The Issue Whether Patrick M. Hill, Respondent, is guilty of immorality and misconduct in office as more specifically alleged in letters of April 6, 1990 and May 18, 1990.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Patrick M. Hill held a professional services contract with the Polk County School Board as a remediation teacher at Lakeland High School. He also served as wrestling coach and cross country coach at Lakeland High School. During the spring break of the 1989-90 school year, Respondent told some students they could earn some extra money if they helped him paint his house. Erik Greatens, an 18 1/2 year old senior, agreed to help, and he, with a 25 year old man, John, and Respondent, worked all day painting. Around noon that day when all were hot and thirsty, Respondent told them there was beer in his refrigerator. Both Erik and John accepted the offer. Erik had one beer. When they stopped painting around 5 p.m., Respondent told them he would order pizza if they wanted to return later. Erik accepted and went home to shower and change clothes. He returned around 6:30 p.m. and shared pizza with Respondent. Erik testified that he had only the one beer that day at Respondent's home and that his father permitted him to drink an occasional glass of wine at home. He did not drink beer or any other alcoholic beverage while at Respondent's home that evening. Around 8:30 p.m., Erik left Respondent's residence and went to the Publix parking lot to meet some friends. At the parking lot that evening with his friends, Erik consumed 11 or 12 cans of beer before driving the four or five blocks to his home. When he arrived, his mother was up and considered her son was inebriated and that he had received the beer at Respondent's home. At the time, Erik told her he had only the one beer at Respondent's home, but, from his condition, the mother was sure he had drunk more than one beer. The following day, Mrs. Greatens called the Superintendent's office to complain about Respondent providing Erik with beer. Based upon that complaint, Respondent was suspended from his position as teacher at Lakeland High School. The professional Practices Council of the State Department of Education was notified of the charge so they could institute an investigation to determine if Respondent's state certificate should be disciplined. To date, no charges have been brought by the Department of Education. Subsequently, Petitioner learned that Respondent had pleaded guilty in New Jersey to a charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor in 1973. A copy of this court record was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 3. In 1973, Respondent was a tenured teacher in the school district of the Township of Pemberton, Burlington County, New Jersey. Charges were preferred against Respondent by the Board of Education, and an administrative hearing was held to determine if the charges and circumstances surrounding the charges warranted dismissal of Respondent from his position as a tenured teacher. Following that hearing, the hearing examiner submitted a report recommending the charge and evidence insufficient to warrant a dismissal or reduction in salary. The Commissioner of Education adopted the finding and recommendation of the hearing examiner. In the instant proceedings, Respondent testified to the facts regarding the 1973 incident. That testimony is essentially the same as found by the hearing examiner in 1973 reported in Exhibit 4 as follows: The testimony offered by the Superintendent of Schools and respondent's building principal was that respondent is a good teacher, as evidenced by his past evaluations, and his record has been unblemished since his employ- ment by the Board. This matter has been brought to the attention of the Commissioner solely because of an incident which occurred on March 8, 1972, and that incident alone is the basis for the Board's action. On the evening of March 8, 1972, respondent was returning to his home after working late at his school on some extra curricular project. The record shows that Respondent was very active in the school community, and that he coached sports activities, served on the executive board of the local P.T.A., and served as President of the Pemberton Township Police Athletic League, in addition to his regular teaching duties. Respondent testified that it was a rainy night. On his way home, he picked up a hitchhiker who told him that he had a job in north Jersey and was on his way to visit his father in the Tuckerton area (approxi- mately thirty miles away). Because of the late hour and the poor weather conditions, Respondent offered the hitchhiker a place to spend the night in his home and told him he would drop him off at the inter- section of Routes #9 and #37 the next morning on his way to school. The hitchhiker accepted the offer and spent the night in respondent's home. Respondent testified that he also offered the use of his telephone so the hitchhiker could call his father, but that he refused saying that he was not expected anyway. He testified fur- ther that nothing untoward happened that night and that he dropped the hitchhiker off at the named intersection the follow- ing morning on his way to school. Respon- dent did not know that the hitchhiker was a minor; neither his appearance, nor his conversation about holding a job in north Jersey, nor having a drink and avoiding the police, lead (sic.)Respondent to conclude that the hitchhiker was a minor. (Tr. 19-22) None of this testimony is refuted by the Board, nor were any witnesses pre- sented by the Board to give any other version about what allegedly occurred on the evening of March 8, 1972. The Board, however, grounds its action against Respondent on his subsequent arrest by the police and his later indictment by the Grand Jury of Ocean County. A change of plea to that indictment reads in pertinent part as follows: (P-1) The State moved under Rule 3:74 to amend the third count of the indictment to read `did contribute to the delinquency of a minor by permitting him to remain overnight without parental consent'. The Court so ordered. Patrick Hill sworn. (sic.) As a result of plea bargaining, the Defendant retracted his former plea of Not Guilty and entered a plea of Guilty to the amended third (3rd) count of [the Indictment). * * * In the hearing examiner's judgment, it would be wrong to speculate why Patrick Hill made the plea (P-1) rather than pursue some other defense of the original charges made against him. He testified that he made the change of plea because he did allow the youth to stay in his home overnight. Suffice it to say that he was represented by counsel and the record must now speak for itself. Respondent entered a plea of guilty (P-1) which the Commissioner must con- sider in making his determination. N.J.S.A. 2A:96-4 reads as follows: A parent, legal guardian or person having the legal custody or control of a child, who by any continued negligence or willful act, encourages, causes or con- tributes to the child's delinquency, or any other person who by any wilful act encourages, causes or contributes to a child's delinquency, is guilty of a misdemeanor. The hearing examiner found that the unrefuted testimony of respondent, and the absence of any proof of conduct unbecoming a teacher by the Board, leads to the conclusion that the only fact before the Commissioner is that respondent knowingly permitted a minor to remain in his home overnight without the consent of the minor's parents. Respondent testified without contradiction that he was told by his attorney that the conviction would be expunged and he could forget it. Accordingly, Respondent concluded, albeit erroneously, that he never would need to reveal this record. Respondent moved to Florida and was employed as a junior high school teacher at St. Joseph's School, Lakeland, Florida, from 1979 to 1986 when he was employed by the Polk County School Board to teach at Lakeland High School. While at St. Joseph's, Respondent continued his extracurricular activities similar to those in New Jersey coaching children in wrestling and track, and he was involved in national and statewide wrestling programs for children. When he started teaching at Lakeland High School, Respondent continued his coaching activities and his work with children. He has been involved with helping troubled adolescents at the Polk Correctional Institute, served on the Governor's Council on Health, Physical Education and sports, was awarded man of the year honors for the AAU Wrestling Division, took a group of young wrestlers to Germany two years ago (1988) in a cultural exchange program and coordinated a return visit of German youth wrestlers to Florida in 1989. Respondent has excellent rapport with his students and with the student's parents. The letters admitted into evidence in Exhibit 5 extolling the virtues of Respondent as a teacher, coach and individual are not the pro forma, perfunctory letters of recommendation usually presented, but clearly indicate heartfelt esteem, appreciation and admiration. Respondent has had no prior disciplinary actions brought against him while teaching in Florida schools.
Recommendation Considering the reputation of Respondent, his rapport with students and peers, the time he has devoted to developing children into responsible adults and the conclusions that the acts complained of do not constitute immorality but are minor infractions coming under the definition of misconduct in office, it is recommended that Patrick M. Hill be found guilty of misconduct in office and suspended without pay for four months. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 20th day of August, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 391 Bartow, FL 33830 Arthur C. Fulmer, Esquire Post Office Box 2958 Lakeland, FL 33806 John A. Stewart Superintendent of Schools Post Office Box 391 Bartow, FL 33830 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed unlawful employment practices contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2007)1/, by terminating Petitioner's employment in retaliation for her filing a formal grievance asserting that a co-worker made a racially discriminatory comment to her at a staff meeting.
Findings Of Fact The District Board of Trustees of LCCC is an employer as that term is defined in Subsection 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner, an African-American female, was hired by the College and began work on January 29, 2007. She worked in the cosmetology department as a Teaching Assistant II until the College terminated her employment on June 28, 2007. In addition to Petitioner, the College's cosmetology department consisted of two instructors, Carol McLean and Vicki Glenn. Ms. McLean was also the department coordinator, meaning that she supervised Petitioner and Ms. Glenn. The instructors performed classroom instruction and supervised students "on the floor" in the department's laboratory, where the students practiced their skills on clients who made appointments with the department to have their hair styled. Petitioner's duties included answering the telephone, making client appointments, ordering and stocking cosmetology supplies, and recording the hours and services performed by the students. Petitioner was a licensed cosmetologist and was expected to assist on the floor of the lab, but only when an instructor determined that her presence was necessary. Petitioner was not authorized to perform classroom instruction. Petitioner was at all times employed on a probationary basis under LCCC Policy and Procedure 6Hx12:8-04, which provides that all newly hired career service employees must serve a probationary period of six calendar months. This Policy and Procedure also requires that conferences be held with the employee at the end of two and four months of employment. The conferences are to include written performance appraisals and should be directed at employee development, areas of weakness or strength, and any additional training required to improve performance. Petitioner acknowledged that she attended orientation sessions for new employees during which this Policy and Procedure was discussed.4/ The evidence at hearing established that the orientation sessions covered, among other subjects, an explanation of the probationary period, the College's discipline and grievance procedures, and how to find the College's Policies and Procedures on the internet. The employee orientation process also required Petitioner's immediate supervisor, Carol McLean, to explain 14 additional items, including Petitioner's job description and the College's parking policies. The evidence established that Ms. McLean covered these items with Petitioner. Petitioner's first written evaluation covered the period from January 29, 2007 through March 29, 2007. The evaluation was completed by Ms. McLean on April 13, 2007, and approved by the Dean of Occupational Programs, Tracy Hickman, on April 30, 2007. The College's "Support Staff Job Performance Evaluation" form provides numerical grades in the categories of work knowledge, work quality, work quantity and meeting deadlines, dependability, co-operation, judgment in carrying out assignments, public relations, and overall performance. A score of 1 or 2 in any category is deemed "unsatisfactory." A score of 3 or 4 is "below norm." A score of 5 or 6 is "expected norm." A score of 7 or 8 is "above norm." A score of 9 or 10 is rated "exceptional." Petitioner's scores in each area were either 5 or 6, within the "expected norm." Ms. McLean graded Petitioner's overall performance as a 6. The evaluation form also provides questions that allow the supervisor to evaluate the employee's performance in a narrative format. In response to a question regarding Petitioner's strengths, Ms. McLean wrote that Petitioner "has demonstrated she is very capable handling conflicts/situations concerning clients. She is also good working with the students when needed. Her computer skills/knowledge has been an asset." In response to a question regarding Petitioner's weaknesses, Ms. McLean wrote, "Kay5/ needs to be a little more organized. I feel confident with the move to the new building, she will be able to set her office up to be more efficient for herself." Petitioner testified that she has excellent organizational skills and that she is, in fact, a "neat freak." Her problem was the utter disorganization of the cosmetology department at the time she started her job. She could not see her desk for the pile of papers and other materials on it. Boxes were piled in the middle of the floor. There were more than 100 unanswered messages in the recorded message queue. Petitioner testified that neither Ms. McLean nor Ms. Glenn could tell her how to proceed on any of these matters, and that she was therefore required to obtain advice via telephone calls to either Wendy Saunders, the previous teaching assistant, or Jeanette West, secretary to the Dean of Occupational Programs. Neither Ms. McLean nor Ms. Glenn recalled the complete departmental disorganization attested to by Petitioner at the outset of her employment. In fact, Ms. McLean recalled having to work 80-hour weeks to restore order to the department's workspace after Petitioner was discharged. No other witness testified as to disorganization prior to Petitioner's hiring. The evidence presented at the hearing established that Petitioner dramatically overstated the poor condition of the cosmetology department's offices at the time she started work, and also greatly overstated any contribution she made to improve its organization. Petitioner's second and final evaluation covered the period from March 29, 2007, through May 29, 2007. The evaluation was completed by Ms. McLean on May 22, 2007, and approved by Dean Hickman on May 23, 2007. Petitioner's numerical scores in each of the categories, including overall performance, was 4, meaning that her performance was "below norm." In a typewritten attachment, Ms. McLean wrote: Employee Improvement: Strengths: Kay is very good with the students and has strong desires to help them. Weaknesses: A concern is Kay's words and actions have shown that she would rather teach than be in the office. There is still a lack of organization in the office. We have had a couple incidents where we have to search for invoices, etc. I am still receiving complaints about the phone not being answered. Other comments: Too often Kay's actions have made it difficult for the department to operate effectively. Since Kay's arrival, it have discussed [sic] that each person must respect the protocol of communicating within the chain of command. On numerous occasions Kay ignored those instructions, In spite of my direct instructions to notify/discuss an incident report to Dean Hickman before doing anything else with it, Kay distributed it to others.6/ The College terminated Petitioner's employment on June 28, 2007, roughly five months after she began work and well within the six-month probationary period. Petitioner's dismissal was due to inadequate job performance and to several episodes displaying poor judgment and disregard of the College's rules and regulations. As to day-to-day job performance, the evidence established that Petitioner often had to be asked several times to do things that she conceded were within the scope of her duties. One of Petitioner's duties was to track the department's inventory, order supplies as needed, check the supplies against the invoices as they arrived, and unpack the supplies and restock the department's shelves. If the supplies were not removed from their shipping containers and stocked on the shelves, it was difficult for the instructors and students to find items or know when the department was running low on a given supply. Student cosmetologists at the College were frequently required to use caustic chemicals, and it was critical that the supplies be correctly inventoried and shelved to avoid mistakes in application of these chemicals. Ms. McLean had to tell Petitioner repeatedly to unpack the supplies. Petitioner would tell Ms. McLean that she would take care of it, but later Ms. McLean would notice that the supplies were still in their boxes.7/ Ms. McLean testified that there were multiple occasions when paperwork could not be located due to Petitioner's lack of a filing system. Ms. McLean and Petitioner would have to rummage through stacks of paper to find the item they needed because Petitioner failed to file the department's paperwork in a coherent manner. Another of Petitioner's duties was to set up "product knowledge" classes conducted by vendors of hair care products used in the cosmetology program. In February 2007, Ms. Glenn asked Petitioner to set up a class with Shirley Detrieville, the Redken representative for the College. Over the next month, Ms. Glenn repeatedly asked Petitioner about her progress in setting up the class, and Petitioner consistently responded that Ms. Detrieville had not returned her calls. Finally, in March, Ms. Glenn happened to see Ms. Detrieville on the campus. Ms. Detrieville informed Ms. Glenn that all the paperwork for the class had been completed long ago, and she was just waiting for Petitioner to call and let her know when to come. Ms. Glenn's class never received the Redken training. The evidence established that Petitioner consistently failed to return phone calls made to the department. There was a core group of women, mostly retirees that constituted an important segment of the regular patrons at the department's lab. Keeping track of their appointments was important because the students needed practical experience in order to meet the requirements for licensure. It was also important to keep track of the training needs of each student, because a student working on hair coloring, for instance, needed to be matched with a customer requesting that service. Among Petitioner's duties was to make the appointments for the patrons, and to coordinate the appointments with the students. Ms. McLean and Ms. Glenn testified that they consistently received complaints that Petitioner did not return phone calls from patrons attempting to make appointments. Ms. McLean recalled an elderly woman named Ms. Grammith, who was a weekly customer at the lab. Ms. Grammith phoned Ms. McLean at home because she was unable to get Petitioner to return her calls for an