The Issue Whether Broward County committed the unlawful employment practice alleged in the employment discrimination charge filed by Petitioner and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted by the Florida Commission on Human Relations.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Among the various departments of County government is the Community Services Department. The Libraries Division is administratively located within the Community Services Department. The Libraries Division operates a main library, five regional libraries, 36 branch libraries, and various reading centers. There are approximately 900 employees in the Libraries Division, about 200 more than there were in 2000. Librarian IV is a "high level administrative position" in the Libraries Division. The position description for Librarian IV (which has been in effect at all times material to the instant case) reads as follows: Nature of Work This is professional work at the administrative level of the library system. Work involves responsibility for assisting administrative superiors and coordinating assigned major units of the library system. Work involves assisting in interpreting and implementing all library policies, assisting in staffing and supervising assigned major units, and assisting in coordinating support services within the library system and with other agencies. Duties are performed with considerable independence and initiative within the framework of established policies and procedures. Work is subject to review and evaluation through periodic conferences, attainment of desired management objectives, and conformity with established policies and procedures. Distinguishing Characteristics This class is distinguished from Librarian III by the additional administrative responsibilities. Illustrative Tasks Assists administrative superiors in coordinating, staffing, and supervising the operations of assigned major units of the library system; assists in coordinating library system supportive services. Assists subordinate librarians in planning, coordinating, and organizing specific functional, programmatic, and physical aspects of library services and facilities. Assists in interpreting and implementing all library policies. Serves as assistant library staff officer for contacts and communications services within the county library system and the community at large. Conducts assigned library research and procedural studies; prepares reports relative to recommended solutions or courses of action. Cooperates with governmental and private agencies in special surveys, studies, and programs. Performs related work as required. Knowledge, Abilities and Skills Considerable knowledge of professional library principles, practices, and techniques. Considerable knowledge of the current literature, trends, and developments in the field of library science and administration appropriate to the areas of specialization. Considerable knowledge of general community needs and interests in relation to library services in the areas of specialization. Considerable knowledge of the principles of supervision, organization, and administration. Considerable knowledge of research techniques and the sources and availability of current information. Ability to analyze facts and exercise sound judgment in decision making. Ability to plan, direct, and coordinate the work of subordinates. Ability to express ideas effectively, both orally and in writing. Ability to serve the public and fellow employees with honesty and integrity in full accord with the letter and spirit of Broward County's Ethics and Conflict of Interest policies. Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships with the general public, co-workers, elected and appointed officials and members of diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds regardless of race, religion, age, sex, disability or political affiliation. Desirable Experience and Training A Master's Degree in library science from a college or university accredited by the American Library Association; considerable experience of a supervisory nature in the operation of a library system, including some experience in administrative aspects of the work; or any equivalent combination of training and experience. In or about the fall of 1999, the County issued a job announcement for a Librarian IV position (Librarian IV Job Announcement), which read, in part, as follows: CIVIL SERVICE OPPORTUNITY OPEN-COMPETITIVE Librarian IV Salary Range- $38,552-$57,168 per year DESCRIPTION OF DUTIES: This is professional work at the administrative level of the library system. Work involves assisting administrative superiors in coordinating, staffing, and supervising the operations of assigned major units of the library system; assisting in coordinating library system supportive services; and assisting subordinate librarians in planning, coordinating and organizing specific functional, programmatic, and physical aspects of library services and facilities. Employees in this class assist in interpreting and implementing all library policies; serve as assistant library staff officer for contacts and communication services within the county library system and the community at large; conduct assigned library research and procedural studies; and prepare reports relative to recommended solutions or courses of action. Work also involves cooperating with governmental and private agencies in special surveys, studies, and programs. Performs related work as required. QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS: Master's Degree in Library Science from a college or university accredited by the American Library Association and five (5) years experience in a supervisory capacity in the operation of a library system or a major library, which must have included six (6) months experience in administrative aspects of the work. BASIS OF RATING: NO WRITTEN TEST IS REQUIRED The selection procedure shall consist of two parts. Part I will be an unassembled rating consisting of an evaluation of experience, training and education shown on the application, plus any corroborative or supplementary information which may be obtained. Part II will be an oral panel interview designed to evaluate each applicant's knowledge in this field of work. Applicants must attain a passing score on both parts of the examination to be certified. In arriving at a final numeric score which will determine the order of the eligible list for the position the following values will be applied. Unassembled Rating- 50% Oral Panel Interview- 50% * * * EXAMINATION, NOTICE OF RATING AND TERM OF ELIGIBILITY: Candidates who complete the application and exam process are sent a Notice of Rating indicating if they are qualified for the position. Status of the eligible list established from this announcement is for one year beginning with the issue date of the Notice of Rating. . . . * * * STARTING PAY: Starting salary is normally the minimum of the salary range. * * * SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION AND COMMUNICATION NEEDS: Broward County is pleased to provide necessary reasonable accommodations in the testing process for disabled applicants. It is the responsibility of applicants requesting reasonable accommodation to submit requests in writing to the Applications Center staff at the time of submission of the application. . . . * * * NOTE: Upon completion of the rating portion of the examination, only candidates who are considered most qualified will be invited to participate in an oral panel interview. The remaining qualified