The Issue Whether Respondent violated sections 1012.795(1)(g), and (j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)1.,1 as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the appropriate penalty. 1 Unless otherwise noted, all citations to the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code are to the 2017 versions in effect at the time of the alleged violations.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 784361, covering the areas of Educational Leadership, Emotionally Handicapped, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), Physical Education, School Principal, and Specific Learning Disabilities, which is valid through June 30, 2021. Since 2001, Respondent has held a number of positions with Citrus County Schools, including positions as an ESE teacher, dean of students, assistant principal, and principal. At the time of the hearing, Respondent was working as an ESE teacher at Citrus Springs Middle School. During the time period pertinent to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint (the 2016-2017 school year), Respondent was employed as an assistant principal at Crystal River Middle in Citrus County Schools. Respondent began as an assistant principal at Crystal River Middle in 2015. At Crystal River Middle, Respondent worked closely with the ESE department, the ESE teachers, aides, paraprofessionals, and Cori Boney, who was the ESE specialist for Crystal River Middle. Ms. Boney had worked throughout Citrus County in a number of ESE- related positions before starting at Crystal River Middle in 2011 or 2012 as the ESE specialist. As the ESE specialist, Ms. Boney was responsible for preparing the individual education plan (IEP) paperwork for ESE students, mentoring the ESE teachers, preparing schedules for the ESE paraprofessionals, and working with the families of ESE students. According to Respondent, Ms. Boney was the “go-to” person to find out whether the proper educational and behavioral strategies were being appropriately carried out for ESE students in accordance with their IEPs. Respondent described Ms. Boney as “a guru professionalist, the know-it-all, that tells us when these things [IEP requirements] are happening and when they’re not.” Ms. Boney was considered part of the administrative team. Respondent did not supervise Ms. Boney. At the beginning of the 2016- 2017 schoolyear, administrators were provided a list of employees they supervised and evaluated. On that list, the principal of Crystal River Middle, Inge Frederick, was listed as Ms. Boney’s supervisor. Respondent never evaluated Ms. Boney’s performance, did not provide input on her evaluations, and did not collaborate with the principal on Ms. Boney’s evaluations. Respondent had no authority to discipline Ms. Boney and was not responsible for recommending whether Ms. Boney’s employment contract should be renewed each year. 2 In 2016, Respondent’s relationship with Ms. Boney became more than just a professional relationship. In May 2016, Respondent had double knee surgery. Ms. Boney called him and asked how he was doing. During school administrative meetings held in the early part of the 2016-2017 school year, the subjects of conversation between Respondent and Ms. Boney, as well as other school administrators and staff, would stray away from the business of education to television shows and other casual conversations that were not related to the business of education. Afterwards, Respondent and Ms. Boney would sometimes exchange text messages regarding TV shows. In some of those text messages Ms. Boney would give her opinion as to whether certain actors were handsome, and comment on other non-education related subjects. Over time, the texting and conversations between Respondent and Ms. Boney became more personal, involving subjects regarding Ms. Boney’s former husband, the people she was dating, and clothing she would wear. Respondent also gave Ms. Boney advice regarding her son, who was having trouble at school. Respondent talked to Ms. Boney’s son about how to make better decisions and, at least once, at Ms. Boney’s request, stopped by Ms. Boney’s house to talk to her son. 2 Section 1012.34(3)(c) provides in pertinent part, “The individual responsible for supervising the employee must evaluate the employee’s performance.” Having become somewhat familiar, on one occasion, Respondent told Ms. Boney while they were at school that he knew “her secret.” When he explained to her that he meant he could see her underwear under her clothing, she was embarrassed. But it did not cause an argument or disagreement between them. Respondent and Ms. Boney’s relationship became intimate in the fall of 2016. At the time, Ms. Boney was in a relationship with someone else and Respondent was married. In September 2016, Respondent stopped by Ms. Boney’s house, and while there, he gave her a kiss. It surprised Ms. Boney, but she did not protest. Later, after initially resisting suggestions from Respondent that they should lay together and that nothing would happen, Ms. Boney finally gave in. Contrary to Respondent’s suggestions that nothing would happen, they ended up having sex. After that, Respondent and Ms. Boney met and engaged in sexual intercourse on a number of occasions. Traveling in separate cars, they spent the night together at a motel in Tallahassee on November 23, 2016, and again during the weekend of April 7 through 9, 2017. They also met for two afternoons at a Quality Inn in Crystal River. On another occasion, they met at Respondent’s house. On Valentine’s Day, February 14, 2017, Respondent gave Ms. Boney a tanzanite bracelet. Their affair lasted until sometime in April 2017, when Ms. Boney decided to end it. Their relationship was consensual. While Ms. Boney testified that Respondent was resistant to Ms. Boney’s decision to end the affair and thwarted her attempts to limit contact with him, that testimony, in light of their continued relationship, is unpersuasive. Moreover, the evidence does not show that Respondent used his position as an assistant principal to either begin the affair or resist its end. Ms. Boney and Respondent continued to be friends after the affair. Ms. Boney sought a job in Marion County because she wanted a leadership position. Her application for the position in May 2017 lists Respondent as a reference. In approximately July 2017, Ms. Boney was hired for a new administrative position in Marion County as an ESE coordinator. Around the same time, Respondent was promoted to assistant principal at Crystal River High. Ms. Boney continued her friendship with Respondent. In July 2017, she stopped by Respondent’s office at Crystal River High and brought Respondent a gift. She visited him on more than one occasion at Crystal River High that year. When, in August 2017, Ms. Boney decided to move to Marion County, she asked Respondent for his assistance and Respondent helped her pack for the move. Throughout the 2017-2018 school year, Respondent and Ms. Boney remained friends and exchanged e-mails. On August 24, 2018, Ms. Boney sent a message to Respondent that said, “You can call my office anytime.” Less than 30 days later, in September 2018, Ms. Boney’s boyfriend, Josheau Fairchild, used an application on Ms. Boney’s cell phone and extracted text messages exchanged between Ms. Boney and Respondent evidencing their affair during the 2016-2017 school year. Mr. Fairchild angrily confronted Ms. Boney and demanded that she explain the relationship. When confronted, and at the final hearing, Ms. Boney portrayed her relationship with Respondent in a light most favorable to her. Although admitting her relationship with Respondent was consensual, she portrayed herself as always being uncomfortable with the relationship and trying to end it. Specifically, Ms. Boney testified that she repeatedly tried to stop the relationship, blocked Respondent on her cell phone, and texted Respondent to stop texting her. Ms. Boney further testified that she left Citrus County Schools for a position with the Marion County School District because Respondent made her feel alienated from other staff. Ms. Boney’s testimony in that regard is not credible and inconsistent with evidence clearly showing that Respondent and Ms. Boney had a friendly and cordial relationship before Mr. Fairchild extracted the text messages in question. Those text messages demonstrate that the relationship between Respondent and Ms. Boney was mutual and consensual. They provide no evidence that Ms. Boney was uncomfortable with their relationship or attempted to block off communications with Respondent prior to Mr. Fairchild’s discovery of the text messages. Notably, it was Ms. Boney’s boyfriend, Mr. Fairchild, who, after discovering the text messages, first contacted Citrus County School’s human resources department to complain about Respondent. At the time, Ms. Boney was no longer working for Citrus County Schools and her affair with Respondent had ended well over a year before the complaint. Although the evidence clearly showed that Respondent and Ms. Boney had an affair, it was insufficient to show that Respondent’s past relationship with Ms. Boney during the 2016-2017 school year reduced his effectiveness or ability to perform his duties. Rather, the evidence demonstrated that Respondent satisfactorily performed all of his job duties during the 2016-2017 school year. Both Respondent and Ms. Boney received final summative performance ratings of “Effective” and “Highly Effective,” respectively. The following year, Respondent was promoted to the position of assistant principal at Crystal River High for the 2017-2018 school year. Respondent received an “Effective” final summative performance evaluation for the 2017-2018 school year. Subsequently, Respondent was promoted to the position of principal at Crystal River Middle, the position he held when Ms. Boney’s boyfriend extracted the subject texts in the fall of 2018, which revealed Ms. Boney’s affair with Respondent that had ended over a year before. In addition to the allegation of the affair itself, the Administrative Complaint alleges, “When questioned about the incident, Respondent first admitted to the sexual relationship with the teacher. During the same interview, Respondent lied, and denied having a sexual relationship with the teacher.” Respondent was first questioned by the school district regarding his affair with Ms. Boney during a meeting held at the school district’s office on October 5, 2018, between Respondent, Suzanne Swain, and Brendan Bonomo. Respondent believed the meeting was going to be about an unrelated matter. Ms. Swain instead advised Respondent that complaints had been filed against him by both Joshua Fairchild and Cori Boney. At the time, not believing he would need representation, Respondent waived his right to representation. When told of Ms. Boney’s accusations at the onset of the meeting, Respondent became angry and hurt. He thought about the injustice of Ms. Boney’s allegations and how hard he had worked to obtain his position as a principal. He was upset and “not with it,” during the meeting. The evidence is unclear whether, during that meeting on October 5, 2018, Respondent was provided with the text messages that Ms. Boney’s boyfriend had extracted. According to Respondent, during that meeting, he admitted sending text messages to Ms. Boney of a sexual nature, but denied having sexual intercourse with her. In contrast, according to the testimonies and written statements signed by both Ms. Swain and Mr. Bonomo, Respondent first admitted and then denied having a sexual relationship with Ms. Boney. The interview was not recorded. At that October 5, 2018, meeting, Mr. Bonomo typed up a statement for Respondent stating: During the time that Cori Boney was under my supervision there was no sexual intercourse but there were inappropriate text messages. Respondent signed the typed statement under an acknowledgement stating that “I find the above statement to be true and correct. I certify that I have read it or it has been read to me.” Both Ms. Swain and Mr. Bonomo signed the typed statement as witnesses. On November 2, 2018, Respondent attended another meeting with Ms. Swain and Mr. Bonomo during which Respondent was given an opportunity to respond to evidence gathered during the school district’s investigation. At that meeting, Respondent was allowed to review the text messages extracted from Ms. Boney’s phone. The school district’s attorney, Tom Gonzalez, was also at the meeting. During the meeting, Respondent denied having a sexual relationship with Ms. Boney, denied giving her a tanzanite bracelet, and denied meeting her at hotels. Respondent reiterated these denials during his testimony at the final hearing. Then, at a later meeting with Ms. Swain and Mr. Bonomo held on November 14, 2018, Respondent was told that his employment as principal of Crystal River Middle was going to be terminated. To that, Respondent said something to the effect of, “After 20 years that’s it, I’m done?” Ms. Swain responded by asking Respondent whether he was requesting a position. When Respondent said yes, Ms. Swain left the room. When Ms. Swain returned, she told Respondent that he would be able to secure a position with Citrus County Schools if he drafted a written admission statement. Ms. Swain influenced the content of Respondent’s statement. She told Respondent that the statement would have to say that he had an inappropriate sexual relationship with Ms. Boney while he supervised Ms. Boney at Crystal River Middle. Respondent dictated a statement to Mr. Bonomo and Mr. Bonomo typed the statement for Respondent to sign. The statement, which was dated and signed by Respondent on November 14, 2018, states: Ms. Himmel and the Executive Team, I am formally requesting an instructional position with Citrus County Schools. I acknowledge that I had an inappropriate relationship with Cori Boney during the time she was an ESE Specialist at Crystal River Middle School while I was the Assistant Principal at Crystal River Middle School and I supervised Ms. Boney. I am remorseful for my actions and I want to extend my heartfelt apologies to Mrs. Himmel and the entire Crystal River Community. I appreciate Mrs. Himmel consideration with this request. Sincerely, /s/ Charles Brooks, Jr. After submitting his written statement, Respondent was offered, and he accepted, a position as an ESE teacher at Citrus Springs Middle. Respondent received an “Effective” final summative performance evaluation for his position as an ESE teacher for the 2018-2019 school year. Despite the fact that Respondent, in essence, was demoted from his position as a school principal to a classroom teacher, the Commissioner seeks a two-year suspension of Respondent’s educator’s certificate. A two-year suspension would result in Respondent’s loss of his current position and cause him significant hardship.