeding. In that instance, Respondent was accused of roughly handling students in her classroom. As a result, she was offered, and accepted, a Stipulation for Employee Discipline and Last Chance Agreement (Stipulation). In the Stipulation, Respondent acknowledged that she “engaged in misconduct by having inappropriate and unprofessional interactions with students in her classroom” and that such conduct “warrants disciplinary action up to and including termination.” In lieu of termination, the School Board and Respondent agreed that she would be suspended for ten days and, thereafter, serve a probationary period for the remainder of the 2013-2014 school year. The Stipulation further provided that Respondent “agrees that she will not engage in the conduct which gave rise to this Stipulation at any time or any place so long as she is an employee of the Hernando County School District. Further, [Respondent] understands that if she does engage in misconduct, it will result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination.” Respondent successfully completed the terms of her probation without incident. School principals, assistant principals, guidance counselors, and persons in similar duties are trained in Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI), which is an approved method of restraining or transporting completely out-of-control students or removing children from the classroom. CPI training is not provided as a matter of course to classroom teachers. Respondent has not received CPI training. Holding a student’s hand is not a CPI hold. There is nothing inherently inappropriate with a teacher taking a student by the hand and walking with the student. The 2014-2015 Staff Handbook provides, in the section entitled “Return of Students to Classroom (Authority of the Teacher),” that: Teachers should follow their school’s procedure for the removal of students who are acting out. Suggestions include: having an adult accompany the student from the class or requesting an administrator to come to the class. (emphasis added). The routine procedure for removal of a disruptive or unruly student from the classroom is for the classroom teacher to call the office, whereupon Ms. Johnson, Ms. Kasten, or a guidance counselor, each of whom are trained in CPI, would go to the room, try to calm the student, and, if warranted, take the student to the office. Despite the procedure described above, Ms. Kasten testified that teachers, on occasion, “would bring the student down for me to talk to or the guidance counselor to talk to.” In such instances, “[t]hey would just walk them down” to the office. Although the teacher would usually call the office first, the evidence did not support a finding that a call was required or necessary, or that it happened in each event. Although the timing of those other events of taking students to the office was described as generally occurring “during their planning period or whatever, if they were at specials or whatever,” the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the act of walking a student to the office, per se, does not constitute a violation of the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook and that the school has not previously determined it to be so. Among the reasons for having teachers call the office for assistance with disruptive students is to limit those periods in which a teacher may leave students unattended or, as in this case, leave a co-teacher responsible for up to 36 students while the disruptive student was walked to the office. However, Ms. Tyree testified that there have been times when she would ask Respondent to “keep an eye on [her] class” while she went to attend to other things, and vice versa. There was no suggestion that asking a co-teacher to watch over a class was improper, as long as “your class is covered.” In the weeks prior to February 4, 2015, J.S., a student in Respondent’s classroom, had become increasingly disruptive in the classroom. The behaviors ranged from J.S. talking in “baby-talk” and rolling crayons on his desk, to choking another student with a lanyard. Respondent did not know why J.S.’s behavior had spiraled out of control, but indicated to Ms. Kasten that it was creating a problem for her ability not only to teach J.S., but to teach the other students in her classroom. The office was called on three occasions to deal with J.S., and Ms. Kasten went to the class to address the situations. On two occasions, J.S. remained in the classroom after Ms. Kasten’s intervention. On one occasion, Ms. Kasten removed J.S. from the classroom. On the occasion when Ms. Kasten removed him from Respondent’s classroom, J.S. was walking around the room and disturbing the other students. Ms. Kasten could not get J.S. to listen to her. Thus, she decided to take J.S. to the office. She did not employ her CPI training or use a CPI hold, but took him by the hand “with the idea of keeping him from getting away.” During the walk to the office, J.S. “was pulling a little bit” to try and get away.1/ There was no suggestion that the actions of Ms. Kasten in taking J.S. by the hand and walking him to the office were inappropriate or contrary to the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook. On the afternoon of February 3, 2015, Ms. Kasten met with Respondent to discuss the behavior of J.S. in her classroom. Respondent was upset and frustrated with J.S.’s unruly behavior and wanted to know what could be done about it. Ms. Kasten suggested that the two of them could work to develop a behavior plan for J.S. and indicated that she would bring a plan to Respondent the next day for them to work on. The incident that forms the basis of this proceeding occurred on February 4, 2015. As students were entering the class for the day, Respondent heard screaming and the words “stop hitting me.” She turned and saw J.S. striking a female student with his fists. Respondent was able to verbally quell the disturbance. However, after initially returning to his seat, J.S. went to the back of the room where he began kicking table legs and other items. Respondent asserted that prior to her taking the student to the office, she called Ms. Kasten to advise her that she would be doing so and received permission from Ms. Kasten. Ms. Kasten had no recollection of having received any such call. The telephone records admitted at the hearing do not reflect that any calls were placed between Respondent’s line and the office.2/ There was no evidence to support a finding that the telephone records maintained by the school were unreliable. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Respondent did not receive prior approval before taking the student to the office on the morning of February 4, 2015. However, the issue of whether Respondent received or did not receive permission to take J.S. to the office, and whether the act of doing so violated any school policy, was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. On her way out of the classroom with J.S., Respondent passed through the classroom of her co-teacher, Ms. Tyree, with whom she shared a paired classroom, and stated to her something to the effect of “[c]an you watch my class? They told me to take [J.S.] to the office.” Although not a frequent occurrence, it was not unusual for Respondent and Ms. Tyree, as paired teachers, to watch one another’s classes while the other was out for short periods. In this case, Respondent’s class was covered while she walked J.S. to the office. Respondent took J.S. by the hand and tucked his arm inside her arm. Although J.S. did not want to go to the office, his resistance was described by Ms. Tyree as “verbal like ‘I don't want to go, I don't want to go.’ But there wasn't a, like, a tug of war going on there.” Respondent indicated that she took J.S. by the hand in order to keep him safe. Given J.S.’s actions of physically assaulting a fellow student, followed by continued physical agitation at the back of the room, Respondent’s concern for safety, not only for J.S., but for the other students in her charge, was warranted. The walk to the office was captured by the school’s video system. The video covered the time from 8:33:00 to 8:33:58. Respondent and J.S. are clearly visible in the video for approximately 30 seconds, from frame 08:33:04 to frame 08:33:32. The video is somewhat grainy, and certain details are not readily observable. However, the video is consistent with Respondent’s statement that she was holding J.S. by the hand. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence supports that Respondent was holding J.S. by the hand as she walked with him to the office and not by the “wrist area,” as surmised by Ms. Johnson. At frames 08:33:12 and 08:33:13, J.S. appears to briefly resist Respondent’s efforts to take him to the office by trying to remove his hand from Respondent’s hand as they walked side-by-side. Despite his resistance, Respondent was not “pulling/dragging” J.S. during those frames. At frames 08:33:18 and 08:33:19, J.S. appears to briefly pull away from Respondent. The action was that of J.S., not of Respondent. Respondent did not release J.S., but neither did she pull or drag J.S. The action at frames 08:33:18 and 08:33:19 is entirely consistent with that described by Ms. Kasten when giving the account of her earlier walk to the office with J.S. -- which did not involve a CPI hold -- when J.S. “was pulling a little bit” to try and get away. Despite J.S.’s efforts to pull away in both instances, neither Respondent nor Ms. Kasten was “pulling/dragging” J.S. during their walks to the office. For the remainder of the walk to the office, Respondent and J.S. walked side-by-side at a consistent pace. The evidence suggests that J.S. was vocal in his reluctance to be taken to the office, consistent with the description of his verbal resistance when being taken from the classroom as described by Ms. Tyree. The verbal resistance apparently continued, as evidenced by the reaction of the boy using the walker, who comes into the picture at frame 08:33:22. However, J.S.’s verbal protestations did not involve pulling or dragging and do not form the basis of a violation of the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook. Respondent’s actions, though firm, did not appear to be aggressive. They were consistent with the description offered by Ms. Tyree, who testified that, as to the Respondent’s walk through her classroom, “there wasn't an altercation of, like, dragging or, you know -- it wasn't -- she was walking, he was walking. But he wasn't happy, you could tell that he didn't want to.” As Respondent entered the office with J.S., Ms. Kasten, the elementary assistant, was in the office, though on the other side of the office. Respondent approached the office with J.S. The door to the office opens out. It occasionally slams, and Ms. Kasten has seen it slam on students. In order to ensure J.S.’s safety, Respondent placed both of her hands on his arms to move him through the door and into the office. Respondent yelled for Ms. Kasten to “take him.” Ms. Kasten observed that Respondent was trying to get J.S. into the doorway to someone who could help. Although Respondent’s calls for Ms. Kasten to take J.S. were loud, her tone of voice was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. Upon their entry into the office, Ms. Kasten went over to Respondent and J.S. J.S. stopped resisting once he saw Ms. Kasten. There was no evidence that J.S. was physically harmed in any way, i.e., there were no bruises, scratches, or marks of any kind. Respondent indicated to Ms. Kasten that J.S. had come to class very angry and was physically fighting with his female cousin. Ms. Kasten’s contemporaneous statement of the incident indicated that J.S. was “very upset that he had a fight with his sister.”3/ There was no suggestion that J.S. was upset about his walk to the office with Respondent. Ms. Kasten took J.S. off to the side and talked with him. After J.S. calmed down, Ms. Kasten advised Respondent that she would handle the situation from there, and Respondent left the office. J.S. was ultimately kept in the in-school suspension room for an hour or two. Ms. Kasten reported the incident to Ms. Johnson, who was not in her office or out front and did not witness the event. Shortly thereafter, in a conversation regarding other matters, Ms. Johnson reported to Ms. Martin at the District office that Respondent “brought a student in yelling and dragging.” Ms. Johnson was instructed to immediately remove Respondent from student contact. Ms. Johnson called to Respondent’s classroom and left a message with Respondent that she needed to speak with her. The following day, a meeting was convened to discuss the incident. Present at the meeting were Ms. Johnson, Respondent, and Respondent’s union representative. The confidential secretary to the school principal, Mr. Deen, was also in attendance to take minutes of the meeting. During her February 5, 2015, interview regarding the incident, Respondent indicated that “I was keeping him safe. I was holding his hand at first and he was okay. Then he started pulling away from me and I wanted to make sure he didn't hurt himself.” Her statement is consistent with the video. During the meeting, Respondent remained adamant that she had called Ms. Kasten and received the instruction to bring J.S. to the office. In conjunction with the investigation of the incident by Petitioner, Ms. Johnson reported the incident to the Department of Children and Families. The School Board received nothing from the Department of Children and Families to suggest that it found