applicants will stay on record and may be invited in for an oral panel interview at a later time. As necessary, the list established under this announcement may be used to selectively certify on a promotional basis Classified County Merit System Regular Employees. The Librarian IV Job Announcement was widely advertised. Petitioner is a highly experienced and accomplished librarian having both a masters degree and doctorate in library science. He met the "qualification requirements" set forth in the Librarian IV Job Announcement. After seeing the Librarian IV job announcement, Petitioner submitted an application for the position. Documents he attached to the application revealed that his date of birth was June 20, 1932 (although the application form that he filled out did not ask for such information). Petitioner has various health problems, but he did not request any special "accommodation in the testing process." (Petitioner has had "lens implants in [his] eyes [since] 1999," but he still needs to use a magnifying glass to read. In addition to having poor eyesight, he has been diagnosed with Charcot's foot (a foot deformity) and autonomic neuropathy (which "causes [him] to get dizzy when [he] get[s] up or climb[s] stairs or if [he] walk[s] too far or tr[ies] to get out of bed")). The United States Department of Veterans Affairs has determined that Petitioner has a 100 percent service-connected disability. Petitioner was one of 26 applicants who responded to the Librarian IV Job Announcement. All 26 applications received by the County were reviewed by a panel of three County employees. The panel consisted of two "subject matter experts" and one human resources person. Susan Stokes2 and Miriam Hershenson were the two "subject matter experts" on the panel. They were both Librarian V's. The remaining panel member was Cynthia Munn, a Human Resource Analyst II. Petitioner was one of 17 applicants to be selected, based upon the panel's evaluation of the application materials submitted, for an oral interview before the panel. Fifteen of the 17 selected applicants, including Petitioner, appeared for such an "oral panel interview." Each applicant was interviewed separately by the panel. "[T]he interviews [were] all conducted in the same manner." At the outset of each interview, the applicant was advised that the interview would last 25 to 30 minutes and that the "time factor" should be "ke[pt] in mind" in answering the panel's questions. It was emphasized that answers should be "clear and concise." The interview questions were "formulated ahead of time" by the panel's "subject matter experts," Ms. Stokes and Ms. Hershenson. A total of ten questions were used during the interview process. The questions were asked in the same sequence during each interview "in an effort to make it an even playing field." Following the interview, each panel member, without discussing the matter with the other two members of the panel, independently rated the applicant's interview performance. Petitioner was interviewed on or about January 28, 2000. Like the other 14 interviews, Petitioner's interview was "strictly an oral [one]." Contrary to the assertion made in Petitioner's employment discrimination charge, he did not use a magnifying glass during the interview. Indeed, there was no need for him to do so since there was no reading (or writing, for that matter) involved as part of the interview. Petitioner did not physically stumble, nor was he unsteady on his feet at any time during the interview. Petitioner performed poorly during his interview. His answers were rambling and, at times, non- responsive. The panel's efforts to "redirect and refocus him" were unavailing. He was so long-winded that he was only able to answer five questions in the time allotted for the interview (which was the same amount of time the other interviewees were given). Ms. Munn gave Petitioner failing scores of "F" in "communicative skills" and "D" in "job knowledge." Petitioner also received a failing score (of "C") in "communicative skills" from Ms. Hershenson. Neither Petitioner's age, nor his poor eyesight and other health problems, were factors in either Ms. Munn's or Ms. Hershenson's scoring of Petitioner's interview performance. The scores that they gave him were based solely on their good faith evaluation of how Petitioner performed during his interview. Petitioner was not extended an offer by the County to fill a Librarian IV position. The County hired (as Librarian IV's) four of the 15 applicants who were interviewed by the "oral interview panel." One of these new hires had a hearing impairment, to compensate for which she used hearing aids and lip read. According to their applications, all four of the applicants who were hired received their undergraduates degrees at least seven years after Petitioner received his undergraduate degree,3 and the three that provided the date of their high school graduation on their applications graduated high school at least 16 years after the date (1949) Petitioner's application indicates he received his high school diploma. There has been no persuasive showing made that the County's decision not to offer Petitioner employment was motivated by anything other than legitimate business considerations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR issue a final order finding the County not guilty of the "unlawful employment practice" alleged by Petitioner and dismissing his employment discrimination charge. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of July, 2003.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on her disability by terminating her employment and/or denying her a reasonable accommodation in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2008).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner began her employment with Respondent on December 12, 2007. Respondent hired her as a full-time library clerk at the Green Cove Springs Library. Respondent paid Petitioner at the rate of $8.4250 per hour. Respondent provided Petitioner with paid annual and sick leave benefits. She began accruing these benefits immediately upon the start of her employment. Petitioner was able to use accrued paid leave after completing an introductory ninety-day probationary period. Respondent also paid for the entire cost of Petitioner's health insurance premium in the approximate amount of $448 per month. Petitioner received a copy of her job description when she began her employment. As a library clerk, Petitioner was responsible for the following functions: (a) assisting patrons; administering the circulation of library materials; tracking inventory; (d) processing inter-library loan requests; (e) retrieving and shelving books; (f) processing payments for lost or overdue materials; and (g) assisting with library programming. Petitioner's job description indicates that regular attendance is an essential function of the library clerk position. Early in April 2008, Petitioner was informed of an abnormality on her lung. Petitioner was hospitalized for further examination. The last day that Petitioner reported to work was April 4, 2008. Lana Helms was Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Petitioner kept Ms. Helms informed about her illness on a weekly basis. Because Petitioner had not worked as a library clerk long enough to accrue substantial paid leave, she exhausted her paid leave on April 10, 2008. On or about April 14, 2008, Petitioner was diagnosed with cancer. On or about April 28, 2008, Respondent's Human Resource Director, Richard O'Connell, directed Jennifer