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued finding that Respondent did not violate section 1012.795(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and dismissing the allegations of the Administrative Complaint in that regard, and further finding that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by failing to maintain honesty in all professional dealings as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(c), but not imposing any further discipline against Respondent or his educator’s certificate, other than the demotion he has already received from the Citrus County School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Branden M. Vicari, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Lisa Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (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)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of absence without leave from her teaching duties, willful neglect of duties, and misconduct in office, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a teacher certified by the State of Florida to teach French and German. Her teaching certificate is endorsed with Gifted education. Gifted education is a special category within Exceptional Student Education (ESE) in which students with superior aptitudes receive academic enrichment. Respondent has taught for several years in the Highlands County School District. For the 1992-93 school year, she was on continuing contract. She was paid $33,630 annually at a rate of $24.50 hourly during the 1992-93 school year. On or about April 8, 1993, Petitioner terminated Respondent after determining that she had been absent without leave from her teaching duties and had willfully neglected her duty to teach a physical education class beginning at 3:45 pm daily. Prior to the 1992-93 school year, Respondent had been an itinerant teacher for several years. For the most part, she had traveled among various elementary and middle schools teaching in the gifted program. Now a gifted education teacher at an elementary school, Diane Lethbridge was, at all material times, the Program Staffing Specialist for Exceptional Student Development. At the end of the 1991-92 school year, Ms. Lethbridge informed Respondent that her current position as a gifted teacher would not be available for the following school year. Ms. Lethbridge offered Respondent two alternatives. She could exercise her seniority rights to displace another teacher at three elementary and middle schools or she could teach older students at Trout Lake. Trout Lake is a residential ESE facility operated by Tri-County Addictions, Inc. Consisting of 43 acres, the facility includes residential and school buildings, which are not within sight of each other. It takes about 10 minutes to walk between the residences and school building. Trout Lake serves an average of 18-24 students ranging in age from 13 to 18 years. The students have all been classified as Severely Emotionally Disturbed (SED) and often suffer from drug addiction. In general, the students present difficult management problems. Petitioner is contractually responsible for educating the Trout Lake students. Toward that end, Petitioner has routinely assigned one or two teachers to teach the students at the school building located on the Trout Lake campus. Immediate responsibility for the teachers rests with the principal at Avon Park High School, which is about five miles from Trout Lake. During the 1991-93 school years, the principal was Barbara Dean. Given the nature of the students, however, considerable responsibility for the success of Petitioner's involvement with the Trout Lake program rests with Petitioner's District ESE staff. After Respondent agreed to take the Trout Lake position, and shortly before the end of the 1991-92 school year, Ms. Dean contacted Respondent and told her that she would need to teach summer school at Trout Lake. Respondent reported to the facility and team-taught a vocational course with another teacher, Harold Graves, who is the respondent in DOAH Case No. 93-2867. During the same summer, Respondent commenced coursework to become certified in SED. Respondent's schedule at the beginning of the 1992-93 school year required her services from 8:15 am to 3:45 pm. Her duties on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday were different from those on Wednesday. Each weekday morning, the students began the day around 7:15 or 7:30 am with about an hour of peer counselling. Respondent was not involved in this activity, which took place at the residence. On weekdays except Wednesdays, the students were divided into two groups. One group went to school in the morning while the other group remained at the residence for counselling from the counsellors employed by Trout Lake. In the afternoon, the group that had gone to school went to the residence for counselling, and the group that had remained at the residence went to school. The students who went to school in the morning typically left the residence for school at about 8:30 am. At about 11:30, after four periods of about 45 minutes each of social studies, science and health, mathematics, and English, the morning students rejoined the others at the residence for lunch. At around 12:30 pm, the afternoon students arrived at the school building and attended the same four courses until about 3:30 pm. The Wednesday schedule was different. The Trout Lake counsellors needed one weekday during which they could counsel all of the students together. Thus, on Wednesdays, all of the students went to school in the morning and were taught in classes twice as large as normal. From 11:00 am to about 11:30 am, the counsellors met with various groups. Then, lunch took place at the residence from about 11:30 am to about 12:30 pm. Beginning at about 12:30 pm, the counsellors conducted a staff meeting at which they discussed the students and any problems that they were facing. Respondent typically attended the lunch at the residence each weekday, but she did not attend the Wednesday afternoon staff meeting. Instead, she had the remainder of the afternoon on Wednesdays to plan. This was the only time that she had available all week for planning. Sometime in late September, 1992, the Bartow Adolescent Facility closed. As a result, Trout Lake received another 10 students for whom it had not planned. During the first week of October, 1992, Petitioner conducted its district-wide Full Time Equivalency (FTE) count of students. The FTE count has two effects. If a district is not yet at its funding cap in a certain program, a greater FTE count than projected the preceding year may result in the receipt of increased revenues from the State Department of Education. Petitioner was at or near the cap at the time. The second effect is that an increased FTE count results in increased funding for the following year. The FTE count of non- Gifted ESE students, such as the SED students at Trout Lake, is particularly important because the allocated revenues are higher for non-Gifted ESE students than for non-ESE students. Sometime during the first week of October, Ms. Dean, Ms. Lethbridge, and Ms. Furnville, who was the director of Trout Lake, met and discussed the FTE count. They discovered that at least some of the students at Trout Lake were receiving only 1250 minutes weekly of SED classes, rather than the 1500 minutes that they thought that the students had been receiving. Ms. Dean approached Respondent about teaching a class from 3:45 pm to 4:45 pm, for which Respondent would be paid additional money. At the time, Ms. Dean thought that the additional class would be fine arts and so informed Respondent, who agreed to teach the class. Ms. Dean later discovered a problem preventing the offering of a fine arts class and informed Respondent that she would be teaching physical education during the same time period. Respondent is more artistically, than athletically, inclined and skilled. Respondent freely admitted her concerns about teaching physical education to Ms. Dean when Ms. Dean informed Respondent of the change in subject matter. Ms. Dean assured Respondent that she would not have to teach anything. Ms. Dean said that Respondent would merely supervise the activities of Trout Lake counsellors as they continued to conduct what had been a recreation period during the same time period. Ms. Dean told Respondent that she would not be required to have lesson plans for the class, but would only have to watch while the students played games. Respondent agreed to supervise the class for which her duties were essentially taking attendance and assigning grades. The 3:45 pm physical education class was in no way adapted to the special needs of the SED students, nor was Respondent in any way qualified to adapt the course. In fact, Respondent was capable only of taking attendance; she could not reasonably have been expected to assign grades to the students under the circumstances. These obvious shortcomings in the course and teacher were well known by Ms. Dean, Ms. Lethbridge, Ms. Furnville, Trout Lake employees, Petitioner's District ESE employees, and probably Trout Lake students. Prior to the creation of the 3:45 pm class, Trout Lake had provided a recreation period at 3:45 pm, during which Trout Lake residents could play softball or other sports while being supervised by counsellors. Petitioner merely overlaid the 3:45 pm class upon the recreational activities already taking place at 3:45 pm. The decision to create the 3:45 pm course was driven exclusively by financial, not educational, reasons. The 3:45 pm physical education class was not started until October 20, 1992. Despite this fact, IEP's for the students assigned to the new physical education class indicated that the class had begun October 6, which was when the FTE count took place. Respondent signed these forms at the direction of Ms. Lethbridge, who had prepared them. On October 30, 1992, grades were due for the first grading period. Because she had only seen the 3:45 pm physical education class for about two weeks, Respondent did not turn in any grades to Avon Park High School for the class. She was promptly contacted by an Avon Park High School guidance counsellor, who informed her that she had to give the students grades. So, she tried as best she could to grade them, largely on the basis of having seen them play around the campus at various times. Neither the grades for the first grading period nor any subsequent grades for the 3:45 pm class fairly measured the performance of ESE students in a physical education class. Regardless of Respondent's efforts, the class was by design not a physical education class, Respondent was ill-equipped to teach and grade a real ESE physical education class, and Respondent's participation by design had been reduced to taking attendance and assigning grades. Understandably, the Trout Lake students and staff treated the 3:45 pm class like it was simply the recreational period; from their perspective, nothing had changed. Presumably as had been the case before Petitioner's paperwork created the 3:45 pm physical education class, the students, who had returned to their residence after the end of their regular classes, did not always reappear for the 3:45 pm class. Sometimes, counsellors would require the students to stay and clean their rooms rather than attend the 3:45 pm physical education class. When attendance problems first arose, Respondent would go to the residence to find the students and a counsellor. The students were required to be escorted from the residence to the school building by a counsellor. On occasion, Respondent could not find a counsellor. Other times, not finding the students at the residence, Respondent would look for them on the courts or fields where they played, but sometimes could not find them there either. In January, 1993, Respondent learned from the shop teacher, who taught a 3:45 pm shop class, that Trout Lake had hired an art teacher to offer a 3:45 pm art class. Consequently, attendance at the 3:45 pm physical education further declined, as the students decided each day where they would go--shop, art, or physical education. One time, Respondent, who had gone to the residence looking for the students, waited 30 minutes while they debated where to go; they ultimately decided to go to art. These developments merely confirmed the obvious--the creation of the physical education class in October was a change of form, not substance. Shortly after the attendance problem first arose, Respondent told Ms. Lethbridge that students were not coming to the 3:45 pm class and counsellors were not cooperating. Ms. Lethbridge merely told Respondent to check attendance and asked her how she would grade them. Ms. Lethbridge did not mention the matter to other ESE staff or Ms. Dean. Evidently feeling that Ms. Lethbridge would take care of the matter, Respondent did not again raise it with Ms. Lethbridge or anyone else apart from Mr. Graves and one or more school aides, except for one time--described below-- with Ms. Dean. One time, Mr. Graves told Ms. Furnville of the attendance problems. The students began to show up for the 3:45 pm class for the next few days, but then quit attending after that. Respondent understandably felt isolated at Trout Lake. She received no orientation from Ms. Dean or any of the ESE staff when first assigned to Trout Lake. She had to learn the customs from a paraprofessional and Mr. Graves, who himself had been assigned there only one year earlier and worked as the only teacher his first year. In addition, neither Respondent nor Mr. Graves was able or expected to attend faculty meetings at Avon Park High School. Ms. Lethbridge visited the facility once every week to three weeks. However, she visited Ms. Dean only once monthly. Ms. Lethbridge's supervisor, Connie Tzovarras, visited the Trout Lake only one time between September, 1992, and March, 1993. The Avon Park High School Assistant Principal responsible for Respondent's evaluations, Paul Gentz, visited Trout Lake only once in the same period--for Respondent's evaluation. From September, 1992, through mid-March, 1993, Ms. Dean visited Trout Lake twice. One time, she came when computers had been stolen. On this occasion, Respondent alluded to feelings of guilt over taking money to teach the 3:45 pm physical education class that the students were routinely not attending. Ms. Dean ignored Respondent's remark. The second visit of Ms. Dean was when she evaluated Mr. Graves. Respondent submitted her gradebook to Ms. Dean, who did not discuss with Respondent the grades for the first grading period of ten days. Petitioner's policy is that the attendance problems at the 3:45 pm class should have been addressed by Ms. Dean. Respondent could reasonably have expected Ms. Lethbridge to share Respondent's concerns with Ms. Dean. However, based on Ms. Dean's failure to respond to Respondent's single comment, Respondent may reasonably have assumed that Ms. Dean was not especially interested in the attendance problems. The other likely source of assistance for Respondent was Petitioner's ESE office, which demonstrated no interest in the matter. Ultimately, Ms. Dean received a letter of reprimand for her supervision of the Trout Lake teachers. The record is silent as to any discipline administered to Petitioner's District ESE staff. Petitioner's witnesses testified that Respondent should have contacted Ms. Dean before leaving the Trout Lake school. In general, these witnesses attributed the authority for this practice to courtesy or professionalism. However, no such practice had existed when Respondent traveled from school to school as an itinerant gifted teacher. In fact, Respondent was at first unsure of how she should handle signing in and out. She initially signed out at lunch. After awhile, she signed in once at 8:15 am and signed out once at 4:45 pm. The completed sign-in and sign-out sheets, which were kept at the