appointment.8/ Ms. Glenn recounted an occasion when she received a phone call from Ms. Grammith, complaining that Petitioner was not returning her calls. Ms. Glenn walked into Petitioner's office and asked her to return Ms. Grammith's call and make her appointment. Petitioner assured Ms. Glenn that she would. Ms. Glenn then went to teach a class. When she returned to her office, Ms. Glenn had another message from Ms. Grammith. Ms. Glenn asked Petitioner about the situation, and Petitioner admitted that she had not yet returned the call. Still later on the same afternoon, Ms. Glenn received a third call from Ms. Grammith. Again, Ms. Glenn inquired of Petitioner, who again admitted that she had not phoned Ms. Grammith. The next morning was a Friday, and Ms. Glenn received another call from Ms. Grammith. Ms. Glenn walked into Petitioner's office and told her to call Ms. Grammith. Ms. Glenn knew Petitioner never made the call because Ms. Grammith called Ms. Glenn yet again on the following Monday. Another elderly regular customer, Ms. Caldwell, stopped Ms. Glenn in the hallway one day to ask "what in the world was going on here." Ms. Caldwell complained that Petitioner never got her appointment right, and always told her that she had come in on the wrong day or at the wrong time. On this day, Ms. Caldwell was left sitting in the hallway outside the lab for three and one-half hours because Petitioner failed to schedule her appointment correctly. On another occasion, Shirley Rehberg, an LCCC employee, emailed Ms. Glenn to inquire about making an appointment for a pedicure. Ms. Glenn responded that Petitioner handled appointments, and provided Ms. Rehberg with information as to Petitioner's office hours. On three different occasions, Ms. Rehberg informed Ms. Glenn that she had attempted to make appointments with Petitioner but had received no response. Ms. Glenn also recalled going to the College registrar's office on unrelated business and being asked by Debbie Osborne, an employee in that office, whether the cosmetology department had stopped taking appointments. Ms. Glenn told her that all she had to do was call Petitioner. Ms. Osborne replied that she had emailed Petitioner several times and never received a response. Ms. McLean concluded that Petitioner was much more interested in the occasional teaching aspect of her position than she was in the quotidian matters of filing, ordering and answering the phone that constituted the bulk of her job. Ms. McLean believed that Petitioner's eagerness to teach, even when her presence on the floor was not requested or needed, sometimes caused Petitioner to neglect her other duties. Petitioner admitted that she preferred teaching, but also testified that she was forced to teach students at least two days per week because Ms. McLean simply skipped work every Wednesday and Thursday. Petitioner stated that when she was on the floor of the lab, she could not hear the phone ringing back in the office. She believed that this might have accounted for some of the missed phone calls. Ms. McLean credibly denied Petitioner's unsupported allegation that she skipped work twice per week. Ms. McLean was in the classroom and lab with her students four days per week, as required by her schedule. Ms. McLean reasonably observed that she would not remain long in the College's employ if she were to skip work every Wednesday and Thursday. When classes were not in session, faculty members such as Ms. McLean and Ms. Glenn were not required to come into the office, whereas the teaching assistant was required to come in and work a full day from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. On these faculty off-days, it was especially important for Petitioner to be on the job because she constituted the sole point of contact between students and the cosmetology department. New classes in cosmetology start twice a year, and prospective students may drop by the campus at any time. If no one is present during normal working hours to answer questions or assist the student in applying, the College could lose a prospective student as well as suffer a diminished public image. The evidence established that Petitioner would take advantage of the lack of supervision on faculty off-days to go missing from her position, without submitting leave forms for approval by an administrator as required by College policy. May 4, 2007, was the College's graduation day. Ms. McLean and Ms. Glenn arrived at the cosmetology building at 3:00 p.m. to prepare for the cap and gown ceremony and noted that Petitioner was not there, though it was a regular work day for her. Petitioner was still absent at 4:30 p.m. when the two instructors left the building to go to the graduation ceremony. On May 15, 2007, a faculty off-day, Ms. Glenn came in at 11:00 a.m. to prepare for her class the next day. Petitioner asked Ms. Glenn to handle a student registration matter while Petitioner went out. Ms. Glenn agreed to do so. The students had yet to arrive by 2:00 p.m. when Ms. Glenn was ready to leave. Petitioner had still not returned to the office, forcing Ms. Glenn to ask Ms. West to register the students if they arrived. Ms. Glenn had no idea when or if Petitioner ever returned to work that day. Marcia Brinson was the custodian who cleaned the cosmetology building. During summer session at the College, Ms. Brinson worked from 2:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. She would often come into the cosmetology building and find that Petitioner was not there. This was the case on May 15, 2007, when Ms. Brinson entered the building at 2:00 p.m. At around 2:30, an administrator named Glenn Rice came to the cosmetology building with two students whom he was attempting to enroll.9/ Ms. Brinson phoned Ms. McLean at home to inform her of the situation. Ms. McLean phoned the cosmetology office. Petitioner did not answer. At about 2:50 p.m., Ms. McLean called Petitioner at her cell phone number. Petitioner answered and told Ms. McLean that she was at her mother's house, but was about to return to the College. Ms. McLean could not say whether Petitioner ever actually returned to the College that day. At the hearing, Petitioner claimed that the only time she left the cosmetology department on May 15, 2007, was to go to the library at 2:15 p.m. and obtain materials for a class she was going to teach on May 17. This testimony cannot be credited, given that it conflicts with the credible testimony of Ms. McLean, Ms. Glenn and Ms. Brinson. Further belying Petitioner's claim is the fact that she later submitted a leave form claiming "personal leave" for two hours on May 15, 2007. She claimed the hours from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Aside from its inconsistency with Petitioner's testimony, this claim was inaccurate on two other counts. First, the evidence established that Petitioner was away from the office from at least 11:00 a.m. until some time after 3:00 p.m. Second, Petitioner's regular work day ended at 5:00 p.m., thus giving her no cause to claim leave for the half-hour between 5:00 and 5:30 p.m. The College has a "wellness" program in which employees are allowed to take 30 minutes of leave, three days per week, in order to engage in some form of exercise. Petitioner considered wellness time to be the equivalent of personal leave, and would leave her job at the College early in order to keep an appointment at a hair-styling salon at which she worked part-time. Finally, Petitioner was unwilling or unable to comply with the College's parking decal system. At the time she was hired, Petitioner was issued a staff parking pass that entitled her to park her car in any unreserved space on he campus. As noted above, many of the cosmetology customers were elderly women. For their convenience, the College had five spaces reserved for customers directly in front of the cosmetology building. Customers were issued a 5 x 8 "Cosmetology Customer" card that they would leave on their dashboards. If all five of the reserved spaces were taken, the card allowed the customer to park in any space on the campus. On May 30, 2007, the College's supervisor of safety and security, Tony LaJoie, was patrolling the campus on his golf cart. Petitioner flagged him down, asking for help with a dead battery in her car. Mr. LaJoie stopped to help her, but also noticed that Petitioner's car was parked in a space reserved for customers and that Petitioner had a "Cosmetology Customer" card on her dashboard. When he asked her about it, Petitioner told Mr. LaJoie that she had lost her staff parking pass and therefore needed to use the customer pass. Mr. LaJoie told Petitioner that she could go to the maintenance building and get a new staff pass, or get a visitor's pass to use until she found the first pass. Petitioner told Mr. LaJoie that she could not afford the $10 replacement fee for the pass. Mr. LaJoie told her that the $10 replacement fee was cheaper than the $25 to $50 fines she would have to pay for illegally parking on campus. Petitioner promised Mr. LaJoie that she would go to maintenance and take care of the situation. On June 5, 2007, Mr. LaJoie found Petitioner's car again parked in a customer reserved space and with a customer card on the dashboard. Mr. LaJoie wrote Petitioner a parking ticket. Petitioner was well aware that the customer spaces were reserved at least in part because many of the department's customers were elderly and unable to walk more than a short distance. Petitioner nonetheless ignored College policy and parked her car in the reserved spaces. Petitioner never obtained a replacement parking pass.10/ Dean Hickman was the administrator who made the decision to recommend Petitioner's termination to the College's Vice-President, Charles Carroll, who in turn presented the recommended decision to LCCC President Charles W. Hall, who made the final decision on termination. She based her recommendation on the facts as set forth in Findings of Fact 19 through 48, supra. Petitioner's termination was due to her performance deficiencies. Dean Hickman considered Petitioner's pattern of conduct, including her repeated violation of parking policies and her practice of leaving her post without permission, to constitute insubordination. Ms. McLean, who provided input to Dean Hickman as to Petitioner's performance issues, testified that Petitioner's slack performance worked to the great detriment of a department with only two instructors attempting to deal with 20 or more students at different stages of their training. Petitioner's position was not filled for a year after her dismissal. Ms. McLean and Ms. Glenn worked extra hours and were able to perform Petitioner's duties, with the help of a student to answer the phones. The fact that the instructors were able to perform their own jobs and cover Petitioner's duties negates Petitioner's excuse that she was required to do more than one full-time employee could handle. Furthermore, Ms. McLean testified that, despite the added work load, Petitioner's departure improved the working atmosphere by eliminating the tension caused by Petitioner. Because Petitioner was still a probationary employee, the College was not required to show cause or provide specific reasons for her dismissal. Nevertheless, the evidence established that there were entirely adequate, performance-based reasons that fully justified the College's decision to terminate Petitioner's employment. The evidence further established that Petitioner's dismissal was not related to the formal grievance Petitioner filed on June 5, 2007. However, because Petitioner has alleged that her termination was retaliatory, the facts surrounding her grievance are explored below. The grievance stemmed from an incident that occurred between Petitioner and Ms. Glenn on May 16, 2007, the first day of the summer term. A student named Russia Sebree approached Ms. Glenn with a problem. Ms. Sebree was not on Ms. Glenn's summer class roster because she had not completed the Tests of Adult Basic Education ("TABE"), a test of basic reading, math and language skills. Students were required to pass the TABE in their first semester before they would be allowed to register for their second semester. Ms. Glenn told Ms. Sebree that, because the initial registration period had passed, they would have to walk over to the Dean's office and have Dean Hickman register Ms. Sebree for the class. Ms. Glenn phoned Dean Hickman's secretary, Ms. West, to make an appointment. Ms. West told Ms. Glenn that Dean Hickman was out of the office, and that she would make a return call to Ms. Glenn as soon as the dean returned. While waiting for Ms. West's call, Ms. Sebree apparently drifted into Petitioner's office. She mentioned to Petitioner that she hadn't passed the TABE test, and Petitioner told her she could take care of the matter by making an appointment for Ms. Sebree to take the test. Ms. Glenn overheard the conversation and walked in to stop Petitioner from making the call. She told Petitioner that she had a call in to Dean Hickman, and that she and Ms. Sebree would have to meet with the dean to determine whether Ms. Sebree could register for Ms. Glenn's summer class or whether she would be required to complete the TABE and wait until the next semester. Ms. Glenn was angered by Petitioner's interference in this matter. Petitioner's actions were beyond the scope of a teaching assistant's duties, unless requested by an instructor.11/ She jumped into the situation without inquiring whether Ms. Sebree had talked to her instructor about her problem and without understanding the steps that Ms. Glenn had already taken on Ms. Sebree's behalf. Eventually, Ms. West returned the call and Ms. Glenn and Ms. Sebree met with Dean Hickman. After the meeting, Ms. Glenn requested a private meeting with Dean Hickman. She told the dean that she was very upset that Petitioner had taken it upon herself to take over the situation with Ms. Sebree, when Ms. Glenn was taking care of the matter and Petitioner had no reason to step in. Dean Hickman told Ms. Glenn that she would not tolerate a staff person going over an instructor's head in a matter involving a student. Dean Hickman asked Ms. Glenn to send Petitioner over to her office. Dean Hickman testified that she met with Petitioner for about 30 minutes, and that Petitioner left her office requesting a meeting with Ms. Glenn. Dean Hickman did not testify as to the details of her meeting with Petitioner. The dean knew that Petitioner was angry and cautioned her to conduct herself in a professional manner when speaking with Ms. Glenn. Petitioner testified that Dean Hickman "yelled" at her, "I will not have you undermine my instructor's authority." Petitioner professed not to know what Dean Hickman was talking about. The dean repeated what Ms. Glenn had said to her about the incident with Ms. Sebree. According to Petitioner, Ms. Glenn had told the dean "some lie," an "outlandish" tale in which "I went in telling Russia that she didn't have to do what Vicki said, or something like that." Petitioner told Dean Hickman her version of the incident, which was essentially that nothing happened. She was showing Ms. Sebree "some basic algebraic equations and stuff and there was no conflict or anything in the office." Petitioner asked for a meeting "so I can see what's going on." Petitioner returned to the cosmetology department. She was visibly upset. She asked for a departmental meeting with Ms. McLean and Ms. Glenn that afternoon. Ms. McLean agreed to move up the weekly departmental meeting in order to take care of this matter. The meeting convened with Ms. McLean going over the usual day-to-day matters involving the program. Once the regular business was completed, Ms. McLean stated that she wanted Petitioner and Ms. Glenn to air out their problems. Petitioner asked Ms. Glenn why she wanted to tell lies about her. Ms. Glenn said, "What?" and Petitioner stated, "You're a liar." Ms. Glenn denied the accusation. Petitioner repeated, "You're nothing but a liar." In anger and frustration, Ms. Glenn stated, "Look here, sister, I am not a liar." Petitioner responded, "First, you're not my sister and, secondly, my name is Stephanie K. Taylor, address me with that, please."12/ Ms. McLean testified that both women were "pretty heated" and "pretty frustrated" with each other. She concluded the meeting shortly after this exchange. After the meeting, Petitioner and Ms. McLean spoke about Ms. Glenn's use of the word "sister," which Petitioner believed had racial connotations. Ms. McLean told Petitioner that she did not believe anything racial was intended.13/ Ms. Glenn had never been called a liar, and in her frustration she blurted out "sister" in the same way another angry person might say, "Look here, lady." Petitioner seemed satisfied and the matter was dropped for the remainder of the day. Dean Hickman testified that Petitioner brought some paperwork to her office that afternoon after the departmental meeting. Petitioner told her that she felt better about the situation, that they had aired their differences and everything now seemed fine. The dean considered the matter resolved. By the next morning, May 17, 2007, Petitioner had changed her mind about the comment. She sent an email to each member of the College's board of trustees, President Hall, Dean Hickman, and various other College employees that stated as follows: Hello. I am Stephanie K. Taylor, Teaching Assistant for Cosmetology. I am writing because of an incident that took place on yesterday, May 16, 2007. Nancy Carol McLean (Coordinator/Instructor), Vicki Glenn (Instructor) and I met for a meeting to discuss concerns in our department approximately 11:35 am. During our discussion, Vicki Glenn made a racial comment to me. I disagreed with her concerning a statement she made. Her reply to me was: "No, 'Sister', I did not!" I was very offended by her remark and I replied, "My name is Stephanie Kay Taylor." Following the meeting, I spoke with Ms. McLean and I decided to write this incident statement. If I allow an instructor to call me something other than my name, these incidents will continue. Ms. McLean had repeatedly cautioned Petitioner to respect the College's chain of command. As Petitioner's immediate supervisor, Ms. McLean was supposed to be Petitioner's first resort insofar as work-related complaints. Petitioner was in the habit of going straight to Dean Hickman with complaints before discussing them with Ms. McLean. However, in this instance, Petitioner did show Ms. McLean the text of her statement before she distributed it. Ms. McLean advised Petitioner to take the matter straight to Dean Hickman and discuss it with her before distributing the statement. Petitioner did not take Ms. McLean's advice. Though Petitioner emailed the statement to Dean Hickman, the dean did not actually see the statement until it had been distributed to several other people. No evidence was presented that Petitioner suffered any adverse consequences from distributing her written statement outside the College's chain of command. To the contrary, Petitioner testified that Ms. McLean advised her that if she felt strongly about the matter, she should file a formal grievance pursuant to the LCCC Policy and Procedure 6Hx12:6- 10.14/ Ms. McLean provided Petitioner with the forms she needed to file a written grievance. Petitioner also sought and received the advice of a human relations specialist at the College as to how to file a formal grievance. Both Ms. McLean and Ms. Glenn convincingly testified that they had no ill feeling toward Petitioner for filing a grievance. Ms. McLean stated that the grievance had no impact on her at all. Ms. Glenn was not disturbed by the grievance because she had done nothing wrong and believed the process would vindicate her. Petitioner filed her formal written grievance on June 5, 2007. Vice president Marilyn Hamm began the investigation in the absence of Human Resources Director Gary Boettcher, who picked up the investigation upon his return to the campus. Dean Hickman also participated in the investigation of Petitioner's grievance. They interviewed the witnesses to the incident. They also interviewed 11 cosmetology students and asked them whether they had ever heard Ms. Glenn make any "derogatory or racial slurs or comments" relative to Petitioner. None of the students had heard Ms. Glenn make any remarks fitting the description in the query.15/ One student told the investigators that he had heard Petitioner speak disparagingly of Ms. Glenn, but not vice versa. On June 19, 2007, Mr. Boettcher issued a memorandum to Petitioner that stated as follows: You filed a grievance alleging that Ms. Vickie Glenn made a racial comment to you by calling you "sister." You further stated that you want the same respect that you have given to others and that you be referred to by your name, Stephanie K. Taylor. I was not available when you filed the grievance therefore it was referred to Vice President Hamm who began the investigation and upon my return it was referred to me. Ms. Hamm interviewed yourself, and Carol McLean. Ms. Hamm and I then interviewed Ms. Glenn. Subsequently, Ms. Hickman, the Dean of your department, and I interviewed a random sampling of students in the cosmetology program. The incident you described, when you were referred to as "sister" was discussed with both Ms. McLean and Ms. Glenn, who were in the meeting when the comment was made. They both acknowledged that you were in fact referred to as sister. Neither of them viewed it as a racial comment but a term that was used in the heat of the discussion in which you and Ms. Glenn were very much at odds on a subject. The students were interviewed and asked if you had discussed or made mention of an evaluation that you received and also whether that had ever heard Ms. Glenn talk derogatorily or made any racial comments relative to you. Some of the students heard of talk of your evaluation but none of them heard it first hand from you. None of the students ever heard Ms. Glenn refer to you in any racial or disparaging way. In view of the investigation it is concluded that you were called "sister" but not in a negative or racial inference and that Ms. Glenn has not referred to you in a derogatory or racial manner. This has been discussed with Ms. McLean and Ms. Glenn in that they were asked to refer to you strictly by your name and in a professional manner. I trust this will be satisfactory to you and if you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Petitioner's employment with the College was terminated on June 28, 2007, nine days after Mr. Boettcher's memorandum. No evidence was presented to establish a causal connection between these two events, aside from their temporal proximity. As noted extensively above, the College had more than ample justification to terminate Petitioner's employment before the conclusion of her six-month probationary period. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Petitioner was terminated from her position with the College due to poor job performance and conduct amounting to insubordination. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the College did not retaliate against Petitioner for the filing of a grievance alleging that Ms. Glenn had made a racially discriminatory remark towards Petitioner. Rather, the greater weight of the evidence established that College personnel assisted Petitioner in filing her grievance and that the College conscientiously investigated the grievance. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the College has not discriminated against Petitioner based on her race.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Lake City Community College did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2010.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent should be suspended, without pay and benefits, and terminated from employment with Petitioner for the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Maynard has a Bachelor of Science degree in Education (K-6) and a Master of Arts degree in Teaching (Special Education). Her prior teaching experience includes teaching in the United States, Korea, and Japan. Ms. Maynard began her employment with the School Board as a substitute teacher. She was a substitute teacher for approximately six years. In the Summer of 2004, Ms. Maynard was hired to teach at the Pompano Beach Elementary School (Pompano Beach Elementary). However, Pompano Beach Elementary had over-hired, and she was surplused-out to Cypress Elementary School (Cypress Elementary). For the 2004-2005 school year, Ms. Maynard began at Cypress Elementary as a kindergarten teacher. For the 2005-2006 school year, Ms. Maynard was reassigned as an elementary teacher at Cypress Elementary. The parties agree that the relevant time period in the instant case is the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Ms. Maynard was an instructional employee, a third grade teacher, with the School Board at Cypress Elementary. On April 7, 2006, Ms. Maynard received a written reprimand from Cypress Elementary's Assistant principal, Barbara Castiglione (now, Barbara Castiglione-Rothman). The basis for the disciplinary action was Ms. Maynard's failure, twice, to comply with a directive from Ms. Castiglione--Ms. Maynard was requested to report to an academic meeting with Ms. Castiglione. Among other things, Ms. Maynard was advised that her failure to perform to the standards established for the effective and productive performance of her job duties would result in further disciplinary action up to and including a recommendation for termination of employment. A copy of the written reprimand was provided to Ms. Maynard. Ms. Maynard contended that she was not refusing to attend the meetings but wanted to meet with Ms. Castiglione when a witness of her own choosing could attend. Ms. Maynard wanted a witness to be present at the meetings because she viewed the meetings as disciplinary meetings even though Ms. Castiglione indicated that the meetings were not disciplinary meetings. Additionally, on April 7, 2006, Ms. Maynard made a written request for a transfer from Cypress Elementary. The type of transfer requested by Ms. Maynard was "Regular."2 Cypress Elementary's principal, Louise Portman, signed the request. The principal's signature, as well as the requester's signature, was required. No transfer occurred. PMPs During the 2006-2007 School Year Through School Board policy, implementing a Legislative mandate, all teachers at Cypress Elementary were required to develop an individualized progress monitoring plan (PMP) for each student, who was deficient in reading, in consultation with the student's parent(s). Data for the PMP were collected through reading assessments at the beginning of the school year to establish a student's reading level. The appropriate reading program for the student would be decided upon using the data. Also, who was going to teach the reading program would be decided. The PMP, among other things, identified the student's reading deficiency and set forth the plan to remediate the deficiency and enhance the student's achievement in reading, which included the proposed supplemental instruction services that would be provided to the student. PMPs were generated usually two to three weeks after the beginning of the school year. A copy of the PMP was provided to the student's parent(s). The PMP was referred to as a "living, fluid document." It was not unusual for PMPs to reflect interventions not being used at the time, i.e., it was permissible for PMPs to reflect interventions that were to be used during the school year. Further, the wording current on a PMP referred to interventions during the current school year, not necessarily at that time. PMPs were modified throughout the school year on an as needed basis depending upon a student's progress. On or about September 29, 2006, Ms. Portman advised Ms. Maynard that Ms. Maynard's PMPs must be deleted because the interventions listed on the PMPs were not on the Struggling Readers Chart and were, therefore, invalid. The Struggling Readers Chart was developed by the Florida Department of Education (DOE) and contained interventions approved by DOE. Cypress Elementary had a Reading Coach, Jennifer Murphins. Ms. Murphins advised Ms. Maynard that, in order to delete the PMPs, a list of the students, who were on the PMPs, was needed so that Ms. Murphins could provide the names to the person in the school district who was authorized to delete the PMPs. Further, Ms. Murphins advised Ms. Maynard that, once the PMPs were deleted, Ms. Maynard could input valid interventions for the students. The School Board's Curriculum Administrator, Mark Quintana, Ph.D., was the person who was designated to delete PMPs. It was not unusual for Dr. Quintana to receive a telephone call from a school to delete information from PMPs-- the request must originate from the school. Ms. Maynard resisted the deletion of the PMPs and refused to delete them time and time again. She suggested, instead, not deleting the PMPs, but preparing updated PMPs and sending both to the students' parents. Her belief was that she could not put proposed interventions on the PMPs, but that she was required to only include interventions that were actually being used with the students at the time. Even though Ms. Maynard was advised by Ms. Portman that proposed interventions could be included on PMPs, Ms. Maynard still refused to provide Ms. Murphins with the list of the students. Furthermore, Ms. Maynard insisted that including interventions not yet provided, but to be provided, on the PMPs was contrary to Florida's Meta Consent Agreement. She had not read the Meta Consent Agreement and was unable to provide Ms. Portman with a provision of the Meta Consent Agreement that supported a contradiction. Ms. Portman directed Ms. Murphins to contact Dr. Quintana to delete the PMPs for Ms. Maynard's students. Ms. Murphins did as she was directed. The PMPs were deleted. On or about October 5, 2006, Ms. Maynard notified Ms. Portman by email that a complaint against Ms. Portman was filed by her with DOE regarding, among other things, the changing of the PMPs and the denying to her students equal access to the reading curriculum and trained professionals. On or about October 30, 2006, Ms. Castiglione sent a directive by email to all teachers regarding, among other things, placing PMPs and letters to parents in the students' report card envelopes. Ms. Maynard refused to comply with Ms. Castiglione's directive because, among other things, the students' PMPs for Ms. Maynard had been deleted and to rewrite the PMPs with interventions that were not actually used by the students was considered falsifying legal documents by Ms. Maynard. On or about October 31, 2006, Ms. Portman directed Ms. Maynard to rewrite the PMPs. Ms. Maynard continued to refuse to obey Ms. Portman's directive. Around November 2006, Ms. Maynard lodged "concerns" about Ms. Portman with the School Board's North Area Superintendent, Joanne Harrison, Ed.D., regarding the PMPs and the instruction of English Language Learners (ELL). Dr. Harrison requested Dr. Quintana and Sayra Hughes, Executive Director of Bilingual/Foreign Language/ESOL Education, to investigate the matter. Dr. Quintana investigated and prepared the report on the PMP concerns, which included findings by Dr. Quintana as to Ms. Maynard's concerns. Ms. Hughes investigated and prepared the report on the ELL concerns, which included findings by Ms. Hughes as to Ms. Maynard's concerns. Dr. Harrison provided a copy of both reports to Ms. Maynard. Included in the findings by Dr. Quintana were: (a) that a school's administration requesting the deletion of PMPs was appropriate; (b) that PMPs are intended to document support programming that was to occur during the school year; (c) that including a support program that was not initially implemented, but is currently being implemented, is appropriate; and (d) that the School Board should consider revising the parents' letter as to using the term "current" in that current could be interpreted to mean the present time. Also, included in the findings by Dr. Quintana were: (a) the principal's direction to the teachers, as to the deadline for sending PMPs home by the first quarter report card, was equivalent to the School Board's deadline for sending PMPs home; (b) teacher signatures were not required on PMPs; (c) the principal has discretion as to whether to authorize the sending home of additional PMPs and, with the principal's consent, PMPs can be modified and sent home at any time throughout the school year; and (d) Ms. Maynard completed all of her students' PMPs. Ms. Maynard's concerns regarding ELLS were that Ms. Portman was denying ELLs equal access and had inappropriately adjusted Individual Reading Inventories (IRI) scores of ELLs. Ms. Hughes found that Ms. Maynard only had allegations or claims, but no documentation to substantiate the allegations or claims. As a result, Ms. Hughes concluded that Ms. Portman had committed no violations. As a result of the investigation by Dr. Quintana and Ms. Hughes, Dr. Harrison determined and advised Ms. Maynard, among other things, that no violations had been found in the areas of PMP process, management or implementation and students' equal access rights and that the investigation was officially closed and concluded. Further, Dr. Harrison advised Ms. Maynard that, should additional concerns arise, Ms. Portman, as principal, was the first line of communication and that, if concerns or issues were not being resolved at the school level, the School Board had a process in place that was accessible. Ms. Maynard admits that she was not satisfied with the determination by Dr. Harrison. Ms. Maynard does not dispute that the deleting of the PMPs were directives from Ms. Portman and that Ms. Portman had the authority to give directives. Ms. Maynard disputes whether the directives were lawful directives and claims that to change the PMPs as directed would be falsifying the reading materials used by her students and, therefore, falsifying PMPs. A finding of fact is made that the directives were reasonable and lawful. Interaction with Students and Parents Ms. Maynard's class consisted of third graders. In addition to reading deficiencies indicated previously, some of her students also had behavioral issues. Ms. Maynard was heard by staff and teachers yelling at her students. For instance, the Media Specialist, Yvonne "Bonnie" Goldstein, heard Ms. Maynard yelling at her (Ms. Maynard's) students. The Media Center was across the hall from Ms. Maynard's classroom and had no doors. On one occasion, Ms. Goldstein was so concerned with the loudness of the yelling, she went to Ms. Maynard's room to determine whether something was wrong; Ms. Maynard assured her that nothing was wrong. Paraprofessionals working in the cafeteria have observed Ms. Maynard yelling at her students. Some teachers reported the yelling to Ms. Portman in writing. The Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Specialist and Administrative Designee, Marjorie DiVeronica, complained to Ms. Portman in writing regarding Ms. Maynard yelling at her students. A Haitian student was in Ms. Maynard's class for approximately two weeks during the beginning of the 2006-2007 school year. The student was not performing well in school. The student's father discussed the student's performance with Ms. Maynard. She indicated to the father that Ms. Portman's directives to teachers, regarding reading services, i.e., PMPs, had negatively impacted his son's performance. Ms. Maynard assisted the father in preparing a complaint with DOE, dated October 12, 2006, against Ms. Portman. Among other things, the complaint contained allegations against Ms. Portman regarding a denial of equal access to trained teachers and the reading curriculum in violation of Florida's Meta Consent Agreement and the Equal Education Opportunity Act. Ms. Portman was not aware that the parent had filed a complaint against her with DOE. Additionally, on October 16, 2006, Ms. Portman held a conference with the Haitian parent. Among other things, Ms. Portman discussed the reading services provided to the parent's child by Cypress Elementary. Ms. Portman provided a summary of the conference to Ms. Maynard. Ms. Maynard responded to Ms. Portman's summary on that same day. In Ms. Maynard's response, she indicated, among other things, that Ms. Portman did not give the Haitian parent accurate information regarding the child. Interaction with Staff (Non-Teachers) A system of awarding points to classes was established for the cafeteria at Cypress Elementary. A five-point system was established in which classes were given a maximum of five points daily. Classes entered in silence and departed in silence. Points were deducted if a class did not act appropriately. An inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that the five-point system encouraged appropriate conduct by students while they were in the cafeteria. The cafeteria was overseen by Leonor Williamson, who was an ESOL paraprofessional, due to her seniority. The paraprofessionals were responsible for the safety of the students while the students were in the cafeteria. The paraprofessionals implemented the five-point system and came to Ms. Williamson with any problems that they had involving the cafeteria. On or about December 11, 2006, Ms. Maynard's students entered the cafeteria and were unruly. Ms. Williamson instructed the paraprofessional in charge of the section where the students were located to deduct a point from Ms. Maynard's class. Ms. Maynard was upset at Ms. Williamson's action and loudly expressed her displeasure to Ms. Williamson, demanding to know the basis for Ms. Williamson's action. Ms. Maynard would not cease complaining, so Ms. Williamson eventually walked away from Ms. Maynard. Ms. Williamson was required to oversee the safety of the students in the cafeteria and, in order to comply with this responsibility, she had to remove herself from the presence of Ms. Maynard. Ms. Maynard also complained to another teacher, who was attempting to leave the cafeteria with her own students. Additionally, the lunch period for each teacher's class is 30 minutes. On that same day, Ms. Maynard took her class from one section to another section in the cafeteria to serve ice cream to the students. As a result, Ms. Maynard surpassed her lunch period by approximately ten minutes and, at the same time, occupied another class' section. Ms. Williamson viewed Ms. Maynard's conduct as unprofessional during the incident and as abusing the scheduled time for lunch. On or about December 12, 2006, Ms. Williamson notified Ms. Portman about the incidents and requested Ms. Portman to remind Ms. Maynard of the cafeteria workers' responsibility to the students and the lunch period set-aside for each class. The incident on or about December 11, 2006, was not the first time that Ms. Williamson had instructed paraprofessionals to deduct points from Ms. Maynard's class. Each time points were deducted, Ms. Maynard became upset and loudly expressed her displeasure to Ms. Williamson. Ms. Williamson felt intimidated by Ms. Maynard. Also, paraprofessionals had deducted points from Ms. Maynard's class on their own accord without being directed to do so by Ms. Williamson. Whenever the deductions occurred, Ms. Maynard expressed her displeasure with the paraprofessionals' actions and often yelled at them in the presence of students and teachers. Another cafeteria situation occurred in December 2006. A paraprofessional, who was in charge of the section where Ms. Maynard's students ate lunch, observed some of the students not conducting themselves appropriately. The paraprofessional decided to deduct one point from Ms. Maynard's class and to indicate to Ms. Maynard why the point was deducted. Furthermore, the paraprofessional decided that the conduct did not warrant a disciplinary referral. Upon becoming aware of the incident, Ms. Maynard, who did not witness the conduct, wrote disciplinary referrals on the students involved and submitted them to Ms. Castiglione. The policy was that a referral could be written only by the staff person who observed the incident. Ms. Castiglione discussed the incident with the paraprofessional who indicated to Ms. Castiglione that the conduct did not warrant a disciplinary referral. As a result, Ms. Castiglione advised Ms. Maynard that, based upon the paraprofessional's decision and since Ms. Maynard did not witness the incident, Ms. Maynard's referrals would not be accepted and the matter was closed. Ms. Maynard did not agree with the paraprofessional's decision. Ms. Maynard