wrongdoing on the part of Respondent. Ms. Johnson believed, based on the information conveyed to her, that there was no reason for Respondent to remove the disruptive student from the classroom and that such action did not follow the protocol for the school for the removal of an unruly student. The alleged breach of protocol involved in taking the child to the office was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. On February 18, 2015, Respondent was advised of the opportunity for a pre-determination meeting to be held the following week. Respondent took advantage of the opportunity. The pre-determination meeting was held on February 25, 2015. In attendance were Respondent, Ms. Martin, labor counsel Tom Gonzales, Ms. Johnson, and Joann Hartage, who appeared to be representing Respondent. Ms. Martin’s secretary, Sherrie Kudla, was also in attendance to take minutes of the meeting. During the pre-determination meeting, Respondent gave her account of the incident and was questioned, primarily by Ms. Martin. In addition to questions regarding the walk to the office, Ms. Martin asked about interviews of Respondent’s students undertaken by Ms. Johnson, which Ms. Martin found to be “very concerning.” Among the issues raised by Ms. Martin was “their perception [] that you yell and get aggravated with students and that you’re mean to [J.S.].” Although Respondent stated that she had read the statements, she was not involved in the interviews, and had no opportunity to ascertain the accuracy of the statements. More to the point, whether Respondent yelled or was a mean teacher was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. At the conclusion of the pre-determination meeting, Ms. Martin conferred with the school superintendent, and the decision was made to recommend to the School Board that Respondent be terminated from employment. By letter dated March 9, 2015, Respondent was advised that, as a result of her “pulling/dragging a student to the front office,” the District determined that she had violated rules 6A-10.080(2) and (3), rules 6A-10.81(3)(a) and (3)(e), and the School Board Policy/Staff Handbook; that she was suspended with pay; and that she had the right to appeal the recommendation of termination. On March 23, 2015, Respondent appealed the recommendation of termination. By letter dated March 24, 2015, Respondent was notified that the recommendation to the School Board would be modified to one of suspension without pay, effective April 22, 2015, and referral of her appeal to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At the April 21, 2015, meeting of the School Board, the School Board authorized that this case be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, whereupon this case ensued. Ultimate Findings of Fact Based upon the facts as set forth herein, Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent engaged in an incident of “pulling/dragging a student to the front office.” The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Respondent walked J.S. to the office and, despite J.S.’s verbal protestations and brief efforts to resist, did so in a safe and effective manner. Any “pulling” was brief and on the part of J.S., not on the part of Respondent. There was no “dragging.” The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that a teacher’s act of walking an unruly or disruptive student to the office is not, in and of itself, a violation of any applicable procedure or standard and has not been determined to be so in the past. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that there is nothing inherently inappropriate or improper with a teacher taking a student by the hand and walking with the student. Issues of whether Respondent received telephonic approval to take J.S. to the office, should have left Ms. Tyree to watch her class, spoke to Ms. Kasten in a loud voice, or was loud or mean with her students were not pled as bases for Respondent’s termination, and, thus, cannot form the basis for any disciplinary sanction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Hernando County School Board, enter a final order: dismissing the March 9, 2015, notice of recommendation of termination; reinstating Respondent to a position equivalent to that previously held with the Hernando County School Board; and to the extent there is a statute, rule, employment contract, or collective bargaining agreement that authorizes back pay as a remedy for Respondent’s wrongful termination/suspension without pay, Respondent should be awarded full back pay and benefits. See Sch. Bd. of Seminole Cnty. v. Morgan, 582 So. 2d 787, 788 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Brooks v. Sch. Bd. of Brevard Cnty., 419 So. 2d 659, 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S GARY EARLY 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 25th day of August, 2015.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint Respondent has been employed by the School Board of Broward County, Florida, as a teacher on continuing contract at Crystal Lake Middle School. Notice of the final hearing was sent to Respondent on January 4, 1983 to her address at 5225 North Dixie Highway, Ford Lauderdale, Florida 33334. The Notice of Hearing which was sent from the Division of Administrative Hearings was not returned as undelivered by the United States Postal Service. The record does not reflect that Respondent made any attempt to contact either counsel for the Petitioner or the Hearing Officer concerning a continuance of these proceedings or providing any explanation for her failure to appear at the final hearing. On May 15, 1980 Ms. Belcher failed to report for work as a classroom teacher without advance notice to the administration of Crystal Lake Middle School as required by school policy. She was absent the entire day and her failure to appear caused considerable administrative difficulty in securing a replacement teacher without prior notification. Her principal at that time, Ms. Jean Webster, sent a memorandum to Ms. Belcher which stated the following: On Thursday, May 15, 1980, you were absent from your job and failed to report that you were going to be absent either to your department head or to me. This is less than responsible action on your part and will be considered an act of insubordination should it happen again. This memo may be considered a written reprimand and will be placed in your personnel folder. The memorandum was received and acknowledged by Ms. Belcher. On October 14, 1982 Respondent was absent from her teaching assignment without leave. She failed to give any prior notice of her absence to the school principal or any other supervisor as required by school policy. The absence of Ms. Belcher was not discovered until one of her students went to another teacher's room to