school building at Trout Lake, were periodically submitted to the bookkeeper at Avon Park High School, who, as it turns out, was either not reading the sheets or ignoring all discrepancies. In any event, no one at Avon Park objected to the single sign-in and sign-out, and Respondent reasonably assumed that her practice was acceptable. Respondent began occasionally to leave the school early and sign out at 3:45 pm after it became clear to her around the end of November, 1992, that the 3:45 pm physical education class existed only as a meaningless entry in the students' IEP and Petitioner's FTE count. By this time, the students assigned to the class were no longer reporting to one of the places at which they had played before the creation of the physical education class and where, subsequent to its creation, Respondent was to take attendance and grade the students' "work." Respondent signed out early about nine times, which were all in December, 1992, and January, 1993. Again, no one at Avon Park said anything, probably because, unknown to Respondent, no one noticed the timesheet. However, there was not enough variation in the amounts of her paychecks to credit Respondent's testimony that she assumed that Petitioner might not be paying her for those days when she signed out early. Eventually, without signing out early, Respondent left school before 4:45 pm when the physical education class was scheduled. But she never failed to appear and perform her minimal duties on any occasion that the assigned students reported to the class. Respondent testified that she sometimes left the school early on Wednesday afternoons, during her planning time, to perform school-related duties, such as gathering supplies or meeting with school personnel at other locations. Undoubtedly, these are appropriate activities for which Respondent may leave the campus. Given the customs of Trout Lake, Respondent's past experience as an itinerant teacher, and the failure of Ms. Dean or any ESE staff to instruct Respondent differently, there was no requirement that Respondent advise anyone at Avon Park High School or the ESE District office of such departures for school business or that she sign out when leaving the campus on school- related business. The absence of a requirement of notice to someone at Avon Park High School or at least signing out before leaving campus on school-related business is crucial to Petitioner's case. There is considerable evidence that Respondent was not at the Trout Lake school building on Wednesday afternoons, as well as other weekdays between 3:45 pm and 4:45 pm. But, with one exception, there is no evidence that Respondent was not pursuing school-related matters during such times. Given the remoteness of Trout Lake and its relative lack of on-site resources, Respondent necessarily had to leave the campus to carry out normal planning activities. If Respondent's departures from campus had been accompanied by a violation of some clearly defined policy, it would be reasonable to infer that Respondent was pursuing personal business. However, Petitioner has proved that one of Respondent's absences had nothing to do with school business. On March 17, 1993, which was a Wednesday, Ms. Dean found no cars in the school parking lot at Trout Lake sometime between 2:00 and 2:30 pm. In fact, Respondent had left Trout Lake at 11:00 am to go volunteer at the annual Sebring Road Race. She appeared at the racetrack at about 1:30 pm where she relieved another volunteer, who was an ESE staffperson with approved leave. Although Respondent had obtained personal leave for the second and third days of the race--March 18 and 19--she had not done so for March 17, probably because she knew that she did not have enough leave left for three days. By letter dated March 26, 1993, Petitioner advised Respondent that she was charged with misconduct in office, willful neglect of duties, violation of School Board Policy 2.31, and violation of Section 231.45, Florida Statutes. The letter also cites a violation of Section 231.44, Florida Statutes, for absence without leave. The testimony of Dr. John Martin, Petitioner's Deputy Superintendent, explained that the allegation of willful neglect of duties, which is omitted in the case against Mr. Graves, is due to Respondent's failure to teach the 3:45 pm physical education class. The remaining allegations, which are the same as those asserted against Mr. Graves, involve Respondent's absences without leave. The March 26 letter further informs Respondent that the Highlands County School Board, at its next meeting on April 8, 1993, would consider the recommendation of the Superintendent that Respondent's employment be immediately terminated. In the meantime, the letter states that Respondent was suspended with pay. On April 8, 1993, Petitioner terminated Respondent. By letter dated April 14, 1993, Petitioner advised Respondent that it had determined that she owed the School District $3272.09 for monies paid for which duties were not performed and $343.14 in excessive sick leave taken. Petitioner recovered these sums from Respondent by withholding them from her final paycheck. By letter dated May 19, 1993, Respondent requested a formal hearing on her termination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Highlands County School Board enter a final order refunding to Respondent $3125.09 and reinstating Respondent, without back pay, to a continuing contract at her former rate of pay as of the first day of school after January 1, 1994. ENTERED on December 9, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on December 9, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2866 Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Petitioner 1-20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 22-29: adopted or adopted in substance. 30: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 31-33: rejected as irrelevant. 34: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 35: rejected as irrelevant. 36-39: adopted or adopted in substance. 40-41: rejected as recitation of evidence. 42: rejected as irrelevant. 43: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and irrelevant in the absence of proof that Respondent was not off-campus pursuing school-related duties. 44: adopted. 45-52: rejected as subordinate and incomplete insofar as Respondent may have been performing school-related duties. 53-57: rejected as subordinate. 58: adopted to a limited extent. 59: rejected as irrelevant. 60-64: adopted or adopted in substance. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Respondent 1-11: adopted or adopted in substance. 12-13: rejected as irrelevant. 14: adopted. 15, 18-19, and 22: adopted except for the occasions that Respondent was absent without leave. 16: adopted. 17: adopted as to oral instruction. Rejected as to the implication that no other sources of authority exist regarding absence without leave. 20: rejected as recitation of evidence and subordinate. 21: adopted. 23: rejected as recitation of evidence. 24: adopted. 25: adopted in substance. 26: adopted. 27: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 28-31: adopted or adopted in substance. 32: adopted, although Respondent only indirectly alluded to the attendance problems with Ms. Dean when she mentioned that she felt guilty taking the money when she had no class to teach. 33: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 34: rejected that Respondent invariably signed out as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 35-36: adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Gavin W. O'Brien Gavin W. O'Brien, P.A. 1806 Manatee Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34205 Mark S. Herdman Kelly, McKee Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Superintendent Richard Farmer Highlands County School District 426 School Street Sebring, Florida 33870-4048 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner should discipline Respondent for immorality, misconduct in office, or incompetency in connection with his supervision, as a high school baseball coach, of a team trip, during which hazing occurred, and his subsequent investigation of the incident.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a teacher and a coach for 27 years. He taught and coached in Illinois for 11 years before moving to Florida, where he has taught and coached for the past 16 years. He currently is teaching health, and he sometimes teaches physical education. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 551145, which is valid through June 30, 2005, and he is certified in health education, physical education, and social science. Respondent has coached basketball, football, and baseball. Most recently, Respondent was the head baseball coach at Coconut Creek High School where he was the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel Coach of the Year for Broward County three years ago. He coached baseball four years at Coconut Creek High School and the preceding eight or nine years at Fort Lauderdale High School. The events in this case arose during the 2000 season; Respondent did not coach during the 2001 season. During spring break of 2000, Respondent took his baseball team to Orlando and Sebring. The purpose of the trip was to allow the team to play two high-school baseball games against teams from different regions of the state and to visit an Orlando theme park. The trip took place toward the end of the season, prior to the commencement of the district tournament. The Orlando trip extended from Sunday, April 16, through Wednesday, April 19. Twenty-four student athletes went on the trip. In addition to Respondent, the other adults supervising the students were assistant coaches Reynaldo Nieves, Joseph Leone, and Rex Nottage. Respondent's wife was also with him, as were several parents, but they did not share with Respondent and the assistant coaches supervisory responsibility for the students. On arriving in the Orlando area early in the morning, the group first visited Islands of Adventure, a theme park. They finally reached their hotel at about 8:00 p.m. Respondent gathered the students together and gave them directions as to where they could go. He told them they could not leave the motel property without the permission of a coach. Some students wanted to eat; most wanted to shower. Respondent told them they had to be in their rooms by 11:00 p.m. and their lights must be out by midnight. Respondent warned them that he and the other coaches would perform bed checks at these times. Respondent and his wife had arranged the rooms so that the group was together at the motel. Their rooms were on the second or third floor of the motel. Each room accommodated four students. Respondent and his wife were in a room, Mr. Leone was in a room, and Mr. Nieves and Mr. Nottage shared a room. The students' rooms were between the rooms of the adults to enable the adults to exercise closer control over the students. At some point prior to the first bed check, the older students began entering the rooms of the younger students, by trick or by force. A large group of the older students would then overpower the younger student and, typically, apply Icy Hot liniment to a towel and then to the testes of the student. The students were aware that this hazing was likely to occur during this trip. Seven of the students were hazed by nearly all of the remainder of the team. Prior to being hazed himself, D. B. was aware that other students had been hazed and was aware of the form of the hazing because some of the other students had come to D. B.'s room and asked to use the shower. D. B. was a junior, but this was his first year on the varsity, and he knew that the older students would try to haze him too. However, he did not try to contact one of the coaches or parents to intervene in the half hour that D. B. estimates elapsed between the hazing of the last of the other students and his hazing. As had happened to most of the other hazed students, most, if not all, of the older students on the team entered D. B.'s room, pulled down his pants, and applied Icy Hot and shaving cream to his genital area. D. B. yelled and struggled against four or five students on various parts of his prone body. He sustained some minor scratches while he was held down for about one minute. As soon as he was released, D. B. took a shower. He chased the remaining students out of his room, swinging a belt and yelling. While in the shower, D. B. was so angry that he threw soap and shampoo containers in the shower stall. About ten minutes after D. B. was hazed, Mr. Nieves was roaming the rooms and entered D. B.'s room. Petitioner contends that Respondent had allowed Mr. Nieves and Mr. Nottage to leave the motel for dinner from 8:00 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. If so, Respondent, his wife, and Mr. Leone could adequately supervise the students occupying the six rooms between them. However, D. B. testified that the hazing took place around 9:00 to 9:30 p.m., so, if Mr. Nieves arrived ten minutes later, he was gone only until 9:10 to 9:40 p.m. Either way, the record does not reveal any irresponsibility on Respondent's part in allowing his two assistant coaches to leave him, his wife, and Mr. Leone to supervise 24 students for even three hours. When Mr. Nieves looked into D. B.'s room, he found D. B. in a bad mood, angrily throwing things around the bathroom. The door to D. B.'s room was open, so Mr. Nieves walked inside and asked if he was okay. D. B., who was wearing only a towel wrapped around his waist, did not answer, but left the bathroom and stood in front of the wall air conditioning, unit, which was blowing cold air. Mr. Nieves saw about five marks on D. B.'s back and saw that D. B. was beet red. The marks appeared as though someone had been grabbing him. Mr. Nieves offered to get Respondent, and D. B. said to do so. Mr. Nieves thought that D. B. had been wrestling or something. His visit to D. B.'s room had occurred not long before the first room check. Mr. Nieves walked down the hall to Respondent's room and found Respondent inside. Mr. Nieves informed Respondent that D. B. wanted to talk to him. He told Respondent that it looked like something was wrong. Respondent and Mr. Nieves returned to D. B.'s room. They arrived there about three minutes from the time that Mr. Nieves had left the student's room. Respondent entered D. B.'s room ahead of Mr. Nieves and found D. B. standing in front of the air conditioning fan, holding the towel open like he was cooling down. In a conversation that lasted about 30 seconds, Mr. Nieves said to D. B., "Coach is here. Tell him what's wrong." Respondent added, "What's wrong?" To these inquiries, D. B. replied, "Nothing. Don't worry about it." Mr. Nieves and Respondent asked about the red marks, but D. B. said they were nothing and everything was fine. D. B. testified that he did not disclose the hazing because he knew that Respondent would punish the team. He assumed that the team would be upset with D. B. for telling the coach that they had done something of which Respondent disapproved. Somewhat irritated that D. B. had asked to see Respondent and three minutes later declined to tell him anything, Mr. Nieves left the room with Respondent. They then completed the bed check, and Mr. Nieves did not see Respondent again that night. However, Mr. Nieves returned to D. B.'s room about a half hour