Bethelmy, Respondent's Human Resource Coordinator, to contact Petitioner by telephone and request medical documentation regarding Petitioner's condition. When Ms. Bethelmy called, Petitioner understood that Respondent would cancel her insurance unless Respondent received a letter from her physician immediately. Petitioner replied that she had made several prior similar requests of the oncologist and would do so again. On April 28, 2008, Respondent received a letter from Petitioner's physician. The letter stated as follows: Mrs. Sullivan is a patient of mine that has been recently diagnosed with metastatic lung cancer with involvement of the brain. This disease is considered incurable. She will be treated with daily radiation therapy to the lung and brain and she will also receive systemic chemotherapy. The radiation treatments are on an average six weeks long and the chemotherapy is initially given every week for the first several weeks then every three weeks. The chemotherapy treatments are expected to last between four to six months. For additional information please feel free to contact my office. Respondent never contacted Petitioner or her doctor to determine whether Petitioner would be able to work at least part-time during or between her cancer treatments. Even though Petitioner was not entitled to additional leave after April 10, 2008, Respondent provided her with unpaid leave from April 11, 2008, through May 10, 2008. Respondent also gratuitously paid for Petitioner's health insurance for the month of May 2008. Mr. O'Connell's decision to terminate Petitioner was based in part on the physician's letter. Mr. O'Connell also based his decision on his understanding of the following: (a) Petitioner's cancer was incurable; (b) Petitioner would not be able to return to work at a set time in the future, if ever; and (c) Respondent needed to fill Petitioner's position. In a letter dated May 5, 2008, Mr. O'Connell advised Petitioner as follows: Due to a medical condition, you have not been able to work at your assigned position at the Green Cove Springs Library since April 4th, 2008. Since April 11th, 2008, you have been on leave without pay status, having exhausted all accrued leave. It is our understanding that you will not be released to return to full duty in the near future. While it is unfortunate that your condition does not allow you to work, the County must maintain a workforce to sufficiently serve the public. As you are not eligible to apply for Family Medical Leave or a Leave of Absence due to your hire date of December 12th, 2007, the County will terminate your employment effective May 10th, 2008. You will receive notification in the mail of your eligibility to continue medical coverage through COBRA. Petitioner received this letter on May 8, 2008. At the time of Petitioner's termination, Respondent was under a "soft" or "selective" hiring freeze due to financial difficulties. Thus, when Mr. O'Connell sought the permission of County Manager Fritz Behring to fill Petitioner's position, Mr. Behring denied the request based on fiscal constraints. In a letter dated May 20, 2008, Petitioner responded to Mr. O'Connell's termination letter. She requested a reconsideration of the termination, a grievance committee hearing, and an exit interview. Petitioner also prepared a written complaint directed to the grievance board members. In that letter, Petitioner detailed her medical condition and treatment. She made it clear that returning to work at the public library during treatment with radiation and chemotherapy would not be in her best interest because her immune system was vulnerable. Petitioner's May 20, 2008, complaint indicated that Petitioner's treatment was going better than expected. Petitioner requested a modification to Respondent's personnel policies to allow a reasonable amount of time for employees with a serious illness, who are not eligible for a leave of absence, to seek medical help and return to work. Petitioner requested reinstatement of her employment in a leave without pay status. Petitioner did not request that Respondent continue to pay her insurance premium. In a letter dated May 30, 2008, Respondent's counsel addressed Petitioner's May 20, 2008, correspondence. The letter advised Petitioner that pursuant to Respondent's Grievance Procedure, Policy No. 10.01, the grievance procedure is not available for suspensions or dismissals. The May 30, 2008, letter stated that when Petitioner was terminated, it was uncertain whether Petitioner's position would be impacted by the hiring freeze. According to the letter, Respondent had not filled the position but that decision might change. The May 30, 2008, letter advised Petitioner that an exit interview would not take place. Instead, Petitioner would receive an exit survey via mail. Finally, the May 30, 2008, letter denied Petitioner's request to be placed on an unpaid leave of absence with continuing medical benefits. Petitioner was advised that she remained eligible for rehire if she became able to work. The letter invited Petitioner to apply for any vacancies for which she was minimally qualified. In a letter dated June 3, 2008, Petitioner provided Mr. Behring with her response to the May 30, 2008, letter. Primarily, Petitioner found fault with Respondent's policies and procedures that she believed failed to address her particular circumstances, i.e., the right to be placed on a leave without pay status until well enough to resume employment. Petitioner's June 3, 2008, letter included the following statement: "Also, to perform my essential functions would constitute a direct threat to my health, safety and possibly impede the progress of success. These [cancer] treatments are horrible! Why would anyone sane risk prolonging them?" On or about August 1, 2008, Respondent advertised a job vacancy for a part-time library clerk. The advertisement was an in-house posting for the job. It was not made available to the public until August 6, 2008. In a letter dated August 15, 2008, Mr. O'Connell advised Petitioner that he had received a requisition from the library director and approval by Mr. Behring to fill a full-time library clerk position. Mr. O'Connell unconditionally offered to rehire Petitioner in this position if her medical condition would allow her to perform the duties of a full-time library clerk. Petitioner did not respond to Respondent's August 15, 2008, offer. On August 26, 2008, Respondent posted an in-house advertisement for a full-time library clerk. The posting became available to the public on August 31, 2008. Petitioner did not inquire about the job and has never contacted Respondent to discuss any vacancies. Petitioner applied for short-term disability benefits and has received such benefits since December 2008. Petitioner receives about $900 per month in benefits.