report that Ms. Belcher's unattended students were misbehaving and throwing objects at each other. As a result of the second unauthorized leave of absence without prior notice, her new principal, Mr. Thomas J. Geismar recommended to the Assistant Superintendent of Personnel that Ms. Belcher's contract of employment be terminated. Mr. Geismar's decision to request Ms. Belcher's termination was influenced by her prior conduct on September 23, 1980 when she was discovered by a member of the administration to be falling asleep in front of her class during a regularly scheduled class period. During that time her students were out of control. They made disparaging remarks about Ms. Belcher appearing to be either high or on drugs. The incident was reported to Mr. Geismar who, upon interviewing Ms. Belcher, determined that she was either intoxicated or drugged and was in no condition to teach a class of middle school students. At the time Ms. Belcher attributed her condition to having taken cold medicine. She was sent home in order to recover from whatever was affecting her. On numerous instances, Ms. Belcher fell asleep while on duty in front of her students during the school year 1981-1982. When Ms. Belcher fell asleep her unsupervised students became boisterous and threw things at each other. Prior to falling asleep Ms. Belcher frequently received a back and neck rub from one of her students. After Ms. Belcher's last absence without leave or prior notice on October 14, 1982, it appears that the administration at Crystal Lake Middle School solicited negative comments about Ms. Belcher's teaching behavior. This inference is raised by four letters all dated October 19, 1982 addressed to Mr. Geismar from respectively, J. Kay Betzoldt, Jo Nell Stevenson, Jan Mascia and Walter S. Tilgham. The most serious incident about Ms. Belcher's behavior was raised by Ms. Betzoldt. During fifth period in the last quarter in the 1981-1982 school year, Ms. Betzoldt saw Ms. Belcher in front of her class receiving a "back rub" from one of Ms. Belcher's students. The student was observed standing behind Ms. Belcher reaching forward massaging her breasts. It appeared that Ms. Belcher was not aware of what was happening. When the student realized that Ms. Betzoldt was observing him, he moved his hands to the shoulders of Ms. Belcher. Ms. Betzoldt did not report the incident to the school administration until her letter of October 19, 1982. The contents of the other teachers' letters dated October 19, 1982, were corroborated by the authors' live testimony at the final hearing. They support the allegations against Respondent that on numerous occasions she has slept in the presence of her students when she should have been teaching them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a Final Order dismissing Ms. Saundra Belcher as a continuing contract teacher and cancelling her contract of employment. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 6th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William S. Cross, Esquire 4540 North Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Saundra Belcher 5225 North Dixie Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334 William T. McFatter Superintendent of Schools Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest 4th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Donald J. Samuels, Chairman School Hoard of Broward County 1320 Southwest 4th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the letter from the Petitioner dated January 16, 2003, and in the Notice of Specific Charges filed February 27, 2003, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.03, Florida Statutes (2002).3 At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Lefkowitz taught emotionally handicapped and seriously emotionally disturbed students in North Miami Beach High's Bertha Abbess exceptional student education program. He has been employed by the School Board since 1993, and is currently employed under a professional services contract. At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Lefkowitz and at least one other person were making a music video for a course they were taking at Florida International University. Alvarro Gutierrez was working with Mr. Lefkowitz on the video, and Mr. Gutierrez had chosen the girl who would sing and would choreograph the dances for the video. Mr. Gutierrez did not, however, have any dancers, and Mr. Lefkowitz told Mr. Gutierrez that he knew some girls "from school" who were dancers and that he would ask them if they wanted to dance in the video. J.D. was, at the times material to his proceeding, an 11th-grade student at North Miami Beach High, although she was not a student of Mr. Lefkowitz. Rather, J.D. met Mr. Lefkowitz in a school hallway, while she was selling candy for her French class, and they apparently had several conversations during school hours. In one of these conversations, Mr. Lefkowitz mentioned that he was filming a music video for a college class. J.D. asked if she could be in the video, and Mr. Lefkowitz agreed and asked J.D. if she had any friends who could also dance in the video. J.D. introduced Mr. Lefkowitz to her friend N.F. N.F. was, at the time, an 11th-grade student at North Miami Beach High, but she did not know Mr. Lefkowitz until J.D. introduced them. Mr. Lefkowitz did not know at the time he met her that N.F. was a student at North Miami Beach High. J.D. also introduced Mr. Lefkowitz to Glamour Legros, whom she knew because she and Ms. Legros attended the same church. Prior to introducing Mr. Lefkowitz to Ms. Legros, J.D. had told him on a number of occasions how much Ms. Legros wanted to meet him.4 Ms. Legros and N.F. shared an apartment. Ms. Legros was not a student at the times material to this proceeding, and she was older than N.F. and J.D. J.D., N.F., and Ms. Legros agreed to dance in the music video and went to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment several times to discuss, rehearse, and shoot the video. Mr. Lefkowitz picked up J.D., N.F., and Ms. Legros and drove them to his apartment on the occasions when they were working on the video. Mr. Lefkowitz also took J.D. and her friends home on these occasions. M.D., J.D.'s brother and a student at North Miami Beach High at the time, went to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment once, and H.D., another student at North Miami Beach High, was at Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment on at least one occasion, when she danced for the music video. These two students also rode with Mr. Lefkowitz in his car on at least one occasion. In addition to her visits to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment and her rides in his car, J.D. spoke with Mr. Lefkowitz numerous times on the telephone. When working on