later. He found D. B. still standing by the air conditioning fan. Mr. Nieves told D. B. that it was not fair to Mr. Nieves to say to Respondent that nothing was wrong. Mr. Nieves then asked if something was wrong. D. B. replied, "They got me, coach." Mr. Nieves did not know what he meant, but thought that D. B. meant some sort of rough-housing. Mr. Nieves asked D. B. why did you not say something to Respondent. Mr. Nieves spent about 15 minutes in D. B.'s room, but did not learn anything more specific. However, D. B. expressed considerable anger to Mr. Nieves. The Icy Hot that came into contact with D. B.'s penis was most painful. The next morning, the pain was somewhat reduced. Early that morning, the team went to a baseball field to prepare for a game that day. They did a lot of situational baserunning so the fielders could practice. Because D. B. was not a starter, he and the other nonstarters had to do much of the baserunning. He displayed no problems running in the morning. However, hours later, during the pregame practice, a ball was hit toward D. B. in the outfield. He charged it, but it got by him. Instead of turning and running after the ball, as Respondent required of all players, D. B. turned and walked toward the ball. Seeing D. B. and another student not hustling, Respondent pulled them off the field. When Respondent demanded to know why D. B. had not run after the ball, D. B. said that "my balls are on fire." D. B. had a poor attitude at times and was stubborn. Without responding meaningfully to D. B.'s explanation, Respondent benched both players for the entire game. D. B.'s explanation is discredited due to his ability to run without impediment in the morning. D. B. had called his parents Monday at around noon and had told them what had happened the prior evening. D. B. called them again after the afternoon game. During the first call, D. B.'s parents told him to defend himself if necessary and not to worry about talking to Respondent about the hazing. Respondent had not been feeling well Sunday night. By the time of practice Monday morning, his throat was so sore that he had to have his assistant coaches direct the students on the field and yell instructions. After the game, in which Respondent's team had played poorly and lost, Respondent spoke only briefly to the team and allowed Coach Nottage to yell at the students to fire them up and make them work harder. After the team had returned to the motel, Mr. Nieves talked to D. B.'s roommates. He was somewhat concerned about D. B. because, after the game, when he had asked the student what was wrong, D. B. had only laughed as if he were mad. The roommates talked vaguely about Icy Hot, but they were unwilling to be more specific. Around 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. Monday at the motel, D. B. came to Respondent's room and asked if he could talk to the coach for a minute. Respondent said he could. D. B. then told Respondent that he had had Icy Hot put on his testes. Whispering, Respondent asked if he was alright and what did D. B. want Respondent to do about it. The record is unclear whether he asked this in a challenging or inquisitive tone. D. B. did not add more details. On Tuesday morning, the team departed Orlando in vans headed for Sebring, where they were to play another game Tuesday night. Respondent had been quite sick Monday night, unable to swallow or talk. By Tuesday, he was even more sick. No one spoke to him about D. B. or hazing. With considerable effort, Respondent was able to escort the team to the Sebring motel, and then he went directly to a nearby hospital emergency room. Diagnosed as having pharyngitis, Respondent obtained an injection of antibiotics, which provided him relief the next day. Scheduling problems resulted in postponing the Sebring game, so that the team did not return to the motel until after 11:00 p.m. Respondent directed the students to go directly to their rooms and told them that there would be a midnight bed check. Late the next morning, Wednesday, the team left Sebring to return to Fort Lauderdale, where they arrived at 3:00 p.m. One of the parents traveling with the team told Respondent at a gas stop that D. B. had called his parents. Respondent summoned D. B. and complained about D. B. calling his parents without first informing Respondent of the problem. The conversation was brief because the group was waiting in their vans. D. B. replied, "Well, coach, you know what happens." Respondent answered, "I don't know what happens. Go get in your van." On the way back to Fort Lauderdale, Mr. Nieves told Respondent what he knew about hazing in the form of older students applying Icy Hot to the genitalia of younger students and, in some cases, paddling younger students. Respondent expressed his frustration that D. B. had not complained to him about the hazing. When they returned to Fort Lauderdale, Respondent told D. B. that he wanted to speak to him and his father, who was there to pick him up. However, D. B. and his father left the school without speaking to Respondent. Respondent decided to call a team meeting to find out what had happened. Respondent called D. B.'s mother to assure that D. B. would come to the meeting, but she said that he was at work and that she had already called the school board. D. B. was not at work. In the team meeting, Respondent warned the students that hazing was very serious. He asked for those persons directly and indirectly involved to identify themselves. Various students began raising their hands, admitting to various levels of involvement, and Mr. Nottage recorded their names, at Respondent's direction. Respondent then warned the students that the school board was involved and there could be criminal punishments for certain persons. He told the students that there was nothing that he could do about these consequences, but he would take his own actions. At this point, many of the students began retracting admissions. Feeling that the notes had become useless, Respondent obtained the notes from Mr. Nottage and discarded them later that weekend. Prominent among the many differences in testimony concerning the events of this trip and its immediate aftermath is a difference in recollection between Respondent and Mr. Nieves concerning a conversation between the two of them following the meeting. Mr. Nieves testified that Respondent instructed him to deny that the notes existed, and Respondent denied that this is true. Such dishonesty, if true, would merit punishment. It is possible that Respondent did ask Mr. Nieves to conceal the truth in order to protect Respondent's students, who had made confessions prior to understanding the potential administrative and criminal consequences. Perhaps Respondent regretted his role in securing this inculpatory information. On the other hand, Mr. Nottage, as well as over 22 students were at this meeting (another student had failed to attend), so Respondent had to know that such a concealment was unlikely to go undetected. Most importantly, though, Mr. Nieves was a most unconvincing witness. His recollection of details was poor, contradictory, and entirely inconsistent with his apparent intelligence. His demeanor was poor. The Administrative Law Judge was left with the opinion that Mr. Nieves was lying at the time that he first provided statements concerning the events--for some reason, trying unfairly to inculpate Respondent or to exculpate himself--or he was lying at the hearing--belatedly, trying to protect Respondent. On balance, it is impossible to credit Mr. Nieves' testimony on this crucial point. After talking the matter over with Mr. Nieves and Mr. Nottage (Mr. Leone had already left before the meeting), Respondent decided to punish the students as best he could by making them run. Those who had actually touched the younger students had to run 10 miles. Older students who had stood by and encouraged or supported the hazing had to run an intermediate distance. Even the victims, such as D. B., had to run because they had not reported the hazing, but their distance was the shortest. The team had a game the next morning. Late in the afternoon or early in the evening on Thursday, Respondent called his supervisor for athletics, the Coconut Creek High School athletic director, and reported the hazing in general terms. The athletic director told Respondent that he had done the right thing by calling him and said to come see him Monday, when school was back in session. On Saturday morning, Respondent required the students to run the distances that he had determined appropriate. He also informed the team that he would be recommending to the principal that the baseball team not take field trips. The athletic director later suggested that Respondent not make that recommendation. D. B. and his parents have filed a civil action against the school board for damages arising out of the incident. School officials have known that hazing has been a problem in the past at Coconut Creek High School, although more with the soccer team. In 1997, the athletic director asked Respondent, as the baseball head coach, to draft a letter stating a policy prohibiting hazing. Addressed to the parents of baseball players, the letter states in part: "The athletic department has a policy of zero tolerance when it comes to "initiating" or "hazing" a fellow student. Anyone guilty of participating in a hazing or a form of initiation will be immediately dismissed from the team." Respondent and the athletic director signed the letter. At the start of the 2000 season, Respondent warned the students on the team that he would not tolerate any sort of misbehavior, including hazing. Respondent had not been aware of any hazing incidents on the baseball team since 1997. As already noted, other students knew of the continuation of the practice. Some of the parents of the older students also knew of the practice, at least as it had been inflicted on their sons. However, it does not necessarily follow that what a student shares with a parent, he also shares with his coach. Petitioner has failed to prove incompetency, lack of fitness, inefficiency, or incapacity on the part of Respondent. Nor has Petitioner proved immorality. The evidence does not establish that Respondent knew or had reason to know that hazing was about to occur or that hazing had occurred. At all times, Respondent was in charge of 24 students, and, most of the time, he was sick--after Sunday, very sick. The scrutiny that Respondent could reasonably be expected to give the D. B. situation, especially given the student's reluctance to make a straightforward declaration of what happened, must be assessed n light of these circumstances. As the last person to be hazed, D. B. had ample opportunity to alert the coaches. After the hazing, D. B. repeatedly declined to disclose the problem to Respondent. D. B. knew that Respondent did not condone hazing. D. B. knew that, rather than ignore a hazing complaint, Respondent would punish the responsible players, and this would draw unwanted attention to D. B. Seeking advice from his parents, D. B. was reinforced in his earlier determination not to seek the effective remedies that he knew were available within the structure of the team. Petitioner has also failed to prove misconduct in office. Again, Respondent's supervision of the students was adequate. His investigation was sufficient for imposing intra- team discipline. His apparent departure from school policy of dismissal from the team may be explained by Respondent's awareness that the school board and possibly law enforcement would also investigate the matter and impose their own sanctions; presumably, the athletic department policy was intended to operate in isolation. Although Respondent could have informed the athletic director of the problem Wednesday night or Thursday morning, Respondent did so later Thursday. This brief delay caused no prejudice, as Respondent's supervisor assured Respondent that he had done the right thing and he would visit him the next Monday.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Frank Till Superintendent School Board of Broward County, Florida K.C. Wright Administration Building 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Honorable Charlie Crist, Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Carmen Rodriguez Carmen Rodriguez, P.A. 9245 Southwest 157th Street, Suite 209 Miami, Florida 33157 Robert F. McKee Kelly & McKee, P.A. Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Jerry W.Whitmore, Bureau Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
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: 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 (5) 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, a fact 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. Employment Requiring a Teaching Certificate At the time of hearing, Ms. Maynard had not found employment requiring a teaching certificate since being suspended, without pay and benefits, by the School Board on or about March 18, 2008.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner of Education enter a final order: Finding that Doreen Maynard committed Counts 2 (only as to gross immorality), 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 15, and 16; Dismissing Counts 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 17; and Suspending Doreen Maynard's educator's certificate for three years, with denial of an application for an educator's certificate for the three-year period, and, after completion of the suspension, placing her on probation for one year under terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Commissioner of Education. 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.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, the School Board of Pinellas County, should dismiss or suspend the Respondent, Larry Lynn, on charges of gross insubordination and misconduct in office.