The Issue Whether the Miami-Dade County School Board (School Board) has good cause to terminate the employment of Mayda Cepero (Respondent), a paraprofessional, as alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges filed by Petitioner on April 18, 2013.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Finlay Elementary is a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been employed as a paraprofessional and assigned to a Pre-K class at Finlay Elementary. At all times material hereto, Cecilia Sanchez has been the principal of Finlay Elementary. During the 2009-2010 school year, C.M. was a student at Finlay Elementary, but C.M. was not a student in Respondent’s assigned classroom. Respondent had no direct supervisory responsibility for C.M. Prior to the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent had met Ms. M. and, through Ms. M., Respondent met Mr. M.3/ Respondent asked Mr. M., who has a law enforcement background, to assist her with certain personal matters relating to the untimely death of Respondent’s son. The M. family and Respondent developed a personal relationship. Thereafter, Respondent made what Mr. M. considered to be an inappropriate sexual advance towards him. Mr. M. attempted to break-off all communication with Respondent. Subsequent to the break-off, Respondent accessed C.M.’s emergency contact information card and began sending Mr. M. numerous, unwanted text messages, emails, and other electronic communications. Respondent used the emergency contact information to make these communications with Mr. M. Respondent had no professional interest in accessing C.M.’s emergency contact information. In November 2009, Ms. Sanchez issued a reprimand to Respondent for this conduct.4/ On March 23, 2010, Respondent disobeyed instructions from her classroom teacher and from her principal. The teacher had instructed Respondent to keep the class in the classroom during a Career Day demonstration involving a K-9 officer and his dog. The K-9 officer was Mr. M. Notwithstanding that instruction, Respondent brought her class outside to watch the K-9 demonstration. Ms. Sanchez told Respondent to take her class back to the classroom. Respondent refused and told her class to run and play. Ms. Sanchez had to ask another teacher, who was supervising her own class, to assist with Respondent’s class. Because of this incident, Ms. Sanchez issued a written reprimand to Respondent for her failure to follow instructions from her classroom teacher and Ms. Sanchez. In April 2010, Ms. Sanchez reprimanded Respondent for failing to comply with her responsibilities and duties in the classroom. On February 25, 2012, Ms. Sanchez reprimanded Respondent for not following her job responsibilities and duties and for not complying with directives issued by both her classroom teacher and Ms. Sanchez. In November 2012, a personnel investigation against Respondent began based on complaints from Mr. and Ms. M. that Respondent was monitoring N.M. at school and texting Mr. M. with her observations. Respondent would often stare at N.M. at school. Respondent monitored N.M.’s absences from school. Respondent went to the parking lot to see who picked N.M. from school. Respondent often interrupted the security employee who was supervising the parent pick-up of children following the school day. Respondent repeatedly sent text messages to Mr. M. that contained references to N.M.’s activities at school. N.M. became very uncomfortable and talked to N.M.’s parents about Respondent. N.M. became reluctant to attend school and N.M.’s grades suffered. In November 2012, Ms. Sanchez informed Respondent that she was under investigation from parents that were to remain confidential for the time being. Ms. Sanchez directed Respondent to have no contact with any witness who may be involved in the investigation. Immediately after being told by Ms. Sanchez not to contact any witness, Respondent sent a text message to Mr. M.5/
Recommendation The following recommendations are based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order uphold the suspension without pay of employment of Mayda Cepero and terminate that employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 19th day of July, 2013.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner abandoned his position or resigned from the Career Service System.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner received an approved education leave of absence without pay from his Career Service position at Hendry Correctional Institution from August 29, 1986, until May 15, 1987. The purpose of the leave was to allow the Petitioner to obtain a master's degree in library science through a government sponsored, professional training grant program. As a condition of the grant program, the Petitioner agreed to return to Hendry Correctional Institution following the completion of his degree. The anticipated completion date was May 15, 1987. If there was no vacancy on staff at that time, the Petitioner agreed to accept employment first in another state correctional institution library in Florida. If no vacancies were located in state correctional institutions, the Department of State, Division of Library Information Services, would assist him in finding suitable employment in other Florida libraries. On May 5, 1987, and June 26, 1987, the personnel manager at Hendry Correctional Institution wrote to the Petitioner to inquire whether he intended to return to the institution. The Petitioner did not reply to the inquiries. On June 30, 1987, the personnel manager at another correctional institution in Florida wrote to the Petitioner and offered him employment as a Librarian II. The Petitioner counteroffered with a conditional acceptance of employment if he could begin work on September 1, 1987. The personnel manager wrote to the Petitioner to determine why the counteroffer was made. The Petitioner had no further contact with the institution. Upon completion of the master's degree course work, the Petitioner wrote to various persons involved in the grant administration and attempted to demand unilateral changes in the terms and conditions of the agreement which would inure to his benefit. All of these attempts to change the terms of the contract were unsuccessful. The Petitioner accepted employment in another state sometime between May 1987 and September 27, 1987, the date he wrote to Respondent about his new job. The letter was received by the Bureau of Personnel on October 15, 1987. In the same letter, the Petitioner acknowledged that he had breached the terms of the professional training grant program. He offered to repay the grant by making monthly installments of $50.00 toward the outstanding balance. On October 21, 1987, Hendry Correctional Institution sent the Petitioner a letter which stated he had been deemed to have abandoned his position at the institution and resigned from the Career Service system effective October 21, 1987.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(d), (g) or (j), Florida Statutes (2009), or Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(5)(a) or (h), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator's certificate 309900, covering the area of mathematics. Respondent's certificate is valid through June 30, 2012. During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent was a teacher at the Madison County Excel School (Excel) in the Madison County School District (the District). Excel is a non-traditional school, and students who attend Excel are either behind academically or have other problems that result in their removal from a traditional school setting. Instruction at Excel is self-paced, using a computer program. Seventy percent of a student's grade for a class would be based upon computer-generated assignments, 20 percent would be class work from a teacher and 5 percent would be based upon participation. Once a student completed the course work, the student had to take and pass an exam. Once students finished the material for one subject, they could begin work in another subject in the same grade period. However, students needed to register for each course before they could take it. There were three different computer programs used at Excel that are relevant to this case. The A+LS system was the program used for computer-based