the video, J.D. went to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment with her friends. She was alone with Mr. Lefkowitz once, after her friends left Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment; Mr. Lefkowitz took her home after about an hour. Mr. Gutierrez did not observe Mr. Lefkowitz engage in any improper behavior with J.D. or her friends at Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment during the time they were discussing, rehearsing, and shooting the music video. On April 21, 2003, Ms. Legros called the police and she and N.F. reported that Mr. Lefkowitz had come to their apartment, beat on the door, and threatened them verbally. According to the police incident report, the police were dispatched at 10:09 p.m. and arrived at Ms. Legros's and N.F.'s apartment at 10:12 p.m. Mr. Lefkowitz had outpatient surgery on April 18, 2002. Mr. Lefkowitz's mother was with him at his apartment from April 18 through the morning of April 22, 2002, the day he returned to work. According to Ms. Lefkowitz, Mr. Lefkowitz was in bed, asleep, on the night of April 21, 2002. On April 22, 2002, Raymond Fontana, the principal of North Miami Beach High, received a telephone call from a woman who identified herself to Mr. Fontana's secretary as J.D.'s aunt and who told Mr. Fontana that an exceptional student education teacher named "Neil" was having a relationship with J.D., a student at North Miami Beach High; the caller also reported that the teacher had been involved in an "incident" that had been reported to the police. Ms. Legros was the person who called Mr. Fontana.5 Mr. Fontana called Allyn Bernstein, an assistant principal at North Miami Beach High, into his office and asked her to look into the allegations made by the caller. Dr. Bernstein called Mr. Lefkowitz into her office and, before she could say anything, Mr. Lefkowitz told her that he knew why she had summoned him, that an ex-girlfriend had threatened to make trouble for him because he wouldn't give her money. When Dr. Bernstein questioned Mr. Lefkowitz about his relationship with the student J.D., Mr. Lefkowitz denied knowing her. Dr. Bernstein also called J.D. into her office. In response to Dr. Bernstein's questions, J.D. denied knowing Mr. Lefkowitz. She stated that she did not have a social relationship with any teacher outside of school and that she had never met any staff member outside school. After Dr. Bernstein reported to Mr. Fontana that she believed that there might be "something there,"6 Mr. Fontana reported the matter to the school district personnel, who referred the matter to the Miami-Dade School Police Department, and an investigation was initiated. Once the investigation was initiated, Mr. Lefkowitz was placed on alternate assignment at his home effective May 3, 2002. The investigator, Detective Victor Hernandez, interviewed N.F., Ms. Legros, J.D., H.D., M.D., and Mr. Lefkowitz. During the course of his investigation, Detective Hernandez was told that Mr. Lefkowitz and N.F. had dated and that they had had sexual intercourse. When Detective Hernandez interviewed Mr. Lefkowitz, Mr. Lefkowitz denied that he knew either J.D. or N.F. In a report dated September 2, 2002, Detective Hernandez described his investigation and set forth the substance of the statements given by the witnesses. Detective Hernandez concluded that the charges that Mr. Lefkowitz had violated Rules 6B-1.001 and 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, and School Board Rules 6Gx13-4.109 and 6Gx13-4A-1.21 were substantiated. A Conference-for-the-Record was held on October 2, 2002, with Paul Greenfield, District Director, presiding. Mr. Lefkowitz attended the Conference-for-the-Record, together with the School Board's Director of Region II and Mr. Fontana. Mr. Lefkowitz requested that his attorney be allowed to attend, but this request was denied.7 Mr. Greenfield reviewed Mr. Lefkowitz's history with the Miami-Dade County public school system and presented the results of the investigation. Mr. Lefkowitz denied having met J.D. and N.F. and denied that they were ever in his apartment. After the Conference-for-the-Record, Mr. Fontana recommended to the Superintendent of Region II that Mr. Lefkowitz's employment be terminated. Mr. Lefkowitz lied to Dr. Bernstein, to Detective Hernandez, and to the participants in the Conference-for-the- Record about his relationships with J.D. and N.F. because he knew it was improper for the students to be in his apartment and for him to associate with students outside of school. Mr. Lefkowitz expressed remorse at his behavior and acknowledged that his conduct was not appropriate. J.D. testified that she and Mr. Lefkowitz never dated or had sexual intercourse. Ms. Legros testified that she did not know whether Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. had had sexual intercourse. She claimed, however, to have observed Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. at Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment hugging and kissing and acting like "boyfriend and girlfriend to me."8 Ms. Legros has no personal knowledge that Mr. Lefkowitz had sexual relations with N.F., but testified that N.F. told Ms. Legros that she had had a relationship with Mr. Lefkowitz. An 11th-grade student testified at the hearing that he considered Mr. Lefkowitz to be a good teacher, a role model, and a teacher that he would remember after high school. Mr. Fontana testified that he thought Mr. Lefkowitz's effectiveness as a teacher had been impaired because of the "manner in which he dealt with students, having students come to his apartment, dealing with students that are out of the realm of his teaching responsibilities." Mr. Fontana observed that "once you breach that student/teacher relationship and you lose that professionalism I don't think you can ever go back and have the same degree of effectiveness as a teacher."9 In making his decision to recommend that Mr. Lefkowitz be terminated from his employment as a teacher, Mr. Fontana considered Mr. Lefkowitz's employment history with the Miami- Dade County public school system. Mr. Lefkowitz was twice referred for evaluation as to his medical fitness to perform his duties as a teacher and was twice found fit to perform these duties. Mr. Lefkowitz was the subject of three allegations of battery on a student, one in February 1995, one in February 1999, and one in March 1999; the February 1995 charge was substantiated,10 and Mr. Lefkowitz was given a verbal warning; the remaining two charges were unsubstantiated. Finally, in August 1995, Mr. Lefkowitz had an unacceptable annual evaluation, was given a TADS Category VII prescription in the area of Professional Responsibility, and successfully completed the prescription within the specified time. Summary The greater weight