Findings Of Fact Larry Lynn (hereinafter 1,Lynn") holds a Teaching Certificate, 563002, issued by the State of Florida. The School Board of Pinellas County, Florida, has employed Lynn as a teacher, since the 1986/1987 school year, and although Lynn is currently suspended without pay, he is employed by a Professional Service Contract. For the first semester of the 1986/1987 school year, Lynn was assigned to Largo High School. For the second semester of 1986/87 school year, Lynn was transferred to St. Petersburg High School. While Lynn was at St. Petersburg High School, one of his female students requested a transfer from Lynn's class due to her perception that Lynn was injecting sexual innuendo into his classroom presentations. Although Lynn denied using such terms, he was counseled by administrators on two occasions to avoid using language that could be construed as containing sexual references. Lynn also received a rating of "I," for "Improvement Expected (growth necessary)" in the judgment category on his annual evaluation for that school year, with a notation that Lynn was "conscious of the need to eliminate off-hand remarks within the lesson." For the 1987/1988 school year and for all further times relevant to the issues presented in this cause, Lynn was assigned to Pinellas Park High School. On September 25, 1987, Richard Allen, an Assistant Principal at Pinellas Park High School, held an initial conference with Lynn to reference the incident at St. Petersburg High the year before and to remind Lynn of the need to avoid using language that was susceptible of being construed as having sexual content. During the 1988/1989 school year, Lynn was seen leaving campus with a female student named Sherry Biafore during lunch time without authorization. It is against school policy to accompany students off campus, or to allow students to leave campus, during school hours without authorization. It also was brought to the attention of the school administration that Lynn allowed Sherry Biafore to be present in his classroom when she was not assigned to that class. At a conference with Marilyn Heminger, the Principal of Pinellas Park High School, to discuss the information the administration had received concerning Biafore, Lynn told her that he had been "counseling" Biafore and that he only left campus with her one or two times. He also admitted to having written two hall passes for Biafore during the fifth period. In fact, Lynn and Biafore had left campus without permission on approximately ten occasions, not just the one or two occasions to which they had admitted. Also, Lynn allowed Biafore to be in his classroom when she was assigned to another class on numerous occasions and at different times during the day. When she was there, in the presence of the students assigned to his class, Lynn would allow her to sit on his lap, to hug and kiss him, and to call him "daddy." He would call her "sweetie cakes," or other terms of endearment, and would give her cigarettes. During the 1988/1989 and 1989/1990 school years, a student named Erica Howell, (DOB 5/25/72), was an office assistant and had to obtain attendance records from teachers who delayed turning them in. Lynn was frequently late in turning in his attendance records, and Howell often had to retrieve this, as well as other information, from Lynn. On one occasion during the fall of the 1989/1990 school year, when Howell had to get attendance records from Lynn, Lynn made comments that could reasonably be perceived as containing sexual innuendo and which were so perceived by Howell, such as "that's not all you can come and get." Also during the 1989/1990 school year, when Howell entered Lynn's classroom to get attendance records, Lynn placed his hands on Howell, in her buttocks area, put his arm around her waist, and around her arm, and touched her on the breast. These actions by Lynn, together with others the previous two years (see Findings 18 through 20, below), disturbed Howell so much that she asked not to be forced to get records from him anymore. When Heminger, the Pinellas Park Principal, heard about the incident, and heard that Erica Howell's parents had called the school to complain, she decided to refer the entire matter to Stephen Crosby, the Pinellas School System's Director of Personnel Services. Crosby began his investigation by interviewing Howell. Howell not only reported the incident during the fall of the 1989/1990 school year, but she also reported incidents which had happened during the 1987/1988 and 1988/1989 school years. 1/ During the 1987/1988 school year, Lynn gave Erica Howell and a foreign exchange student a ride to Howell's home, but instead of going directly home, Lynn took a circuitous route of great length, which concerned Erica Howell and caused the exchange student to cry. During the 1988/1989 school year, when Howell, acting as an office assistant, went to Lynn's classroom to ask for attendance reports, Lynn, in the presence of the students in the class, made remarks that could be reasonably construed as containing sexual innuendo, and which were so perceived by Erica Howell. For example, when Howell asked if she could have the attendance report Lynn would say: "That's not all you can have." On another occasion during the 1988/1989 school year, Lynn overheard Howell and a friend talking about "making connections" with boys during an upcoming weekend. Lynn commented: "I'll be your connection any time." Howell then gave Crosby the name of a friend named Laura Mackie, (DOB 4/6/72), also a former student of Lynn, and reported what Mackie had told her. Crosby next interviewed Mackie. 2/ During the 1987/1988 school year, Lynn put his arm around Mackie, including around her waist, and on one occasion patted her on the buttocks with his hand. Laura Mackie was disturbed by this patting of her buttock by Lynn, and told her friend, Melissa Logue, as well as her track coach. Crosby also received information that both Lynn and Biafore had been dishonest in their statements about what had occurred during the preceding year. Crosby's new information was that Lynn and Biafore had left campus without permission on approximately ten occasions, not just the one or two occasions to which they had admitted. Also, he received information that Lynn allowed Biafore to be in his classroom when she was assigned to another class on numerous occasions and at different times during the day. When she was there, in the presence of the students assigned to his class, Lynn would allow her to sit on his lap, to hug and kiss him, and to call him "daddy." He would call her "sweetie cakes," or other terms of endearment, and would give her cigarettes. (See Finding 12, above.) Crosby next confronted Lynn with the allegations of Howell (see Findings 14, 15, 19 and 20, above) and Mackie (see Finding 22, above) and with the allegation that he in fact had left campus with Biafore on numerous occasions. Lynn denied the allegations and said he could prove that he did not leave the campus with Biafore more than once or twice. Crosby next interviewed the female students who were in Lynn's classes during the fall of the 1989/1990 school year. 3/ During the 1989/1990 school year, a female student named Jennifer Stroyan, (DOB 7/8/75), was adjusting her hair with one hand, while holding books with her other hand, when Lynn put his arm around her, under the arm with which she had been adjusting her hair. Lynn's hand touched her breast, and Stroyan removed Lynn's hand from her breast by a downward motion of her arm. This action by Lynn caused Stroyan to be uncomfortable around Lynn and to lose respect for him as a teacher. During the 1989/1990 school year, a student named Shonyelle Sampson, (DOB 1/19/75), answered a question in class incorrectly, and Lynn told her to use her "fucking head." The effect on Sampson was that she stopped volunteering to answer questions in Lynn's classroom. During the 1989/1990 school year, Lynn was talking with a female student named Keli Jo Girard, (DOB 8/4/73). Noticing that she was wearing a boy's jacket, Lynn asked her if she had a boy friend. When she replied that she did, Lynn asked her if she was still a virgin. When she replied that she was, Lynn stated that it was good to "wait," and then said that he (Lynn) waited until he was 12 years old. During the 1989/1990 school year, Lynn rubbed the neck and shoulders of a female student named Tracy Peterson, (DOB 1/22/75), and, at one point, put his arm around her so far that his hand touched her breast. Lynn's conduct was so disturbing to Peterson that she told her mother, who advised her to avoid Lynn in the future. Lynn frequently used the initials "S.O.B." and "G.D.M.F." in class. He says that he used "S.O.B." as attention- getting way of referring to "state of being" and that "G.D.M.F." actually was part of "G.D.M.F.T.D.," which was supposed to stand for "golly dern, mighty fine, that's dandy." But several of his students were not aware that they were supposed to stand for anything other than the vulgar expressions commonly understood by those initials. Crosby next interviewed female students who had been in Lynn's classes at Pinellas Park High School during previous years. 4/ During either 1987/1988 school year or the 1988/1989 school year, Lynn frequently spoke to a female student named Leslie Kemp, (DOB 5/22/71), while she was in the company of her friend, Keyma Mitchell, and used sexually suggestive terms in the conversations, including asking Kemp to go to a motel with him, and once asking Kemp if she would like her body licked. On another occasion, Lynn patted Leslie Kemp on the buttocks, which action Leslie Kemp reported to Leroy Kelly, a Pinellas Park Police Officer assigned to Pinellas Park High School. On several occasions during the 1988/1989 school year, Lynn placed his arm around the waist of a female student named Helen Seefeld, (DOB 8/11/73). Lynn's actions made Seefeld feel uncomfortable. She did not perceive similar attentions being paid to male students. During the 1988/1989 school year, Lynn rubbed the neck and shoulders of a female student named Melissa Martinez, (DOB 3/16/73), while showing movies to his class or when she asked questions in class. This disturbed Martinez to the point where she stopped asking for assistance in class. Melissa Martinez also heard Lynn remark in class that the woman with whom he was living was satisfying all his needs, which comment was said in such a way as to be reasonably susceptible of being construed as containing sexual innuendo. During the 1988/1989 school year, Erica Thomas (DOB 2/13/73), heard Lynn use the word "fuck" out loud in class. Lynn also rubbed her back and shoulders, which disturbed Thomas to the extent that she asked Lynn to stop. Several times during the 1988/1989 school year, Lynn placed his arm around Keli Jo Girard closely enough that on at least two occasions his hand brushed her breast. On several occasions during the 1988/1989 school year, Lynn placed his arm around the waist of a student named Angela Garrett, (DOB 3/22/72). When he persisted in asking her to be his assistant, it made her nervous, and she tried to avoid Lynn. Also during the 1988/1989 school year, Lynn would walk about his classroom and stop to rub the neck and shoulders of a student named Amber Wilkinson, (DOB 2/10/71), who disliked it and would tell Lynn angrily under her breath to keep his hands off her. During the 1988/1989 school year, Lynn patted a student named Alison Davis, (DOB 7/12/72), on the buttocks on at least three occasions. It then occurred to Crosby that, although they had evidence of allegations of Lynn's improper use of sexual innuendo when he was at St. Petersburg High, they had no similar information during his tenure at Largo High School. Crosby located a Largo High yearbook and picked out a few female students from the grades Lynn taught who appeared to Crosby from their yearbook pictures to be attractive. 5/ While at Largo High School during the first semester of the 1986/1987 school year, Lynn touched his fingers to the chin of a female student named Lynn Smith, (DOB 9/26/71), and told her that she had a pretty face. On a separate occasion, the Respondent asked Smith to stay behind after class to pick up a paper. Lynn was sitting on the corner of his desk. As Smith came close to him, the Respondent quickly brought his legs together, stating that he almost got her that time. These two incidents made Smith very uncomfortable about Lynn as a teacher. Smith did not report either incident at the time because of her age and because she was nervous, but she is now glad the incidents are known. While at Largo High School, Lynn rubbed his hand on the cheek of another of his female students, Kim McGevna, (DOB 2/11/72), saying he did not believe that she was not wearing makeup. Kim McGevna told her mother, Jean McGevna, and her boy friend about Lynn touching her, and the comment that he made, and informed them that she did not like it. Jean McGevna told Lynn, over the telephone, that he had no business touching her daughter and that in the future he should keep his hands off her, and to speak to her only in the classroom and only about school work. Kim's boy friend expressed similar thoughts to Lynn when he and one or more of his friends approached Lynn after a basketball game in the school gymnasium. It is harmful to the learning process for a teacher to subject students to inappropriate touching or sexual comments. Such behavior by a teacher causes a student to lose respect for a teacher, thereby diminishing the teacher's effectiveness. Parents do not appreciate such behavior by a teacher towards their children, and therefore such behavior decreases parent support for the school. Honesty on the part of a teacher when discussing professional matters with administrators is important to the efficient operation of school. Dishonesty by a teacher is a breach of trust that diminishes the teacher's effectiveness. Neither Crosby nor any other school administrator confronted Lynn with the results of Crosby's further investigation (resulting in Findings 18 and 27 through 50), or the additional information regarding how often Biafore was in Lynn's classroom instead of where she was supposed to be (last two sentences of Finding 24) until the information was used as a basis for Lynn's suspension and the School Superintendent's recommendation that the School Board dismiss him. The Respondent has been a teacher for over fifteen years, the majority of the time teaching English. Except for the evaluation at St. Petersburg High that "improvement [in `judgment' was] expected," Lynn received all "excellent" and "good" evaluations during his teaching career. He never before has been terminated from a teaching job and never has been transferred in lieu of firing. Lynn is a friendly, outgoing, "arm-around" type of teacher, to both boys and girls, without the majority of them perceiving any sexual overtones by his general open nature. It is common for Lynn to place his hands on the neck, shoulder and waist of both boys and girls, and he does this openly, in front of others.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, the School Board of Pinellas County, enter a final order dismissing the Respondent, Larry Lynn, as a teacher at Pinellas Park High School. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 1990.