approached the paraprofessional with disciplinary referrals on the students and presented the referrals and strongly encouraged the paraprofessional to sign the referrals. The paraprofessional refused to sign the referrals. Interaction with Staff (Teachers and Administrators) Safety procedures for the Media Center were established by the Media Specialist, Yvonne "Bonnie" Goldstein. At one point in time, Ms. Maynard wanted to bring all of her students to Distance Learning. Because of safety concerns, Ms. Goldstein advised Ms. Maynard that all of her students could not attend at the same time. However, Ms. Maynard brought all of her students anyway. Ms. Goldstein had no choice but to preclude Ms. Maynard from entering the Media Center. Additionally, at another point in time, Ms. Maynard requested, by email, that Ms. Goldstein provide all of her (Ms. Maynard's) students with New Testament Bibles. That same day, Ms. Goldstein advised Ms. Maynard that only two Bibles were in the Media Center and, therefore, the request could not be complied with. Disregarding Ms. Goldstein's reply, Ms. Maynard sent her students to the Media Center that same day in twos and threes, requesting the New Testament Bibles. When the two Bibles on-hand were checked-out, Ms. Goldstein had no choice but to offer the students alternative religious material. During 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, Terri Vaughn was the Team Leader of the third grade class. As Team Leader, Ms. Vaughn's responsibilities included being a liaison between team members and the administration at Cypress Elementary. Ms. Vaughn's personality is to avoid confrontation. Ms. Vaughn had an agenda for each team meeting. During team meetings, Ms. Maynard would deviate from the agenda and discuss matters of her own personal interest, resulting in the agenda not being completed. Also, Ms. Maynard would occasionally monopolize team meetings. Additionally, in team meetings, Ms. Maynard would indicate that she would discuss a problem student with parents who were not the student's parents. As time progressed, during team meetings, Ms. Maynard would engage in outbursts. She would become emotional on matters and raise her voice to the point of yelling. Also, it was not uncommon for Ms. Maynard to point her finger when she became emotional. At times, Ms. Maynard would have to leave the meetings and return because she had begun to cry. Additionally, at times after an outburst, Ms. Maynard would appear as if nothing had happened. Further, during team meetings, Ms. Maynard would excessively raise the subject of PMPs and accuse Ms. Portman of directing her to falsify PMPs or Title I documents. Ms. Vaughn did not report Ms. Maynard's conduct at team meetings to Ms. Portman. However, a written request by a majority of the team members, who believed that the team meetings had become stressful, made a request to the administration of Cypress Elementary for a member of the administration to attend team meetings; their hope was that an administrator's presence would cause Ms. Maynard to become calmer during the team meetings. An administrator began to attend team meetings. Marjorie DiVeronica, an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Specialist, was an administrative designee, and Ms. Portman designated Ms. DiVeronica to attend the team meetings. Ms. DiVeronica would take notes, try to keep meetings moving, and report to Ms. Portman what was observed. Discussions were stopped by Ms. DiVeronica, and she would redirect the meetings to return to the agenda. Even with Ms. DiVeronica's presence, Ms. Maynard would raise her voice. At one team meeting attended by Ms. Portman, Ms. Maynard would not stop talking and the agenda could not move. Ms. Portman requested Ms. Maynard to stop talking, but Ms. Maynard would not stop. Ms. Portman placed herself in close proximity to Ms. Maynard in order to defuse the situation and raised her voice in order to get Ms. Maynard's attention. Ms. Portman dismissed the meeting. Additionally, at a team meeting, Ms. Maynard had become emotional. Ms. Castiglione was in attendance at that meeting. Ms. Maynard raised her voice and was shouting and yelling and pointing her finger at Ms. Castiglione. Ms. Maynard continued her conduct at the team meetings no matter whether Ms. Portman, Ms. Castiglione, or Ms. DiVeronica attended the meetings. Outside of team meetings, Ms. Vaughn reached the point that she avoided contact with Ms. Maynard due to Ms. Maynard's constantly complaining of matters that were of her (Ms. Maynard's) own personal interest, which resulted in long conversations. Ms. Vaughn's classroom was next to Ms. Maynard's classroom. A closet, with a desk in it, was in Ms. Vaughn's room. At least two or three times, in order to complete some work, Ms. Vaughn went into the closet and closed the door. Another team member, Elizabeth Kane, also made attempts to avoid Ms. Maynard. Ms. Kane viewed Ms. Maynard as making the team meetings stressful. Also, Ms. Kane was uncomfortable around Ms. Maynard due to Ms. Maynard's agitation and, furthermore, felt threatened by Ms. Maynard when Ms. Maynard became agitated. Additionally, Ms. Kane made a concerted effort to avoid Ms. Maynard outside of team meetings. Ms. Kane would "duck" into another teacher's classroom or into a stall in the bathroom to avoid Ms. Maynard. Barbara Young, a team member, tried to be someone to whom Ms. Maynard could come to talk. Ms. Young was never afraid of or felt threatened by Ms. Maynard. Further, regarding the cafeteria incident in December 2006, which Ms. Maynard did not witness, Ms. Maynard did not allow the incident to end with Ms. Castiglione's determination to agree with the paraprofessional's decision to not issue disciplinary referrals. Ms. Maynard, firmly believing that Ms. Castiglione's action was unfair, openly disagreed with the decision in the presence her (Ms. Maynard's) students and strongly encouraged some of the students to go to Ms. Castiglione and protest Ms. Castiglione's determination. Some of the students went to Ms. Castiglione regarding her disciplinary determination. Ms. Castiglione explained her determination to the students, including the process and the reasoning why she did what she did. The students were satisfied with the determination after hearing Ms. Castiglione's explanation. Further, the students indicated to Ms. Castiglione that they had no desire to go to her, but Ms. Maynard wanted them to do it. Ms. Maynard's action had undermined Ms. Castiglione's authority with the students. LaShawn Smith-Settles, Cypress Elementary's Guidance Counselor, never felt threatened by Ms. Maynard or viewed Ms. Maynard as being hostile towards her. However, Ms. Maynard did make her feel uncomfortable. A second grade teacher, Paja Rafferty, never felt threatened by Ms. Maynard. Excessive Emails Communication thru emails is the standard operating procedure at Cypress Elementary. However, Ms. Maynard engaged in excessive emails. Ms. Maynard's emails were on relevant areas. However, she would not only send the email to the staff member, whether teacher or administrator, who could directly respond to her, but would copy every teacher and administrator. This process and procedure used by Ms. Maynard resulted in massive emails being sent to staff who might or might not have an interest in the subject matter. One such staff person, who took action to stop receiving the emails, was Ms. Kane. Ms. Kane was inundated with Ms. Maynard's emails regarding matters on which Ms. Kane had no interest or concern. To stop receiving the emails, Ms. Kane sent Ms. Maynard an email, twice, requesting that Ms. Maynard remove her (Ms. Kane) from the copy list. However, Ms. Maynard did not do so. Due to the massive number of emails sent to Ms. Portman by Ms. Maynard, a significant portion of Ms. Portman's time was devoted to responding to the emails. Ms. Portman had less and less time to devote to her responsibilities as principal of Cypress Elementary. Eventually, Ms. Portman was forced to curtail Ms. Maynard's emails. None of Ms. Maynard's emails threatened teachers, staff, or students. Additional Directives During the time period regarding the PMPs, Ms. Portman became concerned that the parents of Ms. Maynard's students were being misinformed by Ms. Maynard as to the students' performance and as to Cypress Elementary and Ms. Portman addressing the students' performance. On November 3, 2006, Ms. Portman held a meeting with Ms. Maynard. Also, in attendance were Ms. Castiglione and Patricia Costigan, Broward Teachers Union (BTU) Steward. During the meeting, among other things, Ms. Portman directed Ms. Maynard not to have conferences with a parent unless an administrator was present, either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione, in order to assure that parents were not misinformed. A summary of the meeting was prepared on November 6, 2006. A copy of the summary was provided to Ms. Maynard and Ms. Costigan. Subsequently, Ms. Portman received a letter from a parent dated December 20, 2006. The parent stated, among other things, that the parent had approximately a two-hour telephone conversation, during the evening of December 19, 2006, with Ms. Maynard about the parent's child, who was a student in Ms. Maynard's class. Further, the parent stated that her son was referred to by Ms. Maynard as a "fly on manure." Even though Ms. Maynard denies some of the statements attributed to her by the parent and the time span of the telephone conversation, she does not deny that she had the telephone conversation with the parent. On December 20, 2006, Ms. Portman and Ms. Castiglione went to Ms. Maynard's classroom to remind Ms. Maynard of the directive. Ms Maynard was not in her classroom but was in another teacher's room, Barbara Young, with another teacher. Ms. Portman requested Ms. Maynard to come into Ms. Maynard's classroom so that she and Ms. Castiglione could talk with Ms. Maynard out of the presence of the other teachers. Ms. Maynard refused to leave Ms. Young's classroom indicating that whatever had to be said could be said in front of everyone, in front of witnesses. Ms. Portman, complying with Ms. Maynard's request, proceeded to remind Ms. Maynard of the directive to not conference with parents unless an administrator was present. Ms. Maynard became very agitated and yelled at them, indicating that she (Ms. Maynard) wanted what was said in writing and that she (Ms. Maynard) was not going to comply with the directive. Shortly before Winter break, on or about December 21, 2006, in the morning, Ms. Portman noticed Ms. Maynard by letter that a pre-disciplinary meeting would be held on January 10, 2006, regarding insubordination by Ms. Maynard. Among other things, the notice directed Ms. Maynard to "cease and desist all contact with parents" until the meeting was held. Later in the afternoon, after the administrative office was closed, Ms. Maynard returned to Ms. Portman's office. Ms. Maynard confronted Ms. Portman and Ms. Castiglione about the notice, wanting to know what it was all about. Ms. Maynard was very agitated and emotional, raising her voice and pointing her finger. Ms. Portman indicated to Ms. Maynard that the requirement was only to provide the notice, with the meeting to be held later. Ms. Portman asked Ms. Maynard several times to leave because the office was closed; Ms. Maynard finally left. After Ms. Maynard left Ms. Portman's office, Ms. Portman could hear Ms. Maynard talking to other staff. Ms. Portman was very concerned due to Ms. Maynard's agitation and conduct. Ms. Portman contacted the School Board's Professional Standards as to what to do and was told to request all employees, except day care, to leave. Ms. Portman did as she was instructed by Professional Standards, getting on the intercom system and requesting all employees, except for day care, to leave, not giving the employees the actual reason why they were required to leave. Unbeknownst to Ms. Portman, Ms. Maynard had departed Cypress Elementary before she (Ms. Portman) instructed the employees to leave. Regarding the afternoon incident, Ms. Maynard felt "helpless" at that point. She had been informed by Professional Standards to go to administration at Cypress Elementary with her concerns, who was Ms. Portman. Ms. Maynard viewed Ms. Portman as the offender, and, therefore, she was being told to go to offender to have her concerns addressed. On January 9, 2007, a Child Study Team (CST) meeting was convened to address the academic performance of a few of Ms. Maynard's students. Ms. Maynard had referred the students to the CST. The CST's purpose was to provide support for the student and the teacher by problem-solving, using empirical data to assist with and improve a child's academic performance and behavior, and making recommendations. No individual member can override a team's recommendation, only a principal could do that. On January 9, 2007, the CST members included, among others, Ms. DiVeronica, who was the CST's leader; Miriam Kassof, School Board Psychologist; and LaShawn Smith-Settles, Cypress Elementary's Guidance Counselor. Also, in attendance were Ms. Maynard and Ms. Castiglione, who, at that time, was an intern principal. During the course of the meeting, Ms. Maynard diverted the discussion from the purpose of the meeting to her wanting two of the students removed from her class. She began discussing the safety of the other students in the class, which was viewed, at first, as being well-meaning, however, when she insisted on the removal of the two students, she became highly emotional, stood-up, and was yelling. Members of the CST team attempted to de-escalate the situation, but Ms. Maynard was not willing to engage in problem solving and her actions were counterproductive. Due to Ms. Maynard's constant insistence on discussing the removal of the students from her class, the CST was not able to meet its purpose within the time period set- aside for the meeting. However, before the CST meeting ended, one of the recommendations made was for Ms. Maynard to collect daily anecdotal behavioral notes regarding one of the students and for the behavioral notes to be sent home to the student's parent. Ms. Castiglione gave Ms. Maynard a directive that, before the behavioral notes were sent home to the parent, the behavioral notes were to be forwarded to Ms. Castiglione for review and approval. Ms. Maynard resisted preparing behavioral notes, expressing that that plan of action would not help the situation. The CST members viewed Ms. Maynard's conduct as being unproductive, inappropriate, and unprofessional. On January 10, 2007, a pre-disciplinary meeting was held regarding Ms. Portman considering disciplinary action against Ms. Maynard for insubordination. Attendees at the meeting included Ms. Portman; Ms. Castiglione (at that time intern principal); Ms. Maynard; Jacquelyn Haywood, Area Director; Cathy Kirk, Human Resources; and Andrew David, Attorney for Ms. Maynard. The basis for the insubordination was Ms. Maynard's refusal to comply with Ms. Portman's directive for Ms. Maynard not to conference with parents unless an administrator was present. Ms. Portman pointed out that Ms. Maynard had a telephone conversation with a parent, regarding the parent's child, on December 19, 2006, without an administrator being present and showed Ms. Maynard the letter written by the parent to Ms. Portman, dated December 20, 2006. Ms. Maynard admitted only that she had the telephone conversation. Ms. Portman asked Ms. Maynard to provide a compelling reason as to why the disciplinary action should not be taken; Ms. Maynard did not respond. Ms. Portman reiterated the directive and advised Ms. Maynard that a letter of reprimand would be issued. A summary of the pre-disciplinary meeting was prepared. Ms. Maynard was provided a copy of the summary. On January 17, 2007, a written reprimand was issued by Ms. Portman against Ms. Maynard for failure to adhere to the administrative directive of not having a parent conference unless an administrator was present. The written reprimand stated, among other things, that Ms. Maynard had a parent's conference on the telephone with a student's parent without an administrator being present and that Ms. Maynard failed to present a compelling reason as to why no disciplinary action should be taken. Furthermore, the written reprimand advised Ms. Maynard that any further failure to perform consistent with the standards established for the effective and productive performance of her job duties, as a third grade teacher, would result in further disciplinary action up to and including a recommendation for termination of employment. Ms. Maynard received a copy of the written reprimand. After the Written Reprimand of January 17, 2007 Also, on January 17, 2007, Ms. Portman held a meeting with Ms. Maynard which was not a disciplinary meeting, but was a meeting for Ms. Portman to discuss her concerns and job expectations with Ms. Maynard. In addition to Ms. Portman and Ms. Maynard, attendees at the meeting included Ms. Castiglione; Jacqueline Haywood, Area Director; Cathy Kirk, Human Resources; and Mary Rutland, BTU Steward. Ms. Portman discussed five concerns and issued five directives. The first concern of Ms. Portman was Ms. Maynard's unprofessional behavior. The examples provided by Ms. Portman were Ms. Maynard's (a) yelling at paraprofessional staff in the cafeteria; (b) yelling at administrators, referencing the incident on December 20, 2006; and (c) continuing to publicly accuse Cypress Elementary's administrators of falsifying documents after an investigation had determined the accusation to be unfounded. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was to cease and desist all unprofessional and inappropriate behavior. Ms. Portman's second concern was unprofessional and inappropriate comments. The examples provided by Ms. Portman were Ms. Maynard's (a) indicating on December 20, 2006, while she was in Ms. Young's room, that she would not comply with the directives of which she was reminded by Ms. Portman; (b) speaking to a parent and referring to the parent's child as a "fly on manure"; and (c) telling parents, during conferences, that there was a problem at Cypress Elementary. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was to cease and desist all unprofessional and inappropriate comments. Additionally, Ms. Portman reminded Ms. Maynard that all notes were required to be submitted to administration for review no later than 1:00 p.m., except for student daily behavioral notes, which were to be submitted at 1:30 p.m. The third concern of Ms. Portman was continued dialogue of PMPs and ESOL issues. Ms. Portman indicated that the district had reviewed Ms. Maynard's issues and concerns and had responded to them. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was that the said issues were considered closed and that, if Ms. Maynard wished to pursue the said issues, she should contact her attorney. Ms. Portman's fourth concern was unmanageable emails sent by Ms. Maynard. The example provided by Ms. Portman was that she had received over 200 emails from Ms. Maynard. Ms. Portman indicated that the procedure that Ms. Maynard was required to follow when she (Ms. Maynard) had issues or concerns that needed to be addressed was (a) make an appointment with the administrator through the confidential secretary, identifying that person; and (b) provide the confidential secretary with the issue in writing. Only when (a) and (b) were complied with, would either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione meet with Ms. Maynard, during Ms. Maynard's planning time, on the issue at the appointment time. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was that Ms. Maynard would cease and desist sending issues via emails and that conferences would be scheduled per the procedure outlined. The fifth concern of Ms. Portman's was protocol compliance. Ms. Portman indicated that the proper procedure for Ms. Maynard to adhere to when Ms. Maynard had a complaint or concern was to first, contact her (Ms. Maynard's) supervisor, not the area office, wherein Ms. Maynard would be provided with an opportunity to meet with an administrator. Additionally, as to meeting with an administrator, (a) Ms. Maynard would meet with either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione; (b) an appointment with the administrator would be made through the confidential secretary, identifying that person; (c) Ms. Maynard would provide the confidential secretary with the issue or concern in writing; (d) only when (b) and (c) were complied with, would either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione meet with Ms. Maynard, during Ms. Maynard's planning time, on the issue or concern at the appointment time; (e) administration would address the issue or concern and after the issue or concern had been presented to administration, Ms. Maynard was to consider the issue or concern closed. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman gave to Ms. Maynard was that Ms. Maynard was to comply with the protocol outlined for all of her concerns. Moreover, Ms. Portman indicated that a failure by Ms. Portman to follow all of the directives would result in disciplinary action up to and including termination from employment. A summary of the meeting of concerns and job expectations was prepared. On January 18, 2007, Ms. Portman noticed Ms. Maynard by letter that a pre-disciplinary meeting would be held on January 29, 2007, regarding gross insubordination by Ms. Maynard. Among other things, the notice directed Ms. Maynard to "cease and desist all communication with parents both written and oral" until the meeting was held. The notice was hand-delivered to Ms. Maynard at Cypress Elementary. On or about January 22, 2007, Ms. Portman held a meeting to develop a strategic plan to help motivate one of Ms. Maynard's students, who was in foster care, in the areas of academics and behavior. In addition to Ms. Portman, attendees at the meeting included, among others, Ms. Castiglione; Ms. Smith-Settles; and the student's Guardian Ad-Litem. During the meeting, the Guardian Ad-Litem indicated that Ms. Maynard had telephoned the student's foster parent, engaged in more than a 45-minute conversation, and, during the telephone conversation, made negative comments about Cypress Elementary. On January 23, 2007, Ms. Portman provided Ms. Maynard with a Notice of Special Investigative/Personnel Investigation (Notice) by hand-delivery. The Notice stated, among other things, that the investigation regarded allegations that Ms. Maynard was creating a hostile environment. The Notice directed Ms. Maynard not to engage anyone, connected with the allegations, in conversation regarding the matter and advised that a violation of the directive could result in disciplinary action for insubordination. Further, the Notice advised Ms. Maynard that, if she had any question regarding the status of the investigation, she should contact Joe Melita, Executive Director of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit, providing his contact telephone number. The Notice was provided to Ms. Maynard as a result of Ms. Portman making a request for the investigation on January 17, 2007. The request indicated that the allegations were: (1) yelling at paraprofessional staff in the cafeteria; (2) yelling at both the principal and assistant principal on December 20, 2006; (3) accusing the principal of falsifying documents even after the school district investigation found the accusation unwarranted; (4) not complying with directives; and accusing the principal of lying to a parent at a conference. The pre-disciplinary meeting noticed for January 29, 2007, was not held due to the placing of Ms. Maynard under investigation. On or about January 25, 2007, Ms. Maynard was temporarily reassigned to the School Board's Textbook Warehouse by Mr. Melita. Temporary reassignment is standard operating procedure during an investigation. Teachers are usually temporarily reassigned to the Textbook Warehouse. Because of the investigation, Ms. Maynard could not return to Cypress Elementary or contact anyone at Cypress Elementary without Mr. Melita's authorization. The SIU investigator assigned to the case was Frederick Davenport. On August 14, 2007, Investigator Davenport went to the Textbook Warehouse to serve a notice of reassignment on Ms. Maynard from Mr. Melita that her reassignment was changed immediately and that she was reassigned to Crystal Lake Community Middle School. The notice of reassignment required Ms. Maynard's signature. Investigator Davenport met with Ms. Maynard in private in the conference room and advised her of his purpose, which was not to perform any investigative duties but to serve the notice of reassignment and obtain her signature. Ms. Maynard refused to sign the notice of reassignment because it was not signed by Mr. Melita and left. Investigator Davenport contacted Professional Standards and requested the faxing of an executed notice of reassignment by Mr. Melita to the Textbook Warehouse. Professional Standards complied with the request. Investigator Davenport met again with Ms. Maynard in private in the conference room. Ms. Maynard refused to sign the executed notice of reassignment. She felt threatened by Investigator Davenport and ran from the room into the parking area behind the Textbook Warehouse at the loading dock. A finding of fact is made that Investigator Davenport did nothing that the undersigned considers threatening. Investigator Davenport did not immediately follow Ms. Maynard but eventually went to the steps next to the loading dock, however, he did not approach Ms. Maynard in the parking lot. Ms. Maynard refused to talk with Investigator Davenport, expressing her fear of him, and contacted the Broward County Sheriff's Office (BSO). A BSO deputy came to the parking lot. After Ms. Maynard discussed the situation with the BSO deputy and a friend of Ms. Maynard's, who arrived at the scene, she signed the notice of reassignment. Investigator Davenport delivered the notice of reassignment to Professional Standards. Investigator Davenport completed his investigation and forwarded the complete investigative file and his report to his supervisor for approval. At that time, his involvement in the investigation ended. His supervisor presented the investigation to Professional Standards. On or about September 19, 2007, the Professional Standards Committee found probable cause that Ms. Maynard had created a hostile work environment and recommended termination of her employment. The Flyer On April 27, 2009, a town hall meeting was held by the School Board at the Pompano Beach High School's auditorium. That town hall meeting was one of several being held the same night by the School Board. The process and procedure for the town hall meeting included (a) all persons who wished to speak were required to sign-up to speak and (b), if they desired to distribute documents, prior to distribution, the documents were required to be submitted and receive prior approval. Security was at the auditorium, and Investigator Davenport was one of the security officers. During the town hall meeting, an unidentified man rose from his seat, began to talk out-of-turn and loud, was moving toward the front where School Board officials were located, and was distributing a flyer. The actions of the unidentified man got the attention of Investigator Davenport and caused concern about the safety of the School Board officials. Investigator Davenport and the other security officer approached the unidentified man, obtained the flyer, and escorted him out of the auditorium. Once outside, the unidentified man indicated, among other things, that he had not obtained prior approval to distribute the flyer. The unidentified man did not identify who gave him the flyer. Investigator Davenport observed that the flyer was placed on most of the vehicles in the auditorium's parking lot. Once Investigator Davenport and his fellow security officer were convinced that the unidentified man was not a threat to the School Board officials, they released the unidentified man who left the area. Neither Investigator Davenport nor his fellow security officer saw Ms. Maynard at the town hall meeting or had any indication that she had been there. Neither Investigator Davenport nor his fellow security officer had any indication that Ms. Maynard had requested the man to distribute the flyer. The flyer was signed by Ms. Maynard and dated April 27, 2009. The heading of the flyer contained the following: "PARENTS FOR FULL DISCLOSURE"; an email address; and "PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN." The content of the flyer included statements that Ms. Maynard was a teacher in 2006 at Cypress Elementary and was directed twice by her administrators in emails to falsify Title I documents; that she was directed to mislead parents about materials and services that the students were legally entitled to; that many of the students failed because they were denied the materials and services; that she refused to follow the directives and filed complaints with the proper authorities; that in 2008, Ms. Portman, who gave the directives to Ms. Maynard, was removed from Cypress Elementary, along with Ms. Murphins and Dr. Harrison--the flyer also indicated the new locations of the individuals; that persons, who were interested in learning how to prevent themselves from being misinformed and to protect their children from being denied the materials and services, should contact Ms. Maynard at the email address on the flyer; and that parents who gather together have more power than teachers to influence the school districts. Ms. Maynard had no determinations or proof to support any of the allegations in the flyer, only her belief. Recognizing that the flyer contained statements similar to the statements of his investigative report, Investigator Davenport forwarded the flyer to Mr. Melita. Ms. Maynard admits that she prepared the flyer and signed it. She indicates that an individual who claimed to be a member of the parent group, Parents For Full Disclosure, contacted and met with her. That individual, who also did not reveal her identity, requested Ms. Maynard to prepare the flyer and informed Ms. Maynard that the flyer would be distributed at the town hall meeting. Filing Various Complaints with Investigative Agencies Ms. Maynard filed various complaints with public investigative agencies regarding: harassment during the investigation; minority teachers being investigated, reassigned to the Textbook Warehouse, and not receiving annual evaluations; and the flyer. The public investigative agencies included the FBI, Broward County EEOC, federal EEOC, Florida Public Service Commission, and Florida Commission on Human Relations. No evidence was presented to show that Ms. Maynard was prohibited from filing the complaints. Contract Status At the time of the investigation of Ms. Maynard in January 2007 for creating a hostile work environment, she was under a continuing contract. Further, at the time that Professional Standards determined probable cause, on or about September 19, 2007, that Ms. Maynard had created a hostile work environment, she was under a continuing contract. Ms. Maynard testified that, on November 2, 2007, she received and signed a professional services contract, which the School Board did not refute. A finding of fact is made that, on November 2, 2007, she received and signed a professional services contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order: Finding that Doreen Maynard committed misconduct, immorality, and gross insubordination, violating section 1012.33(4)(c), Florida Statutes (2007), and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.001, 6B-1.006, and 6B-4.009(2), (3), and (4); and Suspending Doreen Maynard, without pay and benefits, and terminating her employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL 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 21st day of July, 2011.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent Carl B. Dietz (Dietz) was employed as a member of the instructional staff of Trafalgar Middle School, Lee County School District (District) pursuant to a professional service contract. Throughout Dietz's employment with the District, his annual evaluations indicate that the quality of his work was deemed an "effective level of performance". Dietz was initially employed by the District as a regular teacher on August 15, 1985. Dietz holds Florida Teaching Certificate #543771 issued by the Florida Department of Education. He is certified to teach secondary-level history and junior high school mathematics. For six years prior to the 1991-92 school year, Dietz taught advanced level American history and math at Cypress Lakes High School. Most of Dietz's students at Cypress Lakes were approximately 16-18 years old. A decrease in enrollment at Cypress Lakes resulted in a reduction of teaching staff at Cypress Lakes. Because no other high school instructional positions were open, Dietz was offered and accepted a position at Trafalgar Middle School. During the 1991-92 school year, Dietz taught history to Trafalgar eighth graders. During the school year 1992-93, Dietz was assigned teaching responsibilities for the Trafalgar Middle School sixth grade PASS program math and social studies classes. The PASS (Pupils Achieving School Success) program is a state funded project developed to focus specific attention on students identified as at risk of withdrawal from school prior to high school graduation. Dietz had no previous experience as an instructor in a PASS program. Dietz received no special training for the PASS program. The sixth grade students in the PASS program were approximately 11-12 years old. The nature of the PASS program may result in students who are less disciplined and more disruptive than the students Dietz had previously taught. Dietz taught two PASS classes, a morning group and an afternoon group. Students from both classes testified during the hearing. Conflicts in testimony have been resolved as indicated in the following Findings of Fact. It is alleged that on one day in October, 1992, Dietz, yanked a chair from under a student, resulting in the student's head striking the desk as he fell to the floor. The evidence establishes that the student was sitting sideways in the chair and was rocking back on the rear legs of the chair. Dietz grabbed the seatback and the chair slid from under the student who fell to the floor. The greater weight of the evidence is insufficient to establish that the student struck his head during the fall. In any event, the student was not physically injured in the incident. Dietz asserted that the student had been previously warned about sitting improperly, and that he grabbed the seatback to startle the child and "make the point" that he should sit properly. There is no evidence that the action of Dietz was an appropriate manner in which to discipline the child for sitting incorrectly in the chair. It is alleged that in October, 1992, Dietz addressed a child (whose pronunciation of his first name was poor) by a mispronunciation of the child's name as a means of encouraging the child to pronounce the name correctly. Upon requesting Dietz to correctly pronounce the name, Dietz discontinued his practice. The evidence fails to establish that the child was harmed by the mispronunciation of his name. In October, 1992, Dietz removed a non-functioning clock from the classroom wall and threw it down. The battery came out of the clock and struck a female student's leg, but no injury resulted. The allegation that Dietz's removal of the clock was accompanied by a remark that the "piece of shit" clock was not working is not supported by the greater weight of credible evidence. It is alleged that Dietz threw a pencil and book at one student who came to class without materials. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Dietz slammed a book down on the table in front of the student, who was being seated away from class as a disciplinary measure. The evidence also establishes that Dietz tossed a pencil to the child. The evidence fails to indicate that tossing a pencil to a sixth grade child is an appropriate method of distributing school supplies. The pencil would have hit the child had he not moved from the path of the projectile, however the evidence does not establish any intent to injure the child by Dietz. In October, 1992, four female students from Dietz's afternoon class locked themselves in a bathroom stall during a rest room break and remained there when the break ended. Standing in the school hallway, Dietz reached into the bathroom, knocked on the stall door and directed the female students to return to class. It is alleged that upon exiting the bathroom, Dietz addressed the students as "lesbians," "perverts" and "gaywads." The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Dietz used such language in the presence of the female students or that his action in directing the students to return to class was inappropriate. It is alleged that at various times in the classroom during the 1992- 93 school year, Dietz uttered the following words and phrases: "nigger," "nigger shit," and "nigger talk," and instructed one student to "take your black ass back to Africa." The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Dietz used such language in the classroom. It is alleged that at various times in the classroom during the 1992- 93 school year, Dietz uttered the following words: "ass," "assholes," "shit," "hell," "fucking assholes," and "fucking jerks." The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Dietz used such language in the classroom. It is alleged that on one occasion at the end of the class session during the 1992-93 school year, Dietz instructed a student in the completed class to get his "fat ass" out of the classroom. There was testimony that Dietz directed the student to get his "fat carcass" out of the classroom. While the greater weight of the credible and persuasive evidence establishes that Dietz indeed addressed the child as "fat", it is insufficient to establish that Dietz used the word "ass" in the presence of the child. The evidence fails to establish that use of the descriptive word "fat" resulted in injury to the child. It is alleged that in October, 1992, Dietz threw a plastic cup at a student. The evidence fails to support the allegation. It is alleged that in October, 1992, Dietz threatened to tell the mother of a student that the child was "a big fat lump of nothing." The evidence fails to support the allegation. In October, 1992, a student inquired of Dietz as to whether he believed the students in the class were "brats." Dietz replied in the affirmative. The student then asked if Dietz thought the inquiring student was a "brat." Dietz again replied in the affirmative. It is alleged that Dietz drove onto the school grounds with a loaded and cased handgun locked in the glove box of his car. It is alleged that on the day questioned about the gun, Dietz admitted having the gun in the car. The evidence fails to establish that, on the day questioned, Dietz (who owned several vehicles) had the gun in the glove box of the car driven. However, the evidence establishes that, on at least one occasion, Dietz drove onto the school grounds with a loaded and cased handgun locked in the glove box of his vehicle. The all times material to this case, there was no written School Board policy prohibiting a loaded and cased weapon from being on the school grounds locked in a vehicle glove box. There were no oral directives to faculty that a loaded and cased weapon, locked in a vehicle glove box, was prohibited from school grounds. At one time in the Spring of 1992, the school principal brought a firearm onto school grounds, the thereafter loaded and fired the weapon as part of a demonstration. The District's assertion that the related alleged violation of federal law is sufficient to support termination is rejected. On October 28, 1992, a number of Dietz's students went to the office of a school guidance counselor and voiced a number of complaints about alleged conduct. The counselor noted the complaints and reported the matter to the assistant principal of the school. On October 29, 1992, the assistant principal met with Dietz to discuss the allegations. According to the assistant principal, Dietz admitted to the alleged behaviors, except for one specific accusation regarding addressing a specific student as a "fucking ass." According to Dietz, he did not admit that such behaviors occurred and instead asserts that he attempted to explain some of the reasons for the allegations, including the grades assigned to some of the complaining students. The conflict in recollections is reconciled in favor of Dietz. On October 30, 1992, Dietz met with the principal of the school, during which time Dietz admitted that he had previously stored a loaded and cased handgun in the glove box of one of the vehicles he drove onto school grounds. On October 30, 1992, Dietz was suspended with pay based on the allegations of improper conduct. In November, 1992, an employee of the superintendent of the Lee County school district undertook an investigation of the allegations regarding Dietz. On November 10, 1992, a predetermination conference was held. On November 13, 1992, Dietz was advised that on November 17, 1992, the district superintendant would recommend to the school board that Dietz be suspended without pay and benefits pending termination of employment. Effective November 17, 1992, the board elected to suspend Dietz without pay and benefits. Dietz was notified of the board action by letter dated November 25, 1993. The letter provided that Dietz could request a formal administrative hearing on the matter. By letter dated November 19, 1992, Dietz requested formal hearing of the board's November 17 action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School District of Lee County enter a Final Order reinstating the employment of Carl B. Dietz and providing for back pay and benefits retroactive to November 17, 1992. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of July, 1993 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-7075 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 6-8. Rejected, immaterial. Rejected, not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected. The rest room discussion is irrelevant. The greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence fails to establish that the chair was "yanked" from under the student or that the student struck his head. The alleged lack of an apology is irrelevant. Rejected as to Dietz interaction with Mr. Nolan, irrelevant. Rejected, as to the discussion of poster touching, irrelevant. Rejected, as to the alleged "black talk" remark, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected as to alleged remark that the class "sucks", not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 20-21. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 23-25. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 26. Rejected, subordinate. 28-29. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. 30, 32. Rejected, subordinate. Recitation of testimony not appropriate finding of fact. 33. Rejected, unnecessary. 34-40. Rejected, subordinate, unnecessary. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected, unnecessary. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 11. Rejected as to allegation of child striking head in fall, not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 13, 15. Rejected, subordinate. 16. Rejected as to force of toss or intent to strike child, irrelevant, no evidence that such action is appropriate regardless of intent. 17-20, 22. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, unnecessary 25-30. Rejected, subordinate. 31-38. Rejected, goes to credibility of witnesses which has been determined as reflected in the Findings of Fact set forth herein. 42, 44. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. James A. Adams Superintendent Lee County School District 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 John J. Hament, Esquire 1800 Second Street, Suite 785 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Robert J. Coleman, Esquire 2300 McGregor Boulevard Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902
The Issue Whether Respondent should be subject to discipline as a result of the violations of section 1012.795(1)(j) and rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)4., as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the nature of the sanctions.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes (2020). § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. (2020). Stipulated Facts Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 766965, covering the areas of Educational Leadership, Elementary Education, and School Principal, which is valid through June 30, 2023. During the 2017-2018 school year, Respondent was employed as a Principal at GES in the LCSD, where he had been employed since 2008. During the 2017-2018 school year, Brooke Jahn (now Brooke Solz) was employed as a classroom teacher at GES, and, therefore, under the Respondent’s supervision. Ms. Jahn was married to a LCSD employee assigned to another school. Ms. Jahn was an adult during all times material to this complaint. On June 11 and 12, 2018, Respondent and Ms. Jahn attended the Instructional Leadership Team Summer Institute hosted by the Florida Department of Education at the Innisbrook Resort & Golf Club in Palm Harbor, Florida. On or about July 11, 2018, Ms. Jahn requested a transfer from GES to another school within the LCSD. On or about July 12, 2018, Mr. Solz reported to LCSD Superintendent Rocky Hanna that he was involved in a romantic relationship with Ms. Jahn. On July 18, 2018, Superintendent Hanna placed Respondent on administrative leave with pay pending the pending the outcome of an investigation. On August 31, 2018, Leon County Schools Superintendent Rocky Hanna issued Respondent a letter of reprimand. On August 31, 2018, Mr. Solz was reassigned to the LCSD Department of Teaching and Learning, effective September 4, 2018. On September 17, 2018, Professional Practices Chief John Hunkiar reported Mr. Solz to the Office of Professional Practices Services. On November 8, 2018, the Florida Department of Education, Office of Professional Practices Services, initiated an investigation into alleged misconduct by Respondent. On or about July 9, 2019, Mr. Solz was reassigned as the principal at Astoria Park Elementary School in Leon County.1 Evidentiary Findings The following findings of fact are supported by the record. Contrary testimony and evidence has been considered and rejected. David Solz Mr. Solz is, by all credible accounts, a “wonderful” principal and administrator, with a solid reputation as an LCSD administrator. Prior to this proceeding, he had not been the subject of any previous complaints or disciplinary actions during his 20-plus years in education. Testimony and recorded statements that Mr. Solz gave preferential treatment to others, including Ms. Jahn, that he targeted or “formally” wrote up teachers that were not on his preferential list, or that he “only hires young, attractive teachers,” were neither credible nor persuasive. The more credible testimony demonstrated that Mr. Solz was even-handed in his approach to the teachers at GES. If someone showed an interest in moving up in the academic system, he was willing to support them. If they wanted to 1 The Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation identified the date as July 9, 2018. The date was corrected to 2019 on the record at the hearing. stay in the classroom, he was accepting. If they felt they needed time away, even up to a year, he was accommodating. He did not show favoritism, and he did not “punish” those who disliked him. By the 2017-2018 school year, Mr. Solz had been divorced for several years. By April of 2018, he was apparently dating a woman who taught at either Ft. Braden Elementary School or Riley Elementary School. That person may have thought that she had some “power” because she was dating a principal, but there was no evidence that she did. More to the point, that person was not Ms. Jahn. Mr. Solz was an “open door” administrator. His office was in plain view, and he made it a practice to never be alone in his office with another teacher with the door closed. There was no evidence that he ever did so. The evidence unequivocally established that Mr. Solz was a good leader at GES, that he was purposefully respectful of his female colleagues, and avoided situations that could be misconstrued. Brooke Jahn Ms. Jahn was a teacher at GES starting in August 2013. By all credible accounts, Ms. Jahn was ambitious and a go-getter. She knew that she wanted to move from being a classroom teacher into administration. She set high goals, and was willing to take on the work necessary to advance in her career in education, work that others were not willing to do. During the 2017-2018 school year, in addition to her duties as a GES teacher, Ms. Jahn was taking classes to earn her Master’s Degree in Education Leadership. Holding a Master’s Degree in Education Leadership allows one to take a position as a dean, an assistant principal, a principal, or a leader at the school district in some capacity. As part of the curriculum for her degree, Ms. Jahn was required to serve an internship. Ms. Sumner supervised Ms. Jahn, which required Ms. Jahn to spend “lots of time” in the office, generally during her planning period or after school. Ms. Wyatt documented her progress. Mr. Solz was not overly involved with Ms. Jahn’s internship. Upon her completion of her Master’s program, Ms. Jahn became one of only three teachers or counselors at GES holding that degree, the others being Mr. McKhan and Ms. Wyatt. In addition to receiving her Master’s Degree in Education Leadership, Ms. Jahn took and passed the Florida Educational Leadership Exam (FELE) during the 2017-2018 school year, which qualified her to be considered for a position in education administration. During the period at issue, she had not yet applied to the administrator pool. During the 2017-2018 school year, Ms. Jahn taught third grade at GES. In previous years, Ms. Jahn taught kindergarten. Ms. Jahn wanted to move to the third-grade classroom for several reasons. She wanted experience in detecting early reading deficits. Her kindergarten students were “learning to read.” By third grade, students are “reading to learn.” Therefore, reading deficits by third grade can affect student achievement. In addition, third grade is a Florida Statewide Assessment (FSA) standardized test grade. Ms. Jahn recognized that experience in administering the FSA was almost a requirement for assignment as an assistant principal.2 During the 2016-2017 school year, Ms. Jahn was selected by her kindergarten teacher peers to be the team leader for the kindergarten section. Mr. Solz had no role in that process. Ms. Jahn’s selection as kindergarten team leader earned her a spot on the SITE Committee. The SITE Committee consists of grade-level team leaders, as well as persons representing paraprofessionals, custodians, cafeteria workers, ESE students, parents, and other school functions. As a SITE-based school, the SITE Committee serves to decentralize decision 2 Respondent suggested that Ms. Jahn’s transfer from kindergarten to third grade was evidence of favoritism. There was no evidence that the transfer was anything other than a normal and routine transfer, and showed no more favoritism than Ms. Vasquez teaching kindergarten and second grade at GES, Ms. Baggett being assigned to teach second, third, and fourth grades over the years at GES, or Ms. O’Brien teaching third and first grades at GES. making away from the Principal, and allows for a collaborative process by representatives of all segments of GES employees. Ms. Jahn was thereafter nominated and selected by the other members of the SITE Committee as the SITE Facilitator. That position required a great deal of work and effort, which Ms. Jahn gladly took on, realizing the career benefits derived from the experience. Mr. Solz had no role in that process. Ms. Jahn was also selected to serve on the Teacher Education Center (“TEC”) as a professional learning advocate. As a TEC representative, Ms. Jahn provided teachers with opportunities for training to maintain their teaching certifications and assisted them in making their way through the certification process. The TEC is also engaged in managing the professional development budget for the school. Ms. Jahn had to be involved in professional development as part of her Master’s Degree internship, and the TEC helped to fill that requirement. The TEC representative is open for any teacher who wants to apply. Other than complaints from several witnesses that they were not solicited by school-wide email, or by personal entreaty from Mr. Solz “and offered for nomination or from, you know, veteran teachers who have that experience,” there was no evidence that any teacher other than Ms. Jahn, including the complaining witnesses, had the interest, drive, or commitment to apply for the TEC. There was no evidence that the position was required to be advertised by email or subject to personal invitation. Ms. Jahn sought out the position, and applied. The process of appointment was somewhat vague, except that Mr. Solz did not unilaterally appoint Ms. Jahn to the position.3 3 Ms. Baggett, despite averring that Mr. Solz appointed Ms. Jahn to the TEC, admitted at the hearing that she had no information that Mr. Solz appointed Ms. Jahn to that position “[o]ther than it's just, I guess, common knowledge that the principal of the school would, you know, would approve these positions.” Supposition, speculation, and “common knowledge” are not substitutes for competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence. The team leader, SITE facilitator, and TEC representative positions were subject to a modest stipend, but the duties involved work that far exceeded the pay -- “probably cents on the hour” -- she received for serving. However, Ms. Jahn understood that having experience in various areas would benefit her in achieving her long term goals. Ms. Jahn was also selected to serve on the District Advisory Council (“DAC”), a group of teachers, parents, administrators, and school board members that meet to discuss issues that affect students and classrooms. It is an unpaid, volunteer position that meets after school hours. Dr. Smith asked Mr. McKhan, Ms. Wyatt and Ms. Jahn to share the role. Since Mr. McKhan and Ms. Wyatt had previously served, Ms. Jahn took on most of the duties. Mr. Solz had no role in that process. Ms. Jahn was part of a group of teachers invited by Dr. Smith to observe other schools in the District in order to implement the “Leader in Me” program at GES. Ms. Jahn was exposed to leadership techniques that she would not have been exposed to as a classroom teacher. Mr. Solz had no role in that process. Ms. Jahn routinely attended monthly faculty meetings, which were open to all faculty at GES. She was able to apply some of the faculty meetings into credit for her Master’s Degree. She was required to mark attendance and document credit for every faculty meeting. There was no evidence that Mr. Solz was involved in that process. Ms. Jahn was an active participant in the faculty meetings, which may have rubbed some less participatory teachers the wrong way, with witnesses complaining that Mr. Solz gave undue weight to Ms. Jahn’s contributions, but was dismissive of their comments, failing to take them “seriously.” The evidence, such as it was, that Ms. Jahn was given some sort of preferential treatment at the faculty meetings was not supported by a single specific instance, but was “supported” by the fall-back phrase that “it was, again, another one of the school-wide known fact.” Even if it was established that Mr. Solz valued Ms. Jahn’s input, such would not establish preferential treatment. It is just as easy to draw the inference that Ms. Jahn’s statements were more pertinent than others. The more credible testimony established that Mr. Solz was not dismissive or disrespectful to any of the staff at faculty meetings.4 The testimony that Mr. Solz afforded preferential treatment to Ms. Jahn at faculty meetings lacked even basic credibility, and is not accepted. Ms. Jahn also trained a teaching intern, Ms. Hobbs. Ms. Hobbs was effusive in her praise of Ms. Jahn, crediting her success and her teaching style to Ms. Jahn’s tutelage. Because of Ms. Jahn’s success in mentoring Ms. Hobbs, Ms. Hobbs was, by the end of the 2017-2018 school year, able to handle the class on her own, which is the goal of a successful internship. While the class was under Ms. Hobbs’ instruction, Ms. Jahn was able to leave the classroom -- though not the campus. The evidence firmly established that Ms. Jahn set her goals high, and took steps that were not easy to achieve those goals. There was no credible evidence to suggest that she expected to be given anything by Mr. Solz or anyone else. She was not, as intimated by others, appointed to her duties by Mr. Solz. By all credible accounts, she earned her accolades. Though others reacted negatively, there was nothing to suggest that others were willing to put in the effort, or that they had earned the respect necessary to be selected by their peers to one of the many available positions. Allegations in the Administrative Complaint During the 2017-2018 school year, Respondent engaged in a sexual relationship with Brooke Jahn, a married teacher who was a direct report to Respondent. 4 Mr. Solz was more forceful; stating that the allegation he was dismissive or rude during faculty meetings “is a lie, a purposeful lie.” As described, during the 2017-2018 school year, Ms. Jahn took on a steady stream of jobs designed to advance her career. As a result, she met often with members of the GES administration, including primarily Ms. Wyatt and Ms. Sumner. The previous year she met frequently with Dr. Smith. She also met with Mr. McKhan and Mr. Solz. There was nothing in any of those meetings that contained even a whiff of impropriety. The 2017-2018 school year ended for teachers the first week of June 2018. Teacher contracts end on the second day after the last day of school. If a teacher’s contract is renewed, the contract renewal becomes effective on the first day of school in August for teachers. Ms. Jahn was not under contract and did not work at GES over the summer.5 Ms. Jahn was not seeing Mr. Solz in anything other than a professional capacity during the 2017-2018 school year. Despite the rumors, gossip, and innuendo bandied about by several witnesses, there was absolutely no competent, substantial, and credible evidence to support that Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn were engaged in any sort of romantic, much less sexual, relationship at any time prior to the last day of classes during the 2017-2018 school year. By the time the 2017-2018 school year ended, Ms. Jahn had received her Master’s Degree in Education Leadership and passed the FELE. She had been a classroom teacher for eight years, and was starting to look for other opportunities. However, for reasons related to the LCSD summer teacher transfer policy and postings, she had not yet done so. During this same period, difficulties in Ms. Jahn’s marriage began to come to a head. The reasons are unimportant, except for the fact that they had nothing to do with Mr. Solz. 5 Ms. Jahn had signed a contract for the coming school year, but it was pending board approval. She was not working as a teacher at GES, but was slated to teach private swimming lessons over the summer “to make extra summer money.” In late May 2018, Mr. Solz became aware that the 2018 Instructional Leadership Team Summer Institute was to be held over the weekend of June 11 and 12, 2018, in Tampa, Florida. The conference was limited to 25 principals from around the state. Mr. Solz applied, and was accepted. He then realized that he could bring a qualified teacher leader from his school. Since it was a leadership conference, leadership experience was a prerequisite. The only people at GES who were not already administrators and who were qualified were Ms. Wyatt and Ms. Jahn.6 Ms. Wyatt was already slated to attend the Superintendent’s Leadership Academy in Tallahassee. She did not want to pass it up because she had applied for the assistant principal pool that year. People who were interviewing applicants for the pool were leading that meeting, creating a good networking opportunity for Ms. Wyatt. Mr. Solz invited the other leadership candidate, Ms. Jahn. He extended the invitation for her family to attend as well, a common practice. Ms. Jahn accepted the invitation. She had to rearrange swimming lessons and child care in order to attend, but did so because it was important to her efforts to professionally advance. Her husband could not attend for professional reasons. Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn travelled separately to Tampa. By the time of the conference, Ms. Jahn had come to the conclusion that her marriage was heading for divorce. She took the opportunity to visit her sister in the Tampa area. It was a stressful period. Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn arrived separately at the convention hotel on Friday evening. Other than Mr. Solz assisting Ms. Jahn in getting checked in, they had no contact with one another that evening. After the conference sessions on Saturday, Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn had dinner as part of a group. It was, according to both, the first time they had 6 By this time, Mr. McKhan had been appointed and was serving as an assistant principal at Pineview Elementary School. ever been alone with one another. There was no evidence to the contrary. During dinner, Ms. Jahn disclosed to Mr. Solz that she was having marital difficulties, but no more. The next morning, after a difficult conversation with her husband the night before, Ms. Jahn came down from her room in obvious distress. She indicated that she was having a “panic attack.” Mr. Solz walked with her to get coffee, talked with her, told her it would be OK, and gave her an “awkward side-ways hug.” He made sure she was engaged in the Sunday conference sessions, which eased her anxiety. After the Sunday session was over, Ms. Jahn went back to Tallahassee. Mr. Solz stayed for a while to meet with principals he knew who were coming in for a separate Florida school administrators conference. He had dinner with several of his colleagues, and drove home. Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn did not see each other for several weeks after. Mr. Solz visited family in Savannah for a week and, upon his return, had his children for a week which entailed a trip to Disney World. Although Ms. Jahn’s divorce was moving forward, she took a pre-planned cruise with her then-husband and her children. However, during that period, Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn had begun to text one another and spoke on the phone. They started to realize they had things in common, and might like to pursue a relationship. Before they did anything to advance any sort of sexual relationship, they mutually decided that Mr. Solz should self-report their interest to the Superintendent. At that time, the “relationship” was all verbal and through texts. Other than the “awkward side-ways hug,” there had been no physical component to the relationship. Mr. Solz testified credibly that when he met with Superintendent Hanna on July 12, 2018, “I felt like we [he and Ms. Jahn] had a friendship that was easily blossoming into a romantic relationship.”7 Prior to their decision to self-report, Ms. Jahn had already decided she needed to move from GES to diversify her experience to ultimately move out of the classroom into administration. For a person holding an Education Leadership degree, it is common knowledge that in order to advance, a teacher must move around to different schools. Ms. Jahn had been researching other opportunities with the LCSD, and had applied to be a reading coach at Griffin Middle School, as well as several other less desirable positions. On July 11, 2018, and again on July 12, 2018, Ms. Jahn requested, in writing, a transfer from GES. In describing her interview with Ms. Jahn on July 12, 2020, Ms. Kraul testified that: She indicated again that she wants an administrative experience. She used the figure 150 percent leaving Gilchrist of her own free will. That she wants a middle school experience and she was very aware that she would not be eligible for an assistant principal position straight out of the classroom. That this was her ticket to get more experience. Ms. Jahn also believed it would be easier for her to stand out professionally at Griffin Middle School. Ms. Kraul testified that Ms. Jahn was waiting out the LCSD teacher transfer period and “that's, I believe, where she was when I met with her in July.” There is not a shred of competent substantial evidence to suggest that Ms. Jahn’s desire to transfer from GES was based on anything other than her desire to pursue her long-held goal of moving from a classroom position into a position in administration. There is no evidence that Ms. Jahn was pressured 7 Though not relevant to the specific allegations of this proceeding, it merits acknowledgement that Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn have since married, and were married as of the date of the final hearing. into seeking the transfer, or that her request had anything to do with Mr. Solz. On July 12, 2018, Mr. Solz reported to Superintendent Hanna that he and Ms. Jahn were involved in a relationship that was becoming romantic. They had not been “caught.” There was no evidence that they knew of the purported “anonymous emails.”8 Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn were early in their “romance,” having not yet passed out of the talking and texting stage. The decision to report was a volitional act designed to avoid gossip and innuendo, and establish a path forward without “direct report” conflict. Mr. Solz was not even certain that he was required to report, since the LCSD fraternization policy prohibited contact between staff and students, and the sexual harassment policy dealt with “unwelcomed” conduct. Nonetheless, Mr. Solz decided to report their blossoming interest because it “just felt like it was the right thing to do.” The evidence conclusively established, despite the suppositions and gossip of others, that there was no sexual relationship between Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn prior to the July 12, 2018, self-report. On July 18, 2018, Superintendent Hanna placed Mr. Solz on administrative leave with pay. There was no competent, substantial, or persuasive evidence to support a finding that, at the time of Mr. Solz’s suspension, he and Ms. Jahn had commenced a sexual relationship. 8 The first “anonymous email” was not received in evidence. The alleged recipient, Ms. Paul, had no recollection of it, other than she forwarded it to Ms. McAllister. Ms. McAllister had no recollection of receiving, reviewing, or forwarding the first email. Its contents are a mystery. That alleged email has no evidentiary value. The second “anonymous email” came to Ms. Paul on July 15, 2018, and she forwarded it to Ms. McAllister and Superintendent Hanna on July 16, 2018. The anonymous “former [formal?] complaint by teachers” could not have come from anyone with much knowledge of Ms. Jahn, since the “teachers” could not even manage to get her name right, calling her “Mrs. Garret.” Garrett is the first name of Ms. Jahn’s ex-husband. As with the illusory first email, the second “anonymous email” has no evidentiary value. On August 31, 2018, Superintendent Hanna issued Respondent a letter of reprimand which included reassignment of Mr. Solz as a Principal on alternative assignment in the Department of Teaching and Learning.”9 The allegation that “[d]uring the 2017/2018 school year, Respondent engaged in a sexual relationship with Brooke Jahn, a married teacher who was a direct report to Respondent,” was not proven. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent committed the acts alleged as a material allegation in paragraph 3. of the Administrative Complaint. During the course of their relationship, Respondent afforded Teacher Jahn preferential treatment as compared to similarly situated employees thereby creating a hostile work environment. Respondent’s preferential treatment of Teacher Jahn included . . . training not offered or made available to other teachers. This allegation is predicated on there having been a “relationship.” Since there was no relationship, the allegation was not proven. However, in addition, there was no evidence that Respondent afforded Ms. Jahn preferential treatment as compared to similarly situated employees. There were only two other “similarly situated” employees who had the education and the ambition to be considered for leadership roles at GES, Mr. McKhan and Ms. Wyatt. By the time the more serious allegations in this case were alleged to have occurred, Mr. McKhan had been assigned as Assistant Principal at Pineview Elementary School. 9 Respondent appears to argue that a negative inference should be drawn from Mr. Solz’s failure to file a grievance regarding the reprimand. A review of the letter shows it to have involved an allegation of conduct in April 2018, which Ms. Kraul testified “was nobody’s business what he did in his personal time, after hours,” and an allegation of use of electronic media for non-educational purposes,” which was not an issue in this proceeding at all. Why Mr. Solz elected not to grieve the reprimand was not explained, but no inference of wrongdoing can be drawn. If anything, the decision not to grieve the letter could just as easily be explained by its giving notice of his transfer as Principal that he had already determined to be an acceptable alternative to allow his “blossoming interest” in Ms. Jahn to move forward. The testimony established that many of the opportunities provided to Ms. Jahn came from Ms. Wyatt, her mentor; Dr. Smith and Ms. Sumner, GES assistant principals; and from her peers, including her fellow grade-level teachers and those on the SITE committee. Except for the Instructional Leadership Team Summer Institute, which came after the close of the 2017- 2018 school year, and after Ms. Wyatt’s election to attend a different conference, Mr. Solz made no assignments or invitations to Ms. Jahn. Ms. Jahn earned the opportunities to advance her career. She was not “given” those opportunities by Mr. Solz or anyone else at GES. Much of the testimony critical of the “relationship” between Mr. Solz and Ms. Jahn came from employees who either could not or would not put in the work to qualify for leadership positions. They did not seek to earn degrees in Education Leadership, did not actively seek out extracurricular leadership positions, and were not elected by their peers to leadership positions, including SITE Facilitator. The evidence established that the witnesses who provided many of the statements that precipitated this proceeding were irritated by Mr. Solz for any number of reasons: that they were “angry” at Mr. Solz for being assigned to teach in a portable classroom; that Mr. Solz was monitoring their Facebook posts; that Mr. Solz used the iObservation system “against” them; that they were “formally written up” for infractions when other (non-comparable) teachers were not; or that they simply were not evaluated as highly as they believed they deserved.10 Much of the evidence provided in support of Petitioner’s case consisted of statements and testimony that were directed 10 It is not overlooked that the three primary witnesses offered by Petitioner to substantiate wrongdoing by Mr. Solz were clearly antagonistic towards him, which pre-dated anything alleged in this case. Ms. Vasquez testified that she and Mr. Solz “had a history of -- very, very hostile history,” and she “did not feel comfortable talking to Mr. Solz.” Ms. Baggett exhibited obvious animosity, feeling the Mr. Solz “was very dismissive,” and that “[p]rofessionally I don't respect his practice.” Ms. O’Brien testified that during the period from 2008 through May of 2018, “Mr. Solz and I did not see eye-to-eye most of the time.” The witnesses’s antipathy towards Mr. Solz is not a primary basis for assigning their testimony little weight. However, it does nothing to bolster their credibility. towards Mr. Solz’s previous relationships, that were imprecise and unsubstantiated gossip, or that were pure uncorroborated hearsay. The allegations that Mr. Solz “appointed” Ms. Jahn to “TEC Rep., SITE Facilitator, DAC, and Kdg. Team Leader” were either based on ignorance of the process or, more likely, a conscious misrepresentation of the criteria by which those positions are filled. As to the only allegation that had any basis in fact -- Ms. Jahn’s attendance at the Instructional Leadership Team Summer Institute -- the complaining teachers simply lacked the requisite leadership qualifications. That was not the fault of either Mr. Solz or Ms. Jahn. There was not a speck of competent, substantial evidence to establish that Mr. Solz afforded Ms. Jahn preferential treatment as compared to similarly situated employees, including training not offered or made available to other teachers. Given the facts of this case, it is found that no rational person could reasonably conclude that training opportunities provided by GES administrators, including Mr. Solz, created a hostile work environment. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent committed the acts alleged as a material allegation in paragraph 3.a) of the Administrative Complaint. During the course of their relationship, Respondent afforded Teacher Jahn preferential treatment as compared to similarly situated employees thereby creating a hostile work environment. Respondent’s preferential treatment of Teacher Jahn included ... [having] Jahn accompany him on at least one school related out of town trip without making the opportunity available to other teachers. This allegation has been addressed in detail herein. In addition to the fact that there was no “relationship” when Mr. Solz invited Ms. Jahn to attend the Instructional Leadership Team Summer Institute, the evidence in this case established, conclusively, that Mr. Solz did not afford Ms. Jahn preferential treatment as compared to similarly situated employees. Attendance at the conference was offered to Ms. Jahn as the only qualified attendee since Ms. Wyatt had a conflicting leadership-based conference that drew her attention, and was based on absolutely no improper motive. Given the facts of this case, it is found that no rational person could reasonably conclude that Mr. Solz’s offer to Ms. Jahn to attend the conference (with her family) created a hostile work environment.11 Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent committed the acts alleged as a material allegation in paragraph 3.b) of the Administrative Complaint. During the course of their relationship, Respondent afforded Teacher Jahn preferential treatment as compared to similarly situated employees thereby creating a hostile work environment. Respondent’s preferential treatment of Teacher Jahn included ... [r]ules regarding supervision of students [being] relaxed for Jahn as compared to other teachers. In addition to the fact that there was no “relationship,” the evidence in this case established, conclusively, that rules for supervision of students were not relaxed for Ms. Jahn as compared to other teachers. The evidence demonstrates that Ms. Jahn went to various administrative offices -- primarily those of Ms. Wyatt (her mentor) and Ms. Sumner (her education leadership internship supervisor), as well as that of Dr. Smith the preceding year -- before school, at lunch, or during her planning period. It is common for intern/student teachers to earn the right to “solo” teach a class. As Ms. Jahn’s intern, Ms. Hobbs, gained in competency, she 11 On a practical note, the conference was held in June of 2018, after the conclusion of the 2017-2018 school year for teachers. By the time teachers returned to campus in the fall, Mr. Solz had been transferred from GES. If Mr. Solz was able to create a hostile work environment at GES from his post at the Department of Teaching and Learning, it would have been quite a trick. was allowed to take on more of the teaching responsibilities for Ms. Jahn’s class on her own, as was the goal. Finally, Ms. Jahn was able to leave the classroom for periods of time, which gave Ms. Hobbs valuable experience and confidence. However, the evidence establishes that Ms. Jahn did not abuse her time during those periods, but was working at necessary and requested school-related activities. The suggestion that there was some impropriety involved when Ms. Jahn left Ms. Hobbs in charge is simply not supported. Ms. Baggett complained that she was “formally written up” (by the Assistant Principal, not Mr. Solz) because she “left [her] students unsupervised.” Why she was disciplined is a matter between Ms. Baggett and the Assistant Principal. However, that disciplinary matter (which might also explain her complained-of, less-than-stellar evaluation) does not establish that Ms. Jahn violated any rules regarding supervision of students, does not establish any other teacher as a valid comparator, and does not lend support to the allegations in this case. Ms. Vasquez testified that Ms. Jahn left her class during the school day, and “made it known that she was getting her dog groomed” on one occasion, and on another occasion “she told me she was getting her hair done.” Ms. Hobbs openly scoffed at the idea, a rejection that is supported by the record. Despite the hearsay nature of Ms. Vasquez’s testimony, it might have retained some thin thread of credibility if it did not directly conflict with her written statement provided during the investigation, in which she stated: I had been made aware of, several years ago, a relationship with Jessica Scully. She was seen in [Mr. Solz’s] office quite frequently-and would talk openly about the special treatment she was getting from David. How David would allow her to leave school to run her errands. She left school to get her dog groomed and told several teachers that David knew where she was and approved it. (emphasis added). Either Mr. Solz is attracted to women with poorly-groomed dogs, or the testimony regarding Ms. Jahn’s personal off-campus errands, including dog- grooming, was a fabrication. The evidence supports the latter. There is no competent, substantial, and credible evidence to support a finding that Ms. Jahn ever left her students with inadequate supervision, that she ever left campus to perform personal errands, or that she violated any disciplinary standard regarding student supervision. There was not a shred of evidence that Mr. Solz relaxed or disregarded any rules regarding the supervision of students for Ms. Jahn as compared to other teachers. Given the facts of this case, it is found that no rational person could reasonably conclude that Mr. Solz relaxed any rules regarding supervision of students for Ms. Jahn so as to create a hostile work environment. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent committed the acts alleged as a material allegation in paragraph 3.c) of the Administrative Complaint. Summary The tone of the Administrative Complaint gives the impression that Respondent and Ms. Jahn were carrying on a torrid sexual relationship from the confines of Respondent’s office, and that Mr. Solz was lavishing Ms. Jahn with perquisites as the 2017-2018 school year was ongoing. Nothing could be further from the truth. The facts show that Ms. Jahn had high professional goals, and worked hard -- on her own -- to achieve them. The suggestion that Respondent favored Ms. Jahn to advance his prurient interest in her, or that Ms. Jahn was using Respondent as a stepping stone to some higher goal are equally unsupported, and equally fallacious. The allegation that Mr. Solz engaged in harassment or discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interfered with any GES employee’s performance of their professional or work responsibilities, or with the orderly processes of education, or that he undertook any action vis-a-vis Ms. Jahn that created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment is simply not supported by the facts of this case.12