instruction. Pinnacle was the official, computer-based grade book and attendance record. MIS was used to maintain the permanent educational record for each student, including what classes a student took and what grade was assigned for each subject. At the end of each semester, teachers were required to verify each grade that a student was to receive, so that no student's work would be missed. The teacher's signed verification sheets for grades were meant to ensure that all students received credit for all courses the students completed. During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent maintained a written grade book in which he maintained his grade and attendance records for students in his classes. The District's policy required that teachers enter grades into the Pinnacle system regularly for each student in each course. Use of Pinnacle had been required since the 2007- 2008 school year. In the fall of 2008, Respondent resisted following the policy because he felt it penalized students who were already far behind their peers. On or about February 17, 2009, Excel's principal, Elizabeth Hodge, issued a reprimand to Respondent for failing to properly post grades into Pinnacle for his students. Respondent subsequently discontinued use of his handwritten grade book and presumably began using Pinnacle for the recording of his students' grades. Q.F. and S.B. were Respondent's students at Excel during the 2008-2009 school year. S.B. was in Respondent's first, third, and sixth-period classes and Q.F. was in Respondent's second, fourth, and fifth-period classes. Both students enrolled at Madison County High School during the 2009- 2010 year. Student S.B. During the first semester of the 2008-2009 school year, S.B. was in Respondent's class, enrolled in integrated math during the third period, and earned a semester grade of 93 for that subject. During the second semester, with Respondent as her teacher, S.B. began but did not complete Economics. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that Respondent ever completed a grade verification sheet to indicate that S.B. completed Economics. At the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year, the guidance staff at Madison County High School placed S.B. into classes that Pinnacle showed were appropriate for her. One of those classes was Economics. S.B. objected, stating that she had already completed Economics while at Excel. In order to demonstrate that she had taken Economics, S.B. went to Respondent and asked that he provide to the high school confirmation that she had completed the Economics course. Respondent prepared and sent to Madison High School a letter dated November 17, 2009, in which he stated: This is to acknowledge that I was the instructor of record for [S.B.] in the school year 2007-08 [sic]. She completed the second semester of Biology and Economics. Our input system at Excel failed to grant these credits due to employee turnover and untimely submission of grades. At the time, we were in the process of changing principals and losing our data entry personnel. I can assure you that [S.B.] earned in 87 in Biology and 83 in Economics. We at Excel regret any unnecessary inconvenience that [S.B.] might have suffered. Madison High School officials were still unable to substantiate S.B.'s completion of Economics, and requested Respondent to provide documentation to verify his statements in his November 17, 2009, letter. Respondent prepared and sent to Madison County High School officials a letter dated January 11, 2010, to which he attached a copy of a page from his grade book. The page contained names of students, with grades for the fall semester of the 2008-2009 school year. The grade book page did not contain any information regarding the 2007-2008 school year, referenced in his November 17, 2009, letter. The grade book page submitted with the January 11, 2010, letter, shows a list of student names for class periods three and four. S.B.'s name is included on the list for third period. In the blank provided for listing the subject, the subjects Pre-algebra, Integrated Math 1 and 2 are written in cursive. The term "ECON" is printed in a different colored pen and is written over the word "Subject" printed on the grade book. Reviewing the grade book page, standing alone, does not give any indication which students on the list are taking which courses. However, Respondent represented to officials at Madison High School that the grades listed for S.B. were for Economics. Madison County School District officials pulled the computer records for all of the students listed on this page of the grade book. None of the students listed, including S.B., had grades posted for Economics for the fall term of 2008-2009. Student Q.F. During the first semester of the 2008-2009 school year, Q.F. was in Respondent's class, enrolled in Algebra 1A-B during the fourth period. At the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year, the guidance staff at Madison County High School placed Q.F. into classes that Pinnacle showed were appropriate for her. One of those classes was biology. Q.F. objected, stating that she had already completed Biology while at Excel. Q.F. went to see Respondent and requested that he provide a letter to the high school to show that she had taken Biology the previous year while at Excel. Respondent prepared and sent a letter dated January 13, 2010, which stated This 2nd semester class shows (4th period) as an example that [J.B.] and [U.G.] were taking consumer math, [C.J.] was taking Geometry and [Q.F.] was taking Biology. Ms. [F.] had an 85 average in Bilogy [sic]. Attached to the letter was a copy of what appears to be the same page from Respondent's grade for the first semester of the 2008-2009 year that was provided with the January 11, 2010, letter regarding S.B. The grade book page shows a list of students for fourth period that includes Q.F. Next to the circled "4th," the following class subjects are listed: ALG1-A& B/ CONSUMER MATH/BIOLOGY/GEOMETRY. However, in the copy of the same page attached to Respondent's January 11, 2010, letter, the reference to Biology is not included. As with the copy provided with the January 11, 2010, letter, it is not possible to determine by reference to the grade book page alone, which students were taking which courses. However, Respondent represented to officials at Madison High School that the grades listed for Q.F. were for Biology. Madison County School District officials pulled the computer records for all of the students listed on this page of the grade book. None of the students listed, including Q.F., had grades posted for Biology for the fall term of 2008-2009. As with S.B., Respondent never completed a grade verification sheet indicating that Q.F. had completed Biology. The Altered Grade Book Dr. Michael Akes is the Director of Human Resources for the School District. In looking at the copies of the page from Respondent's grade book, he realized that there was a discrepancy with respect to the term Biology being included on one copy of the page and not on the other. He discovered that, in the original grade book, line number 19 had been cut from a blank page in the book. Names of the classes supposedly taught during fourth period were written on the strip and it was pasted in over the original line 19 containing the course listings for fourth period. Respondent admitted to school officials that he had cut a strip from the back of the book, rewritten the list of courses and then photocopied the page so that it would appear that Biology had always