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Will H. McRaney has been employed by petitioner Bay County School Board at Rutherford High School since 1965. In the past, he has worked as a coach and as a classroom teacher at Rutherford. During the current school year, respondent was job entry coordinator; in this capacity, he had responsibilities in connection with the vocational counseling of Rutherford seniors. Darlene Ann Peeples is an eighteen year old senior at Rutherford High School. In her junior year, she had been a student in a class respondent taught. On January 17, 1977, when she arrived at her fourth period class, friends told her that respondent had come by looking for her and for another student, and wanted to see them in his office. Her friends also told her that the other student summoned by respondent had gone to lunch, so Ms. Peeples went to respondent's office by herself. When she arrived, respondent was seated behind a desk in his office, facing sideways. He invited her in, asked her to close the door behind her, and told her to take the empty seat beside him. Respondent's office at Rutherford High School was small and windowless, except for a window in the door which was covered over from the inside. There were only two chairs in the office on January 17, 1977. The chair to which respondent directed Ms. Peeples was very near his; when she sat down one of her knees touched respondent. She asked why she had been sent for, and respondent mentioned some job possibilities. Conversation turned to the school's Christmas ball, at which Ms. Peeples had been chosen Christmas ball queen. Respondent allowed as how her selection did not surprise him, because she had a nice personality and a nice body. In the course of discussing Ms. Peeples' plans for the future, respondent learned that her family was slated to move to England and offered to let Ms. Peeples live with him in his home, when her family left. Respondent took one of Ms. Peeples' hands in his, and remarked on its warmth. Then he cupped one hand round the back of her head, and drew her head down to the vicinity of her knees, doubling her over. When she succeeded in sitting up straight again, respondent kissed her full on the mouth. Immediately afterwards, he said he was sorry, and he repeated the apology when the interview concluded. Within a half hour of their occurrence, Ms. Peeples gave tearful accounts of these events to her boy friend, and to her fifth period teacher, Mrs. Gail Fischer. In 1975, respondent worked in petitioner's summer recreation program as a swimming instructor at the swimming pool at Mosley High School. Among the children he taught was Macy Ellis, who was born on October 7, 1965. There were from 10 to 25 children in Macy's swimming group. Some 40 other children in other groups and at least two other adults used the swimming pool at the same time respondent taught Macy's group. On July 2, 1975, respondent was supervising an underwater swimming drill. Macy and the other children in her group stood in the water along the edge of the swimming pool; they took turns doing "fish dives" and swimming through respondent's spread legs, while he stood in the middle of the pool in about five feet of water. When Macy went underwater, she noticed that respondent's swimming trunks, although fastened at the waist, were unzipped, and she saw respondent's penis. As she swam face down between respondent's legs, respondent placed his hands on her back to steady her. Otherwise, there was no physical contact between them. Respondent did not intend that any of the children see his genitalia, and it was only by accident that they happened to be visible to Macy Ellis. Statement Required By Stuckey's of Eastman, Georgia v Department of Transportation, 340 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) The first paragraph of petitioner's proposed fact findings has been adopted, in substance. The second paragraph of petitioner's proposed fact findings has been rejected because the only witness whose testimony tended to establish the occurrence, Debbie Holt, was not worthy of belief, in the hearing officer's opinion. She was adamant about such details as the color of respondent's bathing suit, even though her testimony contradicted that of the other witnesses. She and Macy Ellis were playmates who confided in one another and, according to Macy Ellis, it was when Debbie learned what Macy had seen that Debbie made her accusations against respondent. Finally, testimony was adduced to the effect that Debbie Holt's reputation for truth and veracity is not good. The substance of the third paragraph of petitioner's proposed fact findings has been largely adopted, except that the proof failed to establish any intent on respondent's part, and except for the date, which is immaterial. The number of people in the pool area, the size of the pool, the fact that other children were lined up waiting their turns, the fact that Macy told her father that she saw respondent tuck his penis back in his swimming trunks, all persuaded the hearing officer that the incident was accidental.
The Issue Whether cause exists for the Petitioner's proposed termination of the Respondent's employment as a bus driver for alleged inappropriate conduct with a student.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent Howard Jessie (Respondent) was employed as a bus driver by the Pinellas County School Board. On an unidentified day during the first semester of the 1993-1994 school year, the Respondent was observed fraternizing on campus with several Pinellas Park High School students. The Respondent was tossing a football with students in an area which was "off-limits" to students. A female student identified herein as T.C. was present. A school resource officer approached the Respondent, and informed him that the area was off-limits to the students and that it was not appropriate for him to socialize with students at that time. The Respondent informed the officer that he was a bus driver and his association with students was not inappropriate. On a later unidentified day during the first semester of the 1993-1994 school year, the school's assistant principal observed the Respondent walking with T.C. in the "mall" area of the high school campus. The assistant principal instructed the Respondent to cease fraternizing with students. On a third day during the first semester of the 1993-1994 school year, the assistant principal observed the Respondent standing near the school bus area and speaking with several students including T.C. The assistant principal contacted a supervisor at the school board's transportation department and informed him of the Respondent's behavior. Upon receiving the phone call from the assistant principal, the supervisor summoned the Respondent to his office and directed the Respondent to cease his association with the students. The Respondent agreed to refrain from having further contact with the students. On or about January 10, 1994, the school resource officer observed the Respondent and T.C. standing on campus next to a parked school bus, and watched as the Respondent kissed T.C. on her cheek. The student did not appear to resist the kiss. The officer reported his observations to the assistant principal who contacted another transportation supervisor and requested that the Respondent be removed from his employment as a bus driver at Pinellas Park High School. The Respondent was called to a meeting with the administrator of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. During the discussion of the matter, the Respondent admitted that he had hugged and kissed T.C. on campus. During the discussion, the Respondent also admitted that he and the student had engaged in oral sex in January, 1994. By letter of March 3, 1994, the Respondent was notified that he was suspended with pay and that the superintendent would recommend dismissal to the school board at the meeting of March 23, 1994. A number of stories related to this matter have appeared in the local press, including the March 18, 1994 issues of the St. Petersburg Times and the Tampa Tribune. Engaging in sexual activity with a student is conduct serious enough to impair the Respondent's effectiveness in the school district and to bring the service of the School Board of Pinellas County into disrepute.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a Final Order terminating the employment of Howard Jessie. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of November, 1994, 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 21st day of November, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1876 The Respondent did not file a proposed recommended order. The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the Petitioner. The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. J. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent School Board of Pinellas County P. O. Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649 Keith B. Martin, Esquire Pinellas County School Board P.O. Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649 Mr. Howard Jessie 15695 Waverly Street, Apartment 2 Clearwater, Florida 34620
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Overhoff began his employment with the School District on October 20, 2006, as a roofer in the School District’s maintenance department. As a roofer, Mr. Overhoff’s job duties included maintaining and repairing roofs of the School District’s schools and ancillary buildings. His duties also included procuring roofing materials needed on a job, when those materials were not available at the maintenance department’s central warehouse. The School District hired private contracting companies to do major roof repair, and Mr. Overhoff’s duties included meeting with the contractors to discuss the contract work being performed. At all times relevant to this case, Mr. Overhoff was a member of the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (SPALC). During June 27, 2008, through July 11, 2008, Mr. Overhoff resided at 4613 Vinsetta Avenue, North Fort Myers, Florida. Mr. Overhoff’s work hours were from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. with a 30-minute unpaid lunch break and a 15-minute paid break in the morning and a 15-minute paid break in the afternoon. Mr. Overhoff reported to the School District’s maintenance office each morning to receive his work assignments for the day. Each employee was assigned more than eight hours of work to ensure that each employee would have sufficient work for the entire day. After receiving his work assignments, Mr. Overhoff gathered the materials he needed for his jobs that day and traveled to the various locations in the county to work on the School District’s buildings. He was expected to return to the School District’s maintenance office by 3:00 p.m. each day to complete the paper work for the roofing work that had been performed that day and to conference with his supervisors concerning work assignments. Mr. Overhoff was assigned a white pick-up truck owned by the School District and designated as M404. Mr. Overhoff was to use this vehicle to go to his work assignments pursuant to The School Board of Lee County Policy 7.04, which provides that employees who drive School District vehicles “shall [u]se the vehicle strictly for approved District business.” Sometime in April 2008, the School District received a call from a neighbor of Mr. Overhoff, who reported that a School District vehicle was parked in Mr. Overhoff’s driveway during work hours. Donald Easterly, the director of Maintenance Services for the School District, met with Mr. Overhoff in April 2008 to discuss the telephone call. Mr. Easterly made Mr. Overhoff aware that the use of a School District vehicle for personal use was prohibited and that personal business could not be conducted during work hours unless it was during a break. The School Board of Lee County Policy 5.33 prohibits the transaction of personal business on school time and provides: The following rules, regulations and guidelines are to be used to prohibit personal business on school time. No employee of the School District may conduct personal business on school time except for emergencies approved by the principal or Superintendent. No School District equipment or supplies shall be used to conduct personal business or any other activity not connected with the School District. During the time relevant to this case, employees in the maintenance department were allowed to stop at restaurants, convenience stores, and fast food establishments for their lunch and morning and afternoon breaks, if the stops were made while the employees were in transit to a job location. It had also been the practice to allow employees to stop by their bank, if the time was counted as break time, and the stop was while in transit to a job location. It was not permissible for an employee to use a School District vehicle to go to his home unless the employee had permission from his supervisor. In May 2008, the School District began installing Global Positioning Systems (GPS) on some of the vehicles used in the maintenance department. The selection of the vehicles for installation of a GPS was made at random. On June 2, 2008, a GPS was installed on the vehicle M404, which was driven by Mr. Overhoff. The superintendent of the School District has alleged in the Petition for Termination of Employment that Mr. Overhoff used a School District vehicle for his personal use on June 27, June 30, July 1, July 2, July 7, July 8, July 9, July 10, and July 11, 2008. Each day will be discussed individually below. On each day in question, Mr. Overhoff was driving the School District vehicle identified as M404. The locations to which the vehicle traveled and the times of arrivals and departures are based on the information captured by the GPS system installed in vehicle M404 during the relevant time periods. There has been no dispute concerning the accuracy of the information. At the end of each work day, Mr. Overhoff and other employees in the maintenance department were required to complete a daily labor sheet, which identified the work that was performed by work order number, task number, and description of the work; identified the location where the work was performed; and listed the amount of travel time and work hours for each work order. The time was to be listed in 15-minute increments. All locations where work had been performed were to be listed on the daily labor sheet. However, if an employee had to return to the maintenance department during the day, the time spent there was not usually recorded on the daily labor sheet. Mr. Overhoff had never been given any formal instruction on how to complete the daily labor sheet. He understood that the number of hours for travel and work should equal eight hours. His daily labor sheets did not always accurately reflect the locations at which Mr. Overhoff had stopped during the workday and did not always accurately reflect the time that he spent working at School District facilities. Prior to August 2008, the employees in the maintenance department were not required to list their break times on the daily labor sheets, and there was no requirement to list every stop made during the day. After August 2008, the maintenance department employees were required to accurately account for all their time during the day, including break times and stops at the maintenance department on Canal Street. June 27, 2008 On June 27, 2008, vehicle M404 was turned on at 6:29:07 a.m. at the maintenance department located at Canal Street. At 8:01:17 a.m., the vehicle entered the 7-11 store located at Southland Court, and, at 8:12:57 a.m., the vehicle departed the 7-11 store. At 8:31:17 a.m., the vehicle arrived at San Carlos Park Elementary School and remained there until it left at 9:19:27 a.m. The vehicle left San Carlos Park Elementary School and went to a Hess Station/Dunkin Donuts business, where the vehicle remained from 9:22:07 a.m. to 9:39:57 a.m. After leaving the Hess Station, the vehicle arrived at Lexington Middle School at 9:57:57 a.m. The vehicle departed the school at 10:16:17 a.m. and arrived at the Canal Street maintenance department at 10:40 a.m. The vehicle remained at the maintenance department until 11:01 a.m. The next stop for the vehicle was at 11:19:37 a.m. at Mr. Overhoff’s home, where the vehicle remained until 11:28:17 a.m. The vehicle left Mr. Overhoff’s home and went to One Price Optical in Cape Coral, Florida, where it arrived at 11:34:07 a.m. and left at 11:37:07 a.m. At 11:43:47 a.m., the vehicle arrived at Bank of America, and, at 11:44:17 a.m., the vehicle departed from the bank. The vehicle returned to Mr. Overhoff’s home at 11:51:58 a.m. and remained there until 11:53:17 a.m., when it departed for One Price Optical. The vehicle arrived at One Price Optical at 12:00:17 p.m. and left at 12:01:27 p.m. heading for Tanglewood/Riverside Elementary School, where it arrived