of the credible evidence presented by the School Board is insufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz dated either J.D. or N.F. or that Mr. Lefkowitz had sexual intercourse with N.F. The School Board presented no direct evidence establishing that J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz had a romantic relationship or that N.F. and Mr. Lefkowitz had a sexual relationship. The School Board relied exclusively on Ms. Legros's testimony to establish that these relationships existed,11 and most of her testimony was based on hearsay, not personal knowledge. Ms. Legros had no personal knowledge that N.F. had sexual relations with Mr. Lefkowitz, and the only behavior that Ms. Legros testified that she personally observed was Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. in Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment hugging and kissing and, in Ms. Legros's estimation, acting like boyfriend and girlfriend. Ms. Legros is found not to be a particularly credible witness, and her uncorroborated testimony is not sufficiently persuasive to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. more likely than not were dating or that the hugging and kissing, if she indeed observed such behavior, was sexual in nature. Both J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz denied having a romantic relationship, but it is difficult to credit fully their testimony, given that both J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz lied to School Board personnel about knowing one another and that Mr. Lefkowitz lied to School Board personnel about being acquainted with N.F. However, on reflection and after a careful review of the evidence, the testimony of J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz is credited over that of Ms. Legros. The greater weight of the credible evidence presented by the School Board is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz telephoned N.F. on April 21, 2002, and threatened her or that he went to the apartment shared by Ms. Legros and N.F. on the night of April 21, 2002, and made threats to harm them. Mr. Lefkowitz's mother testified unequivocally that she was with Mr. Lefkowitz from April 19 through the morning of April 22, 2002, and that he was recovering from surgery and sleeping on the night of April 21, 2002. The School Board presented no evidence that Mr. Lefkowitz telephoned N.F. and threatened her, and Ms. Legros was the only witness to testify that Mr. Lefkowitz came to her apartment and made threats. The testimony of Mrs. Lefkowitz is credited over that of Ms. Legros.12 The evidence presented in this case is sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz failed to exercise the best professional judgment, failed to maintain the highest ethical standards, and used his position as a teacher to his personal advantage by recruiting young women students to perform as dancers in the music video he was filming as part of a college assignment. Mr. Lefkowitz admitted that he had engaged in inappropriate conduct: He had had a personal relationship outside of school with both J.D. and N.F.; J.D. and N.F. danced in a music video he made for a college project; J.D. and N.F. were in his apartment several times; and he drove J.D. and N.F. in his car to and from his apartment. The contents and tone of the written statement Mr. Lefkowitz adopted as his testimony supports an inference that he was on very familiar terms with both J.D. and N.F., and with Ms. Legros as well.13 Mr. Lefkowitz's poor judgment in developing significant social relationships outside of school with two female students at North Miami Beach High and his inappropriate behavior in having these students as guests in his car and in his apartment reflect poorly on him as a teacher employed by the School Board. Mr. Lefkowitz also failed to exercise the best professional judgment and to maintain the highest ethical standards with respect to his dealings with the School Board during the investigation of his conduct. Mr. Lefkowitz lied to Dr. Bernstein and Detective Hernandez and at the October 2, 2002, Conference-for-the-Record when he said he did not know J.D. or N.F., and he admitted at the final hearing that he lied because he knew that he should never have involved these students in making the music video, should never have given these students rides in his car, and should never have invited the students to his apartment. Mr. Lefkowitz's lack of truthfulness reflects poorly on him as a teacher employed by the School Board. The evidence presented by the School Board is also sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz engaged in one instance of inappropriate behavior involving students M.D. and H.D. Mr. Lefkowitz admitted that, on one occasion, he picked up these two students in his car and drove them to his apartment, where H.D. danced in the music video and M.D. observed Mr. Lefkowitz and cohorts filming the music video. Mr. Lefkowitz did not have repeated out-of-school contacts with these two students, as he did with J.D. and N.F., but his behavior with M.D. and H.D. reflected poorly on him as a teacher employed by the School Board. The evidence presented by the School Board, which consisted only of Mr. Fontana's conclusory and general statements, is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz's conduct impaired his effectiveness as a teacher in the Miami- Dade County public school system. The evidence presented by the School Board is, however, sufficient to permit an inference that Mr. Lefkowitz's effectiveness as a teacher was impaired. Mr. Lefkowitz encouraged students to develop personal relationships with him and to spend significant amounts of time with him in his apartment. Even though J.D., the young woman with whom he was primarily involved, was not a student in his class, his willingness to become involved with this student and her friends brings his personal and professional judgment into question and necessarily affects the school administration's assessment of his fitness for supervising high school students. It may also be inferred that Mr. Lefkowitz's effectiveness as an employee of the School Board was also impaired because he lied to the principal and assistant principal of his school and to the regional superintendent of the Miami-Dade County public school system about even knowing J.D. By not being truthful with the school system administrators, Mr. Lefkowitz diminished his credibility as a professional educator.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order; Finding that Neil D. Lefkowitz is guilty of having committed misconduct in office and of violating School Board Rules 6Gx13-4-1.09 and 6Gx13-4A-1.21; Suspending Mr. Lefkowitz without pay for a period of 24 months, retroactive to the date on which the School Board suspended him from his employment without pay; and Imposing such conditions on Mr. Lefkowitz upon his return to employment as the School Board deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 31th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31th day of July, 2003.