been included in the list of courses being taught. Respondent claimed that the alteration was simply a "correction" of his grade book because he remembered Q.F. had taken Biology. Inasmuch as no student was taking Biology from Respondent during fourth period that semester, Respondent's alteration of his records is not a "correction." Contrary to Respondent's representations to Madison County High School officials, S.B. did not complete Economics and G.F. did not complete Biology while at Excel. Respondent denies doing anything wrong and insists that both students were working on their classes. However, there is simply no documentation to support the representation that the students completed the classes for which they were seeking credit. As a result of Respondent's actions, on February 2, 2010, the Superintendent of Schools, Lou Miller, recommended that Respondent's employment with the School District be terminated. Respondent requested a hearing and a section 120.57(1) hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Hood in DOAH Case No. 10-0998. In a Recommended Order filed July 16, 2010, Judge Hood recommended that Respondent's employment be terminated based on findings that Respondent committed the acts described above. On August 9, 2010, the Madison County School Board entered a Final Order adopting Judge Hood's Recommended Order and terminated Respondent's employment with the District.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(d), (g) and (j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-1.006(5)(a) and (h). It is further recommended that the Commission 1) reprimand Respondent; 2) suspend his certificate for a period of 2 years; 3) impose a 3-year probationary period upon his return to teaching in any public or private school in Florida, upon such terms and conditions as the Commission deems appropriate; and 4) require that Respondent take and successfully complete a three-hour, college-level course on professional ethics no later than the first year of probation. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 31st day of May, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire J. David Holder P. A. 40 Grand Flora Way Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459 James B. Brown Post Office Box 584 Madison, Florida 32340 Lois Tepper, Acting General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 710210, valid through June 30, 2010. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed by the Hillsborough County School System as a teacher of English and reading at Marshall Middle School. As part of the federally-mandated "No Child Left Behind" program, the Hillsborough County School System implemented a "Reading Endorsement Program" applicable to reading teachers. The program required that each reading teacher complete a five-part, 300-hour, course of study in order to obtain a "reading endorsement" to his or her educator's certification. Each reading teacher was also required to prepare a "Reading Endorsement Portfolio" of his/her work for review by school district personnel. After completion of the program and receipt of the endorsement, each teacher was eligible to receive a one-time payment of $1,000. In Spring 2006, the Respondent submitted his Reading Endorsement Portfolio to the school district office. Cynthia Alicea, a "Reading Endorsement Facilitator," was assigned to review the Respondent's portfolio. Upon review of the Respondent's portfolio, Ms. Alicea observed that portions of the Respondent's portfolio work contained handwritten comments. Based on the appearance of the handwriting, Ms. Alicea believed that the comments were written by Sandra Tune, another Reading Endorsement Facilitator. At the request of Ms. Alicea, Ms. Tune reviewed the Respondent's portfolio and determined that the comments on the Respondent's portfolio were the notes she had written on a portfolio submitted for review by another teacher, Betty Sales. Ms. Sales had already completed the endorsement program. Ms. Tune had been assigned to review and grade Ms. Sales' portfolio. The Respondent and Ms. Sales were "co-teachers," who shared a classroom office. Although Ms. Sales and the Respondent discussed the requirements of the Reading Endorsement Program at various times, there was no evidence that Ms. Sales was involved in the preparation of the Respondent's portfolio or consented for the Respondent to either copy, read or otherwise use her portfolio material. The evidence fails to establish how the Respondent came to possess materials from the Sales portfolio, although Ms. Sales testified that she brought her approved portfolio to school at the request of the school principal, who wanted a copy of the work, and that she left it in the shared office while teaching a class. She testified that when she returned from teaching, several pages were "sort of hanging out" of the portfolio folder, apparently leading Ms. Sales to conclude that someone handled the materials during her absence. Comparison of the Respondent's portfolio with Ms. Sales' clearly established that the Respondent's portfolio included Ms. Sales' work. Some parts of the Respondent's portfolio were direct copies of Ms. Sales' work. Photographs that the Respondent submitted within his portfolio were identical to those contained in Ms. Sales' portfolio. Other parts of the Respondent's portfolio included essentially the same text as that in Ms. Sales' portfolio, with minimal alteration. At the time of the incident, school district officials offered the Respondent an opportunity to shed light on how material from Ms. Sales' portfolio came to be included within his portfolio, but he had no explanation. At the hearing, the Respondent denied copying Ms. Sales' work. He testified that after he completed his portfolio, he directed a student assistant (whose name he could not recall) to make copies of his work. He speculated that the student assistant apparently copied parts of Ms. Sales' portfolio and inserted it into the Respondent's portfolio, whereupon the Respondent turned the material in to the school district office without further review. The Respondent's testimony was not credible. The Respondent also testified that he did not pursue the reading endorsement in order to obtain the $1,000, but because he was told that he had no choice other than to participate in the program. There is no evidence that the Respondent obtained the $1,000 or made any request to receive the payment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order revoking the Florida Educator's Certificate held by the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 26th day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 5675 Douglasville, Georgia 30154-0012 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida, 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent terminated the Petitioner from employment based upon the Petitioner’s disability and/or perceived disability in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and documentary evidence presented at hearing, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is an assisted-living facility/nursing home providing care to elderly individuals and/or individuals needing care on a consistent basis. On March 13th and 17th, 2013, Respondent ran announcements in the Daytona Beach News Journal that it had an opening for a fulltime “houseman.” The same publication also announced openings for CNA’s, and Med Techs, but not for a carpet cleaner. On April 11, 2013, Petitioner appeared at Respondent’s location to submit an application for employment. Both