at 12:22:37 p.m. and left at 12:37:47 p.m. The next stop the vehicle made was at another 7-ll store, where it arrived at 12:53:27 p.m. and left at l:01:57 p.m. The vehicle traveled past Mr. Overhoff’s house and arrived at One Price Optical at 1:18:17 p.m. and remained there until 1:33:47 p.m. From One Price Optical the vehicle proceeded to North Fort Myers High School, where it arrived at 1:38:37 p.m. and left at 1:52:17 p.m. From North Ft. Myers High School, the vehicle proceeded to the Professional Building on Dixie Parkway, arriving at 2:01:37 p.m. The vehicle remained stationary for 16 minutes and 40 seconds, circled the block around the Professional Building, and left at 2:21:37 p.m. From the Professional Building, the vehicle proceeded to Dunbar High School, arriving at 2:30:27 p.m. and leaving at 2:43:47 p.m. From Dunbar High School, the vehicle proceeded to the maintenance department at Canal Street, where it arrived at 2:53:47 p.m. Mr. Overhoff spent a total of 29.5 minutes in the morning at a convenience store and a service station. He spent from 11:01 a.m. to 12:01 p.m. on personal business, including stops at his home, a bank, and an optical business. The total time for his personal business was one hour. He left the maintenance department at 11:01 a.m. and could have taken his personal vehicle to run his personal errands and gone back to the maintenance department when he was finished. The locations where he conducted his personal business were northwest of the maintenance department. The next work assignment after he completed his personal business was located southwest of the maintenance department, which means that the errands that he was running were not on the way to a work assignment. In the afternoon, Mr. Overhoff stopped at another 7-11 store for 8.5 minutes, took a circuitous route by his home, and went back to One Price Optical. The amount of time that elapsed from the time he reached the 7-11 until he left One Price Optical was over 40 minutes. His home and One Price Optical were not located on a route that would have taken him logically to his next work assignment. Mr. Overhoff started his workday at approximately 6:30 a.m. Subtracting Mr. Overhoff’s lunch time and break times, Mr. Overhoff used .6 hours of work time above his allotted break times for his personal business. No evidence was presented to show that Mr. Overhoff took annual or sick leave for this time. Based on his daily labor sheets, Mr. Overhoff recorded eight hours of travel and work time for June 27, 2008. On June 27, 2008, a lens fell out of Mr. Overhoff’s glasses. Mr. Overhoff had permission from his supervisor, Michael Hooks, to go to an optical business to have the lens replaced. Mr. Hooks did not give Mr. Overhoff permission to stop by a Bank of America to conduct his banking business. The stop at the bank was not made while in transit to another job. Mr. Hooks did not give Mr. Overhoff permission to make multiple trips to One Price Optical. Mr. Hook had given Mr. Overhoff permission to stop by his house one time to check on Mr. Overhoff’s son. According to Mr. Overhoff, June 27, 2008, was the date that Mr. Hook had given him permission to stop to check on his son at home. Mr. Hook was not certain of the date that he gave such permission, but it was for one time only. June 30, 2008 Vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at Canal Street at 7:29:27 a.m. and arrived at Dunbar High School at 7:38:17 a.m. The vehicle left Dunbar High School at 7:38:17 a.m. and arrived at Kuhlman Concrete, LLC, at 7:40 a.m. The vehicle left Kuhlman Concrete, LLC, at 7:41 a.m. and arrived at North Fort Myers High School at 7:55:37 a.m. The vehicle left the high school at 8:50:27 a.m. and proceeded to Villas Elementary School, arriving at 9:02:47 a.m. and leaving at 9:31:57 a.m. The vehicle arrived at the James Adams Building at 9:45:37 a.m. and departed at 9:52:57 a.m., proceeding to a Hess Gas Station, where it arrived at 10:15:37 a.m. and left at 10:18:57 a.m. The next stop was at the North Fort Myers Academy of the Arts, where the vehicle arrived at 10:26:47 a.m. and departed at 10:41:17 a.m. The vehicle arrived at Diplomat Middle School at 10:59:27 a.m. and left at 11:35:37 a.m. From the Diplomat Middle School, the vehicle arrived at Mr. Overhoff’s house at 11:46:47 a.m., departed at 11:56:07 a.m., and arrived at North Fort Myers High School at 12:00:57 p.m. The vehicle did not stop at the school, but drove through the school grounds and left at 12:02:57 p.m. The vehicle turned in at Kentucky Fried Chicken at 12:21:57 p.m. and exited at 12:22:37 p.m. The vehicle proceeded to McDonald’s, arriving at 12:36:57 p.m. and leaving at 12:40:27 p.m. At 12:52:17 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Three Oaks Middle School and departed at 1:29:57 p.m. From the middle school, the vehicle proceeded to a Bank of America, arriving at 1:35:37 p.m. and leaving at 1:42:17 p.m. After leaving the bank, the vehicle went to South Fort Myers High School, arriving at 1:54:47 p.m. and leaving at 2:04 p.m. The next stop was Ray V. Pottorf Elementary School, where the vehicle arrived at 2:13:47 p.m. and left at 2:29:27 p.m. The vehicle proceeded to High Tech Central/New Directions, arrived at 2:37:57 p.m., drove through the campus, and exited at 2:44:57 p.m. At 2:54:07 p.m., the vehicle arrived at the maintenance department at Canal Street. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store for three minutes mid-morning. At lunch time, he stopped at his home for nine minutes. The stop at his home was not authorized and was not in transit to another job location. The travel time to and from his home was eight minutes. He turned into a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant for 40 seconds. According to Mr. Overhoff, he went into the Kentucky Fried Chicken parking lot to take a telephone call or open a work folder. The next stop is a McDonald’s fast food place where he remains for 3.5 minutes. According to Mr. Overhoff, this is another stop to do paperwork. In light of his earlier stop at Kentucky Fried Chicken, Mr. Overhoff’s testimony is not credited. Additionally, Mr. Overhoff’s general assertions that his many stops at convenience stores were to do paperwork is not credible. He was given 30 minutes at the end of each work day for the specific purpose of completing his paperwork. The many inaccuracies in his paperwork do not support his assertion that he was making stops to keep his paperwork accurate and in order. Later in the afternoon, he made a six-minute stop at Bank of America. The side trip to the bank did not appear to be on a logical route to his next work assignment. Thus, four minutes’ travel time is assessed for the bank trip. The total time for his personal business was 33.5 minutes. July 1, 2008 On July 1, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department on Canal Street at 7:03:37 a.m. and arrived at a gas station/convenience store off Metro Parkway at 7:10 a.m. Leaving the convenience store at 7:14 a.m., the vehicle proceeded to Three Oaks Middle School, arriving at Three Oaks Middle School at 7:39 a.m. and leaving at 8:16 a.m. From the middle school, the vehicle traveled to Ray V. Pottorf Elementary School arriving at 8:36 a.m. and leaving at 8:41 a.m. The vehicle returned to the maintenance department at 8:50 a.m. and remained there until 9:16 a.m. The vehicle proceeded to Bonita Middle School, arrived there at 9:52 a.m., and left at 10:22 a.m. The next stop was Orange River Elementary School, where the vehicle arrived at 11:01:27 a.m. and departed at 11:05:27 a.m. At 11:12 a.m., the vehicle stopped at a restaurant/convenience store and remained there until 11:33 a.m. The vehicle arrived back at the maintenance department at 11:41 a.m. and departed at 12:20 p.m. The vehicle arrived at Trafalgar Middle School at 12:55 p.m. and departed at 1:18 p.m. The next stop was Gulf Middle School, where the vehicle arrived at 1:27 p.m. and left at 1:40 p.m. At 1:48:57 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Bank of America off Skyline Boulevard. The vehicle left the bank at 1:56:07 p.m. From the bank at Skyline Boulevard, the vehicle proceeded to the Bank of America at Viscaya Parkway, arriving at 2:09 p.m. and leaving at 2:19 p.m. At 2:23:07 p.m., the vehicle arrived at One Price Optical. The vehicle left One Price Optical at 2:27:07 p.m. The next stop was the James Adams Building, where the vehicle arrived at 2:44 p.m. and left at 2:46 p.m. At 3:02:57 p.m., the vehicle was parked at the maintenance department. The stop at the convenience store in the morning consumed ten minutes of Mr. Overhoff’s morning break time. The lunch at a restaurant took 21 minutes. In the afternoon, Mr. Overhoff stopped at two banks for a total of 17 minutes. Another stop was made at One Price Optical for four minutes. The stop at One Price Optical was not authorized and, based on the map contained in Petitioner’s Exhibit 7, the trip was not on the route back to the next job location. Thus, the travel time from the last bank stop, four minutes, should be added to the time. The time expended on personal business was 56 minutes. July 2, 2008 On July 2, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at 7:04 a.m. and arrived at the James Adams Building at 7:13 a.m. The vehicle left the James Adams Building at 7:56 a.m. and arrived back at the maintenance department at 8:05 a.m. The vehicle left the maintenance department at 8:27 a.m. and arrived at the 7-11 store off Metro Parkway at 8:33 a.m. The vehicle left the 7-11 at 8:37 a.m. and returned to the James Adams Building at 8:50 a.m. At 8:57 a.m., the vehicle left the James Adams Building and returned to the maintenance department at 9:04 a.m., where it remains until 9:26 a.m. The vehicle arrived at Fort Myers High School at 9:41 a.m. and left at 9:56 a.m. Arriving at Orange River Elementary at 10:18 a.m., the vehicle remained until 11:03 a.m. when it proceeded to the Taco Bell off Palm Beach Boulevard. The vehicle reached Taco Bell at 11:05 a.m. and left at 11:38 a.m. At 11:47 a.m., the vehicle arrived at Edgewood Academy, where it left at 11:50 a.m. The vehicle arrived at Dunbar High School at 11:59 a.m. and departed at 12:05 p.m. From Dunbar High School, the vehicle proceeded to Mr. Overhoff’s house, where the vehicle remained from 12:27:17 p.m. to 12:30:07 p.m. At 12:49 p.m., the vehicle arrived at the James Adams Building, where it remained until 12:57 p.m. From the James Adams Building, the vehicle proceeded to a 7-11 store located off Winkler and Colonial Boulevard. The vehicle arrived at the 7-11 at 1:09 p.m. and departed at 1:11 p.m. At 1:17 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Lowe’s Shopping Center off Colonial Boulevard and Ben C. Pratt Parkway. The vehicle left the shopping center at 1:27 p.m. The next stop was Colonial Elementary, where the vehicle arrived at 1:34 p.m. and departed at 1:36 p.m. The vehicle returned to the maintenance department on Canal Street at 1:47 p.m. and remained there. In the morning, Mr. Overhoff went to a convenience store, which was not in route to a job location. The time spent at the convenience store was four minutes and the travel time to and from the convenience store from the maintenance department was 12 minutes for a total of 16 minutes for his morning break. Mr. Overhoff had lunch at Taco Bell for 33 minutes. In the afternoon, Mr. Overhoff stopped at his home for almost three minutes; however, the stop at his home was not on route to any job location. Thus, the travel time to his home and back to the next job should be included in any break time. The travel time for the trip home was 41 minutes, and the total time taken for his trip home was 44 minutes. The stop at his home was not authorized. Mr. Overhoff’s excuse for the stop at his home was to get boots and use the bathroom. His testimony is not credited. Mr. Overhoff testified that he needed his boots to clean off water, but the job in which he had been cleaning off water was before he stopped at his home. In the afternoon, Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store for two minutes and went to Lowe’s for ten minutes. The stop at Lowe’s was not authorized. The stops at the convenience store and at Lowe’s were not in transit to another job location. The travel time should be calculated based on the time it took to get from Lowe’s to his next work location, which was 14 minutes. The total time that Mr. Overhoff spent on personal business was 1.95 hours. Thus, Mr. Overhoff spent .95 hours above his allotted break time for his personal business. No evidence was presented that leave was taken, and his daily labor sheet showed that he worked for eight hours on that day. July 7, 2008 On July 7, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department on Canal Street at 7:22 a.m. and proceeded to a 7-11 at the corner of Winkler and Colonial Boulevard, arriving there at 7:33 a.m. and leaving at 7:38 a.m. The vehicle arrived at Ray V. Pottorf Elementary at 7:43 a.m. and left at 9:35 a.m. The next stop was Lexington Middle School, where the vehicle arrived at 9:51 a.m. and departed at 10:05 a.m. From Lexington Middle School, the vehicle went to Fort Myers Beach Elementary School, arriving at 10:18 a.m. and leaving at 10:22 a.m. The vehicle arrived at Tanglewood/Riverside Elementary School at 10:46 a.m. and left at 11:04 a.m. At 11:21 a.m., the vehicle returned to the maintenance department at Canal Street. Leaving the maintenance department at 12:04 p.m., the vehicle proceeded to Dunbar High School, arriving at 12:10 p.m. and leaving at 12:23 p.m. At 12:39 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Crowther Roofing and remained there until 12:52 p.m. The vehicle made another stop at One Price Optical at 1:12 p.m. Leaving One Price Optical at 1:21 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Taco Bell off Santa Barbara Boulevard at 1:27 p.m. and left at 1:46 p.m. The vehicle arrived at Mariner High School at 1:53 p.m. and departed at 2:09 p.m. At 2:14 p.m., the vehicle entered the Publix Shopping Center off Santa Barbara Boulevard, departing at 2:17 p.m. From 2:22 p.m. to 2:37 p.m., the vehicle was stopped at a warehouse. At 2:44 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Mr. Overhoff’s house, where it remained until 2:47 p.m. At 3:07 p.m., the vehicle returned to the maintenance department at Canal Street. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store for five minutes in the morning. In the early afternoon, he made a nine- minute stop at One Price Optical, which was not an authorized stop. He stopped at Taco Bell for 19 minutes. He went to a Publix Shopping Center for three minutes, to a warehouse for 15 minutes, and to his home for three minutes. The stops at the Publix Shopping Center, the warehouse, and Mr. Overhoff’s home were not authorized, were for personal business, and were not in transit to a job location. Thus, the travel time from the shopping center to his home, which totals 12 minutes should be added to the time taken for personal business. The total time for personal business on July 7, 2008, was 65 minutes, which was five minutes above the allotted break times. July 8, 2008 On July 8, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at Canal Street at 7:44 a.m., arrived at ALC Central/New Directions at 7:53 a.m., and departed ALC Central/New Directions at 8:23 a.m. The vehicle returned to the maintenance department at 8:28 a.m. and remained there until 8:41 a.m. At 8:58 a.m., the vehicle arrived at Tropic Isles Elementary School and remained there until 9:37 a.m. From the elementary school, the vehicle proceeded to the 7-11 store located off Pondella and Orange Grove. The vehicle arrived at the 7-11 at 9:39 a.m. and left at 9:42 a.m. From the 7-11, the vehicle proceeded to New Directions, arriving at 9:55 a.m. and leaving at 9:57 a.m. The vehicle returned to the maintenance department at Canal Street at 10:03 a.m. and departed at 10:33 a.m. The next stop was Cypress Lake High School, where the vehicle arrived at 10:56 a.m. and left at 11:28 a.m. From Cypress Lake High School, the vehicle traveled to Bank of America off Cypress Lake Drive. The vehicle arrived at the bank at 11:30 a.m. and left at 11:38 a.m. From the bank, the vehicle arrived at the 7-11 store off Metro Parkway at 11:45 a.m. and departed at 11:55 a.m. After leaving the 7-11 store, the vehicle proceeded to South Fort Myers High School, arriving at 11:59 a.m. and departing at 12:31 p.m. The next stop was Roofing Supply Company, where the vehicle stopped at 12:46 p.m. and left at 12:59 p.m. The vehicle proceeded to New Directions and arrived at 1:07 p.m. The vehicle remained at New Directions until 1:53 p.m. From New Directions, the vehicle headed to the maintenance department at Canal Street, where the vehicle arrived at 2:06 p.m. and remained. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store in the morning for four minutes, at a bank for eight minutes at lunch time, and at a convenience store for ten minutes at lunch time. These stops were made in transit to a job location. July 9, 2008 On July 9, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at Canal Street at 7:12 a.m. and arrived at the 7-11 store off Metro Parkway and Colonial at 7:23 a.m. The vehicle remained at the 7-11 store until 7:30 a.m., when it left for Six Mile Cypress School, arriving at 7:42 a.m. and leaving at 7:53 a.m. The next stop for the vehicle was The Sanibel School, where the vehicle arrived at 8:29 a.m. and departed at 9:19 a.m., headed for Bailey’s General Store off Periwinkle Way. The vehicle arrived at Bailey’s General Store at 9:25 a.m. Mr. Overhoff made an authorized purchase of a 6-volt lantern at the store and left the store in the vehicle at 9:35 a.m. to return to The Sanibel School at 9:42 a.m. The vehicle remained at The Sanibel School until 10:29 a.m. At 10:39 a.m., the vehicle arrived at the 7-11 store off Periwinkle Way, where the vehicle remained until 11:02 a.m. From the 7-11, the vehicle traveled to Riverdale High School, where it arrived at 11:53 a.m. The vehicle remained at Riverdale High School until 1:36 p.m. The next stop was a convenience store on Palm Beach Boulevard, where the vehicle arrived at 1:42 p.m. and left at 1:46 p.m. From the convenience store, the vehicle proceeded to Edgewood Elementary School, arriving at 1:59 p.m. and leaving at 2:09 p.m. From Edgewood Elementary School, the vehicle traveled to New Directions/ALC Central, arriving at 2:16 p.m. and leaving at 2:23 p.m. The next stop was Dunbar High School, where the vehicle arrived at 2:28 a.m. and left at 2:56 p.m. The last stop was the maintenance department at Canal Street at 3:00 p.m. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store early in the morning for six minutes, at another convenience store at mid-morning for 23 minutes, and at a convenience store in the afternoon for four minutes. These stops were in transit to job locations. July 10, 2008 On July 10, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at 8:30 a.m. and arrived at the Hess Service Station off River Road at 8:50 a.m. The vehicle remained at the Hess Service Station until 8:53 a.m., when it departed for Lee County Electric Company off Electric Lane. The vehicle arrived at the utility company at 8:56 a.m. and left at 8:59 a.m. The next stop was North Fort Myers Academy of the Arts, where the vehicle arrived at 9:06 a.m. and departed at 9:40 a.m. From North Fort Myers Academy of the Arts, the vehicle proceeded to Hector A. Cafferata, Jr., Elementary School, arrived there at 10:07 a.m. and left at 10:47 a.m. The next stop was Ida S. Baker High School, where the vehicle arrived at 11:05 a.m. and left at 11:26 a.m. At 11:29 a.m., the vehicle arrived at Gulf Middle School and left at 11:45 a.m. From Gulf Middle School, the vehicle traveled to Three Oaks Elementary School arriving at 12:41 p.m. and leaving at 1:11 p.m. The vehicle next arrived at Bonita Springs Elementary School at 1:30 a.m. The vehicle left Bonita Springs Elementary School at 1:55 p.m. and arrived at Lowe’s at Rolfes Road at 2:27 p.m. Mr. Overhoff made an authorized purchase at Lowe’s, and the vehicle left Lowe’s at 2:54 p.m. and arrived at the maintenance department at 3:04 p.m. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store for three minutes in the early morning and at the electric company for three minutes. The stop at the electric company was not an authorized stop. July 11, 2008 On July 11, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at Canal Street at 7:34 a.m. and arrived at the 7-11 store off Lee Boulevard at 8:00 a.m. The vehicle remained at the 7-11 until 8:04 a.m., when it departed for Veteran’s Park Academy, where it arrived at 8:18 a.m. and left at 9:58 a.m. From Veteran’s Park Academy, the vehicle traveled to North Fort Myers High School, where it arrived at 10:45 a.m. and departed at 11:38 a.m. The vehicle returned to the maintenance department at Canal Street at 12:03 p.m., where it remained until 12:24 p.m. From the maintenance department, the vehicle traveled to the 7-11 store off Pondella Road, where it arrived at 12:39 p.m. and left at 12:43 p.m. From the 7-11, the vehicle traveled to Mariner High School, where it stopped at 12:57 p.m. and left at 1:28 p.m. The next stop was Riverdale High School, where the vehicle arrived at 2:07 p.m. and departed at 2:17 p.m. After leaving Riverdale High School, the vehicle went to Bank of America, arriving at 2:20 p.m. and leaving at 2:24 p.m. The vehicle left the bank and headed to Dunbar High School, where it arrived at 2:44 p.m. and left at 2:51 p.m. The last stop for the vehicle was at the maintenance department at Canal Street at 2:56 p.m. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store for four minutes in the early morning, at a convenience store for three minutes at lunch time, and at a bank in the afternoon for four minutes. The stops were in transit to job locations. The School District initiated an investigation into Mr. Overhoff’s use of a School District vehicle for personal business while on School District time. A predetermination conference was held on September 25, 2008. Mr. Overhoff appeared at the predetermination conference along with a representative of the SPALC. At the conclusion of the investigation, the School District determined that probable cause existed to impose discipline on Mr. Overhoff. On December 18, 2008, Mr. Overhoff was suspended with pay and benefits. By Petition for Termination of Employment, the superintendent for the School District recommended to the School Board that Mr. Overhoff be terminated from his employment. Mr. Overhoff requested an administrative hearing. On February 24, 2009, the School Board suspended Mr. Overhoff without pay and benefits pending the outcome of the administrative hearing. Mr. Overhoff had no prior disciplinary actions taken against him while he has been employed with the School District. Prior to the incidents at issue, Mr. Overhoff had received good performance evaluations. He is regarded by the director of maintenance for the School District as a good roofer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mr. Overhoff violated The School Board of Lee County Policies 5.02, 5.29, 5.33, and 7.04; finding that Mr. Overhoff willfully neglected his assigned duties; suspending him from employment without pay from February 24, 2009, to September 30, 2009; and placing him on probation for one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 2009.
The Issue Whether Ms. Lindstrand violated section 1012.67, Florida Statutes (2012), or whether there is just cause to terminate Ms. Lindstrand.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise all free public schools within Broward County, Florida. At all times relevant to this matter, the School Board employed Ms. Lindstrand as a math teacher at Cypress Bay High School. Ms. Lindstrand had started her employment with the School Board in 1996. In June 2011, Ms. Lindstrand was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI). She hired an attorney and contested the charge. Her trial was scheduled for February 27 and 28, 2013. Ms. Lindstrand requested and had been approved for leave from February 26 through March 1. She requested the leave for February 26 through the 28th due to the trial, and the leave on March 1st was for the intended purpose of attending her grandfather’s 90th birthday party. She never informed the school or her parents that she had a trial; rather, she requested the leave for “personal reasons.” Ms. Lindstrand did not anticipate that she would be found guilty of the DUI charge, or that she would, upon being found guilty, be sentenced immediately to a period of incarceration. She had made no plans for that possibility. On February 28th, in the evening, Ms. Lindstrand called her father, Thomas Lindstrand, notifying him that she had been through the DUI trial, had been found guilty, and had been immediately incarcerated. Mr. Lindstrand informed his wife, and told her to call the school the next morning. Ms. Lindstrand’s mother called the school the morning of March 1st, and spoke with Ms. Estripeaut, an assistant principal at Cypress Bay High School. She informed Ms. Estripeaut that Ms. Lindstrand was in jail, and would remain in jail for a period of six weeks. Because Ms. Lindstrand was responsible for teaching seven math classes, which included classes where students are required to pass end-of-year tests in order to graduate, Ms. Estripeaut was tasked with the responsibility of finding a certified substitute teacher, with a math background, who could serve for a lengthy period of time. Once a qualified substitute teacher was selected, Ms. Estripeaut and the substitute teacher met with parents and students in order to reconcile grades in the grade books. Students reported that they had turned in assignments that were missing from the grade books, and parents were concerned about the students’ preparation for the end-of-year tests. On March 5th, Mr. Lindstrand called the school and spoke with Rebecca Johnson, who works as a Leave Specialist for the School Board. Ms. Johnson sent Mr. Lindstrand a leave request form, which he properly completed and filed on March 6, 2013. On approximately March 7th, Ms. Estripeaut contacted Mr. Lorenzo Calhoun, an Employee Relations Specialist for the School Board, and informed him that Ms. Lindstrand had been absent from work for three days without approved leave. Mr. Calhoun recommended that Ms. Lindstrand’s name be sent to the School Board for termination, because being absent from work for more than three days without approved leave constitutes abandonment under School Board policy. Prior to making his recommendation to Ms. Estripeaut, Mr. Calhoun confirmed with the Leave Department that Ms. Lindstrand had not been approved for leave for the three or more days that she had already been absent from work. When he called the Leave Department, she had not been approved for any leave. On March 7, 2013, a letter from the school, signed by the principal but prepared by Ms. Estripeaut, informed Ms. Lindstrand that her name was being forwarded to the School Board with the recommendation that she be terminated. It also informed her that her name would be placed on the meeting agenda for the School Board’s meeting on March 18, 2013. The letter was sent to the following address: “1408 NE 5 Ct. #4, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 33301.” Ms. Lindstrand had lived at this address until August of 2012, at which point she moved to a different address, but never informed the school. Although Ms. Lindstrand had asked the post office to forward her mail to her new address, she never received this letter. On March 8, 2013, an almost identical letter was sent to Ms. Lindstrand from the Staffing Department, letting her know that her name was being forwarded to the School Board for termination, and that the School Board would meet on March 18, 2013. This letter was also sent to the only address on record for Ms. Lindstrand--an address where she no longer resided. According to Ms. Lindstrand, she never received this letter either. The Chief Human Resources Officer, Gracie Diaz, supervises the staffing department, leaves department, and employee relations department. On approximately March 7th, Ms. Diaz was informed that Ms. Lindstrand was incarcerated, and that the Cypress Bay High School principal and the staffing department were moving forward with the termination process. She was also informed that Ms. Lindstrand had requested personal leave. Ms. Diaz spoke with the School Board’s general counsel, and together they reviewed the collective bargaining agreement between the Broward Teachers Union and the School Board, which contained the following provision: Length of Leave: An employee who has been employed for more than three (3) years in Broward County may be granted upon request, personal leave without pay for a period not to exceed two (2) years for reasons not provided elsewhere in this Agreement. The employee shall be returned to duty at the beginning of the next school year following the leave. Such leave shall require the approval of the Superintendent. Ms. Diaz took the leave request form, as well as the letters from the principal and the staffing department regarding the termination process to the Superintendent. Given that the collective bargaining agreement leave provision is permissive in nature, Ms. Diaz recommended to the Superintendent that he deny the leave request, because she felt it was inappropriate to grant personal leave due to incarceration. She also recommended that the School Board go forward with termination. The School Board met on March 18, 2013, and voted to terminate Ms. Lindstrand’s employment. By letter dated March 22, 2013, the Leaves Department notified Ms. Lindstrand that her request for personal leave had been denied by the Superintendent. By letter dated April 9, 2013, Ms. Lindstrand was notified that the School Board had met and had approved the recommendation for her termination. Ms. Lindstrand was released from jail on April 6, 2013. She received these final two letters at the post office, a few days after being released.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board issue a final order terminating Ms. Lindstrand’s employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA E. VARN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert F. McKee, Esquire Kelly and McKee, P.A. Suite 301 1718 East Seventh Avenue Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Adrian Alvarez, Esquire Deborah Klauber, Esquire Haliczer, Pettis, and Schwamm, P. A. Seventh Floor One Financial Plaza 100 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0442 Robert Runcie, Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0442