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 607875 with a validity period from July 1, 1986 through June 30, 1991. The Respondent was employed by the Pinellas County School Board at Largo High School from the beginning of the 1987- 88 school year through March 23, 1988. In September, 1987, the Respondent commented that Erin Hawkins, a female student at Largo High School, should wear shorter skirts and touched her on the leg. The Respondent admitted to making a comment about the length of Miss Hawkins' skirt and to pinching her on her leg. As a result of this incident, the Respondent was counselled at length by Judith Westfall, principal at Largo High School, and Patricia Palmateer, Assistant Principal at Largo High School, regarding the need to refrain from making inappropriate comments to students. Ms. Westfall and Ms. Palmateer cautioned the Respondent to keep discussions with students on a professional level; to maintain professionalism whenever the Respondent touched a student; and to refrain from being alone with a student in the classroom. Conference summaries and the Respondent's written statement concerning the incident were placed in Respondent's personnel file. Although no additional disciplinary action was taken at that time, the Respondent's pinching a student on her leg, even for the alleged purpose of having the student move away from Respondent's desk, was not an appropriate method of working with female or male students.1/ In February, 1988, as Tara Ward, a female student at Largo High School, was leaning over a table, the Respondent stated "nice view, Miss Ward." At a subsequent conference between the Respondent, Ms. Westfall, and Ms. Palmateer, the Respondent admitted mailing the comment for the alleged purpose of correcting Miss Ward's posture.2/ The Respondent's comment was inappropriate even accepting his asserted motive. As a result, Ms. Westfall and Ms. Palmateer again cautioned the Respondent about the need to maintain professionalism in comments made to students and about the need to avoid being in a classroom alone with a student. In March, 1988, Cindy Shinall was a senior at Largo High School In the program for Educable Mentally Handicapped (EMH) students. The EMH program is for students whose I.Q.'s range between 50 and 72. In Miss Shinall's case, her grade level in March, 1988, would have been somewhere between third and fifth grade abilities. Miss Shinall was motivated to improve, eager to assist teachers, well-mannered, and considerate of others. The school had no disciplinary problems with Miss Shinall. Miss Shinall was an honest person who would frequently speak up when she was aware that other students were breaking school rules. On March 9, 1988, Miss Shinall was a student assistant for Carolyn Underwood during sixth period. As a student assistant, Miss Shinall would run errands for Ms. Underwood, including going to the school office. During the course of running errands for Ms. Underwood, Miss Shinall was permitted to ask other teachers if they had errands for her to do. In fact, Ms. Underwood encouraged Miss Shinall to take the initiative in seeking work from other teachers. On March 9, 1988, Ms. Underwood sent Cindy Shinall on an errand in the vicinity of the school office. Miss Shinall encountered the Respondent in the hallway coming from the office outside the double doors leading into the "pod" where the Respondent's classroom was located. She followed the Respondent into the pod and asked him if there was anything she could do for him. The Respondent replied "yes" and escorted Miss Shinall into his classroom. The Respondent did not have class during sixth period, and so he and Miss Shinall were alone in the classroom. Respondent asked Miss Shinall to "give me a hug," and she did. Respondent then kissed Miss Shinall. In his own words, he then "lost control" and began to kiss her and "felt her up." He kissed her on her neck, touched her buttocks, put his hand under her shirt and her bra on her left breast, and sucked her left breast. In an effort to escape from the Respondent, Miss Shinall told him she had errands to complete for Ms. Underwood. At this point, the Respondent grabbed Cindy Shinall's hair behind her head and pulled her head back, asking her to promise to return. Miss Shinall went directly from the Respondent's classroom to a girl's restroom, where she was found, crying, by a Ada Bell, a fellow student. She told Miss Bell that the Respondent had touched her. At the time she spoke with Miss Bell, Miss Shinall was crying very hard, almost to the point that Miss Bell was unable to understand what she was saying. Miss Bell understood clearly, however, that the Respondent had done something to Miss Shinall that she did not want him to do. Immediately thereafter, while still in the girls' restroom, and while still visibly upset and crying, Miss Shinall related the incident to her friend Aimee Hall. Miss Hall then took Miss Shinall to their teacher, Carolyn Underwood. At that time, Miss Shinall was still upset and pulling her hair and twitching from side to side. She was upset to the point of being almost incoherent. She told Ms. Underwood that the Respondent had kissed her, touched her breasts, and pulled her hair back. She then recounted the events again to Ms. Underwood and to another teacher, Ms. Silva. Ms. Underwood immediately took Miss Shinall to the administrative offices and contacted Ms. Westfall and Ms. Palmateer. Ms. Palmateer was in the school cafeteria when notified by Ms. Underwood. She went directly to her office where she spoke with Miss Shinall. Miss Shinall told Ms. Palmateer that the Respondent had kissed her, felt her breast underneath her clothes, and touched her buttocks. Miss Shinall told Ms. Westfall that Respondent had kissed her, touched her breast underneath her bra, touched her buttocks, and pulled her hair, asking her to promise to come back. She related the incident to Ms. Westfall within one hour of the incident. At the time she related the events to Ms. Westfall, Miss Shinall was still visibly upset and embarrassed to talk about the incident. As a result of the incident of March 9, 1988, the Respondent tendered his resignation to the Pinellas County School Board, and the resignation was accepted. The Respondent later tried unsuccessfully to rescind the resignation. As a result of the incident of March 9, 1988, Cindy Shinall was the subject of rumor, gossip, and disparaging remarks among the students at Largo High School. She suffered embarrassment and