Petitioner and Petitioner’s father had heard from an acquaintance who was employed by Respondent that a position was being created by Respondent for a carpet cleaner. Petitioner was interested in that position since he was experienced in cleaning carpets. There is no indication in this record that Petitioner or his father was aware of the published opening for a “houseman.” As a matter of convenience, Petitioner’s father completed the application because, as he testified, Petitioner was able to complete the application on his own, but not as quickly as the father. Since they had other appointments to get to later that morning, it was decided to have the father fill out the application. The employment application completed by Petitioner’s father included a space for applicants to indicate what type of employment was desired. In this space, Petitioner’s father wrote “carpet cleaning.” Subsequent to the submittal of Petitioner’s application, Respondent’s Director of Environmental Maintenance and Housekeeping, David Hornfeck, took Petitioner on a tour of the facility. During this tour, Mr. Hornfeck advised Petitioner that if hired, his job duties would include housekeeping, maintenance, carpet cleaning, and painting, among others. Respondent does not have and never has had a position limited to cleaning carpets. By letter dated April 17, 2013, Petitioner was conditionally offered the position of housekeeper by Respondent. The letter advised Petitioner that before he could be hired it would be necessary for him to obtain fingerprints, have a background screening, and pass a drug screen. Petitioner successfully completed those requirements. After completing the application process, Petitioner was told by Respondent to return to Respondent’s location to attend orientation. Petitioner appeared at the facility and attended a two-day orientation during which he watched various videos and was oriented to the facility. On April 24, 2013, Petitioner signed a job description acknowledging that he was aware he would be working as a “housekeeper” within the housekeeping department and that he understood the nature and scope of the position. According to the written job description, the position of housekeeper required “Sufficient education to demonstrate functional literacy.” Additionally, under “Essential Functions and Responsibilities,” the job description required that the candidate: be “Able to understand and to follow written and verbal directions”; be “Able effectively to communicate with the staff members and residents through verbal and/or written means”; be able to “Post signs indicating a safety hazard any time housekeeping activities pose environmental hazards to staff, residents, visitors or others in the building”; and be able to “Familiarize self with Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and Universal Worker Precautions for all housekeeping chemicals and cleaning supplies.” Upon successfully completing the orientation, Petitioner was given a name tag with his name and the word “housekeeping” on it. He was told he would be called by Respondent and informed when he would be starting work. Petitioner was hired for the 11:00 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. shift. He would have been the only one working in maintenance during that shift. If needed, Petitioner would have been responsible for the entire facility during his shift. During orientation, it was brought to Mr. Hornfeck’s attention that Petitioner might not have the ability to read well. As a result, Petitioner was invited back to the facility and asked to read some passages from the job description. Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient literary skills, which resulted in Mr. Hornfeck advising him that his employment was terminated. Mr. Hornfeck made the decision to terminate the Petitioner’s employment on this basis. Petitioner attended normal classes in school through the end of the sixth grade. However, he was placed in special education classes which were specifically focused on improving his reading skills for the seventh and eighth grade. Thereafter, Petitioner was homeschooled beginning in the ninth grade. Petitioner’s father conceded that even he didn’t realize the extent of his son’s reading difficulties until he reviewed the intellectual, behavior, and academic evaluation report prepared by Dr. JoEllen Rogers, a licensed school psychologist, in August 2013. Psychologist Rogers was retained by Petitioner’s counsel to conduct her evaluation of Petitioner sometime subsequent to Petitioner’s termination by Respondent. Psychologist Rogers’ evaluation reported that Petitioner has a Full Scale I.Q. of 97 and “is currently functioning in the Mild Mental Retardation range of intellectual development.” The job description signed by Petitioner on April 24, 2013, included a space for applicants to indicate “any accommodations that are required to enable me to perform these duties.” Petitioner did not list any desired accommodations. At hearing, Petitioner conceded that he never told any employee of Respondent that he had a disability. When asked on direct examination to describe his need for help reading, Petitioner testified simply that he has trouble reading in that he does not understand some words and that he “can’t read that well.” There was no evidence adduced at hearing which indicated or suggested that Respondent knew Petitioner had taken special education classes in the seventh and eighth grades, or that Respondent had any actual or constructive knowledge of any alleged disability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss the Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice filed against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 21st day of July, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Violet Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David W. Glasser, Esquire Law Office of David W. Glasser 116 Orange Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Dorothy Parson, Esquire Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak, and Stewart, P.C. 111 Monument Circle, Suite 4600 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 J. Robert McCormack, Esquire Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak, and Stewart, P.C. 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3600 Tampa, Florida 33602 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Duval County School Board seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent based upon alleged violations announced in a Notice of Proposed Dismissal. In charge one Respondent is said to have been convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude, which is violative of Section 4(d) of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act. A second charge accuses the Respondent of immoral character or conduct, in violation of Section 4(a) of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act.