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of September, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. 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 21st day of September, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Stephen G. Webster, Esquire Law Office of Stephen G. Webster, LLC Suite 5 1615 Village Square Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32309 (eServed) Lisa M. Forbess, Program Specialist IV Education Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street, Room 316 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Bonnie Ann Wilmot, Esquire Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Luis Ortiz was a seventh grade student at Nautilus Junior High School during the 1984-85 school year until his assignment to the alternative school. Ortiz is 13 years old and was born on March 11, 1972. Prior to his enrollment in junior high school in 1984, Ortiz was an A and B student who exhibited good behavior. He did not adjust well to the new school at which he began junior high school. Ortiz was involved in eight incidents of misbehavior at Nautilus. On October 29, 1984, Ortiz was rude, discourteous; failed to complete an assignment and engaged in general disruptive behavior. He was placed on indoor suspension for general disruptive behavior and defiance of school authority on December 6, 1984. On January 11, 1985, Ortiz was referred for discipline for general disruptive behavior, use of provocative language and defiance of school authority. He was referred for counseling for general disruptive behavior, being rude and discourteous, and cutting class on January 25, 1985. Ortiz was placed on outdoor suspension for general disruptive behavior and defiance of school authority on January 28, 1985. Ortiz' behavior appeared to improve and he was not involved in further disciplinary incidents until April 2, 1985, when he was again placed on outdoor suspension for general disruptive behavior end defiance of school authority. He was recommended for assignment to opportunity school for general disruptive behavior and defiance of school authority on May 15, 1985. Before he was reassigned to opportunity school, Ortiz was reprimanded for general disruptive behavior, use of provocative reprimanded for general disruptive behavior, use of provocative language, defiance of school authority, and being rude and discourteous. Ortiz has been somewhat unsuccessful academically in his first year in junior high school. He was failing three classes before his last outdoor suspension and assignment to opportunity school. He then failed all of his subjects because he failed to complete his course work and failed to take his final exams. Ortiz must repeat seventh grade. The School Board failed to present any evidence of efforts made to provide assistance to Ortiz regarding this lack of success in academics. In fact, the school board's only witness had no knowledge of Ortiz' grades or behavior prior to beginning seventh grade at Nautilus. Additionally, the school board's witness provided no details about the actual misbehavior of Ortiz. Instead, Smith merely read from a computer printout, without specifying the nature of the acts which lead to the disciplinary referrals. It is therefore impossible to determine if Ortiz' acts were of a major or minor nature. Dennis Segall, a teacher who knew Ortiz from elementary school, has continued to work with Ortiz in the last year. According to Segall, Ortiz was successful and well-behaved prior to the 1984-85 school year. He recognizes that Ortiz' behavior changed at Nautilus and states that Ortiz knows he "messed up" at Nautilus and is ready to change his attitude. Mrs. Ortiz moved during the summer of 1985, and now resides in a different school district. If Ortiz is allowed to return to the regular school program, he would attend Citrus Grove Junior High School.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter a Final Order assigning Luis Ortiz to the regular school program. DONE and ENTERED this 26th of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Jackie Gabe, Esq. Suite 800, 300 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33137 Mrs. Maeva Hipps School Board Clerk 1450 N.E. 2nd Avenue Room 401 Miami, FL 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1450 N.E. 2nd Avenue Miami, FL 33132 Ms. Esther Ortiz 1255 S.W. 1st Street Apartment 403 Miami, FL 33135
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner, Seminole Community College, is a community college governed by a community college district board of trustees vested with the responsibility of operating the college in accordance with applicable statutes, rules of the State Board of Education and State Board of Community Colleges, as well as its own rules. Each community college board of trustees is responsible for establishing and discontinuing programs and course offerings. Each community college board of trustees is responsible for the appointment, employment, and removal of personnel. Such personnel includes course instructors employed by the college to teach specific courses or programs offered by the school. The Petitioner offers instruction in courses ranging from basic academic subjects, which might be comparable to high school courses, to sophisticated courses that might be comparable to four-year college courses. Additionally, the Petitioner is the area vocational center and adult continuing education function for Seminole County. Prior to April 9, 1991, the Respondent had been a continuing contract instructor employed by the Petitioner for several years. Respondent was employed to teach culinary arts. In the 1986 school year, the food management production and services program (referred to culinary arts in this record) was given a formal evaluation as it had experienced a decline in student enrollment. Goals were established to encourage student participation the program and additional development of the program. The evaluation or program review described in paragraph 6 was performed under the guidelines addressed in Appendix K, and resulted in the program being placed on probation for one year with the following condition: that the enrollment goal of an average of 16 full-time or full-time equivalent students per term be established. The probation term ran from April 1, 1986 through, presumably, March 30, 1987. Appendix K is a procedure utilized by the Petitioner to evaluate and review programs or courses offered by the school. On February 27, 1986, Respondent executed a statement wherein she acknowledged that should her program be eliminated that her instructional position would be terminated. Further, on March 27, 1986, the president of the college issued a letter to Respondent advising her of the probation status of the program. The letter further provided that should the program be terminated, that the instructional position held by Respondent would be terminated. In January, 1991, Dr. Samuels, as Vice President for Instructions, issued a memorandum to the Deans' Council advising them of budget cuts incurred and expected by the college. Further, the memorandum provided that it was expected that instruction would have to absorb a major fraction of the expected future decreased amount. On January 17, 1991, the college president issued a memorandum to all full-time college employees that addressed the cuts experienced to that date and the expectation of cuts to be considered in the planning for the next budget year. In connection with planning for the 1991-92 budget year, Dr. Samuels met with the deans for the areas of instruction under his supervision and requested that they consider alternatives given budget cuts of three levels: $200,000; $400,000; and $600,000. The goal was to prioritize spending to meet the instructional needs of the college, and to assume potential budget "worst case" scenarios. Dean Tesinsky gave the directors of her applied technologies area the following guidelines to prepare their proposals for services and programs: to preserve full-time faculty positions; to preserve full-time equivalent (FTE) student hours; if possible, to reduce regular part-time support first; and to eliminate unproductive programs. "Unproductive programs" were defined as having low enrollment relative to capacity and a decreasing enrollment trend. Such programs are also referred to as "weak programs" in this record. When the reviews of their programs were completed by the directors, Dean Tesinsky then reported the findings to Dr. Samuels. Such findings recommended the elimination of the upholstery, welding and culinary arts (on- campus) programs at the $600,000 budget cut level. Those programs were deemed the unproductive programs reviewed. The reviews performed by the directors and Dean Tesinsky did not follow the guidelines set forth in Appendix K. Concurrent with the planning done incidental to the budget cuts options, Dr. Samuels reviewed information regarding the course offerings and courses or sections not available at the college but which were in great demand by large numbers of students. Courses of instruction which were identified as being in critical need of full-time instructors were: computer assisted drafting (CAD); biology, with laboratory experience; mathematics, foreign languages, and humanities. Further, there were vocational programs within the applied technologies area where additional sections and, consequently, instructors, were needed to meet student demand for courses. As a result of the foregoing, Dr. Samuels concluded that the budget amounts needed for instructors' salaries would have to increase, not decrease. To that end, Dr. Samuels concluded that monies captured from the elimination of unproductive programs could be redistributed to fund sections in the high demand areas of instruction previously identified. Given the notion that they would have to eliminate Respondent's program, Dean Tesinsky, Dr. Samuels, and Russ Calvet attempted to relocate Respondent to another program or course of instruction. However, no course or instructor opening was found for which they felt Respondent could qualify. On March 22, 1991, the college president issued a letter to Respondent that provided, in part, as follows: I have been informed that it is no longer feasible to continue the Food Service program. Therefore, in consideration of the College's mission to meet the educational needs of the community, the current budget concerns for the next fiscal year, and the past, present, and projected future enrollments of the Food Service program, it has been determined that the program will be discontinued at the end of this fiscal year. It is therefore with considerable regret that I inform you that a recommendation shall be made to the District Board of Trustees on April 9, that your contract with the College be terminated as of June 30, 1991. Your educational qualifications do not make it possible to reassign you to another instructional program area; however, should a position vacancy occur for which you are qualified, you will be notified. On April 1, 1991, the president forwarded a memorandum to the district board of trustees that addressed the proposed termination of employment of the three vocational instructors. That memorandum reiterated the information given to the Respondent in the letter dated March 22, 1991. On April 9, 1991, the board of trustees voted to terminate the full- time, continuing contract position held by Respondent. Subsequently, Respondent timely requested an administrative hearing to review that decision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Trustees of the Seminole Community College enter a final order confirming the elimination of the food service program and the termination of Respondent's continuing contract. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraphs 1 through 3, 5 through 7, 12, 14 through 22 are accepted. The date of exhibit 49 (paragraph 21) is April 16, 1991. As to paragraph 4, it is accepted that Respondent was hand-delivered the letter notice dated March 22, 1991; otherwise rejected as a conclusion of law. It is concluded, however, that such letter was sufficient to place the Respondent on notice of the college's position regarding the proposed actions. That portion of paragraph 8 which suggests that Director Dennard's analysis was the first time the Food Services program was identified as weak is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. This program had been placed on probation in 1986. Paragraph 9 is accepted as to the general statement; however, as exhibit 43 was not entirely legible the cost figure cited could be verified. Paragraph 10 is rejected to the extent that it suggests the food service program had been on probation in any year other than 1986. With the following clarifications, paragraph 11 is accepted: that additional full-time instructors were needed; that the number of adjunct instructors would be reduced since full-time instructors would be added; that adding full-time instructors was a meaningful goal in order to upgrade programs/courses; add "therapy" after the word "respiratory" in the first sentence of 11b.; add under 11c., that there are now less than 500 students on overload status. The first sentence of paragraph 13 is accepted. The remainder is rejected as irrelevant. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: To the extent addressed in the foregoing findings of fact, paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. Paragraphs 3 through 5 are accepted but are irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 6, it is accepted that Dr. Samuels is Vice President for Instructions with the general responsibility for all the instructional programs at the college and that he made recommendations to the president of the college; otherwise rejected as not supported by the record cited. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is rejected as not supported by record cited. Paragraph 9 is accepted with the clarification that Mr. Calvet's title is Dean of Personnel Services. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraph 11 is rejected as it does not make sense. Paragraph 12 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 13 is rejected as not supported by the record cited. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant; no wrongdoing or misconduct has been suggested by the Petitioner. With regard to paragraph 15, it is accepted that the letter dated March 22, 1991, was the first written notice of the proposed action; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. With regard to paragraph 16, see comment above regarding proposed finding of fact 15. Paragraph 17 is rejected as a misstatement of the record. To suggest the Petitioner contemplating "firing" Respondents grossly misstates their position. The Respondents' programs were eliminated and, consequently, their continuing contracts terminated. No suggestion of misconduct, incompetence, or wrongdoing on the part of these instructors should be suggested. To the contrary, these instructors were well qualified in their respective fields and respected by the employer. Paragraphs 18 and 19 are accepted. Paragraph 20 is accepted to the extent addressed ruling 12 above. Paragraph 21 is rejected as repetitive; see above. Paragraph 22 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 23 is rejected as repetitive; see above. Paragraphs 24 through 30 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, irrelevant, or not supported by the record cited. Paragraphs 31 through 37 are accepted. Paragraph 38 is accepted when clarified to add "an administrative procedure" for "the" after the word "out." Paragraph 39 is accepted. Paragraph 40 is rejected as a conclusion not supported by the record cited. Paragraph 41 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 42 is accepted. Paragraph 43 is rejected as repetitive or irrelevant. Paragraph 44 is rejected as not supported by the record cited or irrelevant. Paragraph 45 is rejected as not supported by the record cited or irrelevant. Paragraph 46 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 47 is rejected as argument and irrelevant. Paragraph 48 is rejected as argument and irrelevant. Paragraphs 49 through 52 are accepted. Paragraph 53 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 54 is accepted. Paragraph 55 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 56 is accepted. With the deletion of the word "only" paragraph 57 is accepted. Paragraph 58 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 59 is rejected as not supported by the record cited. Paragraph 60 is rejected as repetitive or irrelevant. Paragraph 61 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 62 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 63 is accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the evidence cited or speculation. Paragraph 64 is accepted. Paragraphs 65 and 66 are rejected as not supported by the record cited. Paragraphs 67 is accepted to the extent that the meeting(s) identified the programs as "weaker." Paragraph 68 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 69 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraphs 70 through 73 are rejected as argumentative, irrelevant, or not supported by record cited. The first sentence of paragraph 74 is accepted; otherwise rejected as argument, irrelevant, or not supported by record cited. Paragraph 75 is rejected as argumentative, irrelevant, or not supported by record cited. The first two sentences of paragraph 76 are accepted; otherwise rejected as not supported record cited or contrary to the weight of evidence. Paragraph 77 is rejected as repetitive, irrelevant, and not supported by record cited. Paragraph 78 is rejected as conclusion of law or irrelevant. Paragraph 79 is rejected as it does not make sense or irrelevant. Paragraph 80 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 81 is rejected as irrelevant. With the addition of the phrase "or could be" after the word "would," paragraph 84 is accepted; otherwise rejected as contrary to the record cited. Paragraphs 85 and 86 are rejected as contrary to the record cited. Paragraph 87 is accepted. Paragraph 88 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 89 is repetitive in part but is accepted. Paragraph 90 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 91 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 92 and 93 are accepted. Paragraph 94 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 95 is rejected as not supported by the record cited. Paragraph 96 is rejected as repetitive or irrelevant. Paragraph 97 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 98 is rejected as not supported by record cited, contrary to the weight of evidence. Paragraph 99 is rejected as repetitive and irrelevant. Paragraph 100 is rejected as repetitive and irrelevant. Paragraph 101 is accepted. Paragraphs 102 through 105 are rejected as repetitive or irrelevant. Paragraphs 106 through 110 are accepted but are irrelevant. Paragraph 111 is rejected as contrary to the evidence. Paragraphs 112 through 115 are accepted. Paragraph 116 is rejected as argumentative. Paragraph 117 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 118 is rejected as not supported by record cited. Paragraphs 119 through 122 are accepted. Paragraph 123 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraphs 124 and 125 are accepted. Insert word "contact" after "thirty" in paragraph 125. Paragraph 126 is rejected as irrelevant or argumentative. Paragraph 127 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 128 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 129 is accepted. Paragraph 130 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 131 through 134 are accepted. Paragraph 135 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 136 and 137 are accepted with the addition to paragraph 137 that such position was only part-time and not vacant. Paragraph 138 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 139 through 141 are accepted. Paragraph 142 is rejected as repetitive or irrelevant. Paragraphs 143 through 147 are accepted. Paragraph 148 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 149 through 152 are accepted. Paragraph 153 is rejected as not supported by the record cited. Paragraph 154 is rejected as not supported by the record cited. Paragraphs 155 through 160 though repetitive in part are accepted. Paragraph 161 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 162 is rejected as repetitive, argumentative, or irrelevant. Paragraph 163 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Dana Fogle FOGLE & FOGLE, P.A. 217 East Plymouth Avenue Post Office Box 817 DeLand, Florida 32721-0817 Joseph Egan, Jr. EGAN, LEV & SIWICA, P.A. Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802 Margaret T. Roberts COBLE, BARKIN, GORDON, MORRIS & REYNOLDS, P.A. 1020 Volusia Avenue Post Office Drawer 9670 Daytona Beach, Florida 32120