disparagement. The Respondent's conduct on three separate occasions--to wit: in September, 1987, when he made an inappropriate comment about a female student's dress and pinched her leg; in February, 1988, when he made an inappropriate comment about a female student's posture; and in March, 1988, when he kissed and fondled a female student--seriously reduces the Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the school district. The Respondent is unable to deal with his students in a professional manner, and the school district's ability to trust the Respondent with female students has been substantially diminished. Female students in the Respondent's classes and under his control would be "at risk." The Respondent's conduct on those three separate occasions also constitutes a failure to make reasonable efforts to protect students from conditions that were harmful to their learning, health, or safety. Indeed, the Respondent actively created situations which jeopardized the learning, health, and safety of his students. The Respondent's conduct on those three separate occasions also constitutes conduct which intentionally exposed the Respondent's students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's Florida teaching certificate be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 16th day of June, 1989.
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's educators certificate.
Findings Of Fact In the 2000-2001 school year, Respondent, Elizabeth Weisman, held a Florida Teaching Certificate No. 475382. The certificate covered the areas of elementary education and mathematics and was valid through June 30, 2005. When the events herein occurred, Respondent was employed as a dropout prevention teacher at Second Chance School in Tallahassee, Florida. The school is part of the Leon County School District. There is no evidence that Respondent has been disciplined by Petitioner on any prior occasion since she began teaching in Leon County in October 1980. Second Chance School is a school for children with disciplinary problems and who have a history of being extremely disruptive and cannot be handled in a regular school setting. Ms. Weisman was in a difficult position when she started teaching at Second Chance School. She was assigned to teach outside her field and was replacing a teacher who was not as strict a disciplinarian or as demanding of performance as Ms. Weisman. In general, her students did not react well to the increase in discipline and expectations of performance and likely caused increased referrals to the principal's office. Both Ms. Weisman and the students had to adjust to each other On April 6, 2001, J.M. entered Respondent's classroom. Respondent asked him to leave her classroom. He was not supposed to be in the classroom because he had been referred to the principal's office the day before for discipline. J.M. attempted to comply with Respondent's request, but a number of students entering the room blocked him from leaving. Respondent made a shooing motion with her hands to J.M. and raised her foot to indicate for J.M. to leave the room. The gestures were done in a playful manner and were intended as such. While Ms. Weisman's foot was raised, she accidentally brushed or pushed J.M.'s buttocks with her foot. J.M. could feel the push. However, it did not cause him to lose his balance or cause any harm to him whatsoever. The evidence did not demonstrate that J.M. was unduly embarrassed or otherwise affected academically by the incident. Indeed, the incident gave J.M. a good story to tell to others at school. The evidence did not demonstrate that the push was inappropriate or violated any state rules or statutes governing teachers. There was no evidence that Ms. Weisman was less effective as a teacher due to this incident. W.F. testified that on two occasions he witnessed Respondent state to the class that they were "acting like jackasses." J.F.'s testimony was vague and inconsistent. Specifically, W.F. testified that on the first occasion, Respondent stated to the class that they were "acting like jackasses" after class members refused to return to their seats during an altercation between two students occurring outside the classroom. The classroom students were generally cheering the fight on. With respect to the second instance, W.F. testified that Respondent made the statement after W.F. and several of his classmates tricked Respondent into placing her hand on a pencil sharpener covered with glue. W.F. conceded the description was an accurate description of the behavior of the students at the time. At no time did Respondent call an individual student an improper name. Although W.F. testified he was embarrassed by Ms. Weisman, W.F.'s testimony is not persuasive on this point. Nor is it realistic to conclude any significant embarrassment given the bold nature of W.F.'s behavior which preceded these comments. W.F. also testified on direct examination that he witnessed Respondent call the class "a bunch of rat bastards." Again W.F.'s testimony was vague and inconsistent. During cross-examination, however, W.F. testified that the remark was made to a specific female student during a verbal altercation between the student and Respondent. However, Respondent denies ever using or knowing the term "rat bastard." Given Respondent's demeanor, the inconsistency, and the unreliability of the other evidence, Respondent's testimony is the more credible. There was no credible evidence that any student was ever affected in any way by these incidences. No evidence of any change in grades or reduced test scores was introduced at the hearing. An increase in disciplinary referrals was noted by the principal, but that increase was not shown to be tied to these incidences. The increase, if any, was more likely to be due to the fact that she was a new teacher, teaching out of field, who was more strict with her students and demanded more from them. Moreover, statistics supporting this perceived increase in disciplinary referrals was not offered at the hearing. Indeed, later testing showed Ms. Weisman's students improved their test scores. However, the testing was for a different year and class. It was not clear that the same students were being tested. The improvement does show that Ms. Weisman is an effective teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 23d day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23d day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Matthew K. Foster, Esquire Edward T. Bauer, Esquire Brooks, Leboef, Bennett & Foster, P.A. 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 John O. Williams, Esquire Williams & Holz, P.A. 211 East Virginia Street The Cambridge Centre Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
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