Findings Of Fact As alluded to in the statement of issues, the Duval County School Board has charged the Respondent with various violations of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act. The notification of these charges is made through correspondence of November 12, 1987, from Herb A. Sang, Superintendent of the Duval County Public Schools. In particular, reference is made to a July 9, 1987 conviction in the case of the State of Florida vs. Lamar Leon Furlow in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida, Case No. 87-1402-CF, Division CR-A in which a jury found the Respondent guilty on July 9, 1987 of a lewd, lascivious, or indecent assault or act upon or in the presence of a child under sixteen years of age, a violation of Section 800.04, Florida Statutes. For this finding of guilt the court adjudicated the Respondent guilty and sentenced him to 7 1/2 years. In the face of this action by the court, the Duval County School Board through the superintendent made the assertion that this was a conviction of a felony involving moral turpitude as set forth in Section 4(d), of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act. This constitutes charge one to the Notice of Proposed Dismissal. The second charge involving the claimed immoral character or conduct as contemplated in Section 4(a), of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act deals with an allegation that, "on or about January 20, 1987, you unzipped the jeans of a 12 year old female student, placed your hand inside her panties and fondled her pubic area. This act occurred in a dark room at Eugene Butler School, Jacksonville, Duval, County, Florida." This allegation references the same factual events as were involved in the criminal court trial spoken to in charge one. It envisions the necessity of proof in substance of those same factual events through the hearing de novo in this administrative prosecution. In the face of these allegations, Respondent sought a formal hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings which request was honored through the formal hearing conducted on May 9, 1988. Respondent is the holder of a Teacher's Certificate issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education. That number is 313977 and the certificate covers the area of industrial arts. In the academic year 1986-1987, Respondent taught as a graphic arts instructor at Eugene Butler Seventh Grade Center. His classroom assignment was number 63. Room 62, which is an adjacent room served as a work area for the graphic arts instruction. Adjoining room 62 were three smaller storage rooms and they connected to two darkrooms. A schematic drawing of these rooms is found as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Brandy Lee Guetherman was born on February 10, 1974. In the school year 1986-1987 which commenced in the Fall of 1986, she attended Eugene Butler Seventh Grade Center. One of her courses in that year was graphic arts and it was taught by the Respondent. January 20, 1987 was the last day of the first semester of the academic year 1986-1987. On that date Brandy Guetherman was interested in signing a memento board which was on the desk of the Respondent. To this end she asked the Respondent if she could borrow a marker and he responded in the affirmative and told her to come with him to the storage room. Once in the storage room, the Respondent gave a marker to the student. He then asked her if he could "touch it," to which the student replied "touch what" and he then pointed to the left breast of the student and pinched it. The student then slapped his arm and told him that it hurt. The storage area as being described is one of the rooms depicted in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Respondent then told the student to go sign the board and bring the marker back to him. At sometime in the course of these events, Respondent grabbed the students arm and hand and pulled it toward his penis. She jerked her hand away and went back to her seat in the classroom. After these events Respondent told the student to get a hall pass that would allow her to access the hall within the school. All of these events being described occurred during the regular sixth period class which runs from 3:00 p.m. to 3:55 p.m. The student Guetherman had not heard Respondent tell her to get the hall pass and this message was conveyed by Billy Payne another student. In furtherance of the instruction by the Respondent the student obtained a hall pass. Having obtained a hall pass Guetherman returned to the classroom area at a moment when the Respondent was going to one of the darkrooms. When the student approached the Respondent, he told her to go the restroom as if she were running an errand for the Respondent and then to come back and to go into the darkroom. She did as she was told. She went out of the room, down the hall and waited around in the hall area near the bathroom. She returned after about three minutes. She brought the hall pass with her into the darkroom area where the Respondent was and he told her to put the hall pass back on his desk and get the grade book and not to let anyone follow her back into the darkroom. She complied with the instructions and brought the grade book back to the darkroom. While in the process of getting the grade book another student came into the darkroom area and the Respondent told that female student to get out of the darkroom area. Once in the darkroom Brandy Guetherman gave the grade book to the Respondent. At that time, Respondent told the student that he was just messing around with some activities in the darkroom. He then asked the student Brandy Guetherman to unzip her pants and unbutton her pants but she did not respond. The Respondent reached over and unbuttoned the pants and unzipped them. Those pants worn by the student were jeans. Respondent then stuck his hand in between the students legs by placing his hand inside the panties that the student was wearing under the jeans. This arrangement was such that the flesh of the Respondent's hand touched the flesh of the student in her vaginal area. He felt around in her vaginal area but did not, according to the student's explanation, penetrate by going "all the way in." During this assault the student was touched by the Respondent's fingers in her vaginal area. By the student's explanation he moved his hand around in a circle and back and forth. This transpired over a period of a couple of minutes. During the course of these events Respondent asked the student if she knew that he had big hands and she shook her head in the affirmative. He told her that it was warm down there. When he had stopped the assault the student zipped and buttoned her pants and left the darkroom area. Before leaving Respondent told her to come back the next day after her homeroom period and come straight to his class and to wear a dress or skirt. Altogether the student was in the darkroom with the Respondent for a period of fifteen minutes. When Guetherman returned to the classroom she told her friend Billy Payne of what had transpired and another student Carl Miller was told about the events involving the Respondent while riding home on the school bus on January 20, 1987. This incident with the respondent disturbed Brandy Guetherman and it was noticed in its effect by Billy Payne. When Guetherman returned home on the date in question she told her mother about the incident who in turn contacted officials at the Eugene Butler Seventh Grade Center. On the next day Brandy Guetherman's father took her to the school and met with school officials about this matter. Respondent is a person 6 feet 2 inches tall and weights 315 pounds, an imposing figure for a young female student to have to contend with. The events described concerning Brandy Guetherman formed the basis of the finding of guilt and the adjudication against the Respondent for this sexual battery under Section 800.04, Florida Statutes, as previously discussed. That conviction is on appeal together with the conviction pertaining to another student for offenses against that student Elizabeth Haygood. As a result of the accusations placed against the Respondent he was removed as a classroom teacher.
